Obama Campaign Theatrics --- woman faints @ rallies a scam?

[uofom3]

Yeah, I understand that the Geneva convention outlawed the use of such chemical attacks. Agent orange was actually used to destroy the plantlife, because the viets were kicking our ass in jungle warfare.

What I'm saying is that if we start using their tactics (torture etc) it becomes a slippery slope. We are losing more and more freedoms everyday because of things like the Patriot act. It's kind of scary to see how things will end up if these trends continue. We will eventually say "fuck it" to all of the rules and start dropping nukes. That's the only solution I can see if diplomacy doesn't exist.

I know that extreme passification can get civilians killed, but so can wreckless warfare.

Anyway, it's cool how you inform rather than attack. You've really made me question who I'll vote for.

"actually used to destroy plant life" - that's what I said, HERBICIDE :).

We'll never just start nuking people. Diplomacy does exist - if it didn't, the Iraq thing would have been handled a long time ago.

Wreckless warefare is not what I'm advocating, but NO action is not a solution either. We aren't using their tactics currently, I view this ultimately as a matter of containment. It's just like the border - how can we grant amnesty (which I agree with) when the border isn't secure? You lock down the border, then grant amnesty; The same should be done with defense - but it has to be done backwards to a degree. We are geographically isolated from most all of our immediate threats militarily. So, we don't need to "lock it down" perse. Rather, we DID start locking it down with the TSA (Which is a fatally flawed system - look at the lebaneese (sp?) airline (Al AIl or something like that, can't remember the name) They are SERIOUS about it and do it right)) Ultimately, it will be global problem - we just happen to be the one seriously spearheading it.

[e30sd]

Well, for starters - we don't engage in biological warfare. I'm assuming you are refering to "agent orange" from the vietnam era. That was an herbicide, but it did ultimately have some bad effects on the people who it was used on. We do not use anthrax, or any other chemical agent on our enemies. It's funny you say that, as I just watched a documentary the other night on History Channel about the VF nerve gas...

wrong, the BWC has been subverted by proxy through National Security Presidential Directive 33, and the CWC deadline conveniently gets extended another 6 years. so, yeah, we still do mess around with anthrax and vx. it doesnt really matter anyway, the US is not subject to the ICC, so even if we say accidentally used them (oops we killed thousands of people sorry) the consequences would be minor.

[brandondan1]

As the dollar inflates wages will increase anyways (as supply and demand deems necessary). If minimum wage is increased then business owners are just going to raise prices, which will then make minimum wage go up, etc, etc.... This will then weaken the dollar and make things worse for everyone.

Allow the market to decide where prices and other things should be set. Americans vote more with their dollar than they do at the polls. If people are not willing to work for a certain rate businesses will either fail or raise the wage. People should not get paid more than they are worth and adding an outside party (the government) to set wages and set prices screws up how the market works.

I care about these people, but I also care about all people. It is also important to know the role of the government. Take the time to read the Constitution. The role of the government and the role of the president is not to but into every situation and create universal everything (aka communism). Ask yourself, what should the role of the government be?

"The founders asked themselves that question and came up with a pretty good answer. They said the role of government should be one thing, to protect liberty...That should be the only purpose of government." -Ron Paul

Shouldn't we vote to protect the freedom and principles this country was founded on?

While the market should regulate itself to an extent, what if business was allowed to fully set it's own wages. What is the goal of a business? To make as much money as possible. This would no doubt lead to a decrease in wages.

I can see that if some companies were really exploiting their employees then they would just leave. However, there are only so many jobs to be had, and some people would have no choice but to stay, especially in poor where there aren't many opportunities.

Wouldn't this make the rich richer and the poor poorer? The rich would still be able to support markets, so I don't see how all of these companies would be going under. How does this balances out? (sorry, my HS economics class sucked)

Liberty is in the eye of the beholder. For something to be gained, something must also be lost. The problem is finding that middle ground.

[uofom3]

All of that stuff about giving the rich more tax breaks so it can trickle down hasn't worked out in reality. The proof is in the disparity of income levels increasing. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. With a few philanthropic exceptions, it is a fact of life that abundance makes people stingy, fearful, and ungrateful. It also creates fear.
Money is the religion of America and consumerism is it's ritual. The majority of people vote against their own self interest because they still think there's a chance that they too can become one of the "saved". The wages of sin are debt!

Read the second edit in my previous post... that should clear up this situation. The trickle down effect only helps offset the problems created by the minimum wage situation that I just discussed a minute ago.

[uofom3]

Yes, I did say that it would increase inflation.

Are you telling me that we should have sweatshops and let people work for however low the company is willing to pay? There needs to be intervention because American citizens would be exploited. This was rampant all during the Industrial age. But hey, at least the fat cats were living good.

While a kid may be getting paid 9/hr to pour butter on popcorn, is it also ok for the theater to charge 6 bucks for a bag of popcorn? They are obviously doing very well for them to pay workers that much in the first place. Better yet, do actors 'deserve' to make 20m a movie?

What about the ditch diggers who work all day in 100 degree weather and get 6/hr? Are you saying they don't work hard, or deserve more? Should the government let their bosses pay them even less because it's the only thing they can get? I sure as hell don't think so.

You're confusing wages paid with direct hard work; not skill set. Anyone can dig a ditch. Can you perform brain surgery? I sure as hell can't. It's a rare skill, so it gets compensated handsomely. Pound for pound, the ditch digger works twice are hard; but in reality his job is 1/10th as stressful and requires virtually no pre-requisite knowledge in comparison.

It's logic like this that drives doctors out of business, and decreases enrolement in medical schools.

EDIT: which becomes an even more amplified problem when our population is becoming older rapidly (i.e. baby boomers retiring and needing doctors to provide services)

SECOND EDIT: Just to re-state this: The popcorn costing six dollars is directly related to the guy ripping tix getting paid 9$ an hour. you want a trickle down effect? think of it this way - The popcorn costs six dollars because the guy who is packaging the popcorn has to get paid $8.00 in X state for handling the boxes. Then, the dock worker gets paid $12.00 because he is unionized and all he does is move freight all day. Then, you have to pay the guy who fills soda/sweeps the floors/washes the toilet at least minimum wage $9.00 an hour (in this example). So what happens? All of this gets passed on to you; the end consumer.

What is the result? You go to the movies a little less. They have a little less revenue, they end up laying people off, and the cycle repeats itself as the minimum wage increases.

See how that is not good for anyone?

[uofom3]

Not really. People should be paid what they are worth and willing to work for. Why have the GOVERNMENT set minimums on something that should be determined efficiently by market allocation? Interfering with natural outcomes will only make for a deadweight loss, i.e. unemployment rising and companies seeking alternatives: technology, outsourcing, etc.

And are you telling me that the 15 year old at the movie theather putting butter on my popcorn is worth $9/hour? bullllllshit.

Do you know the % of min wage workers that are dependents? How many working single mothers would a min wage increase help? Not that much. And since it will have a waterfall effect on all wages, it will raise price level as a whole and increase inflation it was aiming to deal with.

People who can't understand the full effects of government intervention should not be supporting it.

Heeter is correct.

The minimum wage has risen, but minimum wage rising + inflation = job death.

Inflation means that every dollar you earn or have is worth less. Money becomes more worthless everyday. I'm assuming you know this.

Increasing minimum wage increases the costs for businesses. That, combined with inflation, greatly reduces a firms ability to spend money on resources (i.e. workers), expansion, products, R&D, etc.

So, the solution to that is firing employees or shipping the jobs overseas. it's just like anything else - the less expensive or more plentiful it is, the more of it you will consume. The problem is, when the government gets involved in this situation with a minimum wage, it throws off the market equilibrium for wages for a given skill set, and ultimately creates more unemployment, etc.

Then, to subsidize the problems of increased unemployment, the government either prints money to pay for the people who are not working (inflation/unemployment/welfare) or does nothing (which isn't an option). I don't have a problem with a MINIMUM minimum wage, but the example heeter gave is spot on. In Oregon, a kid ripping your tickets at your local overpriced megaplex is getting paid 8.75 or something. Not coincidentally, that's why the theatre is an "overpriced" megaplex, and why Oregon has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation historically - as well as why industry doesn't come here (same reason it leaves the US - it goes where it's cheaper). This is simply a micro example of a major macro problem.

[uofom3]

EDIT - Ted, where did you read that about Obama?

Read his speech from last night I believe it was in Houston.

[DarkWing6]

All of that stuff about giving the rich more tax breaks so it can trickle down hasn't worked out in reality. The proof is in the disparity of income levels increasing. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. With a few philanthropic exceptions, it is a fact of life that abundance makes people stingy, fearful, and ungrateful. It also creates fear.
Money is the religion of America and consumerism is it's ritual. The majority of people vote against their own self interest because they still think there's a chance that they too can become one of the "saved". The wages of sin are debt!

Ask Michael Dell and Warren Buffet about that. You can thank them for bailing our economy out of 9/11. Not the government where your taxes go.

[DarkWing6]

Brandon, read the 2nd paragraph of my last post.

If people will not work the the wage the company will pay they will fail. Workers are necessary at all levels. If inflation happens then wages will increase along with that. If the demand for a job increases then the wage will as well. If you don't like your wage or spend your money poorly the businesses and tax payers should not have to make up for that (read about Obama's ideas for econimic stimulants).

[1991 318is]

All of that stuff about giving the rich more tax breaks so it can trickle down hasn't worked out in reality. The proof is in the disparity of income levels increasing. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. With a few philanthropic exceptions, it is a fact of life that abundance makes people stingy, fearful, and ungrateful. It also creates fear.
Money is the religion of America and consumerism is it's ritual. The majority of people vote against their own self interest because they still think there's a chance that they too can become one of the "saved". The wages of sin are debt!

[brandondan1]

Not really. People should be paid what they are worth and willing to work for. Why have the GOVERNMENT set minimums on something that should be determined efficiently by market allocation? Interfering with natural outcomes will only make for a deadweight loss, i.e. unemployment rising and companies seeking alternatives: technology, outsourcing, etc.

And are you telling me that the 15 year old at the movie theather putting butter on my popcorn is worth $9/hour? bullllllshit.

Do you know the % of min wage workers that are dependents? How many working single mothers would a min wage increase help? Not that much. And since it will have a waterfall effect on all wages, it will raise price level as a whole and increase inflation it was aiming to deal with.

People who can't understand the full effects of government intervention should not be supporting it.

Yes, I did say that it would increase inflation.

Are you telling me that we should have sweatshops and let people work for however low the company is willing to pay? There needs to be intervention because American citizens would be exploited. This was rampant all during the Industrial age. But hey, at least the fat cats were living good.

While a kid may be getting paid 9/hr to pour butter on popcorn, is it also ok for the theater to charge 6 bucks for a bag of popcorn? They are obviously doing very well for them to pay workers that much in the first place. Better yet, do actors 'deserve' to make 20m a movie?

What about the ditch diggers who work all day in 100 degree weather and get 6/hr? Are you saying they don't work hard, or deserve more? Should the government let their bosses pay them even less because it's the only thing they can get? I sure as hell don't think so.

[DarkWing6]

As the dollar inflates wages will increase anyways (as supply and demand deems necessary). If minimum wage is increased then business owners are just going to raise prices, which will then make minimum wage go up, etc, etc.... This will then weaken the dollar and make things worse for everyone.

Allow the market to decide where prices and other things should be set. Americans vote more with their dollar than they do at the polls. If people are not willing to work for a certain rate businesses will either fail or raise the wage. People should not get paid more than they are worth and adding an outside party (the government) to set wages and set prices screws up how the market works.

I care about these people, but I also care about all people. It is also important to know the role of the government. Take the time to read the Constitution. The role of the government and the role of the president is not to but into every situation and create universal everything (aka communism). Ask yourself, what should the role of the government be?

"The founders asked themselves that question and came up with a pretty good answer. They said the role of government should be one thing, to protect liberty...That should be the only purpose of government." -Ron Paul

Shouldn't we vote to protect the freedom and principles this country was founded on?

[rwh11385]

Wouldn't a raise in minimum wage be nullified by the weakening dollar and inflation? To say minimum wage workers don't work hard is bullshit.

Not really. People should be paid what they are worth and willing to work for. Why have the GOVERNMENT set minimums on something that should be determined efficiently by market allocation? Interfering with natural outcomes will only make for a deadweight loss, i.e. unemployment rising and companies seeking alternatives: technology, outsourcing, etc.

And are you telling me that the 15 year old at the movie theather putting butter on my popcorn is worth $9/hour? bullllllshit.

Do you know the % of min wage workers that are dependents? How many working single mothers would a min wage increase help? Not that much. And since it will have a waterfall effect on all wages, it will raise price level as a whole and increase inflation it was aiming to deal with.

People who can't understand the full effects of government intervention should not be supporting it.

[brandondan1]

Wouldn't a raise in minimum wage be nullified by the weakening dollar and inflation? To say minimum wage workers don't work hard is bullshit. If anything, people get an education early because they don't want to work their ass off later in some dead-end job. Obviously business owners will be hurt a little, but what is it going to take to raise the minimum standard of living? Does anyone care about those people?

Isn't the minimum wage naturally rising under Bush? What's the difference?

[DarkWing6]

Bring jobs back to the US, raise minumum wage, and tax the rich (aka the business owners) more. Great idea! How is that going to work? Let's see, the government will be taking more from the business owners and the employees are going to take more from the business owners. Do you think the businesses are going to stay in the US if this continues? They are smarter than that, which is why they are where they are.

This wont last long if it happens. All of the businesses will leave the US cause they are smarter than that, which is why they are where they are. Once they leave the economy will go into a real recession. How is he going to band-aid this one? He wont have another $75 billion to pointlessly pour back into the economy becasue all his tax payers have left.