Raise Minimum Wage?

[spiveyrat]

Here's what happens...

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Here's what happens...

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html

I, for one, don't see how ANYONE can make it on minimum wage...BUT, did you see all the comments below it? They hi-jack threads on there just like we do here!!!:D

[LH Panther Mom]

IMO, a feasible solution would be to have two separate minimum wages - one (at a lower rate) for teens and/or younger adults, who live with their parents (and are not monetarily responsible for taking care of said parents and/or other family members), then one at a higher rate for those who are out living on their own and responsible for their own and others' care. :)

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
IMO, a feasible solution would be to have two separate minimum wages - one (at a lower rate) for teens and/or younger adults, who live with their parents (and are not monetarily responsible for taking care of said parents and/or other family members), then one at a higher rate for those who are out living on their own and responsible for their own and others' care. :)

Hey, I like that idea. Has anyone ever told you you're a prophet? :thumbsup:

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Hey, I like that idea. Has anyone ever told you you're a prophet? :thumbsup:
No, but the word "brilliant" has been thrown out a time or two. :D ;)

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
No, but the word "brilliant" has been thrown out a time or two. :D ;)

Gotta be brilliant to be a mod, right? ;) :nerd:

[mwynn05]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
IMO, a feasible solution would be to have two separate minimum wages - one (at a lower rate) for teens and/or younger adults, who live with their parents (and are not monetarily responsible for taking care of said parents and/or other family members), then one at a higher rate for those who are out living on their own and responsible for their own and others' care. :) That's called a minimum wage and a living wage....seriously though....like half the states already have min wage at $7 something an hour

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Here's what happens...

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html God forbid the owner absorb the increase him self. We all know he lives from day to day and cant afford one single penny more to pay an employee.:rolleyes:

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Gotta be brilliant to be a mod, right? ;) :nerd:

Uh huh!!;)

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
God forbid the owner absorb the increase him self. We all know he lives from day to day and cant afford one single penny more to pay an employee.:rolleyes:

that's very true... but the gov't cannot control all owners that are being selfish and wanting to make every penny they can... it'd get to a point where they wouldn't be making as much profit as they were, then what will they do? Raise prices, lay employees off... the gov't can't tell 'em not to do that... that's a big concern and unfortuantly I believe a lot of it would happen...

[Black_Magic]

You can hit them in the teeth if they lay off after an increase by looking at the owners tax returns and hit them in the teeth if thier profits are above a certain mark. For example. If you net over $150,000 your self , its hard to argue that you had to cut two minimum wage workers because you could not make ends meet any other way and that you would have to close your doors if you didnt.

[Gobbla2001]

But if an employee retires or quits, will they hire again???

We're really not dealing with big companies here... companies who hire at minimum wage and do not pay far above it are usually very small mom and pops...

at my first ever job I was paid minimum wage... they barely broke even with the business because it was so expensive to keep running without having to pay employees... the wife is a nursing home administrator and the husband is a respiratory therapist, had they not had good paying jobs they wouldn't have been able to keep the business open in the first place...

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
You can hit them in the teeth if they lay off after an increase by looking at the owners tax returns and hit them in the teeth if thier profits are above a certain mark. For example. If you net over $150,000 your self , its hard to argue that you had to cut two minimum wage workers because you could not make ends meet any other way and that you would have to close your doors if you didnt.

That system has been tried in the world by several countries in the past, with only a couple still clinging to it. It's called "communism". If I work hard and make a lot of money because I do worker harder and smarter---I expect to be able to keep the fruits of my labor. That doesn't mean that I should not be willing to share with the truly needy, but I want that to be my decision---not the govenment's.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
That system has been tried in the world by several countries in the past, with only a couple still clinging to it. It's called "communism". If I work hard and make a lot of money because I do worker harder and smarter---I expect to be able to keep the fruits of my labor. That doesn't mean that I should not be willing to share with the truly needy, but I want that to be my decision---not the govenment's.

Amen

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
That system has been tried in the world by several countries in the past, with only a couple still clinging to it. It's called "communism". If I work hard and make a lot of money because I do worker harder and smarter---I expect to be able to keep the fruits of my labor. That doesn't mean that I should not be willing to share with the truly needy, but I want that to be my decision---not the govenment's. Its not communist to tax people according to income . Its not communist to take away loop holes for trying to pass the buck to the worker. the government can see the people who truly cant afford the increase because thier bottom line really has no room for it. It can also see the turd who is making a killing and paying peanuts and Pretends to not be able to afford to pay an extra $2 an hour. The #1 problem in this country is Greed. Some just keep justifying it and saying its all ok. Its not. Its the root of all the other problems we have. If you cant pay for your self and the needs of a child on minimum wage then its too low. I think the guy should do without the second vacation home so he can pay is workers who provide the labor that pays for his first vacation home. huge leap of logic but I think its just.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
We're really not dealing with big companies here... companies who hire at minimum wage and do not pay far above it are usually very small mom and pops...

at my first ever job I was paid minimum wage... they barely broke even with the business because it was so expensive to keep running without having to pay employees... the wife is a nursing home administrator and the husband is a respiratory therapist, had they not had good paying jobs they wouldn't have been able to keep the business open in the first place...

I know what you mean....the coffee shop I worked at in Commerce during college paid $.10 over minimum wage. Now mind you this was no Starbucks...it was a family owned and operated gourmet coffee shop (with the best coffee in the world might I add)...and I guarantee you this is going to slap them in the face!

If the owners didn't already have money they probably would have closed their doors years ago. Usually, I worked the shop alone...:hairpunk: Seriously...2 dollars more an hour! Thats a hefty jump!

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Its not communist to tax people according to income . Its not communist to take away loop holes for trying to pass the buck to the worker. the government can see the people who truly cant afford the increase because thier bottom line really has no room for it. It can also see the turd who is making a killing and paying peanuts and Pretends to not be able to afford to pay an extra $2 an hour. The #1 problem in this country is Greed. Some just keep justifying it and saying its all ok. Its not. Its the root of all the other problems we have. If you cant pay for your self and the needs of a child on minimum wage then its too low. I think the guy should do without the second vacation home so he can pay is workers who provide the labor that pays for his first vacation home. huge leap of logic but I think its just.

logic? you're expressing feelings, not logic...

it would be the HONORABLE thing to do (86'n the second vacation home), but we're the land of the free, this guy is free to make money and buy those homes if he can afford it...

but a guy makin' that much dough off of his business is most-likely not paying his employees minimum wage or even within $1.50 of that...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001

but a guy makin' that much dough off of his business is most-likely not paying his employees minimum wage or even within $1.50 of that... Most are paying minimum wage thats exactly why there is a need to raise it because the owner wont do it. Where have you been? have you not seen the data on workers pay and managment pay? the average CEO and owner makes way more in compared to what they made 20 years ago. Im not talking money but Precentage of what a company earns in total. Sure you cant make him absorb the increase. BUT you can Tax his Net to the hilt for not doing the right thing. Its the same with everything. the gorverment makes us do the "right thing" all the time by law or force. why should this be different?:thinking:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Most are paying minimum wage thats exactly why there is a need to raise it because the owner wont do it. Where have you been? have you not seen the data on workers pay and managment pay? the average CEO and owner makes way more in compared to what they made 20 years ago. Im not talking money but Precentage of what a company earns in total. Sure you cant make him absorb the increase. BUT you can Tax his Net to the hilt for not doing the right thing. Its the same with everything. the gorverment makes us do the "right thing" all the time by law or force. why should this be different?:thinking:

it will effect the small business owners... they're raising the minimum wage... small businesses are not excluded from this...

it's their business, not the governments... as long as it's legal it's fine and I have not seen any protests on the streets with folks saying "raise the minimum wage"...

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Most are paying minimum wage thats exactly why there is a need to raise it because the owner wont do it. Where have you been? have you not seen the data on workers pay and managment pay? the average CEO and owner makes way more in compared to what they made 20 years ago. Im not talking money but Precentage of what a company earns in total. Sure you cant make him absorb the increase. BUT you can Tax his Net to the hilt for not doing the right thing. Its the same with everything. the gorverment makes us do the "right thing" all the time by law or force. why should this be different?:thinking:

BM....I think everyone in this country is entitled to an equal right at the opportunity to earn their family a decent living. This is America---there are no limits to what a motivated man or woman can achieve. And yes, the road to earning a living is longer and rougher for some, but those who want it badly enough seem to get there. There is an old saying---"The harder I work, the luckier I seem to get."

[Snyder_TigerFan]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
BM....I think everyone in this country is entitled to an equal right at the opportunity to earn their family a decent living. This is America---there are no limits to what a motivated man or woman can achieve. And yes, the road to earning a living is longer and rougher for some, but those who want it badly enough seem to get there. There is an old saying---"The harder I work, the luckier I seem to get."

:clap: :clap: :thumbsup:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
BUT you can Tax his Net to the hilt for not doing the right thing. So who gets to decide what the "right thing" is? This sounds like moral relativism, aka Communism.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
So who gets to decide what the "right thing" is? This sounds like moral relativism, aka Communism.

Exactly...

wouldn't doing the "right thing" include giving everyone in America the same exact salary???

Why don't we do that...

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001


it's their business, not the governments... as long as it's legal it's fine and I have not seen any protests on the streets with folks saying "raise the minimum wage"...

That's because folks on minimum wage can't afford to take time off to protest.

As for small business, no, they will not be exempt from the wage increase, but Congress is working on a package of tax breaks to ease the burden for them.

From the asepct of a business operator, I particularly enjoyed this excerpt:

Messner's monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high.

"We go to great lengths to hang on to our high school workers, but there are a lot of kids who come in and get one check in their pocket and feel like they're living large and out the door they go," he said. "We never get our return on investment when that happens."

For years, economists have debated how minimum-wage increases impact the teenage workforce.


RETENTION! RETENTION! RETENTION!

This operator would be much better off highering BETTER employees at a BETTER wage. With minimum wage comes a proverbial revolving door in regards to employees. Take care of them better, and they'll take care of you, I say. You'll find better prospects if you offer more, and will get more productive workers instead of settling for bottom of the barrel kids who stick around for a couple of paychecks to buy an Ipod or X-Box.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
Exactly...

wouldn't doing the "right thing" include giving everyone in America the same exact salary???

Why don't we do that... In the words of The Pirates That Don't Do Anything, "You are a genius".

:)

[eagles_victory]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
IMO, a feasible solution would be to have two separate minimum wages - one (at a lower rate) for teens and/or younger adults, who live with their parents (and are not monetarily responsible for taking care of said parents and/or other family members), then one at a higher rate for those who are out living on their own and responsible for their own and others' care. :) that wont work you will have too many frauds lying about what their situation is to get more money. I think it would lead to more problems then anything

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
BM....I think everyone in this country is entitled to an equal right at the opportunity to earn their family a decent living. This is America---there are no limits to what a motivated man or woman can achieve. And yes, the road to earning a living is longer and rougher for some, but those who want it badly enough seem to get there. There is an old saying---"The harder I work, the luckier I seem to get." Your Right ! Everyone "SHOULD" be entitled to an equal right at an opportunity to earn a decent living . It is not that way. You have such a optomistic outlook on this picture. People in the mid 1800 also had the same outlook on this kind of thing. Folks said the government should not get involved in business regulation. This was a Time of forced 80 work week, child labor ( 6-7 year olds ), Zero saftey regulations, zero environmental regulation. those were the good old days before the Communistic:rolleyes: Ideas of respectable wage, reasonable working hours, saftey regulations, child labor laws ect.... You cant go back no mater how bad you want. Its the governmets job to protect us. from each other as well as from out side. the government breaks up monopolys and thats ok. why not protect the workers too. lord knows the business leaders dont need protecting. they are doing just fine.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
So who gets to decide what the "right thing" is? This sounds like moral relativism, aka Communism.

Hilliary will be the decider!

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
So who gets to decide what the "right thing" is? This sounds like moral relativism, aka Communism. so if the government decides the "right thing" is to raise it to $7 its communist? Kinda like the government deciding the "right thing" to do was to invade Iraq. funny how some things become a communist Idea when you think the government is getting involved in a situation but its ok for the government to get involved in other situations.:thinking:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
so if the government decides the "right thing" is to raise it to $7 its communist? Kinda like the government deciding the "right thing" to do was to invade Iraq. funny how some things become a communist Idea when you think the government is getting involved in a situation but its ok for the government to get involved in other situations.:thinking:

haha... that's apples and oranges...

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
so if the government decides the "right thing" is to raise it to $7 its communist? Kinda like the government deciding the "right thing" to do was to invade Iraq. funny how some things become a communist Idea when you think the government is getting involved in a situation but its ok for the government to get involved in other situations.:thinking:

I think I agree with that......who woulda ever thunk it??:D

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
so if the government decides the "right thing" is to raise it to $7 its communist? Kinda like the government deciding the "right thing" to do was to invade Iraq. funny how some things become a communist Idea when you think the government is getting involved in a situation but its ok for the government to get involved in other situations.:thinking: Here's a little history lesson for you. Bush acted on information that EVERYONE ELSE AGREED WITH!!!! Funny how people tend to forget that.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
haha... that's apples and oranges...

True, but look at the logic behind that fruit.

We can't get behind a wage increase to improve the quality of life for our fellow Americans, but we're supposed to support a war that is costing hundreds of billions (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) of dollars to see to it that the quality of life for Iraqis improves.

Sorry, but I'm not drinking the Koolaid.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
People in the mid 1800 also had the same outlook on this kind of thing. Folks said the government should not get involved in business regulation. This was a Time of forced 80 work week, child labor ( 6-7 year olds ), Zero saftey regulations, zero environmental regulation. those were the good old days before the Communistic:rolleyes: again, apples and oranges. That has to do with safety, not who deserves what.

[Black_Magic]

I think its funny to see how some react to government intervention in some situations ( minimum wage debate) and see how opposed to government involvement they are but then do a complete 180 and think the government should get involeved in other situations. on one hand some want a small government then on the other these same people want us to dicatate or handle many others with this same government.:clap:

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's a little history lesson for you. Bush acted on information that EVERYONE ELSE AGREED WITH!!!! Funny how people tend to forget that.

Is that why we had to circumvent the U.N. to invade Iraq. Sure, everyone agreed with us alright. :p

[Gobbla2001]

big apples and little oranges

[Gobbla2001]

apple: forcing american business owners to pay their employees more money

orange: sending soldiers who volunteered to Iraq to fight for what some believe was a good cause (we're not discussing whether it was right or wrong here)...


stay on course, don't bring up the gloomy in attempt to prove a point when it does nothing but chain off a whole other arguement...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
True, but look at the logic behind that fruit.

We can't get behind a wage increase to improve the quality of life for our fellow Americans, but we're supposed to support a war that is costing hundreds of billions (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) of dollars to see to it that the quality of life for Iraqis improves.

Sorry, but I'm not drinking the Koolaid. OH!! but Those are all communistic Ideas on that website!! its more important to have troops in Iraq where they are not wanted than it is to raise the minimum wage 2 bucks! or to sent 17,million to college for 4 years, ect.. come on!! get your priorities right! after all this is a free market economy where you can get the best politics you can buy. IF you have the money to buy it.;)

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's a little history lesson for you. Bush acted on information that EVERYONE ELSE AGREED WITH!!!! Funny how people tend to forget that. BUSH acted on information that he allowed to be released to congress. Congress was not given ALL the intelegence . only the picture Bush wanted given to them. Bottom line. NO WMDs. and we are still there 4 years later.:rolleyes:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
OH!! but Those are all communistic Ideas on that website!! its more important to have troops in Iraq where they are not wanted than it is to raise the minimum wage 2 bucks! or to sent 17,million to college for 4 years, ect.. come on!! get your priorities right! after all this is a free market economy where you can get the best politics you can buy. IF you have the money to buy it.;)

we sent 'em there a long time ago... we just can't leave at the drop of a hat...

yah, it hasn't gone well...

but back to the freakin' apple... when are we gunna start answering question without the words "ya, but, war and Iraq" in them???

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
BUSH acted on information that he allowed to be released to congress. Congress was not given ALL the intelegence . only the picture Bush wanted given to them. Bottom line. NO WMDs. and we are still there 4 years later.:rolleyes:

wait a minute... from what I've gather from the 9/11 report etc... is that Bush and Congress knew the same thing...

what information was he hiding? and do you have sources?

serious question, not saying you're wrong, but I haven't heard that one...

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
we sent 'em there a long time ago... we just can't leave at the drop of a hat...

yah, it hasn't gone well...

but back to the freakin' apple... when are we gunna start answering question without the words "ya, but, war and Iraq" in them???

That would be on page two.


Originally posted by Blastoderm55
That's because folks on minimum wage can't afford to take time off to protest.

As for small business, no, they will not be exempt from the wage increase, but Congress is working on a package of tax breaks to ease the burden for them.

From the asepct of a business operator, I particularly enjoyed this excerpt:

Messner's monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high.

"We go to great lengths to hang on to our high school workers, but there are a lot of kids who come in and get one check in their pocket and feel like they're living large and out the door they go," he said. "We never get our return on investment when that happens."

For years, economists have debated how minimum-wage increases impact the teenage workforce.


RETENTION! RETENTION! RETENTION!

This operator would be much better off highering BETTER employees at a BETTER wage. With minimum wage comes a proverbial revolving door in regards to employees. Take care of them better, and they'll take care of you, I say. You'll find better prospects if you offer more, and will get more productive workers instead of settling for bottom of the barrel kids who stick around for a couple of paychecks to buy an Ipod or X-Box.

[Black_Magic]

Point is is this. Conservatives call it communist to have government intervention when it comes to protecting OUR poor from OUR business owners and say government should not get involved. BUT when talking about othre issues cry out for government involvment in other issues LIKE IRAQ. Its Hypcritical in my eyes.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
That would be on page two.

I know, I saw that answer, all I'm saying is that we can talk about fixing roads, but if it seems that one side is conservative, somewhere in there "oh Iraq" is gunna come up... you know what I'm saying?

Iraq is a totally different monster, it has not gone well at all... but we can't use it as a measuring stick for all other things that seem to be conservative...

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
wait a minute... from what I've gather from the 9/11 report etc... is that Bush and Congress knew the same thing...

what information was he hiding? and do you have sources?

serious question, not saying you're wrong, but I haven't heard that one...

What does the 9/11 Commission Report have to do with Iraq? :confused:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
wait a minute... from what I've gather from the 9/11 report etc... is that Bush and Congress knew the same thing...

what information was he hiding? and do you have sources?

serious question, not saying you're wrong, but I haven't heard that one... The intell on WMDs and Atomic weapons program . It was not given to congress. there was Intel given to the president by the CIA that Sadam had no WMDs contradicting the reports that were given to congress. this came out later .

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Point is is this. Conservatives call it communist to have government intervention when it comes to protecting OUR poor from OUR business owners and say government should not get involved. BUT when talking about othre issues cry out for government involvment in other issues LIKE IRAQ. Its Hypcritical in my eyes.

they're two totally different things...

if that person doesn't want to work for minimum wage they can go to school and make sure they're not working for minimum wage in two to three years...

for whatever reasons everyone in are government felt Iraq was a must in regards to our future safety...

these two just seem a lot different to me, and Iraq seems to be your tool in sitting down conservatives on this issue...

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
What does the 9/11 Commission Report have to do with Iraq? :confused:

not a damn thing I'm a retard :(

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
I know, I saw that answer, all I'm saying is that we can talk about fixing roads, but if it seems that one side is conservative, somewhere in there "oh Iraq" is gunna come up... you know what I'm saying?

Iraq is a totally different monster, it has not gone well at all... but we can't use it as a measuring stick for all other things that seem to be conservative...

In my defense, I didn't bring it up. Wages can be raised along with profits as soon as operators produce smarter and more efficiently. Operators wasting $500 per month on training ought to shift their focus to retention and keep the employees that keep it in the black. Don't even get me started on the added costs if the proprietors outsource their payroll and bookkeeping.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
So who gets to decide what the "right thing" is? This sounds like moral relativism, aka Communism. This was the first to bring in Communism into some question about moral behavior and government. I responded that the government gets involved in other "Moral " causes and nobody calls it communist. thats my point.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
not a damn thing I'm a retard :(

It happens. I remember in high school, I forgot how to spell the word "white." Pretty bad for a 16 year old. :doh:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The intell on WMDs and Atomic weapons program . It was not given to congress. there was Intel given to the president by the CIA that Sadam had no WMDs contradicting the reports that were given to congress. this came out later .


from what I understand congress was never told that Sadam HAD WMD's, but that he had the materials and means to make them... they all made the assumption that he had them... that assumption is easier made knowing the history of Sadam and that he had used biological weapons on his own people...

from what I know there were no facts here, no one said Sadam didn't, no one said he did, they just believe(d) that he could due to suspicious activities etc...

this is from watching the news though (all channels so I'm no Foxie)... I've heard so many different stories I do not know what to believe, but it's harder to put my beliefs to the side when I don't have any solid sources...

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
It happens. I remember in high school, I forgot how to spell the word "white." Pretty bad for a 16 year old. :doh:

WHAT? you're a racist...

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
WHAT? you're a racist...

Hell no, I haven't ran track in years! :D

[big daddy russ]

Back on topic, I think that each state needs to regulate minimum wage independently. In places like Kentucky, Alabama, and most parts of Texas, the cost of living is fairly low. Legislation like this tends to come from parts of the country with inflated living costs: California, New England, etc.

When I first decided that I wanted to go back to college, I took a job at Academy in College Station making $6 an hour. That was my sole source of income. Furthermore, I only got about 25-30 hours a week, so I was only bringing home about $500-$600 a month. Top that off with the fact that I lived in a duplex which set me back $300 a month, throw in monthly bills (cell phone, utilities, insurance, etc.) and I was scraping by about as close as you could. As a matter of fact, I had just enough left each month for a night out on the town with my friends (about $15-$20 for a night... we found the drink specials) and a 12-pack of Lone Star. But I was making it, all while working only three or four days a week.

There's ways to make it on minimum wage as long as you don't live the high life.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Hell no, I haven't ran track in years! :D

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Jesse or Al's gunna be all over you...

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Back on topic, I think that each state needs to regulate minimum wage independently. In places like Kentucky, Alabama, and most parts of Texas, the cost of living is fairly low. Legislation like this tends to come from parts of the country with inflated living costs: California, New England, etc.

When I first decided that I wanted to go back to college, I took a job at Academy in College Station making $6 an hour. That was my sole source of income. Furthermore, I only got about 25-30 hours a week, so I was only bringing home about $500-$600 a month. Top that off with the fact that I lived in a duplex which set me back $300 a month, throw in monthly bills (cell phone, utilities, insurance, etc.) and I was scraping by about as close as you could. As a matter of fact, I had just enough left each month for a night out on the town with my friends (about $15-$20 for a night... we found the drink specials) and a 12-pack of Lone Star. But I was making it, all while working only three or four days a week.

There's ways to make it on minimum wage as long as you don't live the high life.

WHAT? Not live the high? that is rediculous, it is every American's right to live the high life...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
from what I understand congress was never told that Sadam HAD WMD's, but that he had the materials and means to make them... they all made the assumption that he had them... that assumption is easier made knowing the history of Sadam and that he had used biological weapons on his own people...

from what I know there were no facts here, no one said Sadam didn't, no one said he did, they just believe(d) that he could due to suspicious activities etc...

this is from watching the news though (all channels so I'm no Foxie)... I've heard so many different stories I do not know what to believe, but it's harder to put my beliefs to the side when I don't have any solid sources... Don't forget that Russian and British intelligence said the exact same thing. How quickly we forget.

[Gobbla2001]

so basically everyone is on the captain's side when the boat leaves the docks, but when it starts sinkin' the captain's a dumbass?

[JasperDog94]

Here's the bottom line. This country was based on capitalism. If you don't like making minimum wage, then get another job. If you're not qualified for another job, then get the training that you need. I'm tired of having people say that it's the fault of "big business". Without "big business" this country would be in the toilet economically.

And yes I complain about paying 3.00 a gallon at the pump just as much as the rest of you guys.

[shankbear]

This minimum wage stuff is brought to you by CONGRESS. Yes, that bunch in Washington, D.C. that exempts themselves from all sorts of neat things.....like Social Security. Pooooooor people. they will be stuck without Soc. Sec. They have their own retirement plan that we could only dream of having. It is so great that they will not allow details of it to get to regular folks. They would be drawn and quartered if that happened.

These bozos are pandering for votes. This is pure redistribution of wealth...socialism.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by shankbear
This is pure redistribution of wealth...socialism. Unfortunately we've been involved in socialism for a long time.:(

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
funny how some things become a communist Idea when you think the government is getting involved in a situation but its ok for the government to get involved in other situations.:thinking:

If it fits the definition, then just maybe that's what it is. See #2.

Communism
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Don't forget that Russian and British intelligence said the exact same thing. How quickly we forget.

Russion intelligence? What, like how they warned us about an Iraqi-led 9/11 attack (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html) and got the info to us after the attack, or how they aided (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm) the cause of removing (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh) weapons from Iraq before the fateful invasion (http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=899) by the U.S.?

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Is that why we had to circumvent the U.N. to invade Iraq. Sure, everyone agreed with us alright. :p

Yeah, we had to circumvent the UN to enforce 15 UN resolutions. Good thing they're around to keep everything on the up and up. :crazy: :crazy1:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Yeah, we had to circumvent the UN to enforce 15 UN resolutions. Good thing they're around to keep everything on the up and up. :crazy: :crazy1: When was the last time the U.N. solved a military conflict?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Russion intelligence? What, like how they warned us about an Iraqi-led 9/11 attack (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html) and got the info to us after the attack, or how they aided (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm) the cause of removing (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh) weapons from Iraq before the fateful invasion (http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=899) by the U.S.? All any president can do is act upon the information available. At least he had the guts to do something the U.N. wouldn't. (right or wrong)

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Point is is this. Conservatives call it communist to have government intervention when it comes to protecting OUR poor from OUR business owners and say government should not get involved. BUT when talking about othre issues cry out for government involvment in other issues LIKE IRAQ. Its Hypcritical in my eyes.

I guess it just depends on what you view is our government's job. In my view, they are there to protect us from foreign governments, not to bail us out jams we get ourselves into.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
All any president can do is act upon the information available. At least he had the guts to do something the U.N. wouldn't. (right or wrong)

And all the while, ignore the fact that Russia betrayed us? They provided weapons to Iraq (as we have in the past, go figure), and had a significan't economic relationship, yet no action is taken against them. Nah, lets just ponder as to why we failed while completely ignoring that fact that one of our supposed allies just screwed us over and made us look like complete idiots in front of the entire world by watching by as we went on a wild goose chase.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
I guess it just depends on what you view is our government's job. In my view, they are there to protect us from foreign governments, not to bail us out jams we get ourselves into. That's a pretty good definition there Spivey.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
And all the while, ignore the fact that Russia betrayed us? They provided weapons to Iraq (as we have in the past, go figure), and had a significan't economic relationship, yet no action is taken against them. Nah, lets just ponder as to why we failed while completely ignoring that fact that one of our supposed allies just screwed us over and made us look like complete idiots in front of the entire world by watching by as we went on a wild goose chase. What action should we take?

[Ranger Mom]

http://www.gaownersclub.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_padlock.gif

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
What action should we take?

And that's the trillion dollar question. There may be no suitable action, but at least get Putin on the phone and tell him the jig is up.

[Blastoderm55]

IB4C!!!!

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
And that's the trillion dollar question. There may be no suitable action, but at least get Putin on the phone and tell him the jig is up. For all I know that could have happened.

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
And all the while, ignore the fact that Russia betrayed us? They provided weapons to Iraq (as we have in the past, go figure), and had a significan't economic relationship, yet no action is taken against them.

...as did France and Germany. Some friends, eh? :(

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
For all I know that could have happened.

True, could have. But during the tenure of this administration, I've not once seen an admission of guilt, regardless of how tiny the incident. I'd be less of a bleeding heart if they would just man-up and admit they were wrong, and work towards moving onto the right path. Too much to ask I guess.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
...as did France and Germany. Some friends, eh? :(

France and Germany sold weapons to Iraq and then helped shift the weapons to Syria too? That's news to me. Then again, look at how the public views France. I doubt the opinion of Russia is nearly as bad as France, aside from possible old stigmas of the Cold War.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
True, could have. But during the tenure of this administration, I've not once seen an admission of guilt, regardless of how tiny the incident. I'd be less of a bleeding heart if they would just man-up and admit they were wrong, and work towards moving onto the right path. Too much to ask I guess. I guess it's the exact opposite of the last administration. It seemed like every time we turned around we were apologizing for being "the big bad superpower". This administration is the exact opposite.:(

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I guess it's the exact opposite of the last administration. It seemed like every time we turned around we were apologizing for being "the big bad superpower". This administration is the exact opposite.:(

Can't say I was all that thrilled with Clinton either. Someday there will be a president I can be proud to be a supporter of. Someday.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Can't say I was all that thrilled with Clinton either. Someday there will be a president I can be proud to be a supporter of. Someday. I understand where you're coming from. I'm not that pleased with Bush either.

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
France and Germany sold weapons to Iraq and then helped shift the weapons to Syria too? That's news to me. Then again, look at how the public views France. I doubt the opinion of Russia is nearly as bad as France, aside from possible old stigmas of the Cold War.

No, they didn't help them move 'em. LIke you said, they just sold products and services to Iraq that were specifically banned by UN resolutions.

[88bobcats]

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

-- "John Galt" in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged


There are many opinions on this thread. I agree with some and not with others.

Whether you agree with the Keynesian or Classical economists, one thing is true: a minimum wage is a price "floor" that is an artificial limit affecting the equilibrium "free" market price/demand. This is just like the "ceiling" that rent control creates in cities like New York. In micro- or macro-economics, the presence of artificial floors or ceilings (minimum wages and/or rent control) will only result in shortages such as unemployment or no housing.

Raising the minimum wage, ultimately, creates more unemployment.

I disagree with statements that suggest it is the government's job to regulate the market. Protecting people from thieves is one thing; but an employer that doesn't pay more money to his employees simply because people think he should is not a thief. The employee has the freedom to choose to leave a bad job.

It is frequently my observation that those who want the government to take care of getting them more money do so because they are not willing to work harder themselves. Money is not a right. It is a tool to get things done. Money is also like a report card: it tells you how well or how poorly you are performing in the market.

I must work harder to improve my performance......

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Without "big business" this country would be in the toilet economically.

there would be no big business without workers to make the business big. have them go on strike and see how things go.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Can't say I was all that thrilled with Clinton either. Someday there will be a president I can be proud to be a supporter of. Someday. well clinton may have lied about a relationship but over all he was WAY better than Bush.IMO. Kept us out of war and economy was booming.. If you can be proud of bush then your in a small minority like 29%.

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
well clinton may have lied about a relationship but over all he was WAY better than Bush.IMO. Kept us out of war and economy was booming.. If you can be proud of bush then your in a small minority like 29%.


You're forgetting Somalia in 1993. If my memory serves, I believe Clinton was the president at that time. Granted, Somalia did not have the same scale as our current dilemma, but it does contradict your sweeping generalization.

As far as booming economies go, the head of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan during Clinton's terms, had a greater impact on the economy. People may rally behind a president, but the Federal Reserve Chairman is the most powerful person in the country, and perhaps the world, when it comes to economics.

It's far too easy to get mired in the debates about Democrats and Republicans, Clinton v. Bush. As far as economics go, the Federal Reserve has a more powerful influence. Ben S. Bernanke is now the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. As Greenspan's replacement, in my opinion, he now has the greatest world-wide economic influence.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
there would be no big business without workers to make the business big. have them go on strick and see how things go. And that, my friend, is what capitalism is all about. Each needs the other. Neither needs the government telling them what they can and can't do.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
And that, my friend, is what capitalism is all about. Each needs the other. Neither needs the government telling them what they can and can't do. should you be able to hire a 6 year old girl? should that be against the law? should there be safety regulations protecting workers from unsafe toxic chemicals or working conditions? If you say no to the first and yes to the second then thats not what capitolism is all about. Should monopolys be against the law or should corporations be able to unite and drive up the prices as they wish?? The minimum wage also is right there in with the same concepts.

Besides , about the workers on strike. You would be the first to have the president end the strike if you disagreed with it or it made your life hard for a while.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Besides , about the workers on strike. You would be the first to have the president end the strike if you disagreed with it or it made your life hard for a while. Wow. You seem to know an awful lot about me.:blush:

Please be careful about making insinuations about the way a person would act when you don't really know that person.

As to your question, you're comparing apples and oranges again. Worker safety and pay scale are two totally different animals.

Oh and if a company feels they need to strike, then that's their prerogative. I also have a right to disagree with them, but that's their right to strike.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
And all the while, ignore the fact that Russia betrayed us? They provided weapons to Iraq (as we have in the past, go figure), and had a significan't economic relationship, yet no action is taken against them. Nah, lets just ponder as to why we failed while completely ignoring that fact that one of our supposed allies just screwed us over and made us look like complete idiots in front of the entire world by watching by as we went on a wild goose chase.
You left out the sweetheart deals that Hussein cut with France and Germany, too.

It seems like the biggest thing that we've lost in this war is our common sense. The countries that most strongly opposed us were the ones who cut these sweetheart deals, two of which are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

If you look at the big picture, we've always been in the right for invading Iraq. Everyone wants to deflect blame and ask why we don't invade the rest of the world, but why would we? Iraq had been ignoring the sanctions on them for a decade. Hell, they violated UN Resolution 687 (no long-range ballistics, no WMD's or components, etc) six weeks after it was signed. An Iraqi convoy was busted carrying low-grade enriched uranium and some components for a long-range missile. If that wasn't enough, UN Inspectors forced their way into Iraq a few months later and found some WMD's (components for chemical weapons and SCUDs) hidden away in a sugar plant in Mosul. And all this happened by November of 1991.

Eleven years later, Hussein was still defying UN demands on a series of resolutions that he had signed so that we would let him stay in power. He would let inspectors in, then tell them where they couldn't go, then push them back out when they got too nosy. Meanwhile, President Clinton had carried over the same foreign policy regarding Iraq as the first Bush White House had held, and in February of '98, we're poised to strike Iraq all over again.

But guess who takes a hard-line stance against military action, saying that we should seek diplomatic means to an end? That's right, the Rooskies. It's amazing, Iraq had pulled enough crap in seven years to provoke a president intent on controlling budgetary spending in large part by cutting back the military. That president was hours away from launching another offensive against Hussein, but Russia, and ultimately the UN and Secretary General Kofi Annan, persuade the US to hold off for a while and allow Annan to establish talks with Iraq. War is averted, but only for a short while.

After 9-11, the White House's patience grows considerably shorter. Hussein continues his antics, and the US begins being sucked into war. Everyone begins to get tired and fearful of his actions. Even Clinton's Vice President and Senator Ted Kennedy get in the game, delivering nuggets to media about how Hussein not only has WMD's, but judging by his track record he will use them again.

Hussein hadn't allowed UN Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq in four years (since '98), and Bush delivers his now-infamous "Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons" speech. Three months later, Hans Blix states that "he hasn't found the smoking gun" in a tightly-controlled tour through Iraq. Unsatisfied with Hussein's antics, his refusal to abide by recently-adopted Resolution 1441, and the questions over whether his cat-and-mouse game is just him being difficult or him trying to hide something, Bush sends Secretary of State Colin Powell to New York to plead with the rest of the UN. Great Britain and Spain also attend, already on board as two of the largest supporters. We'd understand why in the following months, but Russia, France and Germany submit a counter-resolution urging a peaceful end to the conflict by sending more weapons inspectors into Iraq.

I said earlier that our nation has lost its common sense. Well, apparently the rest of the world's going down with us.

They wanted more weapons inspectors. You know, the guys that will be kicked out after a couple months of being too nosy. Russia, France, and a largely-indifferent China are the permanent members who vote the resolution down. The US gets help from the UK and temporary members Spain, Chile and Mexico, but the anti-war cry is strongly supported by temporary members Bulgaria, Angola, Syria, and Germany. The rest of the field falls in the fold, and a UN resolution against Iraq is not taken. It's February of '03, and the Security Council wouldn't have turnover until January of '04.

In the ensuing Congressional hearings, the US Congress decides that waiting a year would be too long. They decide, with the backing of the UK, France, Mexico, Canada, Spain, and Australia, to invade Iraq without the help of the UN.

The initial propoganda coming out of our opponents (most notably the "big three" of Germany, France, and Russia) is that we're doing it for oil and that we're acting as a renegade state. A few months later, it's found that the leaders of these three countries have struck huge military deals with Iraq, but the biggest gem in this report is that they're also getting oil kickbacks from Hussein. Their attacks begins to soften.

Meanwhile, even though we're doing it for the oil, the price of oil seems to be shooting up. And this is where the Bush White House makes its most critical mistake.

Sometimes, you can fix things by doing nothing. In this case, the Bush regime should've done a better job of keeping its public informed. In failing to do so it let the "we invaded the wrong country" cries get larger. They say we invaded EXCLUSIVELY to weed out terrorism. Bush said:


The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

Looking back on the first war, it was over almost as quick as the second one. But there was one hitch. You see, USA Today did a poll on the troops leaving Iraq. They wanted to know what they feared most: mental repercussions, the kids still imprisoned by Saddam, Uday being given complete control of one of the 20 largest militaries in the world, they could answer whatever they wanted. Their response, in large numbers (58%), was that we'd have to come back.

Nowadays, we've lost that fear. We just want to get out of there, calling it "another Vietnam." It's only Vietnam if it isn't our war, and Vietnam started out as the Frenchies' war. This wasn't a political war like 'Nam, this was a war against a nation who was out of control. And yet, we fear them more than we fear the idea that we may one day have to go back. And lose another 3,000 troops.

Anyways, I did a 12-page report on this whole thing for my Middle Eastern poli sci class and started seeing the war in a different light. Back to the original statement, the Russians screwed us, but they backed down as soon as that info leaked out. We told them what we thought about it and they had no choice but to listen. In the past two and a half years, their support of Hussein went from rock solid to nearly-indifferent. Sure, they still oppose the war, but they're not about do anything else to provoke us. They still have one of the five strongest militaries in the world, but not only was their integrity compromised, but they also saw what our military did against Russian technology so advanced that they hadn't even used it in a wartime situation.

That's right, Iraq's tanks, MiGs, and anti-aircraft guns were supplied by ol' Vlady. And we swept through those things, operated by a top-20 military, in record time with almost zero casualties.

They're not stupid, and since that show of power relations between the US and Russia have gotten even better than when Gorbachev was in office.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94

As to your question, you're comparing apples and oranges again. Worker safety and pay scale are two totally different animals.

We I think they are the same kind of deal. most people do as well. thats why congress will pass the increase. granted there are people still stuck in the attitudes of thePreIndustrial Revolutional era and agree with Adam Smith but most have gone far beyond that and are in the 21st century.

[mwynn05]

I fail to see someone saying the minimum wage should be raised has communist ideas....in fact I think saying that makes you look a closed minded idiot.....just because you dont like the idea, which i could see why some people wouldn't doesnt make it a communist idea and whats really sad is that if this was happening in say....September 06 some of you would be all for it

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
We I think they are the same kind of deal. most people do as well. thats why congress will pass the increase. granted there are people still stuck in the attitudes of thePreIndustrial Revolutional era and agree with Adam Smith but most have gone far beyond that and are in the 21st century.

The proposals you support, though they are not communist, are certainly socialist. I've lived overseas and seen how European governments' involvement in too many areas destroys the incentives of talented individuals to work and achieve. As an example, the U.K. health system is a shambles as people wait sometimes up to two years for surgeries. It's no wonder why so many of the world's wealthy don't wait on their own countries' health systems. They fly right into Houston and pay out of their own pockets for some of the best health care in the world. You might call this another apples/oranges example, but it illustrates how socialist government control can kill entire systems because the individual will not be rewarded for developing his talent.

As a further illustration, your suggestions are similar to stating that every 3A football team in the state, if they work up to a minimum standard of time, should receive a state championship ring and medal. The reason why the Liberty Hill and Texarkana L-E boys worked so hard is because they wanted that reward at the end: to be called THE BEST! Your argument is that the U.I.L. shouldn't only reward the teams with the best performances, they should reward all the teams that tried.

Adam Smith's idea of specialization is at the heart of a free-market, capitalistic economy, and should be espoused in the 21st century. The fact that it's old means we should probably pay more attention to it, not less.

Continuing to up the minimum wage, like all government-controlled fiascos, may benefit a few, but will ultimately lead to more unemployment, voluntary or involuntary. Guaranteeing more money to workers outside the natural equilibrium of supply and demand can only result in shortage (unemployment).

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
A whole bunch of great stuff

Thanks for the information.

My one question is this.

Even if Hussein had access to WMDs, how much of a threat to the U.S. was he? Payback for the campaign that the elder Bush waged with Desert Storm? Attacking U.S. interests in the Middle East? Decimating Israel? I see bigger threats than Iraq, like a Saudi nation that actually funded terrorism yet had ties to the Bush family or a renegade North Korea with rapidly advancing nuclear technology.

I guess that's more than one question, but I'm sure you get my point. Maybe someday we'll get some answers.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by 88bobcats


Adam Smith's idea of specialization is at the heart of a free-market, capitalistic economy, and should be espoused in the 21st century. The fact that it's old means we should probably pay more attention to it, not less.

Continuing to up the minimum wage, like all government-controlled fiascos, may benefit a few, but will ultimately lead to more unemployment, voluntary or involuntary. Guaranteeing more money to workers outside the natural equilibrium of supply and demand can only result in shortage (unemployment). 1) Adam Smith's Ideas have proven to be disasterous. WHY? because Revolutions broke out all over Europe during the 1800's because so many countries ( who were governed by the wealthy and powerful) believed in it. Results were Worker Revolts all over Europe and the Emergence of Communism. Smith was extreem as Karl Marx. The way to succes in in the middle not in Adam Smith thats for sure.
2) Your right about simply raising the minimum warg not fixing things because ultimatly the rich and powerfull will shift the burdon right back on the workers. You have to have penalty for unfairly shifting that burdon. That CAN be done by looking at companies and Bottom lines to see if that happens and if it does hit them in the teeth with MORE tax penalties for doing that than they would have paid in wage increases. It could be done.

[Ingleside Fan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
1) Adam Smith's Ideas have proven to be disasterous. WHY? because Revolutions broke out all over Europe during the 1800's because so many countries ( who were governed by the wealthy and powerful) believed in it. Results were Worker Revolts all over Europe and the Emergence of Communism. Smith was extreem as Karl Marx. The way to succes in in the middle not in Adam Smith thats for sure.
2) Your right about simply raising the minimum warg not fixing things because ultimatly the rich and powerfull will shift the burdon right back on the workers. You have to have penalty for unfairly shifting that burdon. That CAN be done by looking at companies and Bottom lines to see if that happens and if it does hit them in the teeth with MORE tax penalties for doing that than they would have paid in wage increases. It could be done.

That sounds more like Socialism! Governments cannot fix the problem they can only make it worse. The fundamental change has come in the last 40 years with the leadership of companies realizing that the worker is the most important link in production. Larger companies are not going to be affected by the raising of the minimum wage. The small business will be affected and some will be force to go out of business. Losing jobs.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Ingleside Fan
That sounds more like Socialism! Governments cannot fix the problem they can only make it worse. The fundamental change has come in the last 40 years with the leadership of companies realizing that the worker is the most important link in production. Larger companies are not going to be affected by the raising of the minimum wage. The small business will be affected and some will be force to go out of business. Losing jobs.

Very true, companies have seen the value that a workforce has in terms of cost and productivity, which is exactly why so many well-paying jobs in manufacturing have been outsourced to Asia, taking millions of jobs from hard-working Americans and leaving them to toil in low-paying jobs in our predominantly service-driven economy. I'd be willing to live with a lower minimum wage given that there were actually jobs available to those who while they might not possess a college degree, do have a valuable skill in producing consumer goods. While it might not be the government's job to protect us from businesses aiming to pay a low wage, it SHOULD be the government's job to protect us from corporations who would sell out the very soul of the the American economy just because China will let them get away with human rights violations.

[Snyder_TigerFan]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Very true, companies have seen the value that a workforce has in terms of cost and productivity, which is exactly why so many well-paying jobs in manufacturing have been outsourced to Asia, taking millions of jobs from hard-working Americans and leaving them to toil in low-paying jobs in our predominantly service-driven economy. I'd be willing to live with a lower minimum wage given that there were actually jobs available to those who while they might not possess a college degree, do have a valuable skill in producing consumer goods. While it might not be the government's job to protect us from businesses aiming to pay a low wage, it SHOULD be the government's job to protect us from corporations who would sell out the very soul of the the American economy just because China will let them get away with human rights violations.

Good post. That is something that I haven't considered with raising minimum wage. I can see it adversely affecting more companies to entertain the idea of moving more manufacturing jobs overseas and/or mexico. That is something that needs to be addressed and raising minimum wage is sure not the answer.

[spiveyrat]

BDR: Amazing recap! BRAVO! Lots of work went into that. :clap:

[Snyder_TigerFan]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
BDR: Amazing recap! BRAVO! Lots of work went into that. :clap:

I agree. Very informative post!:thumbsup:

[Ingleside Fan]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Very true, companies have seen the value that a workforce has in terms of cost and productivity, which is exactly why so many well-paying jobs in manufacturing have been outsourced to Asia, taking millions of jobs from hard-working Americans and leaving them to toil in low-paying jobs in our predominantly service-driven economy. I'd be willing to live with a lower minimum wage given that there were actually jobs available to those who while they might not possess a college degree, do have a valuable skill in producing consumer goods. While it might not be the government's job to protect us from businesses aiming to pay a low wage, it SHOULD be the government's job to protect us from corporations who would sell out the very soul of the the American economy just because China will let them get away with human rights violations.

Quit blaming everything on the companies. Us as Americans not only want well-paying jobs they want the companies to pay pension, medical, daycare etc... Our goods cannot be sold oversea because their standard of living will not allow them to buy our products. So the companies have to go were there is cheaper labor to survive. We have shifted to a service based economy because we had no where else to go. Government should have nothing to do with companies moving out of our country. The United States government was not established to control the economic grow, just to provide a free place for it to grow. We have to get back to the fundamentals of relying on ourselves and not the Government or Company for everything.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by Snyder_TigerFan
I agree. Very informative post!:thumbsup:

That is why he won most informative poster honors!! :thumbsup:

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Ingleside Fan
Quit blaming everything on the companies. Us as Americans not only want well-paying jobs they want the companies to pay pension, medical, daycare etc... Our goods cannot be sold oversea because their standard of living will not allow them to buy our products. So the companies have to go were there is cheaper labor to survive. We have shifted to a service based economy because we had no where else to go. Government should have nothing to do with companies moving out of our country. The United States government was not established to control the economic grow, just to provide a free place for it to grow. We have to get back to the fundamentals of relying on ourselves and not the Government or Company for everything.

First off, I don't believe companies should pay all costs for retirement and insurance. It should be a shared cost between the company and employee. If the company can use the employee to earn a profit, the company should do what it can to protect its most important mean of production which is that employee.

Second, I could care less about exporting goods internationally. The U.S. has the resources to sustain itself domestically, meaning working Americans could consume goods that are made by other working Americans rather than kids in a sweatshop in China. Currently, Americans working in the service sector cannot afford goods that are being produced by the American manufacturing sector, which has led to the downfall of the American auto industry and, quite close to home for me, the American furniture industry. Seriously, why buy a Ford when you can get a Hyundai that'll cost less and last longer? Oh, because its un-American to not buy Ford or Chevy. Forget that these companies have sold out their employees to protect CEO bonus pay, which in itself is bogus because how do you reward a CEO for consecutive quarters of losses? Ridiculous.

As for governments and businesses leaving our country, ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? Its the same thing. If a company wants to be based in the U.S.A., it had better damn well be employing hard-working Americans and using goods that have been produced in the U.S.A. Tariffs and blockades have been around since the conception of this nation. They need to be here to protect Americans.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Thanks for the information.

My one question is this.

Even if Hussein had access to WMDs, how much of a threat to the U.S. was he? Payback for the campaign that the elder Bush waged with Desert Storm? Attacking U.S. interests in the Middle East? Decimating Israel? I see bigger threats than Iraq, like a Saudi nation that actually funded terrorism yet had ties to the Bush family or a renegade North Korea with rapidly advancing nuclear technology.

I guess that's more than one question, but I'm sure you get my point. Maybe someday we'll get some answers.
I see where you're coming from, but I can recall at least five separate instances where Iraqi SAMs launched against our fighters with no retaliation during the 1990's and another instance where they attacked one of our ships in the Persian Gulf back in the late-80's when we were still "allies."

I think the Pentagon's biggest fear was that Iraq, a country who was already sanctioned and walking on eggshells, would turn into a mini-Germany. Hitler pushed the envelope unchecked, largely because of our practice of isolationism. Truman, inspired by FDR during his later years, decided that if someone's going to step into the world's power vacuum that we left open after WWI, it should be us and not another Hitler.

The UN had issued resolution after resolution that was ignored, and had basically become another Neville Chamberlain. If there's one thing we learned from WWII, it was that some people cannot be dealt with in a rational manner. And you can apply this to Saddam, Al Saud, Ahminejhad (sp?), Kim Il Jong, Uhmar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, Hugo Chavez to an extent, and tons of other leaders throughout the world. On that note, I don't think we should invade every country we think is evil, but I do think we need to give them a tight rope, especially with economic sanctions.

Back on topic, Saddam may not have had the capability to reach the US with his weapons, but what Bush was saying in that now-infamous speech was that there was a growing concern that he would give it to terrorists to attack our borders while he sat back and "didn't give us a reason to declare war." And this is still a concern, as we found WMD's, but only in limited quantities. Iraq had retained the capability to produce chemical weapons en masse, but those weapons were nowhere to be found. Some people think they might have been smuggled over the Syrian border, others think he was just getting the program back up and running. But if it did get back to Syria before the US got there, that would be every bit as scary as Iraq having them. As you pointed out earlier, the Syrians are notorious for aiding terrorists.

Either way, we had given Saddam too much rope. It was time to tighten the noose. I wish we could take back all those deaths, on both sides of the coin, but sadly, that's the nature of the beast.

[Ingleside Fan]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
First off, I don't believe companies should pay all costs for retirement and insurance. It should be a shared cost between the company and employee. If the company can use the employee to earn a profit, the company should do what it can to protect its most important mean of production which is that employee.

Second, I could care less about exporting goods internationally. The U.S. has the resources to sustain itself domestically, meaning working Americans could consume goods that are made by other working Americans rather than kids in a sweatshop in China. Currently, Americans working in the service sector cannot afford goods that are being produced by the American manufacturing sector, which has led to the downfall of the American auto industry and, quite close to home for me, the American furniture industry. Seriously, why buy a Ford when you can get a Hyundai that'll cost less and last longer? Oh, because its un-American to not buy Ford or Chevy. Forget that these companies have sold out their employees to protect CEO bonus pay, which in itself is bogus because how do you reward a CEO for consecutive quarters of losses? Ridiculous.

As for governments and businesses leaving our country, ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? Its the same thing. If a company wants to be based in the U.S.A., it had better damn well be employing hard-working Americans and using goods that have been produced in the U.S.A. Tariffs and blockades have been around since the conception of this nation. They need to be here to protect Americans.

Ford, Chevy, Nissan, Chrysler, Toyota, Isuzu etc... Are assembled in the US by American workers. But parts are build all over the world, ie. Mexico, Canada and Japan. We are going to a global market and we cannot stop that, we need to embrace the change. Because we are the innovators of all and we as Americans will control these markets just as in the past. Protectionism can only hurt our ability to develop new markets were we as Americans can make our dream come true.

Bonuses are out of hand! But if you as a leader produce results you should be rewarded!

The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with the U S Government. That was free people standing up to the British government about the unfair tax levied on the colonies.

We had to start a revolution gain our free from a Government that would have tax us and businesses to death.

We are going through an economic revolution and will need to change to survive
.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
there would be no big business without workers to make the business big. have them go on strike and see how things go.
.
How old are you BM? Can I call you BM?:p
.
That has to be about the most simplistic and naive view on a free-market society I have ever heard.
To expand your view, let all employees just rule whoever they work for and demand their own wages. lol
Wait, we have something here in the good ole USA right now that begs folks all over the world to come here anyway they can. What exactly are you trying to say with your wonderfully poignant wisdom?:p
.
Sorry, folks I haven't read the whole thread but I will shortly.:)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
You left out the sweetheart deals that Hussein cut with France and Germany, too.

It seems like the biggest thing that we've lost in this war is our common sense. The countries that most strongly opposed us were the ones who cut these sweetheart deals, two of which are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

If you look at the big picture, we've always been in the right for invading Iraq. Everyone wants to deflect blame and ask why we don't invade the rest of the world, but why would we? Iraq had been ignoring the sanctions on them for a decade. Hell, they violated UN Resolution 687 (no long-range ballistics, no WMD's or components, etc) six weeks after it was signed. An Iraqi convoy was busted carrying low-grade enriched uranium and some components for a long-range missile. If that wasn't enough, UN Inspectors forced their way into Iraq a few months later and found some WMD's (components for chemical weapons and SCUDs) hidden away in a sugar plant in Mosul. And all this happened by November of 1991.

Eleven years later, Hussein was still defying UN demands on a series of resolutions that he had signed so that we would let him stay in power. He would let inspectors in, then tell them where they couldn't go, then push them back out when they got too nosy. Meanwhile, President Clinton had carried over the same foreign policy regarding Iraq as the first Bush White House had held, and in February of '98, we're poised to strike Iraq all over again.

But guess who takes a hard-line stance against military action, saying that we should seek diplomatic means to an end? That's right, the Rooskies. It's amazing, Iraq had pulled enough crap in seven years to provoke a president intent on controlling budgetary spending in large part by cutting back the military. That president was hours away from launching another offensive against Hussein, but Russia, and ultimately the UN and Secretary General Kofi Annan, persuade the US to hold off for a while and allow Annan to establish talks with Iraq. War is averted, but only for a short while.

After 9-11, the White House's patience grows considerably shorter. Hussein continues his antics, and the US begins being sucked into war. Everyone begins to get tired and fearful of his actions. Even Clinton's Vice President and Senator Ted Kennedy get in the game, delivering nuggets to media about how Hussein not only has WMD's, but judging by his track record he will use them again.

Hussein hadn't allowed UN Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq in four years (since '98), and Bush delivers his now-infamous "Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons" speech. Three months later, Hans Blix states that "he hasn't found the smoking gun" in a tightly-controlled tour through Iraq. Unsatisfied with Hussein's antics, his refusal to abide by recently-adopted Resolution 1441, and the questions over whether his cat-and-mouse game is just him being difficult or him trying to hide something, Bush sends Secretary of State Colin Powell to New York to plead with the rest of the UN. Great Britain and Spain also attend, already on board as two of the largest supporters. We'd understand why in the following months, but Russia, France and Germany submit a counter-resolution urging a peaceful end to the conflict by sending more weapons inspectors into Iraq.

I said earlier that our nation has lost its common sense. Well, apparently the rest of the world's going down with us.

They wanted more weapons inspectors. You know, the guys that will be kicked out after a couple months of being too nosy. Russia, France, and a largely-indifferent China are the permanent members who vote the resolution down. The US gets help from the UK and temporary members Spain, Chile and Mexico, but the anti-war cry is strongly supported by temporary members Bulgaria, Angola, Syria, and Germany. The rest of the field falls in the fold, and a UN resolution against Iraq is not taken. It's February of '03, and the Security Council wouldn't have turnover until January of '04.

In the ensuing Congressional hearings, the US Congress decides that waiting a year would be too long. They decide, with the backing of the UK, France, Mexico, Canada, Spain, and Australia, to invade Iraq without the help of the UN.

The initial propoganda coming out of our opponents (most notably the "big three" of Germany, France, and Russia) is that we're doing it for oil and that we're acting as a renegade state. A few months later, it's found that the leaders of these three countries have struck huge military deals with Iraq, but the biggest gem in this report is that they're also getting oil kickbacks from Hussein. Their attacks begins to soften.

Meanwhile, even though we're doing it for the oil, the price of oil seems to be shooting up. And this is where the Bush White House makes its most critical mistake.

Sometimes, you can fix things by doing nothing. In this case, the Bush regime should've done a better job of keeping its public informed. In failing to do so it let the "we invaded the wrong country" cries get larger. They say we invaded EXCLUSIVELY to weed out terrorism. Bush said:



Looking back on the first war, it was over almost as quick as the second one. But there was one hitch. You see, USA Today did a poll on the troops leaving Iraq. They wanted to know what they feared most: mental repercussions, the kids still imprisoned by Saddam, Uday being given complete control of one of the 20 largest militaries in the world, they could answer whatever they wanted. Their response, in large numbers (58%), was that we'd have to come back.

Nowadays, we've lost that fear. We just want to get out of there, calling it "another Vietnam." It's only Vietnam if it isn't our war, and Vietnam started out as the Frenchies' war. This wasn't a political war like 'Nam, this was a war against a nation who was out of control. And yet, we fear them more than we fear the idea that we may one day have to go back. And lose another 3,000 troops.

Anyways, I did a 12-page report on this whole thing for my Middle Eastern poli sci class and started seeing the war in a different light. Back to the original statement, the Russians screwed us, but they backed down as soon as that info leaked out. We told them what we thought about it and they had no choice but to listen. In the past two and a half years, their support of Hussein went from rock solid to nearly-indifferent. Sure, they still oppose the war, but they're not about do anything else to provoke us. They still have one of the five strongest militaries in the world, but not only was their integrity compromised, but they also saw what our military did against Russian technology so advanced that they hadn't even used it in a wartime situation.

That's right, Iraq's tanks, MiGs, and anti-aircraft guns were supplied by ol' Vlady. And we swept through those things, operated by a top-20 military, in record time with almost zero casualties.

They're not stupid, and since that show of power relations between the US and Russia have gotten even better than when Gorbachev was in office.
.
Can I print this out? That is beautiful BDR!:clap: :clap: :clap:

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Can I print this out? That is beautiful BDR!:clap: :clap: :clap:
Whatever you feel like. You can even take credit for it if you want.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Whatever you feel like. You can even take credit for it if you want.
.
That's not my style bdr. :)
You can print out my review on pizzomelettes if you want.;)

[wedo]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's the bottom line. This country was based on capitalism. If you don't like making minimum wage, then get another job. If you're not qualified for another job, then get the training that you need. I'm tired of having people say that it's the fault of "big business". Without "big business" this country would be in the toilet economically.

And yes I complain about paying 3.00 a gallon at the pump just as much as the rest of you guys.

its not that easy!!

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by wedo
its not that easy!!
.
Studies have shown that the harder you think it is to change or improve your life the harder it will be! Stop being a negative Nancy!:hand:

[wedo]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Studies have shown that the harder you think it is to change or improve your life the harder it will be! Stop being a negative Nancy!:hand:

Im not talking about myself just in general

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by wedo
Im not talking about myself just in general
.
Is it still negative in a "general" way?:D :p

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Your Right ! Everyone "SHOULD" be entitled to an equal right at an opportunity to earn a decent living . It is not that way. You have such a optomistic outlook on this picture. People in the mid 1800 also had the same outlook on this kind of thing. Folks said the government should not get involved in business regulation. This was a Time of forced 80 work week, child labor ( 6-7 year olds ), Zero saftey regulations, zero environmental regulation. those were the good old days before the Communistic:rolleyes: Ideas of respectable wage, reasonable working hours, saftey regulations, child labor laws ect.... You cant go back no mater how bad you want. Its the governmets job to protect us. from each other as well as from out side. the government breaks up monopolys and thats ok. why not protect the workers too. lord knows the business leaders dont need protecting. they are doing just fine.

Black_Magic why don't you just start your own business then you too can live the good life and make tons of money and never have to worry. Oh, that's right, it takes money to start a business, your money. And what if it fails? Then you lose your money, possibly your life savings and your home. That is too risky right? So you work at minimum wage the rest of your life, right? Nooooo you get a better job. Minimum wage jobs are held by either young people entering the workforce who move up in the workforce as they gain experience, or sadly often by illegles who have little options.

I'm 60 years old. My first job was as a stock boy, goffer and sales person in the hobby section of a family owned sporting goods store. I made $6 a week for 20 hours a week. I was 12 years old. The minimum wage in 1958 was $1.05. I was happy to get the work for two reasons: it was still a lot of money for a kid (taking inflation into acount it was equal to about $50 in current value) and it gave me valuable experience that I could trade on latter in life (like the several good retail jobs I got while working my way through college-before the Gubbermint started offering everyone loans and grants and the colleges raised their tuitions to get the easy money). I could have refused the $6 and not gotten the job. Minimum wage laws hurt entry level workers by reducing the number of job opportunities and no amount of Gobbermint tinkering will change that.

OBTW, latter when I was working summer jobs in order to earn my college tuition, I got a union job in the local steel mill as a laborer for $2.35/ hr. That was a good wage and you got time and a half for overtime, double time for holidays and shift differentials for swings and graveyards. These jobs were available then because the Steelworkers Union got the company to give regular workers 13 weeks paid vacation every 5 years. So every summer they hired college students to fill in on the bottom of the senority ladder knowing they would quite in the Fall to return to school. Sounds good doesn't it? Well, the unions asked for more and more benefits. The Gobbermint imposed more and more rules regarding OSHA, air pollution control, taxes etc. Plus the personal injury lawyers, and high cost of liability insurance. Lastly, there was stiff competetion from foreign manufatureres unfettered by such costs, particulaly Japan. Needless to say in the late 1970's that steel mill, the biggest west of the Mississippi, was closed, taken apart piece by piece and shipped to mainland China where it was reassembled and is producing steel to this day cheaper than can be done in the States (including the costs of shipping it here). That's what all your tinkering and Gobbermint planning leads to.

[BTEXDAD]

Nice post, pudlugger.
I know this will sound like one of those speeches from your parents where they walked five miles to school through 100 degree heat and blinding snow and it was uphill both ways, but I also paid my way through college.
I would have never considered borrowing money to go to school, but now it's necessary for many.
Weather permitting I hauled hay six days a week from around noon till 9-10 o'clock at night. Sometimes we hauled hay also on Sunday afternoon. Sunday morn was church. Now majority of kids would never consider working on Saturday night, or any other night, and Sunday morn is for sleeping late.
In a good summer we might haul 40,000 bales (square bales, not the large round bales) at 3 cents a bale. That's $1,200 which was super money over the summer back in early 70s. Minimum wage was something like $1.50 an hr then.

To get to my point, Bush has proposed privatizing social security, but too many congressmen are against it.
The guy i worked for was taking out social security when I was fourteen years old. My full retirement age is 67, so that means I will have been putting in for 53 years before I can collect full benefits. If a private investment account would have been available for the whole time, with the ability to invest in stock market, I could have a couple million dollars in it by age 67. Instead, I'll get my $1,200 a month or so, which is pennies compared to what i would have if it was a true entitlement program based on what was put in on an individual basis.
We have enough government in business already. We don't need anymore. I feel increasing minimum wage hurts economy more than it helps.

[big daddy russ]

BTEXDAD, funny thing I just learned is that Social Security taxes account for 40% of our government's total revenue but only 8% of its total expenditures.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
We I think they are the same kind of deal. most people do as well. Prove it.

[Black_Magic]

acording to Gallop polls here is what Business owners think...
"They also noted that a recent Gallup Poll found that 86 percent small business owners do not think that the minimum wage affects their business, and nearly half think it should be increased. Most already pay more than the minimum wage." SO!! if the business owners think its a good Idea then you know everyone else does not have a major problem with it.


:thinking: Is that the proof you want?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
acording to Gallop polls here is what Business owners think...
"They also noted that a recent Gallup Poll found that 86 percent small business owners do not think that the minimum wage affects their business, and nearly half think it should be increased. Most already pay more than the minimum wage." SO!! if the business owners think its a good Idea then you know everyone else does not have a major problem with it.


:thinking: Is that the proof you want? No.

You said that comparing worker safety and minimum wage were not comparing apples and oranges and that most people would agree with that statement.

Prove it.

IMO you cannot compare worker safety and minimum wage. They are two totally separate issues.

[Black_Magic]

Ok I will. When it becomes clear to the government that there need to be a saftey regulation in order that workers have a safe working environment in some way. the Government passes a regulation mandating that corporations make the workplace safe in that way. they pass a law....
When congress feels that the minimum wage is too low and that workers should be paid more than what it curently is they Pass a law and RAISE IT.... Like the senate just did 98-2:rolleyes: they both respond to a need for workers, they both pass a law that must be obeyd, and they both help workers lives in health and or wealth. not apples and oranges.

BTW./ do you think the gallop poll proves companies as a whole are not opposed to it?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Ok I will. When it becomes clear to the government that there need to be a saftey regulation in order that workers have a safe working environment in some way. the Government passes a regulation mandating that corporations make the workplace safe in that way. they pass a law....
When congress feels that the minimum wage is too low and that workers should be paid more than what it curently is they Pass a law and RAISE IT.... Like the senate just did 98-2:rolleyes: they both respond to a need for workers, they both pass a law that must be obeyd, and they both help workers lives in health and or wealth. not apples and oranges.

BTW./ do you think the gallop poll proves companies as a whole are not opposed to it? You said that a majority of people agree with you that worker safety and worker salaries are the same thing. Prove that a majority of people agree with you. I have no doubt that you believe that. I completely disagree. You say that the majority of people agree with you. Again I say prove it.

To your second question, I would like to see the poll for myself and see the sampling. That poll may be accurate. I don't know. But that has nothing to do with my original dispute with your statement.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
You left out the sweetheart deals that Hussein cut with France and Germany, too.

It seems like the biggest thing that we've lost in this war is our common sense. The countries that most strongly opposed us were the ones who cut these sweetheart deals, two of which are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

If you look at the big picture, we've always been in the right for invading Iraq. Everyone wants to deflect blame and ask why we don't invade the rest of the world, but why would we? Iraq had been ignoring the sanctions on them for a decade. Hell, they violated UN Resolution 687 (no long-range ballistics, no WMD's or components, etc) six weeks after it was signed. An Iraqi convoy was busted carrying low-grade enriched uranium and some components for a long-range missile. If that wasn't enough, UN Inspectors forced their way into Iraq a few months later and found some WMD's (components for chemical weapons and SCUDs) hidden away in a sugar plant in Mosul. And all this happened by November of 1991.

Eleven years later, Hussein was still defying UN demands on a series of resolutions that he had signed so that we would let him stay in power. He would let inspectors in, then tell them where they couldn't go, then push them back out when they got too nosy. Meanwhile, President Clinton had carried over the same foreign policy regarding Iraq as the first Bush White House had held, and in February of '98, we're poised to strike Iraq all over again.

But guess who takes a hard-line stance against military action, saying that we should seek diplomatic means to an end? That's right, the Rooskies. It's amazing, Iraq had pulled enough crap in seven years to provoke a president intent on controlling budgetary spending in large part by cutting back the military. That president was hours away from launching another offensive against Hussein, but Russia, and ultimately the UN and Secretary General Kofi Annan, persuade the US to hold off for a while and allow Annan to establish talks with Iraq. War is averted, but only for a short while.

After 9-11, the White House's patience grows considerably shorter. Hussein continues his antics, and the US begins being sucked into war. Everyone begins to get tired and fearful of his actions. Even Clinton's Vice President and Senator Ted Kennedy get in the game, delivering nuggets to media about how Hussein not only has WMD's, but judging by his track record he will use them again.

Hussein hadn't allowed UN Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq in four years (since '98), and Bush delivers his now-infamous "Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons" speech. Three months later, Hans Blix states that "he hasn't found the smoking gun" in a tightly-controlled tour through Iraq. Unsatisfied with Hussein's antics, his refusal to abide by recently-adopted Resolution 1441, and the questions over whether his cat-and-mouse game is just him being difficult or him trying to hide something, Bush sends Secretary of State Colin Powell to New York to plead with the rest of the UN. Great Britain and Spain also attend, already on board as two of the largest supporters. We'd understand why in the following months, but Russia, France and Germany submit a counter-resolution urging a peaceful end to the conflict by sending more weapons inspectors into Iraq.

I said earlier that our nation has lost its common sense. Well, apparently the rest of the world's going down with us.

They wanted more weapons inspectors. You know, the guys that will be kicked out after a couple months of being too nosy. Russia, France, and a largely-indifferent China are the permanent members who vote the resolution down. The US gets help from the UK and temporary members Spain, Chile and Mexico, but the anti-war cry is strongly supported by temporary members Bulgaria, Angola, Syria, and Germany. The rest of the field falls in the fold, and a UN resolution against Iraq is not taken. It's February of '03, and the Security Council wouldn't have turnover until January of '04.

In the ensuing Congressional hearings, the US Congress decides that waiting a year would be too long. They decide, with the backing of the UK, France, Mexico, Canada, Spain, and Australia, to invade Iraq without the help of the UN.

The initial propoganda coming out of our opponents (most notably the "big three" of Germany, France, and Russia) is that we're doing it for oil and that we're acting as a renegade state. A few months later, it's found that the leaders of these three countries have struck huge military deals with Iraq, but the biggest gem in this report is that they're also getting oil kickbacks from Hussein. Their attacks begins to soften.

Meanwhile, even though we're doing it for the oil, the price of oil seems to be shooting up. And this is where the Bush White House makes its most critical mistake.

Sometimes, you can fix things by doing nothing. In this case, the Bush regime should've done a better job of keeping its public informed. In failing to do so it let the "we invaded the wrong country" cries get larger. They say we invaded EXCLUSIVELY to weed out terrorism. Bush said:



Looking back on the first war, it was over almost as quick as the second one. But there was one hitch. You see, USA Today did a poll on the troops leaving Iraq. They wanted to know what they feared most: mental repercussions, the kids still imprisoned by Saddam, Uday being given complete control of one of the 20 largest militaries in the world, they could answer whatever they wanted. Their response, in large numbers (58%), was that we'd have to come back.

Nowadays, we've lost that fear. We just want to get out of there, calling it "another Vietnam." It's only Vietnam if it isn't our war, and Vietnam started out as the Frenchies' war. This wasn't a political war like 'Nam, this was a war against a nation who was out of control. And yet, we fear them more than we fear the idea that we may one day have to go back. And lose another 3,000 troops.

Anyways, I did a 12-page report on this whole thing for my Middle Eastern poli sci class and started seeing the war in a different light. Back to the original statement, the Russians screwed us, but they backed down as soon as that info leaked out. We told them what we thought about it and they had no choice but to listen. In the past two and a half years, their support of Hussein went from rock solid to nearly-indifferent. Sure, they still oppose the war, but they're not about do anything else to provoke us. They still have one of the five strongest militaries in the world, but not only was their integrity compromised, but they also saw what our military did against Russian technology so advanced that they hadn't even used it in a wartime situation.

That's right, Iraq's tanks, MiGs, and anti-aircraft guns were supplied by ol' Vlady. And we swept through those things, operated by a top-20 military, in record time with almost zero casualties.

They're not stupid, and since that show of power relations between the US and Russia have gotten even better than when Gorbachev was in office.
One thing I forgot to include in all of this was that at the beginning of the first war, Iraq had the fourth-largest standing army in the world. Only China, Vietnam, and Russia had larger armies.

Now that was back before they had the highest high-tech Russian equipment. Back when they only had high-tech equipment that was equal to what the former Soviet Union possessed.

Why is that important? Because that was one of the key elements to the break up of the Soviet Union. Sure, they were already falling apart (with Estonia and Latvia declaring their independence in 1990 and subsequently being invaded by the KGB), but they were being held together in large part by the military. When the military saw what we did to THEIR equipment, they realized that both the United States and their own government had grossly overestimated the power of their military. One of the key components in the back of every Russian official's mind leading up to the coup, the breakup of the coup, and the ensuing dissolution of the USSR.

[Pudlugger]

Black_Magic you ought to move to Michigan. There the economy has not grown at all in the past 5 years but actually has shrunk while the rest of the nation has enjoyed the remarkable economic recovery brought about by President Bush's tax reductions*....over 3 % GDP! While the national unemployment rate is now 4.5% (virtually full employment) it is 7.5% in Michigan. Why? Because Michigan's elected leaders believe you can tax yourself to wealth. High taxes on individuals, small and large businesses and corpaorations plus the onerous grip of unions have created a hostile environment where people and businesses who actually can creat jobs and wealth have fled. Same thing is happening in New Jersey if you don't like those Great Lake winters you might move there.

* the best part is because of this growth in business even though the tax rates are lower more money is made by individuals and businesses who are paying more taxes. Revenues are way up and have increased in record rates since these cuts. Arthur Laffer and Milton Friedman were right. Lower taxes produce more revenue through job creation and economic growth.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Black_Magic you ought to move to Michigan. There the economy has not grown at all in the past 5 years but actually has shrunk while the rest of the nation has enjoyed the remarkable economic recovery brought about by President Bush's tax reductions*....over 3 % GDP! While the national unemployment rate is now 4.5% (virtually full employment) it is 7.5% in Michigan. Why? Because Michigan's elected leaders believe you can tax yourself to wealth. High taxes on individuals, small and large businesses and corpaorations plus the onerous grip of unions have created a hostile environment where people and businesses who actually can creat jobs and wealth have fled. Same thing is happening in New Jersey if you don't like those Great Lake winters you might move there.

* the best part is because of this growth in business even though the tax rates are lower more money is made by individuals and businesses who are paying more taxes. Revenues are way up and have increased in record rates since these cuts. Arthur Laffer and Milton Friedman were right. Lower taxes produce more revenue through job creation and economic growth. It's really basic math. If you lower taxes, businesses grow and make more money, hence they pay more taxes. They end up paying about the same in taxes with a lower tax rate because of a booming economy.

When businesses make more, USUALLY they give employees a pay increase, which also generates more tax revenue. If a business chooses not to give pay raises, then that's their decision. Don't punish all companies by raising taxes on revenue for all business just because a few don't do what you think they should do. That's socialism.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Black_Magic you ought to move to Michigan. There the economy has not grown at all in the past 5 years but actually has shrunk while the rest of the nation has enjoyed the remarkable economic recovery brought about by President Bush's tax reductions Hahaha!! well I guess the rest of the nation is fooled then because only 28% of the people in this country think he has and is doing a good job.:rolleyes: I take it your in the 28%.. The amount we have spent on the war in Iraq ( remember the WMDs that didnt ever exist?) would have sent 17 million americans to college for 4 years! Now he wants to send more good lives after a failed cause and spend more good money after bad.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
It's really basic math. If you lower taxes, businesses grow and make more money, hence they pay more taxes. They end up paying about the same in taxes with a lower tax rate because of a booming economy.

When businesses make more, USUALLY they give employees a pay increase, which also generates more tax revenue. If a business chooses not to give pay raises, then that's their decision. Don't punish all companies by raising taxes on revenue for all business just because a few don't do what you think they should do. That's socialism. Trickle down economics?? makes the wealthy richer and the workers stay the same.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Trickle down economics?? makes the wealthy richer and the workers stay the same.

Real income is up 4% over what it was in 1995. Guess supply side economics are working even if you and others don't believe it.:)

"None so blind as those who will not see." Henry Mathew 1662-1714

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
( remember the WMDs that didnt ever exist?)

:rolleyes: Try telling that to the Kurds that Saddam tried to exterminate with them! :hand:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Real income is up 4% over what it was in 1995. Guess supply side economics are working even if you and others don't believe it.:)

"None so blind as those who will not see." Henry Mathew 1662-1714 most of the country is blind then.? Kinda like most of them were in 2000 when most of the people voted for the other guy ay. Bush still won.:rolleyes: Keep the faith 28%er. Keep the faith. funny thing though. most of his own party have parted ways with him. just a year left though. its almost over.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
:rolleyes: Try telling that to the Kurds that Saddam tried to exterminate with them! :hand: funny thing is that we have been there 4 years and have not found one. Not even one. another thing is that if they really had them they would have used them on US troops. heck ! we cant even find info on where they went IF they did have them. Adds up to never had them and we used that argument as an EXCUSE to invade. then it became part of the "war on Terror". funny thing though, not one of the 911 planers of hijackers were Iraqi:thinking: ;)

[88bobcats]

I believe that the entire world, no matter what the issue (economic, political, religious, etc.), can be divided into two separate groups: those that are willing to work harder for what they want and handle their own business, and those that want to gripe and complain and demand that someone else (usually the government) take care of them so they can continue to be lazy and not work harder.

PudLugger, JasperDog94, big daddy russ, SinTonFan, and Ingleside Fan I don’t think it’s worth any more of your time to engage Black_Magic, who has misconstrued Adam Smith to suit his own argument based, in my opinion, upon the latter of the groups I just described in my previous paragraph. Going so far as referring to Laffer, Friedman, Keynes or any other person that would be in the first group I described will not accomplish anything in debate with Black_Magic. He wants what he wants just ‘cause he wants it that way and will construct any “argument”, rational or irrational, to suit his case. He only quotes opinion polls, those from Gallop and those in his own mind, and bases nothing upon proven socio-economic models.

Again, I submit that there’s a difference between protecting workers’ welfares and allowing them to be lazy slackers. A minimum wage is not a protection measure and only results in increased unemployment.

[Ingleside Fan]

DITO!! Thanks! By the way I like the colors.

;)

[Blastoderm55]

Are you guys who are against a raise in the minimum wage FOR the abolishment of a minimum wage all together? I know it would never happen, but bear with it just for the sake of an example.

This, in my opinion is where a minimum wage protects workers. No, not in the same sense of OSHA regulations, but rather from slave wages which would in no way allow an individual to support him or herself, much less a family.

If abolished, would the businesses drop wages for its employees to unlivable levels?

Would they reduce their prices for products to coincide with the lower cost of labor and production, or merely reap larger profits while still lobbying for even more favorable legislation?

I agree that raising the minimum wage could be bad, and when you look at it, the only companies that would really be affected are indeed the small businesses. Large corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonalds already pay more than minimum wage, albeit still normally a little less than the proposed $7.25 per hour.

There are too many variables to consider for me to have a single defined opinion on this issue.

The government is not here to protect citizens from companies who want them to work long hours for little pay. However, it IS here to protect citizens from being exploited for the benefit of a select few. If anything, this sort of exploitation is closer to communism, with the super-rich controlling the means of production while the proletariat scramble to make the most of its low wages.

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
funny thing is that we have been there 4 years and have not found one. Not even one. another thing is that if they really had them they would have used them on US troops. heck ! we cant even find info on where they went IF they did have them. Adds up to never had them and we used that argument as an EXCUSE to invade. then it became part of the "war on Terror". funny thing though, not one of the 911 planers of hijackers were Iraqi:thinking: ;)

False. What's this?
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040525222018.kkin0q9m.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~mmmhiggins/IRAQWMD.html#CCIO

If they really had them they would have used them on US troops? How can you say that with any certainty? You don't know. Just like I don't know. But, maybe they didn't use them because at that point, they didn't have them. Maybe they were already smuggled out. Did you even read BDR's comprehensive report he wrote earlier on this thread? Remember it said somthing about them being smuggled out? I'm sure he could cite his source for you. Also, if they did have them at their disposal and didn't use them, it could have been that Saddam knew if he used them, he would fall out of favor with other nations who were siding with him at the time and thus put himself fighting even more enemies than he already had.

You're right, no Iraqis on the 911 flights. But it was also well known that Saddam was a proponent of many Terrorist groups and it was feared he would supply them with WMD's that could have been delivered to your/my downtown or the Mall, Theatre, Stadium, etc. It is documented that he had met with members of Al Quaida.

You're spitting the Kool Aid all over us here. You're speaking about what YOU think or feel without any facts to back yourself up.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Are you guys who are against a raise in the minimum wage FOR the abolishment of a minimum wage all together? I know it would never happen, but bear with it just for the sake of an example.

This, in my opinion is where a minimum wage protects workers. No, not in the same sense of OSHA regulations, but rather from slave wages which would in no way allow an individual to support him or herself, much less a family.

If abolished, would the businesses drop wages for its employees to unlivable levels?

Would they reduce their prices for products to coincide with the lower cost of labor and production, or merely reap larger profits while still lobbying for even more favorable legislation?

I agree that raising the minimum wage could be bad, and when you look at it, the only companies that would really be affected are indeed the small businesses. Large corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonalds already pay more than minimum wage, albeit still normally a little less than the proposed $7.25 per hour.

There are too many variables to consider for me to have a single defined opinion on this issue.

The government is not here to protect citizens from companies who want them to work long hours for little pay. However, it IS here to protect citizens from being exploited for the benefit of a select few. If anything, this sort of exploitation is closer to communism, with the super-rich controlling the means of production while the proletariat scramble to make the most of its low wages.

Actually, the market sets the minimum wage. In times of full employment such as now unskilled workers tend to earn better than the $5.25 old minimum wage. When jobs are scarce wages tend to go down. No amount of Gobbermint meddling can repeal these fundamental laws of economics. If the Gobbermint mandates higher wages employers make available fewer jobs and a new equilibrium is reached. That's why young enrty level workers like teenagers get hurt.

Same thing with price controls for those gas price whinners out there who want them. When you have price controls suppliers shift their sales to other markets, often black markets, withhold their wares from the market, or lower productivity. All this results in scarcity. Carter tried it in 1976 and we had long lines at gas stations, odd even days to buy gas and scarcity. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela recently applied price controls to food and overnight good cuts of meat and produce dissappeared from the stores and they got chicken feet instead.:(

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Hahaha!! well I guess the rest of the nation is fooled then because only 28% of the people in this country think he has and is doing a good job.:rolleyes: I take it your in the 28%.. The amount we have spent on the war in Iraq ( remember the WMDs that didnt ever exist?) would have sent 17 million americans to college for 4 years! Now he wants to send more good lives after a failed cause and spend more good money after bad.

WMDs didn't ever exist??????
As some one asked before, bm, how old are you? sounds like some leftist prof has been corrupting your mind.
Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on the Kurds in northern Iraq. He used the same type weapons against Iran in that war. There was no record of them being confiscated or destroyed by the weapons inspectors. What happened to them?
Some chemical and biological weapons were in fact found by American soldiers but it was not in as large a quantities as expected, so media didn't report it or probably chose not to report it.
The 28% approval rating is on handling of war, not overall economy and other facets of operations in country. Economy is in very good shape, stock market at all time high, interest rates low, unemployment low.
And apparently from your statement, you think the government should pay for your and everyone else's college expenses.
That's part of the problem. No one wants to work to be successful anymore. To many think the government owes them something and think they should be making the same amount of money as their boss, even tho the boss is the one taking all the monetary risks.

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
funny thing is that we have been there 4 years and have not found one. Not even one. another thing is that if they really had them they would have used them on US troops. heck ! we cant even find info on where they went IF they did have them. Adds up to never had them and we used that argument as an EXCUSE to invade.

This is flat out lie, BM!

check this website from june, 2006

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by BTEXDAD
...Some chemical and biological weapons were in fact found by American soldiers but it was not in as large a quantities as expected, so media didn't report it or probably chose not to report it...
Actually, it made the back page back in 2003, but has since been largely forgotten by just about everyone with an agenda.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Actually, it made the back page back in 2003, but has since been largely forgotten by just about everyone with an agenda.

They found over 500 sarin filled artillary shells a couple of years ago and indeed those who oppose the war have conveniently ignored this fact. Very disengenuous IMO.

[Bullaholic]

One thing that always bothered me about Saddam Hussein. This man was a billionaire and a king with a hundred or more palaces throughout his country. If he had nothing to hide, why did he not allow the weapons inspectors to have free reign on their inspection trips----be done with it----and say "Satisfied? Now you may go home." If he would have done this, he would still be a billionaire and a king. No one willl ever convince me that his ego was so large or his brain so small that he could not have figured this out to his advantage and he would be alive and still rich and powerful in his country.