I didn't vote as there wasn't much on the ballot here in Charlotte.

DrTorch Wrote:

Tulsaman Wrote:bunch of squirells ate some of the ballots or some thing in oklahoma. lmfao


i'm not making this up.

PLEASE find a link for that. It's hilarious! lmfao

it was on the local news here so i'll go look.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

BamaBlazer Wrote:Yup, I voted to destroy the economy by paying people $6.50 an hour,

Well, set your mind at ease, because that will actually affect very few people. There is a sign on the door at my local fast food establishment asking for applicants at $8.50.

Of course, he is right, if it was a meaningful increase it would have exactly the effects he described.

If I was a business owner, I would do the same thing. I believe it was Henry Ford who said,

"Paying my employees $5 a day (the competition was $2.50) was the best cost-cutting move I ever made."

Depending on your business, paying your employees better-than-market wages can actually be a cost-cutter, producing savings in turnover, traning time and expenses, and gains in employee productivity. And I know of companies where the best paid employees are not in the exectutive suites.

But overall, a meaningful hike in the minimum wage is inflationary. Just use a figure that is extreme to illustrate the effect. Let's say we raise the minimum wage to $100/hour. That's $208,000 a year, before OT. Everybody is rich now, right? Have we eliminated low income workers? No. Because everyone else in the economic chain will raise their prices/wages commensuately, and product costs (which are other people cost of living) will rise. That $3.95 burger will be $49.95. The $5.95 combo will be $84.95. And since taxes are based on graduated income, everybody's taxes as a percentage of income will rise. The lawyers will start charging $3500/hour - why should they work for minimum wage? The worker's bosses have to make more than their subordinates, right? And so on. Until a new equilibrium is reached, some businesses would fail and so workers would lose their jobs. Eventually we would reach an equilibrium again, with some some people again asking the question, how can a family of four exist on minimum wage, at only $208,000 a year? And someone will think the solution is to raise the minimum to $150/hour. And the big wheel keeps on turning....

I remember another one Rove said, the least educated vote Democrat, the average vote Republican and the higher eductated vote Democrat. He cited this as proof that you can have too much of a good thing.

DrTorch Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Those of you who have actual representation, I urge you to use yor franchise, if only because those of us in DC can't (not that I entirely disagree with it -- Unlike 99% of the people who live here, I'm not a DC Statehood supporter).

I think DC's general election votes should count toward Maryland's.

The fact that DC statehood people don't usually agree proves they have ulterior motives.

Well, we can't count towards Marylands because we aren't in Maryland. I mean, they are two separate jurisdictions... why not Virginia... why not North Carolina or Texas?

It isn't fair to Maryland, frankly.

But furthermore, the argument is that if the founding generation intended for DC to be a part of MD or VA, they never would have carved it out as a separate district. Therefore, if you believe that the capital should be a state, OR if you believe it should be part of another state, you are countering that intent. Both solutions (statehood and incorporating us into a nearby state) are flawed for that reason.

Your point about the fact that most national democrats wouldn't want DC to have representation if it were Republican-leaning is well taken. But the politicization of the issue doesn't mean that the issue of taxation without representation itself is legitimate.

Hence, as an opponent of both taxation without representation as well as DC statehood (lets face it, we're not a viable state, we have no economy outside of being a company-town for the federal government), I propose the following:

1) We don't get representation, but we don't have to pay federal income taxes either. Let the federal government apportion us all of the money for our budget. If we're good if enough to be taxed, we should deserve a vote. If not, don't tax us. I think thats fair, right? So let DC be a tax haven. I'm fine with that.

or

2) Everyone in DC gets to vote in whatever district they were born in. (Those born in DC get to register to vote in either Maryland or DC, whichever they choose.) Treat us all like we are transients. At least we then have SOME say in the House which determines taxation.

I think either of those are solutions that true conservatives and true liberals could agree with.

By the way, I did end up voting today. Eleanor Holmes Norton was unapposed for "delegate" to the house, and I voted for the democratic ticket elsewhere.

OUGwave Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Those of you who have actual representation, I urge you to use yor franchise, if only because those of us in DC can't (not that I entirely disagree with it -- Unlike 99% of the people who live here, I'm not a DC Statehood supporter).

I think DC's general election votes should count toward Maryland's.

The fact that DC statehood people don't usually agree proves they have ulterior motives.

Well, we can't count towards Marylands because we aren't in Maryland. I mean, they are two separate jurisdictions... why not Virginia... why not North Carolina or Texas?

It isn't fair to Maryland, frankly.

But furthermore, the argument is that if the founding generation intended for DC to be a part of MD or VA, they never would have carved it out as a separate district. Therefore, if you believe that the capital should be a state, OR if you believe it should be part of another state, you are countering that intent. Both solutions (statehood and incorporating us into a nearby state) are flawed for that reason.

Your point about the fact that most national democrats wouldn't want DC to have representation if it were Republican-leaning is well taken. But the politicization of the issue doesn't mean that the issue of taxation without representation itself is legitimate.

Hence, as an opponent of both taxation without representation as well as DC statehood (lets face it, we're not a viable state, we have no economy outside of being a company-town for the federal government), I propose the following:

1) We don't get representation, but we don't have to pay federal income taxes either. Let the federal government apportion us all of the money for our budget. If we're good if enough to be taxed, we should deserve a vote. If not, don't tax us. I think thats fair, right? So let DC be a tax haven. I'm fine with that.

or

2) Everyone in DC gets to vote in whatever district they were born in. (Those born in DC get to register to vote in either Maryland or DC, whichever they choose.) Treat us all like we are transients. At least we then have SOME say in the House which determines taxation.

I think either of those are solutions that true conservatives and true liberals could agree with.

By the way, I did end up voting today. Eleanor Holmes Norton was unapposed for "delegate" to the house, and I voted for the democratic ticket elsewhere.

Either option 1 or 2 is fine with me.

Machiavelli Wrote:I remember another one Rove said, the least educated vote Democrat, the average vote Republican and the higher eductated vote Democrat. He cited this as proof that you can have too much of a good thing.

Ok, who let you out of your padded room?

It was in Time magazine. I thought it was a funny quote. He said it!

Machiavelli Wrote:It was in Time magazine. I thought it was a funny quote. He said it!

Show me a link.

Here's one

http://www.janehaddam.com/chd/widvrepubl...thing.html

"As people do better, they start voting Republican," Karl Rove is supposed to have said, "unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

I should be banned from the spin room.

I didn't vote, and the polls are closed. I was planning on going after work, but I am still at work.

Oh well, all the candidates sucked anyway.

Machiavelli Wrote:Here's one

http://www.janehaddam.com/chd/widvrepubl...thing.html

"As people do better, they start voting Republican," Karl Rove is supposed to have said, "unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

Read the f'n listing:

Quote:"As people do better, they start voting Republican," Karl Rove is supposed to have said, "unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

Now, shall I define "supposed" for you?

GrayBeard Wrote:I should be banned from the spin room.

I didn't vote, and the polls are closed. I was planning on going after work, but I am still at work.

Oh well, all the candidates sucked anyway.

That sucks, GB. I hope your boss would have let you go if you really wanted to vote.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:I should be banned from the spin room.

I didn't vote, and the polls are closed. I was planning on going after work, but I am still at work.

Oh well, all the candidates sucked anyway.

That sucks, GB. I hope your boss would have let you go if you really wanted to vote.

The reason why I was there so late was because I went home sick yesterday. Yes, my boss would have let me go, but since we have a trustee meeting that starts tomorrow, I had a few things to finish up for the meeting.