Magox

Chef, seriously man! Are you having a problem comprehending ****??? I said it like 3 !@#$ing times and I even specifically responded to this same issue... Here it is AGAIN!

I didn't imply that it would "magically appear". I said that it would be transferred from employer to employee. And I would fully expect some of those increases to be passed down to the consumer. However, what I wouldn't expect is that the entirety of it would be passed down, there is enough competition and profit right now for some of those costs to be absorbed. Like I said earlier, I do believe there would have to be an honest study from neutral sources in looking into the impact of raising the minimum wage. From my perspective, I believe that a move to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour would be a net positive for the economy. I don't have any study or proof to support what I'm saying, other than my own intuition. I sorta like the way the Germans view their relationships between employer and employee. I'm not saying I agree with everything they do, but there are certainly elements of their economy that we could look to.

First of all, as I mentioned in an earlier thread I believe that a comprehensive study from honest non ideological brokers would need to be done on the effects it would have on businesses and the overall effects on the economy due to the added wages. Secondly, I did say this:

I hear what your saying, but I'm looking at this purely from a pragmatical point of view. I just believe that the current minimum wage is too low for people to survive on. And I reject the notion that minimum wage is just for teenagers or young people, there are many people who work in these jobs that are using these wages in order to try to get by. And yes, it would have been more wise for them to get an education so they wouldn't be in this position, but I don't believe that because they didn't they should be shackled to the current minimum wage. We know that profits are soaring for many big businesses, and an increase in wages by less than $2 an hour wouldn't be a devastating development for many of these companies. The reason why I support many economic "conservative" principles is because I believe them to be rational. However pure ideology doesn't influence my decisions, if something makes sense that doesn't go with standard economic conservative orthodoxy, then I'll support it. From my point of view, corporations are flushed with cash and even without the raising of minimum wages, I believe it is just a matter of time before we start seeing wage increases once the job market tightens up some. But at the end of the day, I support raising the minimum wage because I believe it would be an overall positive for the economy. And that's what trumps everything from my perspective. Yes, I meant to say wouldn't be saved.

No, it would come from Businesses and then transfer over to employees. I think that is kinda obvious isn't it?

I honestly don't believe an increase to $9/hr would have much of a negative impact to the economy. It may harm some small businesses, but I would venture to guess that it would have negligible effect. Of course on the flip side, that is an additional $11 Billion (from bd's link) that would be placed into the economy, and my guess is that most of those funds would be saved and recycled back into the economy. I may be wrong. Maybe a two tiered Minimum wage plan, one for small businesses, and a second for corporations. Or maybe they can make it two tiered based off the amount of employees that are employed. I don't know, but I believe that many of the corporations are able to easily withstand a minimal increase. But as someone a little earlier pointed out, most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage as it is, so I'm not quite sure how many people it would help.

He certainly would have.

I don't really see the distinction between the two.

Geno, Nassib and Barkley... Barkley simply because there are some scouts who are absolutely convinced that he is the best quarterback in this year's draft. Not saying I agree with that, but the level of conviction from some of these guys, sorta swayed me.

He's one of the four QB's that I'd be happy with from this year's draft.

Unfortunately, there are no ramifications for his deceitful antics of demagoguery, apart from a few head shakes and chuckles from conservatives. Much like Obama, the guy is like teflon.

Since we're talking about media, I thought this was sorta an intriguing friendship. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/03/maddow-roger-ailes-is-the-most-important-republican-159710.html?hp=f1

If so, then you and a few others have redefined it. Also, under your definition, you would also be a "con". Considering that you are on the polar opposite of the bell curve.

Surprisingly I agree with the majority of this post. And that is not "why" the Libertarian's have been gaining traction, sure, that is an element but the main reasons they've gained traction is there overall view of government intrusion in people's life, and their views of the federal reserve.

You do realize that this board doesn't have many "cons" don't you? : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative

I personally like the Morning Joe Show. Done in an intelligent format, great guests, and very balanced.

Thought this was funny http://www.lithuania...rity-201331890/ Also, on a side note, we were discussing savings the other day. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323639604578368823406398606.html

"What's the lasting effect on two young boys" she asks.

I was actually thinking about beginning a thread on this topic. What's craziest to me about all this is that the EU crafted the deal, I mean it would be one thing if it was something that would of been proposed by their government, it's another to have the EU and IMF put their official stamp of approval. I understand their goal, get all that money from the Russian Oligarchs, who have been evading taxes, but the mechanism that they used by casting such a wide net, that ensnares so many other people is astonishing. Accounts under 100k Euros will get "taxed" (confiscated) at 6.75% and accounts over 100K at 9.99%. Doesn't surprise me that there is a run on their banks, I just don't see how this will be a positive development.

I can with 99.99% certainty say that the US tax code has played virtually no role in the rising disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 50%'s income wages. If anything it has helped "even the playing field" ever since the Bush tax cuts. Any policy prescriptions that look to reform the tax code to try to remedy this dynamic, will bare no fruits whatsoever. Education, training, entrepreneurism and innovation are the best options we have. Liberals believe that in order to remedy the rising disparity of incomes is to apply punitive taxation to the wealthy, and distribute those funds to their intended recipients. The logical way to approach this issue is to figure out a way to put the bottom 50% into a position to where they will earn more, rather than look to support them through welfare, subsidization and entitlement programs. For one, added taxation does demonstrably slow economies down. Two, welfare and entitlements increase dependency and decrease production from many of these recipients. And three, subsidies by in large increase the price (inflation) of the underlying product. It's time to begin looking for real solutions to this issue, rather than the same old liberal one's, which is to punitively tax more those that have and distribute it to those that don't, to simply even out the playing field.

I'm assuming you meant more not less. I agree that the downturn distorts the numbers, but even if you were to take away 2008-2009 and simply look from 2001-2007, you will see that the US tax code produced a more progressive tax code than in previous years.

That's some funny **** You don't understand LA, you see when SOB uses the word "child" when describing Rubio, he feels as if he got a good zinger off. Like "yeah! Child! ( that was a good one)"

What's a conservative like yourself reading an article from a TPM writer?

Patterson would be a reach at 8. Barkley won't make it to the second round, either will Margus hunt in the third. And Nassib and Manuel certainly won't be available in the fourth.