sturg33
I
Well you're very concerned about the minimum wage but not at all concerned about the long term viability of the US economy.
So I presume you don't think it is important.
Why are libertarians not more pumped about Rand Paul?
- Thread starter weso1
- Start date
Well you're very concerned about the minimum wage but not at all concerned about the long term viability of the US economy.
So I presume you don't think it is important.
57Brave
Well-known member
Not sure the ties between the National Debt and minimum wage.
I do know the difference between the debt and the deficit. Correct me if I am wrong here, but wouldn't a federal minimum wage would be more of a deficit issue.
As to public sector min wage I don't see any ties
I do know the difference between the debt and the deficit. Correct me if I am wrong here, but wouldn't a federal minimum wage would be more of a deficit issue.
As to public sector min wage I don't see any ties
sturg33
I
You missed the point.
You said you haven't taken the time to understand the national debt issue. I pointed out that you have taken tons of time to try to understand the minimum wage "issue" because that is important to you... So I surmised that the national debt isn't important to you.
Keep voting (D)
57Brave
Well-known member
The issue of the debt is far more complicated than whether one votes (D) or (R). Or subject for in depth conversation on a baseball message board
Perhaps you will tell me the connection of minimum wage and national debt.
Yes, I miss your point
I have a working understanding of Baroque Music. That doesn't necessarily mean I get Elizabeth Browning poetry
/////////////////
Taken tons of time to understand he minimum wage issue -- not really.
Basic supply and demand.
Basic "high tide lifts all boats"
Basic "if you want to live like a (R) vote for a (D)" - Harry Truman
Perhaps you will tell me the connection of minimum wage and national debt.
Yes, I miss your point
I have a working understanding of Baroque Music. That doesn't necessarily mean I get Elizabeth Browning poetry
/////////////////
Taken tons of time to understand he minimum wage issue -- not really.
Basic supply and demand.
Basic "high tide lifts all boats"
Basic "if you want to live like a (R) vote for a (D)" - Harry Truman
57Brave
Well-known member
Explain -- Yes I get the sticker shock of $4 T - but, what is in it what is not in it what are the short term vs long term advantages vs disadvantages .
The problem with candidates like that are people haven't the foggiest notion of what they are saying.
What I know about Ron Paul is he is a politician will to cut off his nose to spite his face - and he published bigotry
- the former we could argue. The latter in my eyes disqualifies him from catching dogs
The problem with candidates like that are people haven't the foggiest notion of what they are saying.
What I know about Ron Paul is he is a politician will to cut off his nose to spite his face - and he published bigotry
- the former we could argue. The latter in my eyes disqualifies him from catching dogs
sturg33
I
I don't know 57, what is in it? I couldn't possible understan how $4 trillion could even be spent... What is the deficit on the $4T? Would you ever support that deficit? I can't believe you are so heartless to our children and grandchildren that you could ever support these debts and deficits.
57Brave
Well-known member
In 2005 the iPhone had yet to be introduced
what are you getting at? Spit it out --
here is context - what does this mean. I am a woodworker-ball coach-guitar player with a voters knowledge of current events. Not an Economist.
Capital E -- conomist
https://www.google.com/search?q=nat...jOIKXgwTHmoKIAw&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=608
hoping to rely on you to interpret the data provided
what are you getting at? Spit it out --
here is context - what does this mean. I am a woodworker-ball coach-guitar player with a voters knowledge of current events. Not an Economist.
Capital E -- conomist
https://www.google.com/search?q=nat...jOIKXgwTHmoKIAw&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=608
hoping to rely on you to interpret the data provided
sturg33
I
I'm not sure what you're babbling on about.
My entire point was that people who propose real solutions to reduce deficits are labeled as unelectable
I then pointed out that federal spending has increased over 70% in just 10 years. Has our economy grown by that much?
with the 2006 federal budget, we could have had a 0% personal income tax last year and not had a single dollar more in deficits than we actually did. That's how much we've increased our spending.
Where has that gotten us?
57Brave
Well-known member
why didnt you just say that ?
People that "propose real solutioons " are buried in think tanks because the issue is too complicated to turn into a sound byte. people study economics for years formulating sound opinions before they can even get to "solutions".
Economics is a science -- International Economics is voodoo and debt is far more complicated than good vs bad
That is a global issue not exclusive to the US
like I said 2006 like 2005 was another time and era
It has gotten us to here. I have no idea what it means or where it is going. Any one that says they do is "unelectable" because they are a fraud and 79% of the people see through them. That is about right -- Paul polled at 21% head to head at one point.
Wow, that magic number follows you around
People that "propose real solutioons " are buried in think tanks because the issue is too complicated to turn into a sound byte. people study economics for years formulating sound opinions before they can even get to "solutions".
Economics is a science -- International Economics is voodoo and debt is far more complicated than good vs bad
That is a global issue not exclusive to the US
like I said 2006 like 2005 was another time and era
It has gotten us to here. I have no idea what it means or where it is going. Any one that says they do is "unelectable" because they are a fraud and 79% of the people see through them. That is about right -- Paul polled at 21% head to head at one point.
Wow, that magic number follows you around
sturg33
I
Ron Paul's economic policies were not sound bites. They were too complex for the average idiot voter to understand
57Brave
Well-known member
We just said the same thing. The issue of the national debt is far too complicated for a compact answer.
Which is why I am unwilling to agree with one policy over another. I don't know (macro) if Paul knew what he was talking about.
Apparently not alone there. People much smarter than me don't get into that squabble.
I will say this -- Paul's solution in real life (micro) was this. His district in Galveston was hit by a hurricane. He voted against funds for recovery. (I think I have that story right)
That is being a strict ideologue bordering on stupid - not complicated.
That goes back to the 2012 election when Sandy hit. Paul and his notions would have gotten crushed.
I've referred to Paul as a niche candidate. That is what he was.
People vote for politicians to fill the pot holes. don't care how they do it -- just fix the street
Again Sturg ---- I don't know
Which is why I am unwilling to agree with one policy over another. I don't know (macro) if Paul knew what he was talking about.
Apparently not alone there. People much smarter than me don't get into that squabble.
I will say this -- Paul's solution in real life (micro) was this. His district in Galveston was hit by a hurricane. He voted against funds for recovery. (I think I have that story right)
That is being a strict ideologue bordering on stupid - not complicated.
That goes back to the 2012 election when Sandy hit. Paul and his notions would have gotten crushed.
I've referred to Paul as a niche candidate. That is what he was.
People vote for politicians to fill the pot holes. don't care how they do it -- just fix the street
Again Sturg ---- I don't know
57Brave
Well-known member
Here is the story:
August 26, 2011 3:50 PM
Ron Paul rejects FEMA role in hurricane response
By Steve Benen
And to think, Ron Paul struggles to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.
After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.
“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.
“There’s no magic about FEMA. They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states,” Paul told NBC News. “A state can decide. We don’t need somebody in Washington.”
To be sure, this isn’t exactly surprising. It’s consistent with everything we know about Ron Paul and his ideology.
But for the record, let’s take a moment to note just how misguided his worldview really is.
As a factual matter, natural disasters hit American communities in 1900, and in time, they’d recover. But “in time” is the key part of that sentence — families and communities would struggle for a very long time to get back on their feet before federal agencies played a role in disaster response. FEMA isn’t “magic,” but so long as we overlook 2001 to 2008, it is an efficient, effective agency that’s proven itself very capable of providing much-needed assistance to hard-hit areas. If Galveston is ever hit again by hurricane, I suspect Ron Paul’s constituents will be very glad to see FEMA on the scene.
What’s more, voluntary coordination among states is a recipe for one outcome: failure. Cash-strapped states barely have the resources for schools and law enforcement; the notion that they’ll be able to prepare and respond to a natural disaster, and rebuild in its wake, without any federal role whatsoever, is ridiculous.
If Mississippi, which is not at all a wealthy state, gets hits by a hurricane, will it have the financial wherewithal to provide for the affected areas? For that matter, would Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana — none of which is wealthy — be able to effectively put together a “voluntary coordination” plan in the event of a natural disaster?
As Jay Bookman explained a few months ago, “A state suffering destruction on such a scale cannot be told to suck it up and pull itself up by its own bootstraps. After all, it is moments such as these that put the ‘United’ in the United States. We are not self-contained human units each out to maximize individual wealth and consumption; we are Americans, and we help each other out.”
On the list of things Americans can and should expect from the federal government, “disaster relief” should be one of the few responsibilities that the left and right can endorse enthusiastically. It’s something people can’t do for themselves; it’s something states can’t afford to do; and struggling communities can’t wait for the invisible hand of the free market to lift them up, especially since it’s a market private enterprise isn’t eager to enter.
“We should be like 1900”? No thanks.
August 26, 2011 3:50 PM
Ron Paul rejects FEMA role in hurricane response
By Steve Benen
And to think, Ron Paul struggles to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.
After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.
“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.
“There’s no magic about FEMA. They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states,” Paul told NBC News. “A state can decide. We don’t need somebody in Washington.”
To be sure, this isn’t exactly surprising. It’s consistent with everything we know about Ron Paul and his ideology.
But for the record, let’s take a moment to note just how misguided his worldview really is.
As a factual matter, natural disasters hit American communities in 1900, and in time, they’d recover. But “in time” is the key part of that sentence — families and communities would struggle for a very long time to get back on their feet before federal agencies played a role in disaster response. FEMA isn’t “magic,” but so long as we overlook 2001 to 2008, it is an efficient, effective agency that’s proven itself very capable of providing much-needed assistance to hard-hit areas. If Galveston is ever hit again by hurricane, I suspect Ron Paul’s constituents will be very glad to see FEMA on the scene.
What’s more, voluntary coordination among states is a recipe for one outcome: failure. Cash-strapped states barely have the resources for schools and law enforcement; the notion that they’ll be able to prepare and respond to a natural disaster, and rebuild in its wake, without any federal role whatsoever, is ridiculous.
If Mississippi, which is not at all a wealthy state, gets hits by a hurricane, will it have the financial wherewithal to provide for the affected areas? For that matter, would Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana — none of which is wealthy — be able to effectively put together a “voluntary coordination” plan in the event of a natural disaster?
As Jay Bookman explained a few months ago, “A state suffering destruction on such a scale cannot be told to suck it up and pull itself up by its own bootstraps. After all, it is moments such as these that put the ‘United’ in the United States. We are not self-contained human units each out to maximize individual wealth and consumption; we are Americans, and we help each other out.”
On the list of things Americans can and should expect from the federal government, “disaster relief” should be one of the few responsibilities that the left and right can endorse enthusiastically. It’s something people can’t do for themselves; it’s something states can’t afford to do; and struggling communities can’t wait for the invisible hand of the free market to lift them up, especially since it’s a market private enterprise isn’t eager to enter.
“We should be like 1900”? No thanks.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Basic supply & demand tells you that as the price of something (labor) raises, demand is going to remain constant, or increase?
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Depends on the elasticity of demand for any given commodity.
57Brave
Well-known member
You are only seeing one side of supply AND demand.
Rule #1 -- There has to be capital to spend on that demand. Henry Ford figured that out. If he paid his workers more they would buy Fords.
Rule #2 -- The more you sell the less you have to charge.
Basic math --- 25% of $100 is $25 --- correct
25% of $200 is $50 --- correct
So if business man A has a profit margin of 25% would he rather sell $200 worth of goods or $100 ??
That was the genius of Henry Ford -- he saw that buy giving back some of that 25% of $200 he was still coming out better than when he sold $100
////////////////////
What do y'all think people will do with that added income -- horde it for a rainy day ?? No,
They Will Spend It
..............
I think I explained it right
Rule #1 -- There has to be capital to spend on that demand. Henry Ford figured that out. If he paid his workers more they would buy Fords.
Rule #2 -- The more you sell the less you have to charge.
Basic math --- 25% of $100 is $25 --- correct
25% of $200 is $50 --- correct
So if business man A has a profit margin of 25% would he rather sell $200 worth of goods or $100 ??
That was the genius of Henry Ford -- he saw that buy giving back some of that 25% of $200 he was still coming out better than when he sold $100
////////////////////
What do y'all think people will do with that added income -- horde it for a rainy day ?? No,
They Will Spend It
..............
I think I explained it right
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
That's not true abotu Ford. He realized there were residual perks, but he paid people more because he was having high turnover and realized he needed to incentivize people with money to keep them around and do the highly monotonous job of assembly line work.