(12-20-2017 03:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It doesn't say socially conservatives because their isn't anything social about what they do. They simply do research from a fiscally conservatives viewpoint. Which is to say they are going to hype anything that is in favor of being fiscally conservatives and down play anything that isn't.


The "problem" with being fiscally conservative is that it comes from a philosophy that there is a finite amount of wealth and therefore, you most conserves what you have.

You still seem to be implying that someone can't be liberal or a Democrat and somehow fiscally conservative.

Let's start with that.... Because if that's what you believe, then I really don't know where to start.

If you're not saying that, then we can discuss the problems with your opinion about fiscal conservatism. That's not remotely true, and certainly not true of the Republican ideals of fiscal conservatism.

The best evidence I can give you is the multi-millionaires who clip coupons... and lots of them exist. The cheapest people you know who have millions in the bank. To them, it's not about how big the pie is at all... it is merely about how much they value things.

One of the wealthier young men I knew who could have had any car he wanted announced one day that he was going to buy a new car. We all expected an expensive sports car. He came in with a Volvo sedan... when we asked him why, he said... $0 down, 399/mo including scheduled maintenance was too good to pass up.

THAT is fiscal conservatism, and has almost nothing to do with the size of the pie OR his political leanings.

If the United Way gave away $1byn, we'd all say that was generally good. The difference between fiscal conservatism or not would ask how much they spent (or collected) to have that $1byn to give away. A fiscal liberal wouldn't care as much as a fiscal conservative. i believe that plenty of Democrats are fiscal conservatives.

Ham, there was a book about such a person, it was called, "The Millionaire Next Door". I'm not a millionaire by any stretch but I hold the same principles. My wife and I are very conservative socially and fiscally. We sometimes do spend on things which aren't needed but we consider them rewards for being good stewards of what God blessed us with. One think we never do, or try not to do, is buy anything at its regular price. We'll use coupons or sales and we sure do a lot of comparison shopping.

I was glad that the IRA was not done away with as it sure helps in your old age. Thankfully, we haven't been forced to go into that savings but I'm getting at that mandatory age where I'll have to but so what. Instead of giving the whole sum to the government it'll hurt less because I'll be only be giving a percentage of the total amount from the taxes due them at the time.

(12-20-2017 10:04 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ham, there was a book about such a person, it was called, "The Millionaire Next Door". I'm not a millionaire by any stretch but I hold the same principles. My wife and I are very conservative socially and fiscally. We sometimes do spend on things which aren't needed but we consider them rewards for being good stewards of what God blessed us with. One think we never do, or try not to do, is buy anything at its regular price. We'll use coupons or sales and we sure do a lot of comparison shopping.

I was glad that the IRA was not done away with as it sure helps in your old age. Thankfully, we haven't been forced to go into that savings but I'm getting at that mandatory age where I'll have to but so what. Instead of giving the whole sum to the government it'll hurt less because I'll be only be giving a percentage of the total amount from the taxes due them at the time.

being fiscally conservative should ALWAYS be the #1 goal.....it's kinda how the United States became the the global leader the rest now view as #1.....it's why protecting the USD matters more than anything else.....PERIOD

I'm easily a social lib to an extent....that always plays a long distant second fiddle to the USD that affords INCENTIVE and OPPORTUNITY......PERIOD

I'll never understand how a clear thinking person would lobby for the uber rich that play the poor like Geppetto subsidizing crack as best method.....they simply do not understand how or why they're being played the fool....

how one could lobby for socialist policies is outside my ability to rationalize in scope.....

#spoiledlittlebiatches

Common sense evades most liberals.

(12-20-2017 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 03:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It doesn't say socially conservatives because their isn't anything social about what they do. They simply do research from a fiscally conservatives viewpoint. Which is to say they are going to hype anything that is in favor of being fiscally conservatives and down play anything that isn't.


The "problem" with being fiscally conservative is that it comes from a philosophy that there is a finite amount of wealth and therefore, you most conserves what you have.

You still seem to be implying that someone can't be liberal or a Democrat and somehow fiscally conservative.

Let's start with that.... Because if that's what you believe, then I really don't know where to start.

If you're not saying that, then we can discuss the problems with your opinion about fiscal conservatism. That's not remotely true, and certainly not true of the Republican ideals of fiscal conservatism.

The best evidence I can give you is the multi-millionaires who clip coupons... and lots of them exist. The cheapest people you know who have millions in the bank. To them, it's not about how big the pie is at all... it is merely about how much they value things.

One of the wealthier young men I knew who could have had any car he wanted announced one day that he was going to buy a new car. We all expected an expensive sports car. He came in with a Volvo sedan... when we asked him why, he said... $0 down, 399/mo including scheduled maintenance was too good to pass up.

THAT is fiscal conservatism, and has almost nothing to do with the size of the pie OR his political leanings.

If the United Way gave away $1byn, we'd all say that was generally good. The difference between fiscal conservatism or not would ask how much they spent (or collected) to have that $1byn to give away. A fiscal liberal wouldn't care as much as a fiscal conservative. i believe that plenty of Democrats are fiscal conservatives.

I am Liberal, but I also watch what I spend. I usually buy the cheap generic food on the budget. We could save more money on the healthcare by not having the drug companies have a monopoly on one drug. I would do something to bring cheaper generics for our healthcare which could save money on Medicare and medicaid funding. You can't touch them until you do something about the drug companies and have something cheaper to save money on by the tax-payers. Republicans want to do stuff that would make things worst. But, the establishment Republicans on the hill are too stupid to find fixes first. I think there are some like Susan Collins could work with Bernie and some others in finding solutions. I do think it is time to vote our McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, Ryan and other leaderships in the next Primaries and General election to find new leadership that both parties could work together for solutions. The problem is the leadership, and not the Democrats or Republicans in General.

(12-21-2017 04:49 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I am Liberal, but I also watch what I spend. I usually buy the cheap generic food on the budget. We could save more money on the healthcare by not having the drug companies have a monopoly on one drug. I would do something to bring cheaper generics for our healthcare which could save money on Medicare and medicaid funding.

So how does drug research get done in your system?

Quote:You can't touch them until you do something about the drug companies and have something cheaper to save money on by the tax-payers. Republicans want to do stuff that would make things worst. But, the establishment Republicans on the hill are too stupid to find fixes first. I think there are some like Susan Collins could work with Bernie and some others in finding solutions. I do think it is time to vote our McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, Ryan and other leaderships in the next Primaries and General election to find new leadership that both parties could work together for solutions. The problem is the leadership, and not the Democrats or Republicans in General.

I agree that leadership on both sides is the problem. My problem is that there are many well-intentioned rank-and-file democrats--I know some--but the party leadership still follows the lead set by LBJ when he said, "If we pass this, we will keep those ******* voting democrat for years." They see the poor and minorities as voting blocs that they can keep loyal democrat voters by keeping them poor and dependent on handouts. So they set up a byzantine collection of social welfare programs for only the poor--you start making money, you no longer qualify, so that for many the financial reward for staying poor is greater than the financial reward for getting a job. That is exactly the way you would set it up if you were trying to create a permanent underclass of reliable voters. And while they are at it, the gatekeeping requirements for those programs create an army of unaccountable but well paid bureaucrats, who form another reliable voting bloc, and foot soldiers for the political grind.

And what really pisses me off is that republicans are too dumb to do anything but play along.

(12-21-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 04:49 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I am Liberal, but I also watch what I spend. I usually buy the cheap generic food on the budget. We could save more money on the healthcare by not having the drug companies have a monopoly on one drug. I would do something to bring cheaper generics for our healthcare which could save money on Medicare and medicaid funding.

So how does drug research get done in your system?

Quote:You can't touch them until you do something about the drug companies and have something cheaper to save money on by the tax-payers. Republicans want to do stuff that would make things worst. But, the establishment Republicans on the hill are too stupid to find fixes first. I think there are some like Susan Collins could work with Bernie and some others in finding solutions. I do think it is time to vote our McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, Ryan and other leaderships in the next Primaries and General election to find new leadership that both parties could work together for solutions. The problem is the leadership, and not the Democrats or Republicans in General.

I agree that leadership on both sides is the problem. My problem is that there are many well-intentioned rank-and-file democrats--I know some--but the party leadership still follows the lead set by LBJ when he said, "If we pass this, we will keep those ******* voting democrat for years." They see the poor and minorities as voting blocs that they can keep loyal democrat voters by keeping them poor and dependent on handouts. So they set up a byzantine collection of social welfare programs for only the poor--you start making money, you no longer qualify, so that for many the financial reward for staying poor is greater than the financial reward for getting a job. That is exactly the way you would set it up if you were trying to create a permanent underclass of reliable voters. And while they are at it, the gatekeeping requirements for those programs create an army of unaccountable but well paid bureaucrats, who form another reliable voting bloc, and foot soldiers for the political grind.

XACLY!

there's that #incentive thingy again....

this is the real reason the dippos are crying today.....

once this tax bill is passed, they're getting ready to lose a critical portion of their base.....

(12-20-2017 04:12 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Once again the problem with minimum wage is that no matter the amount, it will always be minimum wage and those on it will always cry about it.

Unless you are a teenager working a part time job or have some type of legitimate disability..If you do not possess skills worthy of more pay than the current wage scale?...You need to reassess YOURSELF and figure out WTF you need to do to make yourself more skilled and attractive as an employee. Stop bringing a gun into the room and using the force of government to solve your problem. Those of us that make decent livings are not responsible for YOUR failure as a human being. Resources abound to help you. Go use them. Suck it up and retool yourself for the world...NOW!!!!

$15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.

This is not difficult.

We as a society have to choose between two options.

Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

(12-21-2017 07:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 04:12 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Once again the problem with minimum wage is that no matter the amount, it will always be minimum wage and those on it will always cry about it.

Unless you are a teenager working a part time job or have some type of legitimate disability..If you do not possess skills worthy of more pay than the current wage scale?...You need to reassess YOURSELF and figure out WTF you need to do to make yourself more skilled and attractive as an employee. Stop bringing a gun into the room and using the force of government to solve your problem. Those of us that make decent livings are not responsible for YOUR failure as a human being. Resources abound to help you. Go use them. Suck it up and retool yourself for the world...NOW!!!!

Toilets need to be cleaned.
Shelves need to be stocked.
Most Americans have proven with their wallet, that they prefer to have someone else cook several of their meals.
The new growing trend, we don't even like to walk around a grocery store, we want to pay someone else to do that.

Now maybe all the "losers" can go learn more competitive skills and then who exactly is going to mop the floor where you work and put out toilet paper and cook the food you grab at the drive through because you are in a hurry?

The need for low skilled work exists.
You don't want to pay the cost of having that work done at a price that would permit a living wage and you don't want to pay taxes to supplement the wages of the people doing the work.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. You can't have your dollar menu burger and enough checkers at the store that you don't face a long line unless you either pay more at the cash register or more on your tax return.

If you think eff em is a solution go buy a good world history and see what happens when too many people are struggling to find food and shelter.

(12-19-2017 01:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  California's $15 Minimum Wage Could Backfire and Cost the State 400,000 Jobs, According to EPI Study

Quote:A newly released longitudinal study on the effects of the rising minimum wage in California reveals it negatively affects low-income workers.

“[A]pproximately 400,000 jobs would be lost” by 2022 “as a consequence” of California gradually imposing the first statewide $15 minimum wage, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit research organization. “This estimate is conservative, as it measures the impact of California’s state minimum wage but does not account for job loss in counties that had insufficient data.”

The law will disproportionately harm the very people that lawmakers claim they want to help the most: low-skilled workers. “[N]early half of the observed job loss occurs in food service and retail industries,” the study concludes.

Great...a study by some sort of interest group with an axe to grind. By the way, charity navigator has some sort of warning about this group.

California is doing great.

(12-21-2017 11:49 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  California's $15 Minimum Wage Could Backfire and Cost the State 400,000 Jobs, According to EPI Study

Quote:A newly released longitudinal study on the effects of the rising minimum wage in California reveals it negatively affects low-income workers.

“[A]pproximately 400,000 jobs would be lost” by 2022 “as a consequence” of California gradually imposing the first statewide $15 minimum wage, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit research organization. “This estimate is conservative, as it measures the impact of California’s state minimum wage but does not account for job loss in counties that had insufficient data.”

The law will disproportionately harm the very people that lawmakers claim they want to help the most: low-skilled workers. “[N]early half of the observed job loss occurs in food service and retail industries,” the study concludes.

Great...a study by some sort of interest group with an axe to grind. By the way, charity navigator has some sort of warning about this group.

California is doing great.

So great that a number of their cities are banking on a federal bailout? Yea, great.

(12-21-2017 12:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:49 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  California's $15 Minimum Wage Could Backfire and Cost the State 400,000 Jobs, According to EPI Study

Quote:A newly released longitudinal study on the effects of the rising minimum wage in California reveals it negatively affects low-income workers.

“[A]pproximately 400,000 jobs would be lost” by 2022 “as a consequence” of California gradually imposing the first statewide $15 minimum wage, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit research organization. “This estimate is conservative, as it measures the impact of California’s state minimum wage but does not account for job loss in counties that had insufficient data.”

The law will disproportionately harm the very people that lawmakers claim they want to help the most: low-skilled workers. “[N]early half of the observed job loss occurs in food service and retail industries,” the study concludes.

Great...a study by some sort of interest group with an axe to grind. By the way, charity navigator has some sort of warning about this group.

California is doing great.

So great that a number of their cities are banking on a federal bailout? Yea, great.

if it wasn't for silicon valley revenue???? they most likely drop to the 30's in GDP terms......and it only goes down from there.....and they already have the largest poverty rate per capita....

that state is getting ready to get hit with a large dose of reality if/when silicon valley relocates.....

http://www.politifact.com/california/sta...world-and/

(12-21-2017 11:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 07:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 04:12 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Once again the problem with minimum wage is that no matter the amount, it will always be minimum wage and those on it will always cry about it.

Unless you are a teenager working a part time job or have some type of legitimate disability..If you do not possess skills worthy of more pay than the current wage scale?...You need to reassess YOURSELF and figure out WTF you need to do to make yourself more skilled and attractive as an employee. Stop bringing a gun into the room and using the force of government to solve your problem. Those of us that make decent livings are not responsible for YOUR failure as a human being. Resources abound to help you. Go use them. Suck it up and retool yourself for the world...NOW!!!!

Toilets need to be cleaned.
Shelves need to be stocked.
Most Americans have proven with their wallet, that they prefer to have someone else cook several of their meals.
The new growing trend, we don't even like to walk around a grocery store, we want to pay someone else to do that.

Now maybe all the "losers" can go learn more competitive skills and then who exactly is going to mop the floor where you work and put out toilet paper and cook the food you grab at the drive through because you are in a hurry?

The need for low skilled work exists.
You don't want to pay the cost of having that work done at a price that would permit a living wage and you don't want to pay taxes to supplement the wages of the people doing the work.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. You can't have your dollar menu burger and enough checkers at the store that you don't face a long line unless you either pay more at the cash register or more on your tax return.

If you think eff em is a solution go buy a good world history and see what happens when too many people are struggling to find food and shelter.

Im in no way saying fck'm. Im telling them how to make more than the current wage scale. Retool yourself for a better damn job. The resources are available for anyone that actually wants to do that. Flipping burgers and cleaning bathrooms were a part time job done by teenagers and the unskilled for decades. Suddenly these people want to make a "living wage" doing jobs that simply are not worth that to employers. For the record...I have no problem with subsidies for people similar to Clintons' workfare program designed to help these people improve their lives. Of course we know that Obama dismantled those programs. Why?...I have no idea...other than the possibility that Liberals like him really don't care to see people get themselves out of poverty. They actually thrive on keeping them there.

(12-21-2017 12:12 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 12:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:49 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  California's $15 Minimum Wage Could Backfire and Cost the State 400,000 Jobs, According to EPI Study

Quote:A newly released longitudinal study on the effects of the rising minimum wage in California reveals it negatively affects low-income workers.

“[A]pproximately 400,000 jobs would be lost” by 2022 “as a consequence” of California gradually imposing the first statewide $15 minimum wage, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit research organization. “This estimate is conservative, as it measures the impact of California’s state minimum wage but does not account for job loss in counties that had insufficient data.”

The law will disproportionately harm the very people that lawmakers claim they want to help the most: low-skilled workers. “[N]early half of the observed job loss occurs in food service and retail industries,” the study concludes.

Great...a study by some sort of interest group with an axe to grind. By the way, charity navigator has some sort of warning about this group.

California is doing great.

So great that a number of their cities are banking on a federal bailout? Yea, great.

if it wasn't for silicon valley revenue???? they most likely drop to the 30's in GDP terms......and it only goes down from there.....and they already have the largest poverty rate per capita....

that state is getting ready to get hit with a large dose of reality if/when silicon valley relocates.....

http://www.politifact.com/california/sta...world-and/

Silicon Valley is absolutely booming right now. I can't see how most people afford it.

(12-21-2017 11:49 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  California's $15 Minimum Wage Could Backfire and Cost the State 400,000 Jobs, According to EPI Study

Quote:A newly released longitudinal study on the effects of the rising minimum wage in California reveals it negatively affects low-income workers.

“[A]pproximately 400,000 jobs would be lost” by 2022 “as a consequence” of California gradually imposing the first statewide $15 minimum wage, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit research organization. “This estimate is conservative, as it measures the impact of California’s state minimum wage but does not account for job loss in counties that had insufficient data.”

The law will disproportionately harm the very people that lawmakers claim they want to help the most: low-skilled workers. “[N]early half of the observed job loss occurs in food service and retail industries,” the study concludes.

Great...a study by some sort of interest group with an axe to grind. By the way, charity navigator has some sort of warning about this group.

California is doing great.

Yep just great. Damn place is constantly shaking, on fire or sliding away in mud, out of money,losing businesses due to over regulation and high taxes.... and now this foolish nonsense.

(12-21-2017 11:49 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  California's $15 Minimum Wage Could Backfire and Cost the State 400,000 Jobs, According to EPI Study

Quote:A newly released longitudinal study on the effects of the rising minimum wage in California reveals it negatively affects low-income workers.

“[A]pproximately 400,000 jobs would be lost” by 2022 “as a consequence” of California gradually imposing the first statewide $15 minimum wage, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit research organization. “This estimate is conservative, as it measures the impact of California’s state minimum wage but does not account for job loss in counties that had insufficient data.”

The law will disproportionately harm the very people that lawmakers claim they want to help the most: low-skilled workers. “[N]early half of the observed job loss occurs in food service and retail industries,” the study concludes.

Great...a study by some sort of interest group with an axe to grind. By the way, charity navigator has some sort of warning about this group.

California is doing great.

Failing infrastructure, lack of water, high poverty, 1/5 of all the kids in foster care in the US are in California (60k), tax burdens that are causing people and businesses to leave, overbearing regulations...

Only positive I see is the innovation of Silicon Valley.

How do you figure "doing great"? Most people that I talk to are looking to get out.

I'm not trying to flame you, I just don't get your optimism for California.

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.

This is not difficult.

We as a society have to choose between two options.

Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

Its actually very difficult. The problem is employers have alternatives these days. If an unskilled burger flipper suddenly cost $15 an hour---the new robotic grillers and self-serve kiosks make alot more sense than living breathing employees. So, 75% of the jobs go away--and a small supervisory crew that manages/services/cleans the machinery is all thats required. Robots were not cost efficient at $8-10 and hour--but they make more sense as the wages rise. The reality is the jobs that unskilled labor do are exactly the kind of mundane simple repetetive tasks that robotics are well suited for.

You better have specialized skills these days if you want to earn a good wage. The old blue collar manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas...now whats left will in danger of displacement by robots/smart machines. Silicon Valley is the most likely place to see this trend start to gain traction as it now has high wages that are increasing and is located at the epicenter of smart technology.

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.
This is not difficult.
We as a society have to choose between two options.
Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

How about the employer pays the employee what his production is worth, and we the taxpayers supplement those wages if inadequate to provide food and shelter? That's fair for the employer, his/her consumers, the employee, and taxpayers.

(12-21-2017 06:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  $15 in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley is about the equivalent of $8.50 in Arkansas (current minimum wage in Arkansas). That's not an unreasonably high standard of living.
This is not difficult.
We as a society have to choose between two options.
Option 1. Let business pay whatever wage they want to pay and we the taxpayers will supplement those wages if the wage is inadequate to provide food and shelter.
Option 2. In the interest of a more robust economy, permit (arguably mandate) that any employer that cannot provide their employees a basic standard of living is not a viable business and force them to fail but employed people should not be paid so little that their wage is subsidized.

How about the employer pays the employee what his production is worth, and we the taxpayers supplement those wages if inadequate to provide food and shelter? That's fair for the employer, his/her consumers, the employee, and taxpayers.

I would agree with that if all states were equal relative to cost of living if federally funded....

however, they're not, nor will they ever be until the spoiled uber rich fully subsidize (and we know isn't going to happen)...................or................legislation is created that begins to level the playing field......

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......gotta start somewhere.....I'm in the camp of DJT's starting point....

we both want the same result in the end....however, we'll both be dead by then regardless of ideology and implementation.....I simply believe at chipping away at the stone vs. paul bunyan swinging the double sided axe w/o a snowball's chance of making contact.....

IMO, it's no different than going to the poll and casting a write-in......wasted effort will always yield waste....