The Political Party

[guido61]

Rubio lying that Obama is responsible for the increase in the debt was probably my favorite Obama lie last night.

And oldie-but-a-goodie for sure.

[prolurkerguy]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Zig al-din wrote:

Not sure it's a lie but does he really think $9 an hour is a ladder to the middle class? (The fact that in his 2008 run, he'd promised to raise it to $9.50 does call his sincerity in this area into question.) Good that he mentioned this issue though.  

---

Gotta start somewhere.

The truth is the minimum wage would need to be about $10.50-$11 an hour to match what it paid in 1970.  His call to tie the minimum wage to the cost of living was a good one.  

---

Did he mean federal, state, or municipally- mandated minimum wage(s)? Tying it to COL wouldn't work very well at the federal level since COL varies so widely...

[savoldi]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

savoldi wrote:
The rightwing clown car is filling up with the butthurt...

---

 Ahh! the old pre-programmed line about butthurt any time someone fails to kiss the Kenyan's ass.

---

Hey! You got in the rightwing clown car twice!

[guido61]

---

prolurkerguy wrote:

---

---

Did he mean federal, state, or municipally- mandated minimum wage(s)? Tying it to COL wouldn't work very well at the federal level since COL varies so widely...

---

Might not work perfectly but would be better than nothing.  We tie SS payments to the COL now.  I imagine they'd use a similar formula.

[mauser]

---

Zig al-din wrote:

Not sure it's a lie but does he really think $9 an hour is a ladder to the middle class? (The fact that in his 2008 run, he'd promised to raise it to $9.50 does call his sincerity in this area into question.) Good that he mentioned this issue though.  

---

He's undoubtedly convinced that employers won't pass this along to consumers, and that jobs won't be lost.

Because he's an idiot.

[guido61]

---

mauser wrote:

---

---

He's undoubtedly convinced that employers won't pass this along to consumers, and that jobs won't be lost.

Because he's an idiot.

---

Another oldie-but-a-goodie.

Raises in the minimum wage have never resulted in the projected job-losses conservatives ALWAYS predict.   And supply-and-demand won't allow the costs to be passed on to the consumer.  The employers will eat most of the cost, which most can afford since so many companies are recording record profits.  There's no need to pass it on in that case.  They've got the cushion to absorb it.

But yes, some of the cost would be passed on.  And spread around.  I imagine most of us can afford the  fraction-of-a-penny across-the-board increase in their millions-of-product WalMart would have to impose in order to cover the costs of an increase in the minimum wage.  And if it puts more spending money in the pocket of consumers, that's better for the economy.

Much better for the economy than WalMart pocketing the profits for themselves.

[Tom Hicks]

---

mauser wrote:
He's undoubtedly convinced that employers won't pass this along to consumers, and that jobs won't be lost.

Because he's an idiot.

---

are you happy with the growth in private sector jobs since obama took office?

[prolurkerguy]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

---

He's undoubtedly convinced that employers won't pass this along to consumers, and that jobs won't be lost.

Because he's an idiot.

---

Another oldie-but-a-goodie.

Raises in the minimum wage have never resulted in the projected job-losses conservatives ALWAYS predict.   And supply-and-demand won't allow the costs to be passed on to the consumer.  The employers will eat most of the cost, which most can afford since so many companies are recording record profits.  There's no need to pass it on in that case.  They've got the cushion to absorb it.

But yes, some of the cost would be passed on.  And spread around.  I imagine most of us can afford the  fraction-of-a-penny across-the-board increase in their millions-of-product WalMart would have to impose in order to cover the costs of an increase in the minimum wage.  And if it puts more spending money in the pocket of consumers, that's better for the economy.

---

I'd wager that WM would get most of those payroll increases back in sales anyway. Wal-Mart employees shop mostly at Wal-Mart...

[guido61]

---

mauser wrote:

---

---

He's undoubtedly convinced that employers won't pass this along to consumers, and that jobs won't be lost.

---

Intensive research followed the 1996 and 1997 federal minimum wage increases. Applying three previously used methodologies to examine the potential disemployment effects of the federal minimum wage increase, Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt of the Economic Policy Institute found no systematic job loss resulting from the 1996-97 minimum wage increases. “The effect on employment is generally economically small and statistically insignificant; any impact is almost as likely to be positive as negative, varying unpredictably across demographic groups” (Bernstein and Schmitt 1998, 4). In fact, following the 1996-97 increases, the low-wage labor market actually performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).

Following the 1997 federal minimum wage increase, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University observed, “We saw no ripple effect at all in the unemployment rate. Unemployment just continued to go down.” The minimum wage increase, he said, “was totally swamped by other factors going on in the economy” (Chipman 2006). Accordingly, the 1999 Economic Report of the President stated: “Many studies have examined this issue, and the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment.”

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp178/

[Tom Hicks]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

---

He's undoubtedly convinced that employers won't pass this along to consumers, and that jobs won't be lost.

---

Intensive research followed the 1996 and 1997 federal minimum wage increases. Applying three previously used methodologies to examine the potential disemployment effects of the federal minimum wage increase, Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt of the Economic Policy Institute found no systematic job loss resulting from the 1996-97 minimum wage increases. “The effect on employment is generally economically small and statistically insignificant; any impact is almost as likely to be positive as negative, varying unpredictably across demographic groups” (Bernstein and Schmitt 1998, 4). In fact, following the 1996-97 increases, the low-wage labor market actually performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).

Following the 1997 federal minimum wage increase, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University observed, “We saw no ripple effect at all in the unemployment rate. Unemployment just continued to go down.” The minimum wage increase, he said, “was totally swamped by other factors going on in the economy” (Chipman 2006). Accordingly, the 1999 Economic Report of the President stated: “Many studies have examined this issue, and the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment.”

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp178/

---

good cite.

[moonlightin]

---

RogueGnome wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

Mine was how all this "investment" (lolz) isn't going to rasie the deficit. ...Why did he even mention that since he's proven he doesn't care about deficits or debt? Like it matters.

Second, how he forgot to mention he signed the budget control act into law, and tried to pin it on congress.

The night was full of lolz...and the left predictably lapped it up like good lemmings.

---

The House passed the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.

The Senate passed the Act on August 2, 2011 by a vote of 74–26. 6 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it.

President Obama signed the bill shortly after it was passed by the Senate. In doing so, the president said, "Is this the deal I would have preferred? No. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Thanks for posting.

Anything else you don't understand, just write something stupid again.

---

Thank you. If ned ever did any research on anything he might not look like such an idiot.

[guido61]

The persistant illogic of the right on this issue is confounding and disturbing:  they promote policies that result in pushing real wages down further and further and at the same time decry the increase of the use of public social safety network programs like Food Stamps and Medicaid.   Seriously---if you think it's best for employers to pay the lowest-possible-wage and provide no health benefits to their employees, what do you THINK the end result is going to be for those employees?  

If you want to decrease the reliance on the public sector by poor people, then the only obvious solution is that the private sector will have to take up the slack.  

And no, they aren't going to do so out of the goodness of their hearts.  WalMart recorded a $15 billion profit in 2011.  (remember--that's PROFIT.  That's AFTER all their expenses, salaries, bonuses and wages have been accounted for).  Now there's nothing wrong with recording big profits.  But clearly they've got some ability there to pay their employees a bit better and still do quite well for themselves.  Or we can continue the policies that allow them to pay rock-bottom wages and let the public sector spend billions to help subsidize these low wages for their employees.

You don't want to tax them and use that revenue to fund the public programs---then fine.  Encourage them to pay more so that their employees won't need to rely on those programs so much.   I think increasing the minimum wage is a very good way to encourage this behavior.  If you've got other/better ideas?  Let's hear 'em.

[moonlightin]

---

savoldi wrote:

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

savoldi wrote:
The rightwing clown car is filling up with the butthurt...

---

 Ahh! the old pre-programmed line about butthurt any time someone fails to kiss the Kenyan's ass.

---

Hey! You got in the rightwing clown car twice!

---

Maybe he found there wasn't enough oxygen in the trunk. Funny because with all the clowns in the car, I can't imagine there'd be much oxygen there either.

[moonlightin]

---

guido61 wrote:

Rubio lying that Obama is responsible for the increase in the debt was probably my favorite Obama lie last night.

And oldie-but-a-goodie for sure.

---

That and the whole increase in gov't thing.

[guido61]

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

---

That and the whole increase in gov't thing.

---

Watching Rubio last night was like being at some sort of Conservative Karaoke Bar.   He was singing the same old talking points over canned music.  Singing them pretty well because EVERYBODY knows the words and melody to that song by now, but still slighty off-key.

[Fred Fartboski]

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

 

---

Maybe he found there wasn't enough oxygen in the trunk. Funny because with all the clowns in the car, I can't imagine there'd be much oxygen there either.

---

Plenty of fart gas, though.

[moonlightin]

---

Fred Fartboski wrote:

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

 

---

Maybe he found there wasn't enough oxygen in the trunk. Funny because with all the clowns in the car, I can't imagine there'd be much oxygen there either.

---

Plenty of fart gas, though.

---

Hence all the laughter?

[mauser]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

---

He's undoubtedly convinced that employers won't pass this along to consumers, and that jobs won't be lost.

Because he's an idiot.

---

Another oldie-but-a-goodie.

Raises in the minimum wage have never resulted in the projected job-losses conservatives ALWAYS predict.   And supply-and-demand won't allow the costs to be passed on to the consumer.  The employers will eat most of the cost, which most can afford since so many companies are recording record profits.  There's no need to pass it on in that case.  They've got the cushion to absorb it.

But yes, some of the cost would be passed on.  And spread around.  I imagine most of us can afford the  fraction-of-a-penny across-the-board increase in their millions-of-product WalMart would have to impose in order to cover the costs of an increase in the minimum wage.  And if it puts more spending money in the pocket of consumers, that's better for the economy.

Much better for the economy than WalMart pocketing the profits for themselves.

---

It's always easier to tell someone else what they must do with their money.

Once the people figured out that they could, simply by casting a vote, determine how other people's money gets spent, and in many cases direct some of it to their own pockets....it was pretty much downhill from there.

[Opposite Day]

That first "not rivals for power, but partners for progress" line he quoted from Kennedy pretty much made me tune out. I really would have hated to be the veep or the speaker at that moment. I'm sure if I had to write a state of the union speech it would be full of "not this, but that" alliterative platitudes too, but it sounded like it was gonna be real sleeper. Thankfully I had a gig.

[moonlightin]

---

Opposite Day wrote:

That first "not rivals for power, but partners for progress" line he quoted from Kennedy pretty much made me tune out. I really would have hated to be the veep or the speaker at that moment. I'm sure if I had to write a state of the union speech it would be full of "not this, but that" alliterative platitudes too, but it sounded like it was gonna be real sleeper. Thankfully I had a gig.

---

Actually... there was a very poignant moment when he listed a few people who suffered from gun violence.