Magox

If Geno were to not be selected by the Raiders or before then, than I think you consider trading up, assuming of course the Bills really like him. In order to leapfrog the Raiders, you'd probably have to give up this years and next years first, and I think there are enough questions about Geno to make that a risky decision. The cost of trading up to the #5 slot would be more reasonable than the #1 or #2.

It's as if you are a parody of yourself

Ok, GG's response was every few years, I say when economic conditions dictate so, and you say never.

Ok, so a little bit

Let's put it this way..... I don't respect your opinion. Therefore I don't give two ***** what you think.

It's been discussed ad nauseum... If you want to look at both sides arguments, you can go back the last few pages. And I just have a generally fundamentally different view of employees than most of you here. Also, this was a response to GG's comment. Since Minimum wage is the law of the land, and you nor anyone will change that, the question was when should there be increases in the minimum wage? GG responded with Since most of us know that the word "few" means a small number, and the number 3 usually fits the bill, I responded with

I'm perfectly fine with having a diametrically opposing view to what you subscribe to.

Don't you know who you are talking to? I mean the guy self-allegedly fired one employee and reduced the pay of his gardener by 30%, because "elections have consequences". He's a real stand up and principled guy.

It's been four years since the last increase, corporations are doing fine and the cost of living has increased.

How so? Specifics please.

Shut the !@#$ already, moron.

That's fine, you don't believe in it, I do. I believe by in large that the market will properly set wages. However I do believe that there are certain times and conditions when their not, and that abuses take place. But lets now talk about the current situation. It's law right? That there is a minimum wage. Now that we know that it will continue to be the law. When should there be an increase in the minimum wage?

If you really think about it, based on this comment, maybe it isn't me who should rethink their position.

To your two points. 1) I do, and honestly I don't really care what you find to be ironic. 2) And your "fiat declaration" that it doesn't make it so, doesn't make it so. "Throwing more money at it" What?? First off, they are earning their wage. There is no handout, there are no taxes being placed on anyone that is being redistributed. So your characterization is faulty at best. The crux of it all is that you are against minimum wages, period. Right? Now that we have it, because it is law, when do you propose is the right time to increase those wages? Of course you are, because you usually are where I am right now.

Because the market dictates so? You're not gonna have me defend the reasoning behind mandates, and the notion that I'm some sort of mandater in chief is absurd. I for the most part believe in free markets, I just think that in some cases there do need to be regulations and mandates. My conclusions are usually derived from pragmatism, logic and numbers, and I do not automatically subscribe to all conservative economic orthodoxy. I discount opinions based purely on ideology, and I know that many here on this board and that follow politics are usually people who either toe the party line or the accepted view of the ideology they follow. Which means that they are held prisoners to their indoctrinated views. I'm not saying you are one of them, you may or may not, but I know many here do.

Well good, I'm glad to hear that.

Yes, but if the cost of living is increasing, just because the majority of these recipients are "temp" workers and young shouldn't exclude them for having their standards of living rise. By the way, those "temp" jobs, what age do you think most of them are? Ok, lets flip this, show me where minimum wage hikes have stifled growth and broadly negatively impacted corporations? Yep, I'm the great mandating dictator now. In regards to why should they see an increase over others? that's an absurd point to make. Think about that question for a second. We are talking MINIMUM here. Let the word Minimum sink in for a second, and then rethink your comment. No. GG said it would stifle growth, I responded to that post and then you replied to my reply of GG's. Now show me how it has stifled growth.

Well, I didn't make that claim. Also, rarely are there solutions that are of the variety of the be-all and end-all silver bullet ones. My view is based on three main points. 1) Cost of living is rising and wages should reflect that, if it is doable. In other words from the workers perspective. 2) Corporations are flushed with cash, and it is my belief that they easily could withstand this increase, without skipping a beat. 3) That there would be a net positive effect on the economy. Listen, you think that I like being on the side of an argument that defends mandates? I just normally don't agree with them in many instances because it usually from my perspective doesn't produce the intended results. This just happens to be one instance where I happen to believe that an increase to the level we are talking about, won't detrimentally harm corporations and would have a small net positive effect on a tiny sect of workers and the economy. I've thought about this issue a good bit over the years, and I've simply come to a different conclusion than most of you here.

No, he hates minimum wage and my idea. Same thing. In regards to it being a bad idea. I disagree with you all. Please illustrate to me how when they did raise the minimum wage it stifled growth. The burden of proof is on you. Thank you in advance.

No, I was responding to BB's comment, and I wanted to offer my opinion on energy... And then I responded to another comment.

That's fine, you believe it would stifle growth, I don't. Secondly I know that when I go to a fast food restaurant, there are many people who are working there that aren't teenagers and I assume that many of these people have families. So I don't care that you believe it was "intended" for teenagers, the reality is that there are many people who don't fall under your criteria of who should hold these jobs. In regards to family solving societal problems, sure I think that's important, and that would be the ideal situation, but it's not realistic. You can talk about "should" all day long, and I will agree with that, but you will never see your ideal "should" scenario play out in your life time. It's simple. I believe that it won't stifle growth, that it won't effect profits much for most corporations and that I believe it will benefit employees earning minimum wage, and I believe it will produce positive effects on the economy.

So now you are resorting to retarded comments? Seriously is that what you got out of what I said? Let's take a look at what I said: Doesn't seem to me that I was implying that it was THE "way" to get more money into the economy. I wasn't even making that point. I was speaking specifically to this issue. The point I made was two fold, one that the cost of living is rising for people and that an increase in wages would help their situation, and two that corporations are flushed with cash and that I believe are easily able to absorb these costs. Also It Doesn't have to be Jose, it could be Juan, Miguel, Pedro, hell it could even be John. Did I imply that it did? Where did you get this from?

I absolutely believe that the energy sector represents the best way to structurally improve our economy. I believe it has the potential to create millions of jobs throughout the U.S that are directly connected to this sector, whether it's through Drilling, building pipelines, manufacturing jobs related to energy sector parts, trucking, rail etc. Not to mention all the indirectly related jobs that would flourish as a result of these added jobs. And when you combine this with how it would impact energy prices not just at the consumer level, which would free up more disposable cash for more savings and spending, but also what it would do to lower costs for manufacturers, allowing more profits and wage increases. It's a game changer. Listen dipshit, I don't like many mandates either, but that doesn't make all mandates nonsensical. Your point of view has nothing to do with pragmatism and everything to do with ideology. My argument is that inflation and the cost of living is rising and thatcorporations are flushed with cash and would be able to absorb the extra cost, and that I believe it would lead to a positive development for the economy. Your argument is "I hate government mandates"

Yes I get it, you hate the minimum wage.

So, two is now complicated? I mean it's only one more than one.