Even better, lets cut our military budget and raise the minimun wage to $50.00 USD. a increased minimun wage will not eliminate poverty but will help poor people to have acess to more benefits such as education. Its time to cut the distance...GAMEFACE said:
A huge number of people are libertarian and don't know it. Over a quarter of the electorate would vote for the Libertarian Candidate if 2 things happened...WorldRunner said:
1. The Libertarian candidate got FREE media coverage all year long like the Republicrats and Democans and got invited to the debates.
2. Voters that really wanted to vote Libertarian, but were afraid that they would be helping the Democratic Candidate, would wake up and realize that their one vote had NO CHANCE whatsoever of deciding the winner. That's right NO CHANCE, as in 0.00000000% chance. And don't go telling me about Florida last election, because one vote didn't decide THAT one either. It was something like 550 votes.
Lets just for arguments sake say that the unbelievable happened, and some state was decided by 1 vote AND that state was needed by both candidates to put them over the top. First of all, realize that the chances of this happening are about a TRILLION TO ONE. And even this wouldn't decide the election because a recount would be ordered and the new count would inevitably be different. The odds of the recount providing another one vote victory would be about a MILLION TO ONE. Let's see, thats a trillion to one times a million to one ... sorry, but it's not gonna happen. AND even if it did - ANOTHER recount would be done! Eventually the courts would decide it. The bottom line is this - YOU'RE ONE VOTE CANNOT POSSIBLY DECIDE THE ELECTION (unless, of course, you happen to be a member of the Supreme Court).
With all this being said, WHY VOTE? Voting is a monumental waste of time if your reason for voting is that think you have any chance of deciding the election. To me, voting only makes sense if you vote for your favorite candidate, regardless of his chance of winning. Why? Because one person's vote will NEVER decide the victor, but each person's vote DOES give incrementally more and more credibility to the candidate he chooses. It's extremely important to realize that a candidate DOES NOT HAVE TO WIN to have influence. In the 1930's, the Socialist Party fielded many candidates, none of whom were ever elected, but their vote totals influenced policy incredibly and for years and year afterwards.
Personally, I don't give a rats arse who y'all vote for, 'cause I know it ain't gonna make a difference as far as who wins. It's just irritating to me when people say that they hate both candidates but will vote for the least of the two evils as if they have no other choice. If we keep voting for these same clowns year after year, nothing will ever change. Why not make your vote count for something this year? Why not vote for someone you like and give him some credibility and influence?
Great argument
If other people earn $8.00 per hour, my money will be devalued?
So if the owner of 7/11 keeps the extra $2.85 per hour, my money will NOT be devalued?
Now if the minimum wage is $5.00, why the hell should I work if I can get a comparable amount by sitting home and picking my nose? On the other hand, if the minimum wage is $15.00, wouldn't people be more inclined to go out and look for jobs instead of collecting checks from the government? Wouldn't they in turn pay taxes to the government instead of collecting a check every two weeks for doing jack? Wouldn't people on subsidized housing now have to pay a greater share of their rent?
Bottom line is, the more people earn, the more they pay in taxes - payroll taxes also means soc security and medicare stay solvent.
Question for Einstein (aka playersonly):
With 281 million people in the US, if you discount the seniors, the children and those earning less than $15,000/year who don't pay taxes, I would say 100 million people in this country have funded the war in Iraq to the tune of $200 billion. I realize GW has put it on the charge card, but do you know what that comes out to PER TAXPAYER?????
(hint: think 2 dimes)
If other people earn $8.00 per hour, my money will be devalued?
So if the owner of 7/11 keeps the extra $2.85 per hour, my money will NOT be devalued?
Now if the minimum wage is $5.00, why the hell should I work if I can get a comparable amount by sitting home and picking my nose? On the other hand, if the minimum wage is $15.00, wouldn't people be more inclined to go out and look for jobs instead of collecting checks from the government? Wouldn't they in turn pay taxes to the government instead of collecting a check every two weeks for doing jack? Wouldn't people on subsidized housing now have to pay a greater share of their rent?
Bottom line is, the more people earn, the more they pay in taxes - payroll taxes also means soc security and medicare stay solvent.
Question for Einstein (aka playersonly):
With 281 million people in the US, if you discount the seniors, the children and those earning less than $15,000/year who don't pay taxes, I would say 100 million people in this country have funded the war in Iraq to the tune of $200 billion. I realize GW has put it on the charge card, but do you know what that comes out to PER TAXPAYER?????
(hint: think 2 dimes)
Minimum wage when Bush was Governor was not $4.00 an hour. It was lower than today, but it was above $5.00 an hour I believe.
You guys make some good arguements, but you still dont realize how FEW people actually make minimum wage across the country. 90% of the people making below $6.00 an hour are under the age of 18 or 19. They dont need a cost of living increase by that much in my opinion.
Journey, I believe that there is a standard minimum wage across the country. Obviously it cost less to live in Texas than other states, but not cheaper than some of the other southern states.
I still have not heard from anyone who says that they will be affected by a minimum wage increase.
If Kerry wins, he wont invoke this new minimum wage anyway IMHO
You guys make some good arguements, but you still dont realize how FEW people actually make minimum wage across the country. 90% of the people making below $6.00 an hour are under the age of 18 or 19. They dont need a cost of living increase by that much in my opinion.
Journey, I believe that there is a standard minimum wage across the country. Obviously it cost less to live in Texas than other states, but not cheaper than some of the other southern states.
I still have not heard from anyone who says that they will be affected by a minimum wage increase.
If Kerry wins, he wont invoke this new minimum wage anyway IMHO
This has to be one of the silliest threads to make it to two pages. You want an "intelligent" argument? Ok here you go, based not on politics but economic facts.
1. Inflation only occurs when there is an increase in money supply and is not caused by arbitrary wage levels.
2. Owners of business only hire people up to the level of utility value. If a person costs $8/hour but only gains you $6/hour you don't hire him.
3. The biggest problem we have is the externalties here. Yes you can say the wages shouldn't have limits, but you have to have common sense with other policies. With the minimum low it makes more sense to go on public assistance than to work. Equally troubling is govt makes it financially stupid to work when you are old because of income limits on social security. The world is full of externalities and other considerations and no policy like this can be created in a vacuum as if it had no other effects.
I would say minimum wages are mostly pandering because it is true most people don't make them. Still it makes sense in that if you have them you follow a consistent pattern which is predictable and that means regular raises in the minimum wage because leaving it stagnant just opens it up for uncertainty and eventually irrelevance.
1. Inflation only occurs when there is an increase in money supply and is not caused by arbitrary wage levels.
2. Owners of business only hire people up to the level of utility value. If a person costs $8/hour but only gains you $6/hour you don't hire him.
3. The biggest problem we have is the externalties here. Yes you can say the wages shouldn't have limits, but you have to have common sense with other policies. With the minimum low it makes more sense to go on public assistance than to work. Equally troubling is govt makes it financially stupid to work when you are old because of income limits on social security. The world is full of externalities and other considerations and no policy like this can be created in a vacuum as if it had no other effects.
I would say minimum wages are mostly pandering because it is true most people don't make them. Still it makes sense in that if you have them you follow a consistent pattern which is predictable and that means regular raises in the minimum wage because leaving it stagnant just opens it up for uncertainty and eventually irrelevance.
