Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Uncensored2008]

[
And yet, that is exactly what has happened since the Bush Tax Cuts.

Ignorant nonsense. If fact I would go as far as to say that the Obama stimulus generated only a tiny fraction of the economic activity that the Bush cuts did. Remember, the Bush cuts quickly took us out of the recession Clinton had left us in. The stimulus did virtually nothing to spur jobs or growth, since virtually all of it was stolen by well connected looters, such as public employee pension funds or inside track contractors on highway fund slush accounts.

The faith that government won't openly steal most money in it's care is the most misplaced of all faith.

So again, you are working from a place of faith-based reasoning. The faith that the rich will "invest" or businesses will "expand" if their after-tax profits are increased as a result of cutting taxes. It simply does not happen. They don't use that tax cut money to grow the economy at all. They haven't and they never will.

Ignorant nonsense.

First of all, the Bush cuts were heavily tilted to the middle class. One of the major features being the per child tax credit, which was doubled under the Bush plan. The standard partisan lie of "tax cuts for the rich" plays well to the ignorant, but has no place in a serious discussion.

Further though is that when people have more capital, they use it. Because the overwhelming beneficiary of the Bush tax cuts was the middle class, the majority of the capital was returned to the consumer economy. (for good or ill) prompting huge spikes in consumer electronics and other sale of semi and non-durable goods.

Unlike the Reagan cuts to businesses, the Bush cuts did not prompt capital improvements by business, since consumers were the recipient.. However, capital improvements to domiciles were extremely high.

If what you are saying is true, then how do you account for the private sector job loss during Bush's 8 years? Wouldn't the opposite have been the case? That the wealthy would have taken their newly-found money they got as a result of their tax cut and use that to invest or grow businesses (which means jobs)? That didn't happen, did it? They didn't do that during Bush, did they? So what did they do with their tax cut? They saved it. And when they "saved it" did the banks take that money and invest it in new companies or expand already existing ones? Nope. How do I know this? Because I can look at employment numbers and see for myself!

The employment numbers would indicate that when given a tax cut, the wealthy and by extension the banks do not invest that tax cut back into the economy. At least, not our economy. Maybe a third world economy, or maybe they just gamble with it in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets (which seems to be what they did during the Bush Housing Bubble), but definitely not in the consumer economy where it would create jobs and growth.

Seriously?

Private sector job losses were the result of an economic meltdown based o the bursting of the housing bubble and a vast web of MBS chicanery.

Are you claiming that the nation had high unemployment from 2001 to 2007?

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, in some cases an epithet is most appropriate. For instance, the Conservative idea that we need austerity during or in the aftermath of a recession is a stupid fucking idea full of bullshit and supported by nothing other than outright lies.

Ignorant nonsense.

"If you build it, they will come"

A bit simplistic.

That is supply-side economics. Unfortunately, it only works in the movies.

As Steve Jobs found out when he built the iPhone with no demand for it...

Oh wait...

 

[The Derp]

And yet, that is exactly what has happened since the Bush Tax Cuts.
Ignorant nonsense"

The only nonsense seems to be coming from you. It is a fact that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, during the Bush Tax Cuts. It's also a fact that the "savings" of the wealthy did not make its way back into the consumer economy by way of increased "investment" or "expansion". If it had, there would not have been net private sector job loss after 8 years. So where did all the tax cut money go? Some of it went overseas, some of it sat in banks, and some of it went into the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. And we know that because banks were over-leveraging themselves, starting in 2004, in order to play in that market. So if you want to get technical, I guess you could say that some of the Bush Tax Cuts went to inflate the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets because those "savings" were what banks were over-leveraging in order to buy all those shitty securities and whatnot. Maybe that's what Bush was alluding to when he credited his tax cuts for the growth of the housing market while campaigning in 2004.

The faith that government won't openly steal most money in it's care is the most misplaced of all faith.

Enough with the hysterics, you big 'ol drama queen. The government doesn't steal money. It has the power to levy taxation thanks to the constitution. If you think taxation = theft then you are a fucking idiot. Again, appropriate use of an epithet. Sometimes you have to call them like you see them.

irst of all, the Bush cuts were heavily tilted to the middle class. One of the major features being the per child tax credit, which was doubled under the Bush plan. The standard partisan lie of "tax cuts for the rich" plays well to the ignorant, but has no place in a serious discussion.

What a fucking load of shit. No, the Bush Tax Cuts were tilted heavily to the rich. Household debt for everyone else doubled during the Bush Tax Cuts. So if what you are saying is true, that wouldn't have been the case. So once again, we have an instance of Conservative fantasy colliding with reality. The fantasy is that the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the middle class. The reality is that household debt during the tax cuts doubled, which meant the Bush Tax Cuts were not some wonderful thing for the middle class. They didn't leave the middle class with more money to spend in the consumer economy. Instead, what happened was the middle class had to go into debt to survive in the Bush economy. That's why household debt doubled during Bush. The federal government wasn't the only entity that cut taxes. State governments did that as well. The result? Increased tuition and health care costs, which forced middle-class consumers to borrow in order to send their kids to college or get health care. Tax cuts only exacerbate that problem, particularly at the state level because so many states have BBA's that require them to raise sales and excise taxes (like Kansas did) or increase user fees for things like public schools and tolls (again, like Kansas did) because of the BBA. Just like Kansas' Board of Regents said, the reason they had to raise tuition was specifically because of funding cuts from the Legislature. And those funding cuts were made because of the BBA.

So that's how tax cuts end up costing everyone more.

Further though is that when people have more capital, they use it. Because the overwhelming beneficiary of the Bush tax cuts was the middle class, the majority of the capital was returned to the consumer economy. (for good or ill) prompting huge spikes in consumer electronics and other sale of semi and non-durable goods.

Boy man, you couldn't be any more clueless if you tried. Your first fault is thinking that the tax cuts increased capital. Yeah, that didn't happen. Why? Because household debt doubled during the Bush Tax Cuts. So your entire argument starts off from an ill-informed premise. That the middle class had increased capital to spend in the consumer economy. They didn't. So while they may have got a tax cut for their income at the federal and state level, their sales and/or excise taxes went up, or user fees went up in order to balance budgets. You mistakenly think that capital from the tax cut was put back into the economy. It wasn't. The only thing that grew the economy at all during Bush was the housing bubble. The same housing bubble you blame on the Democrats and Clinton and Barney Frank and the CRA and anything else to avoid culpability for your shitty economic belief system. So if the housing bubble was the fault of Clinton and the Democrats, then they conversely get credit for any gains from that housing bubble. You Conservatives are such douchebags; you want to take credit for the good stuff and dole out blame for the bad.

Unlike the Reagan cuts to businesses, the Bush cuts did not prompt capital improvements by business, since consumers were the recipient.. However, capital improvements to domiciles were extremely high.

LOL! First of all, are you trying to make the argument that the money the middle class got from the Bush Tax Cut they used to renovate their homes? Well, that's simply not true as we saw from the household debt numbers. So I'm not sure what the fuck you're trying to say, but it sounds to me like you are tying the mortgage bubble to the Bush Tax Cuts. Is that what you're doing? Because that's what Bush did in 2004 while campaigning for re-election. People weren't using their tax cuts to renovate their homes. They were going into debt to do that. Again, this is where Conservative fantasy meets reality. And if the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich were meaningless, why do them at all?

Private sector job losses were the result of an economic meltdown based o the bursting of the housing bubble and a vast web of MBS chicanery.

A housing bubble you just tied to the tax cuts in the previous quote!!!!! And BTW - Bush lost 841,000 net private sector jobs in his first four years. So at no point did Bush ever have net private sector job growth that wasn't attributed to the housing bubble. And we can see this in BLS' employment numbers after you remove those millions of government jobs Bush created to pad his total.

Are you claiming that the nation had high unemployment from 2001 to 2007?

I am claiming the job growth from 2001-7 was virtually non-existent as the jobs Bush "created" all disappeared the moment his housing bubble popped. Bush lost net private sector jobs before the housing bubble even started.

 

[The Derp]

No, in some cases an epithet is most appropriate. For instance, the Conservative idea that we need austerity during or in the aftermath of a recession is a stupid fucking idea full of bullshit and supported by nothing other than outright lies.
Ignorant nonsense.

Really? Maybe you need to do some light reading, pal, and catch up to the rest of 2012. Conservatives deliberately tried to deceive people by pushing this paper whose authors had to lie, manipulate, and omit in order to get the conclusion their ideology had committed them to. Why do you think they didn't want their paper to be peer-reviewed??????? Obviously because doing so would have caught the deliberate data omissions and "spreadsheet errors" that produced the conclusion Conservatives wanted; that high government debt levels translate to slower growth. WHICH IS NOT TRUE AT ALL AND IS FAKE NEWS.

Soooooo...what that means is that if the thing Conservatives were relying on to make their arguments about government debt and spending was a fucking lie, doesn't that make those who spread the fucking lie, fucking liars themselves? And if they lied about that, why wouldn't they lie about other things? I don't feel like these are unfair questions to ask. You either went along with their conclusions because you are stupid, or you did it because you're a liar. Doesn't really matter to me which is which. I think both suck equally.

"If you build it, they will come"
A bit simplistic.

No, that is the actual level of complexity behind the thought process and belief system. Conservatives don't do a lot of thinking, so their solutions are simplistic. "If you build it, they will come" is what your belief system amounts to...which is why it's a belief system and not fact. Because faith is the only thing guiding it. Might work for ghostly ballplayers and Kevin Costner, but never works in real life.

As Steve Jobs found out when he built the iPhone with no demand for it...Oh wait...

Yeah, oh wait, the iphone was just an improvement on technology that already existed. HP and Compaq (I believe) had smartphones before Apple did. Apple is a brand, and as such is all about marketing. Cell phones had existed for a couple decades before the iPhone. It wasn't a new product. It just built upon an older one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the increase exceeds inflation, which is virtually flat.

SNAP itself seeing less enrollment as the economy improves. Was the cut to the increase equal to the drop in enrollment on a per-beneficiary basis?

The recession ended in June 2009.
Obama added millions of jobs, why is SNAP still 50% higher than in 2008?

 

[The Derp]

The recession ended in June 2009.
Obama added millions of jobs, why is SNAP still 50% higher than in 2008?

Because wages didn't start growing until the last two years of Obama's term. Conservatives didn't want to raise the minimum wage which would have moved millions off the program. Since SNAP is based on income, the more you make the less in benefits you qualify. So if you wanted to move more people off the program, the only way to do that is to raise wages, starting with the minimum wage. But you oppose that because, reasons, so why don't you explain to me how all this screeching about SNAP isn't just Conservative masturbation;

To reduce SNAP enrollment, you have to raise wages, but you oppose raising wages which keeps SNAP enrollment high.

So explain to me how that isn't the message-board equivalent of jerking off? It seems like you are deliberately preventing a wage increase in order to complain about wage-based welfare programs.

Fuckin' masturbation. That's pretty much Conservatism defined these days; One big massive jerk-off.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The recession ended in June 2009.
Obama added millions of jobs, why is SNAP still 50% higher than in 2008?

Because wages didn't start growing until the last two years of Obama's term. Conservatives didn't want to raise the minimum wage which would have moved millions off the program. Since SNAP is based on income, the more you make the less in benefits you qualify. So if you wanted to move more people off the program, the only way to do that is to raise wages, starting with the minimum wage. But you oppose that because, reasons, so why don't you explain to me how all this screeching about SNAP isn't just Conservative masturbation;

To reduce SNAP enrollment, you have to raise wages, but you oppose raising wages which keeps SNAP enrollment high.

So explain to me how that isn't the message-board equivalent of jerking off? It seems like you are deliberately preventing a wage increase in order to complain about wage-based welfare programs.

Fuckin' masturbation. That's pretty much Conservatism defined these days; One big massive jerk-off.

Because wages didn't start growing until the last two years of Obama's term.

Why not?

Conservatives didn't want to raise the minimum wage which would have moved millions off the program.

There are more millionaires than minimum wage workers.

Since SNAP is based on income, the more you make the less in benefits you qualify.

Yeah, the high levels point out the weakness of Obama's recovery.

 

[The Derp]

Why not?

Because states started raising their minimum wages on their own since the federal government was stuck thanks to Conservatives who wanted to tank the economy in order to score political points. Now that they have full control, they've (predictably) done nothing to address the issue. In fact, many Conservatives would prefer if there was no minimum wage at all and American workers were paid the same as Chinese workers. So I think you only oppose raising the minimum wage because doing so prevents you from complaining about means-tested welfare programs like SNAP. It's really all about your egos at this point. Raising the minimum wage is good economics. Which explains why Conservatives oppose it.

Conservatives didn't want to raise the minimum wage which would have moved millions off the program. There are more millionaires than minimum wage workers.

The MW is just the starting place. There are far, far more workers who earn low wages that qualify them for SNAP benefits, for example, than millionaires. 44 million people, actually. Most of those 44 million would come off SNAP rolls if their wages were higher because SNAP is means-tested. SNAP enrollment started going down once wages started to grow. That began around 2015. So if you want fewer people on SNAP, pay them more money. It's not terribly complicated.

Since SNAP is based on income, the more you make the less in benefits you qualify. Yeah, the high levels point out the weakness of Obama's recovery.

Well, Obama wanted to raise the MW - you guys didn't. So it's hard to see how this thing you are complaining about wasn't caused by your own doing. That's why I call it masturbation.

 

[The Derp]

I said before Bush lost net 70,000 private sector jobs in his first four years. I was incorrect. Bush actually lost 841,000 net private sector jobs in his first four years. I was including government jobs in the total. Apologies.

 

[danielpalos]

[
I am claiming we should end the drug war instead of, "hate on the poor".

Who cares?

A cut to the proposed INCREASE in spending is not a cut, it is a fucking increase. Funding for food stamps (SNAP) will increase in 2018, just not as much as the democrats wanted. The lying press turns around and calls it "cuts."

Who cares. The drug war is Not about Economics.

 

[danielpalos]

[
It depends more on the "gold". Knights with "gold", demanded horses that could carry them, their armor, and their "gold". Supply met that demand; in both cases, both parties had "gold" and merely, created demand with that capital wealth. Wealth is what makes supply side work. The US has a printing press at an official Mint; management is the problem.

So sparky, what you are saying is that the supply of gold gave rise to the demand for horses to carry the gold?

Supply side in action - though not what you intended.

Only through wealth. There is plenty of demand for water in the Gobi Desert, by the poor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not?

Because states started raising their minimum wages on their own since the federal government was stuck thanks to Conservatives who wanted to tank the economy in order to score political points. Now that they have full control, they've (predictably) done nothing to address the issue. In fact, many Conservatives would prefer if there was no minimum wage at all and American workers were paid the same as Chinese workers. So I think you only oppose raising the minimum wage because doing so prevents you from complaining about means-tested welfare programs like SNAP. It's really all about your egos at this point. Raising the minimum wage is good economics. Which explains why Conservatives oppose it.

Conservatives didn't want to raise the minimum wage which would have moved millions off the program. There are more millionaires than minimum wage workers.

The MW is just the starting place. There are far, far more workers who earn low wages that qualify them for SNAP benefits, for example, than millionaires. 44 million people, actually. Most of those 44 million would come off SNAP rolls if their wages were higher because SNAP is means-tested. SNAP enrollment started going down once wages started to grow. That began around 2015. So if you want fewer people on SNAP, pay them more money. It's not terribly complicated.

Since SNAP is based on income, the more you make the less in benefits you qualify. Yeah, the high levels point out the weakness of Obama's recovery.

Well, Obama wanted to raise the MW - you guys didn't. So it's hard to see how this thing you are complaining about wasn't caused by your own doing. That's why I call it masturbation.

Because states started raising their minimum wages on their own since the federal government was stuck

How many of those awesome Obama jobs were minimum wage?
Was that the total of wage growth under Obama, minimum wage hikes?

In fact, many Conservatives would prefer if there was no minimum wage at all

Obviously, just look at what it did the black youth employment.
Terrible idea, like most things libs come up with. I blame their ignorance of economics.

Raising the minimum wage is good economics.

LOL!
You morons are funny.

Most of those 44 million would come off SNAP rolls if their wages were higher

How many would come off the rolls if they got fired when they couldn't justify their higher minimum wage?

 

[The Derp]

How many of those awesome Obama jobs were minimum wage?
Was that the total of wage growth under Obama, minimum wage hikes?

Not many were minimum wage...Bush was the minimum wage President, let's remember. He's the one who said it was "uniquely American" for a person to have three jobs. Wages started growing the final two years of Obama's term. That's why you see SNAP enrollment decline over the same period. Wages would have gone higher had Conservatives gotten on board with a minimum wage hike. But they want to masturbate rather than work on policy (mostly because all they do is jerk off, figuratively speaking)...so no MW increase.

Obviously, just look at what it did the black youth employment.
Terrible idea, like most things libs come up with. I blame their ignorance of economics.

What are you talking about???? Now you're just flaming out because you have nothing of importance to say. If Conservatives were so concerned with black unemployment, they would raise the minimum wage. But they're not. Instead, you'd prefer to perpetuate problems that you then complain about. That's why I call you all a bunch of jerk-offs. That's what you do. Hard to see how tax cuts for the rich will decrease unemployment in African-American communities. After all, we've been cutting taxes for close to 40 years. So if you're looking for something to blame for black unemployment, start there.

aising the minimum wage is good economics.]
LOL!
You morons are funny.

So what's sad about your belief system is that in 2014, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages. As a result of that, job growth in all those 13 states + DC was higher than in states that didn't raise their minimum wage. You all said that if they did raise their wages, there would be all this job loss, economic distress, etc. And just like how you were wrong about letting the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy expire, you were wrong then too! Is there anything you've ever been right about? Don't think so. So once again, Conservative fantasy comes crashing into reality. The fantasy is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs. The reality is the opposite, as the link explains. It's like you are just regurgitating the shit Trump and the other Russians spit out there without bothering to know anything about that which you speak. SAD!

How many would come off the rolls if they got fired when they couldn't justify their higher minimum wage?

Again, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages in 2014. All 13 of those states + DC saw higher job growth than states that didn't.

So once again your fantasy comes crashing into reality, and you can't seem to handle that.

 

[The Derp]

<Russian Active Measures>

Just curious; did you know that about the 13 states in 2014 that raised their minimum wages? How they all saw faster job growth than the states that didn't? And it's not like they were all 13 blue "maker" states. It was a wide variety of different states in different areas of the country. The criticism you morons trot out there about the minimum wage is disproved by the facts. The facts show nothing you clowns said about the minimum wage turned out to be true.

So if you were wrong just three years ago, why would you be right today?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many of those awesome Obama jobs were minimum wage?
Was that the total of wage growth under Obama, minimum wage hikes?

Not many were minimum wage...Bush was the minimum wage President, let's remember. He's the one who said it was "uniquely American" for a person to have three jobs. Wages would have gone higher had Conservatives gotten on board with a minimum wage hike. But they want to masturbate rather than work on policy (mostly because all they do is jerk off, figuratively speaking)...so no MW increase.

Obviously, just look at what it did the black youth employment.
Terrible idea, like most things libs come up with. I blame their ignorance of economics.

What are you talking about???? Now you're just flaming out because you have nothing of importance to say. If Conservatives were so concerned with black unemployment, they would raise the minimum wage. But they're not. Instead, you'd prefer to perpetuate problems that you then complain about. That's why I call you all a bunch of jerk-offs. That's what you do. Hard to see how tax cuts for the rich will decrease unemployment in African-American communities. After all, we've been cutting taxes for close to 40 years. So if you're looking for something to blame for black unemployment, start there.

aising the minimum wage is good economics.]
LOL!
You morons are funny.

So what's sad about your belief system is that in 2014, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages. As a result of that, job growth in all those 13 states + DC was higher than in states that didn't raise their minimum wage. You all said that if they did raise their wages, there would be all this job loss, economic distress, etc. And just like how you were wrong about letting the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy expire, you were wrong then too! Is there anything you've ever been right about? Don't think so. So once again, Conservative fantasy comes crashing into reality. The fantasy is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs. The reality is the opposite, as the link explains. It's like you are just regurgitating the shit Trump and the other Russians spit out there without bothering to know anything about that which you speak. SAD!

How many would come off the rolls if they got fired when they couldn't justify their higher minimum wage?

Again, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages in 2014. All 13 of those states + DC saw higher job growth than states that didn't.

So once again your fantasy comes crashing into reality, and you can't seem to handle that.

Not many were minimum wage...

Then why do you feel the hikes had any impact on total wages?

...Bush was the minimum wage President

You're defending Obama's crappy performance by pointing out Bush's idiocy?

Wages would have gone higher had Conservatives gotten on board with a minimum wage hike.

In 2015, fewer than 1 million hourly workers made the minimum wage.

What are you talking about????

I'm talking about the widespread ignorance of liberals in the area of economics.

If Conservatives were so concerned with black unemployment, they would raise the minimum wage.

Why would hurting low skilled black workers be a good idea in your view?

So what's sad about your belief system is that in 2014, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages. As a result of that, job growth in all those 13 states + DC was higher

Why would a hike in government mandated wages result in higher job growth?

The fantasy is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.
If the MW was hiked to $100/hour tomorrow, do you expect more jobs and lower prices?

 

[The Derp]

Not many were minimum wage...
Then why do you feel the hikes had any impact on total wages?

???? What the fuck? Do you read your post before posting? As I said, wages started growing the last two years of Obama. 13 states + DC raised their wages beginning in 2014. So...start there, I guess. Of course the minimum wage hikes helped raise wages overall. If you are increasing the minimum wage, you are raising the average wage. Math.

...Bush was the minimum wage President
You're defending Obama's crappy performance by pointing out Bush's idiocy?

Obama's performance? Conservatives controlled the House and a large majority of state houses and governorships beginning in 2011. They controlled the Senate beginning in 2015. Obama started presidentin' in 2009. So if you are going to criticize anyone for poor economic performance, you should criticize yourself since the dumbasses who believe what you believe have been running the show for a while now, and definitely during most of Obama.

But regardless, wages under Obama increased from where they were when he started. Wages under Bush decreased from where they were when he started. So Bush was the minimum wage president, and you morons supported him throughout. It was only afterwards, when you finally got to survey the damage your belief systems caused to the country that Bush was suddenly not Conservative. Funny how that works, right? He's your guy until the report card comes...then it's like, "Bush who?"

Seriously, who fucking buys that shit you're peddling? Who believes you? We all know you're just posturing for the sake of your ego. Why is everyone else in the world admitting that except you?

Wages would have gone higher had Conservatives gotten on board with a minimum wage hike.
In 2015, fewer than 1 million hourly workers made the minimum wage.

Yeah, because states raised their minimum wages...13 of them in 2014 alone. At the time, you Conservatives said that if they did that, it would lead to higher prices and job loss. You were wrong. So if you were wrong three years ago, why would you be right today? I don't think that's an unfair question.

What are you talking about????
I'm talking about the widespread ignorance of liberals in the area of economics.

This from the folks who use Field of Dreams as their economic model. Seriously, dude. Get a grip. It was called Field of Dreams. That's all your economic policy is; dreams. Might as well throw in some imaginary characters to give it a little more depth...oh wait, you do that already. The "invisible hand". Funny how most of what Conservatives believe comes down to imagination and invisibility, isn't it? "Bush who?", right?

If Conservatives were so concerned with black unemployment, they would raise the minimum wage.
Why would hurting low skilled black workers be a good idea in your view?

Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt low-wage workers. In fact, it helps them because they have more money to spend in the consumer economy. We know because we saw 13 states do in in 2014 and all those states outpaced states that didn't raise their wages when it came to job growth. So once again, I have facts on my side and you do not. All you have is fantasy. Just like most of what you believe, it's purely a dream and magical thinking. My 6-year-old niece is more of a realist than you. She stopped believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. When are you going to give up your fantasies? Are you more gullible than a six year old? Well, if you believe in magic invisible hands, probably.

o what's sad about your belief system is that in 2014, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages. As a result of that, job growth in all those 13 states + DC was higher
Why would a hike in government mandated wages result in higher job growth?

More money in the hands of consumers = more demand = more jobs. Poor people are more likely to spend their money than wealthy people. Poor people don't save. The largely don't have debt (because they can't borrow because they're poor). So they live paycheck-to-paycheck. So if you increase their paycheck, they are going to spend more. Which is what happened.

So explain to me how raising the minimum wage hurts jobs when just three years ago, 13 states raised their minimum wages and saw better job growth than states who didn't?

If you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

The fantasy is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.
If the MW was hiked to $100/hour tomorrow, do you expect more jobs and lower prices?

Why stop at $100/hr? Why not $1,000/hr? Why not raise it to $100,000/hr? Why not pay someone in cocaine, old Sears catalogs, and unicorns that fart glitter?

The reason you don't raise the MW to $100/hr is because it would be unreasonable economically for someone working the drive-through to make four thousand dollars a week. But I feel like there might be a reasonable place in between the $290 a week they make now and the four thousand a week you suggest. Of course, that would require you to be reasonable...and the jury is still out on that one.

 

[The Derp]

The fantasy is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
If the MW was hiked to $100/hour tomorrow, do you expect more jobs and lower prices?

So at least you are now conceding that perhaps people do need enough money to, you know, feed themselves so they can get up and go to work at that drive-through for $290/week. You may think that $15/hr for that job is too generous. I disagree. I think that we both agree that some people are being paid too much money to shovel unappetizing, unhealthy shit to the American public...we just disagree about who those people are and where they work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not many were minimum wage...
Then why do you feel the hikes had any impact on total wages?

???? What the fuck? Do you read your post before posting? As I said, wages started growing the last two years of Obama. 13 states + DC raised their wages beginning in 2014. So...start there, I guess. Of course the minimum wage hikes helped raise wages overall. If you are increasing the minimum wage, you are raising the average wage. Math.

...Bush was the minimum wage President
You're defending Obama's crappy performance by pointing out Bush's idiocy?

Obama's performance? Conservatives controlled the House and a large majority of state houses and governorships beginning in 2011. They controlled the Senate beginning in 2015. Obama started presidentin' in 2009. So if you are going to criticize anyone for poor economic performance, you should criticize yourself since the dumbasses who believe what you believe have been running the show for a while now, and definitely during most of Obama.

But regardless, wages under Obama increased from where they were when he started. Wages under Bush decreased from where they were when he started. So Bush was the minimum wage president, and you morons supported him throughout. It was only afterwards, when you finally got to survey the damage your belief systems caused to the country that Bush was suddenly not Conservative. Funny how that works, right? He's your guy until the report card comes...then it's like, "Bush who?"

Seriously, who fucking buys that shit you're peddling? Who believes you? We all know you're just posturing for the sake of your ego. Why is everyone else in the world admitting that except you?

Wages would have gone higher had Conservatives gotten on board with a minimum wage hike.
In 2015, fewer than 1 million hourly workers made the minimum wage.

Yeah, because states raised their minimum wages...13 of them in 2014 alone. At the time, you Conservatives said that if they did that, it would lead to higher prices and job loss. You were wrong. So if you were wrong three years ago, why would you be right today? I don't think that's an unfair question.

What are you talking about????
I'm talking about the widespread ignorance of liberals in the area of economics.

This from the folks who use Field of Dreams as their economic model. Seriously, dude. Get a grip. It was called Field of Dreams. That's all your economic policy is; dreams. Might as well throw in some imaginary characters to give it a little more depth...oh wait, you do that already. The "invisible hand". Funny how most of what Conservatives believe comes down to imagination and invisibility, isn't it? "Bush who?", right?

If Conservatives were so concerned with black unemployment, they would raise the minimum wage.
Why would hurting low skilled black workers be a good idea in your view?

Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt low-wage workers. In fact, it helps them because they have more money to spend in the consumer economy. We know because we saw 13 states do in in 2014 and all those states outpaced states that didn't raise their wages when it came to job growth. So once again, I have facts on my side and you do not. All you have is fantasy. Just like most of what you believe, it's purely a dream and magical thinking. My 6-year-old niece is more of a realist than you. She stopped believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. When are you going to give up your fantasies? Are you more gullible than a six year old? Well, if you believe in magic invisible hands, probably.

o what's sad about your belief system is that in 2014, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages. As a result of that, job growth in all those 13 states + DC was higher
Why would a hike in government mandated wages result in higher job growth?

More money in the hands of consumers = more demand = more jobs. Poor people are more likely to spend their money than wealthy people. Poor people don't save. The largely don't have debt (because they can't borrow because they're poor). So they live paycheck-to-paycheck. So if you increase their paycheck, they are going to spend more. Which is what happened.

So explain to me how raising the minimum wage hurts jobs when just three years ago, 13 states raised their minimum wages and saw better job growth than states who didn't?

If you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

The fantasy is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.
If the MW was hiked to $100/hour tomorrow, do you expect more jobs and lower prices?

Why stop at $100/hr? Why not $1,000/hr? Why not raise it to $100,000/hr? Why not pay someone in cocaine, old Sears catalogs, and unicorns that fart glitter?

The reason you don't raise the MW to $100/hr is because it would be unreasonable economically for someone working the drive-through to make four thousand dollars a week. But I feel like there might be a reasonable place in between the $290 a week they make now and the four thousand a week you suggest. Of course, that would require you to be reasonable...and the jury is still out on that one.

As I said, wages started growing the last two years of Obama. 13 states + DC raised their wages beginning in 2014.

Based on the tiny number of MW workers, those hikes had a tiny, probably unmeasurable impact on total wages.

Obama's performance?

Yes, the weak president who just left office.

Conservatives controlled the House and a large majority of state houses and governorships beginning in 2011. They controlled the Senate beginning in 2015.

It's true, amongst his other failures was his failure to play well with others.
Elections have consequences, eh?


But regardless, wages under Obama increased from where they were when he started.

Increased so much, number of SNAP recipients is 50% higher. Good job!

This from the folks who use Field of Dreams as their economic model.

Tell me again that businesses won't expand when individual taxes are cut. That's always funny.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt low-wage workers.

It only hurts the ones who lose their jobs......and the ones who don't get hired.
For the few that receive MW, a hike is good.

More money in the hands of consumers = more demand = more jobs.

Less money for companies to hire = fewer workers = less demand.

My 6-year-old niece is more of a realist than you. She stopped believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

Does she still believe in the magic pot of corporate money that unlimited MW hikes can draw from?

Why stop at $100/hr? Why not $1,000/hr?

Exactly! You cheap bastard!

The reason you don't raise the MW to $100/hr is because it would be unreasonable economically for someone working the drive-through to make four thousand dollars a week.

Why would it be unreasonable? Just think of all the spending they'll do, more demand = more jobs!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fantasy is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
If the MW was hiked to $100/hour tomorrow, do you expect more jobs and lower prices?

So at least you are now conceding that perhaps people do need enough money to, you know, feed themselves so they can get up and go to work at that drive-through for $290/week. You may think that $15/hr for that job is too generous. I disagree. I think that we both agree that some people are being paid too much money to shovel unappetizing, unhealthy shit to the American public...we just disagree about who those people are and where they work.

So at least you are now conceding that perhaps people do need enough money to, you know, feed themselves so they can get up and go to work

They'll feed themselves pretty well at $100/hr.

You may think that $15/hr for that job is too generous. I disagree.

This is America, you're free to start a business and pay your low-skilled workers $15/hr.
Hell, you're a nice guy, make it $20/hr.

Be sure to post your progress.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not?

Because states started raising their minimum wages on their own since the federal government was stuck thanks to Conservatives who wanted to tank the economy in order to score political points. Now that they have full control, they've (predictably) done nothing to address the issue. In fact, many Conservatives would prefer if there was no minimum wage at all and American workers were paid the same as Chinese workers. So I think you only oppose raising the minimum wage because doing so prevents you from complaining about means-tested welfare programs like SNAP. It's really all about your egos at this point. Raising the minimum wage is good economics. Which explains why Conservatives oppose it.

Conservatives didn't want to raise the minimum wage which would have moved millions off the program. There are more millionaires than minimum wage workers.

The MW is just the starting place. There are far, far more workers who earn low wages that qualify them for SNAP benefits, for example, than millionaires. 44 million people, actually. Most of those 44 million would come off SNAP rolls if their wages were higher because SNAP is means-tested. SNAP enrollment started going down once wages started to grow. That began around 2015. So if you want fewer people on SNAP, pay them more money. It's not terribly complicated.

Since SNAP is based on income, the more you make the less in benefits you qualify. Yeah, the high levels point out the weakness of Obama's recovery.

Well, Obama wanted to raise the MW - you guys didn't. So it's hard to see how this thing you are complaining about wasn't caused by your own doing. That's why I call it masturbation.

Because states started raising their minimum wages on their own since the federal government was stuck

How many of those awesome Obama jobs were minimum wage?
Was that the total of wage growth under Obama, minimum wage hikes?

In fact, many Conservatives would prefer if there was no minimum wage at all

Obviously, just look at what it did the black youth employment.
Terrible idea, like most things libs come up with. I blame their ignorance of economics.

Raising the minimum wage is good economics.

LOL!
You morons are funny.

Most of those 44 million would come off SNAP rolls if their wages were higher

How many would come off the rolls if they got fired when they couldn't justify their higher minimum wage?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. Just socialism bailing capitalism, like usual.