quote Originally posted by pHoOl: Klinton made the major policy change of calling rifles 'Assault weapons' and banning them. That was his contribution to society. You may not be an owner, but think of it this way. If they start slashing the Bill of Rights, which one of them are you willing to sacrifice next?

what else is the ar15, ak47 sks etc for ? squirell hunting?

No **** what the hell would anyone need an assault rifle for? For collecting? Get a new hobby, like collecting stamps or something!

Oh yeah you can still go buy them all WOW, that really hurt the gun collectors.

quote Originally posted by jb1: I am sick of hearing that , What would have happened if Gore was in office?? Give an idea how it would be like! Hummm lets see He probably would have went to Afghanastan and Not captured ben laden.......... that would have been terriable...... Oh yeah Bush has not capture him, instead he turns focus to Iraq. A country and dictator that could be a threat not a person that is a threat.

It's not so much Al himself that I was worried about, it's his nag bag wife Tipper that really turned me off to Al. If Al had a spine of his own I may have been inclined to support him.

You appear to me a person of inaction much like Gore, a mouth without teeth. I happen to feel the moves Bush made in Afganistan and Iraq were not only to benefit himself and his interests (personally) but will have a long range effect that will not be seen for a decade or there bouts.

Forgin policy is a trivial matter when one looks to the short term but like many things one must work and sacrefice to attain something of value. This idea of work and benefit has been lost and the next generation is even worse than the current one. The next generation believes that all things are handed out to them and that sacrefice is something their leaders (or someone else) must endure. It's alarming to me when we have a room full of people who oppose the yolk and demand the reward.
In other words if you want to move the ox cart you must get an ox and yet no one wants to volunteer the ox yet they want the cart moved regardless then ***** up a storm untill it gets moved and complain about how it is done, how long it took and how much it cost them.

Anyway, Gore was a paper lion and Tipper was the lion trainer and a very bad one to boot. He almost got in, fear not becase the trend that I see means someone like him will eventually get into office and all your petty rantigs will go away..... Right? Well in a way they will because when that person takes office the policy from a decade past will finally be in effect making a blooming idiot look like a hero.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Anyway, Gore was a paper lion and Tipper was the lion trainer and a very bad one to boot. He almost got in, fear not becase the trend that I see means someone like him will eventually get into office and all your petty rantigs will go away..... Right? Well in a way they will because when that person takes office the policy from a decade past will finally be in effect making a blooming idiot look like a hero.

Sounds to me like you are both preparing for Bush's departure and conjuring up an argument to attack the president who does well in office. I know what you mean, but I couldn't help myself.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Your right it is funded for the most part locally, but what happened during Clintons term was more state money for things like education, and with a surplus budget the money marked for education was well spent. After Bush took office tuition in CT community colleges and State Universites increased and on top of that they added new fees like Design Lab fee of $100 per semester. I am sure you know all about fed money and local property tax etc. all being tied together. When one decreases the others increase. Happened here in CT after Bush took office, Fed gave less to CT so the state had less money for towns, so towns raised property taxes, and the state increased sales tax on certain items like clothes and tobacco.

What exactly did Clinton do to make this happen? The President has no control over what states do. Except for him being President during a very good economy, I can't see what he did to make this happen.

Here is a quote from Bill CLinton:

"Also, I assume we'll have to wait beyond the election, but if we can make the thirteenth and fourteenth years of education in effect as universal as high school education is today, I think that would make a profound difference. And if we started by getting people who are in the work force now to come back and do this, with the tax-credit proposal, I think the likelihood that those people's incomes would go up is very, very high. These community colleges are almost infinitely expandable, you know, and they are by definition related to the emerging economies in the areas they serve."

From this news site: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/clinton/clinton.htm

CLintons education accomplishments in Connecticut.

More High-Quality Teachers With Smaller Classes for Connecticut's Schools: Thanks to the Class Size Reduction Initiative, Connecticut received $11.3 million in 1999 to hire about 292 new, well-prepared public school teachers and reduce class size in the early grades. President Clinton secured funding for a second installment of the plan, giving Connecticut an additional $12.3 million in 2000. (some of this money I believe helped the community college budget by reducing the state's burden)

$4.7 Million in Goals 2000 Funding: This year [FY00], Connecticut receives $4.7 million in Goals 2000 funding. This money is used to raise academic achievement by raising academic standards, increasing parental and community involvement in education, expanding the use of computers and technology in classrooms, and supporting high-quality teacher professional development. [Education Department, 12/3/99]

$45.1 Million in Pell Grants: This year [FY00], Connecticut will receive $45.1 million in Pell Grants for low-income students going to college, benefiting 24,356 Connecticut students.
Expanded Work-Study To Help More Students Work Their Way Through College: The FY00 budget includes a significant expansion of the Federal Work Study program. Connecticut will receive more than $11 million in Work-Study funding in 2000 to help Connecticut students work their way through college.

Tuition Tax Credits in Balanced Budget Open the Doors of College and Promote Lifelong Learning: The balanced budget included both President Clinton's $1,500 HOPE Scholarship to help make the first two years of college as universal as a high school diploma and a Lifetime Learning Tax Credit for college juniors, seniors, graduate students and working Americans pursuing lifelong learning to upgrade their skills. This 20% tax credit will be applied to the first $5,000 of tuition and fees through 2002 and to the first $10,000 thereafter. 56,000 students in Connecticut will receive a HOPE Scholarship tax credit of up to $1,500. 69,000 students in Connecticut will receive the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit. [fully phased-in FY2000 estimate]

From http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/states/Connecticut.html

Thats just a few.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 02-04-2004).]

You're forgetting that Clinton was in office during the dotcom boom. There were more federal tax dollars to spend. Same thing is happening here in California, less tax rev to spend, gotta cut the budget. Of course, the Demos blame the big, bad Repubs, who have the misfortune for being in office durnig the leaner times, for cutting the budget. More bulls**t politics. Nice try, Connecticut.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 02-04-2004).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Sounds to me like you are both preparing for Bush's departure and conjuring up an argument to attack the president who does well in office. I know what you mean, but I couldn't help myself.

I am leaning for Bush (atleast he has my vote firmly in hand) and I'm not counting on his departure and here is why.

Bush supports BIG BUSINESS and as we know BIG BUSINESS is off the charts in black ink. So in essance Bush does have a greater support in the MONEY department. I don't care what anyone says, if you have the support of those that control the money you are as good as gold and success is assured (nodd nodd wink wink). About the only thing Bush could do to kill this off is to force big business into spending that money they have locked up and HIRE some people for work NOW ("work" being the sorely lacking operative).
What is most likely to happen is either Bush or the next guy in office will do just that. The money is out there now how do you convince BIG BUSINESS to spend it on the masses they collected it from????
The next term will define the answer to that question.

Forgin policy is not so much the issue HOWEVER it is somewhat effectivly being used as the "smoke and mirrors" that the public eats like candy and is fed regularly. The opposition is VERY smart by using this as a battle cry but the real problem is UNEMPLOYMENT. The government NEEDS taxpayers so the pressure is on to get that cash and the only way to get it is through WORKING PEOPLE.
GWB has set the stage for economic recovery (that Bill destroyed and nearly sucked dry before he left office)...
BIG BUSINESS has the cash but is sitting on it to boulster their stocks and collect juicy dividends so their investors/stock holders can send Buffy and Biff to collage and pack the golden parachute. The process is counter productive (if continued for a long term) since the very people who are buying and supporting the business are slowly drying up but will never fully go away. This "Leaning" economy is great for companies that can streamline but bad for the people and for slow to adapt business.
Companies have a VAST work pool that is willing to work long hard hours for little pay and meger benefits (they require to exist)

What is this all leading up to?
Well lets say Bush does not get back in, the next president will whip up on BIG BUSINESS to spend again and the economy will live happily ever after making the Republicans look like total BAFOONS!

If Bush stays in, same deal but the opposition will not get the credit.

Either way the american people will see changes in the employment rate and our government will get fat on the desperaty needed tax dollars we so lovingly give them.

For the various factions of government it is a high stakes election and to the victor goes the spoils.

That my friends is the bottom line.
MONEY

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 02-04-2004).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You're forgetting that Clinton was in office during the dotcom boom. There were more federal tax dollars to spend. Same thing is happening here in California, less tax rev to spend, gotta cut the budget. Of course, the Demos blame the big, bad Repubs, who have the misfortune for being in office durnig the leaner times, for cutting the budget. More bulls**t politics. Nice try, Connecticut.

Nice try you say? I was merely pointing out the truth. I mean its all in public record. Pres Bush proposed $140 billion dollars for our nations community colleges but that never happened. Is that politics too?

Don't discount facts just because our country had more money to spend. The point is, where it was spent and who put it there.

I know the economy isn't all president Bush's fault, heck if you did a search you would find my support of Bush on certain issues. I blame the real economic downturn of the nation's economy on the events of 9/11. The effect on the stock market was tremendous. Then there was the strain on the Insurance companies and the cost of mobilizing our forces. There was a lot less money coming in and a lot going out.

But now that we have a clearing to review all our problems, I don't see Bush doing anything worthy of helping our economy. Its the sme old trickle down economics BS that conservative republicans always spin into an economic stimulus policy package that the public buys into. Well guess what, its not. Its merely a facade for what really is tax relief for the rich and for corporations. I don't buy the theory of less government, less taxes, equals more money in my pocket. Because that slack has to be picked up somewhere. And I don't buy the theory that says taking less money from the rich and big busineses creates new jobs or raises pay for employees. I believe it makes greater profits and lets the rich hold onto more of their money. Its bullsh!t and you guys eat it all up like its the natural law of the universe.

And then you guys always bring up Clinton and say that all liberals want (stereotyping democrats) is to be back in the fictional glory days of Clinton. Then of course you attack him with BS about Reagan and Bush actually being responsible for the economy being what it was in the 90's. Give me a break and come up with something new. I know you cannot attribute fault or credit to only one man in a nation of 280 million. But I will not sit here and listen to you attack Clintons record with childish remarks while ignoring some obviously strong accomplishments. Not everything is attributable to the dot com boom, nor is it attributable to only Clinton.

No FieroBear that last part doesn't apply all to you.

EDIT: Major spelling errors

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 02-04-2004).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I never said that the government paid for my degree I said that if it wasn't for the government funding to the community college systems I wouldn't have been able to afford the tuition. Trust me I know what its like to pay for 4 clases while working 40-50 hours a week and trying to be around as much as possible for my then pregnant girlfriend at the time. It was tough and since I still am going it still is tough. I think you are missing the point about the minimum wage employees. Some of these people are not exactly spring chickens with a lot going for them. Some people have been stuck in low payimg jobs their whole life and the only business they know is retail. I've met plenty of them when I was in highschool working at stores. I even met one guy who was a book editor that was laid off and couldn't find a better job than working at Office Max for $6 an hour. Retail is like slave labor in this country and sometimes people get caught up in it and never get out. Its these people and food service workers who need the extra boost in the minimum wage.

I never said I thought the govt. paid for your degree. I'm just saying I would have afforded it whether the govt. funded colleges or not. It's how hard you're willing to work. If I have to, I'll work 16 hour days or more.

I have nothing against raising the minimum wage. I think many people in those types of jobs work their butts off and deserve more. But lets face it, if you don't have the skills, you're not going to get the money.

If you want the skills, start taking classes. Can't afford it? Take one class at a time, get another job to pay the tuition if needed. It can be done whether the govt. helps the system or not.

I was a roofing foreman for 3 years before and partly during the time I went to college. I saw these kind of people all the time. The only reason they were stuck tearing off roofs for $8 an hour is because they wanted to do it. They were totally capable of doing better for themselves, but heaven forbid they spend the next 2-5 years going to night school to get a better job.

Again, as far as the increase in minimum wage, I think that would be a great thing....and as you've pointed out, historically it hasn't been a problem

Dave

Sorry, he didn't pass either of those, a Republican Congress did that, he just signed them into law. I'll say it again, the PRESIDENT has little to do with taxing and spending. The CONGRESS CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS OF THE NATION.

Have you ever noticed that when the Executive Branch (no matter who's in office) sends down a new budget, like just happened, it is a PROPOSAL? It has to be voted on and approved by the house and senate before a single dime is spent.

This is an important distinction. When we complain about many of the things involved in the fiscal side of our government, we need to really remember who actually is responsible for it. I'll say it again, I don't give Clinton (or Reagan or Bush or Carter or any other President) credit or blame for much of what goes on in the economy. A President can do some minor tweaking but that's about it.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: He helped pass tax changes like the Hope Scholarship credit which will help struggling students get a descent tax return during their first two years in college. He also passed the LifeTime learning credit which allows people who want to go back to school to claim $1500.00 or 20% whichever is greater of their school related expenses as writeoffs against their taxes. There you go thats two.

I haven't seen any of that here in KS. Our community colleges, if anything, they are doing a land office business because of increases in tuition at our State Universities. Most all of our Junior Colleges here have a basic, pre-University curriculum that's tailored for our state Universities so that students can go there first, get their general eds out of the way and not have issues of classes not transferring.

Besides all that, you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I do NOT believe it's my responsibility to help fun community colleges in Connecticut just like I don't believe it's your responsiblity to send one slim dime of yours to KS to fund ours. That's the entire philosophy of a community college, it's established and funded by the community it supports for the community it supports.

What's really amusing is your quote "I never would have been able to get a college degree without the help of Clinton".

He had so little to do with college funding it's laughable. If you want to thank a President, thank Eisenhower who was at the helm when what became the Perkins student loan program was started. Or thank LBJ who was in office at the time of the Higher Education Act (Title IV). Or thank Jimmy Carter for his push for the Parent Student Loan programs. Or thank Ronald Reagan when the Guaranteed Student Loans (Stafford Loans) were revamped and made accesible in 1988. What Clinton did in comparison to these other Presidents (regardless of party) is nothing.

But you would prefer to thank Bill Clinton, who for all practical purposes did nothing to further higher education. Oh well........

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Heres another thing: During his term the national community college system in the U.S. was funded enough that at least 1 of the 6 community colleges in this state was brought to modern standards for higher learning. You should see it, its a gorgeous building packed with technology and art galleries. Once Bush took office there was no more money left to continue the effort to upgrade our schools to where they need to be. And Pres Bush has actually taken position against helping fund community colleges. Go ahead and talk about wealth redistribution, but I can tell you that I never would have been able to get a college degree without the help of Clinton. I could afford the tuition because federal funding to the schools helped keep the cost affordable, then I would actually get some money back in my taxes that I would have otherwise had to kiss goodbye.

I don't like Clinton as a President because he didn't respect the office he held. He showed it and the people he was commander in chief over nothing but contempt. That's why I didn't like him.

I also didn't like his policy of appeasement to bullies. I'm not going to blame him for 9/11, though. I think something like that would have happened at some time no matter what the policy, but I do think he gave them a sense that we were a bunch of paper tigers. I'll also never forgive him for letting technology that aided the Chinese in developing a more sophisticated weapon delivery system get to them where it has most likely found it's way to places like N Korea.

But that has little to do with this discussion.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Just because you don't like Clinton that doesn't make what he did any less important.

ABUSED at Wal Mart? Well, I don't shop there because the drive out smaller businesses and are a detriment on our economy, IMHO. When a Wal Mart Supercenter opens in a rural area it's generally welcomed as a new source of jobs. What generally ends up happening is enough small businesses close their doors that for every 2 jobs brought in by Wal Mart 3 are lost within 3 years. Read the book "How WalMart is destroying America" by Bill Quinn to understand what WalMart really is.

You can raise the minimum wage all you want and it won't affect Wally World one bit because most of the people that WOULD be covered under minimum wage aren't, and aren't going to be, because they're part time help. What will happen is that WalMart, McDonalds, and other businesses that exist on cheap labor will have fewer full time positions and more part time positions causing more people to lose what benefits they have. Now that's being compassionate, isn't it? Or are you now going to argue that businesses must also provide full benefits to part time employees as well? If so, you obviously have never owned or run a small business.

You talk about "cutting profits" like that's something businesses are willing to do. How are you going to enforce that little philosophy, price controls as well as wage controls in the form of higher minimum wages? Nixon tried that, it didn't work very well. There will be less full time jobs that are subject to the minimum wage and more part time jobs that aren't and have no benefits. Talk to the kids that work at McDonalds and find out what happens when they have to work 38 hours a week and no more so they stay part time.

I don't sit back and look down at anyone. I respect anyone that's making their way in this world by earning an honest days living. The simple fact is that just because YOU or the GOVERNMENT thinks that everyone should be paid $8, $9, or more per hour doesn't mean that it's actually WORTH it financially to pay someone that much to ask "Would you like fires with that?" or "Welcome to WalMart". People, for the most part, are paid what their job is worth.

And you're right, I haven't worked a regular 40 hour week in so long I don't remember what it was like. I'd like to get back to it someday, I'll call it retirement.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: And BTW there are so many people being abused in places like Walmart being paid minimum wage for years and years, these places need at least a certain amount of people to operate. They would have no choice but to cut profits or cut somewhere else, I don't believe it means cutting staff. Heck I don't mind paying 2 pennies more each time I buy a pair of socks from Walmart. So please explain how it is that there would be less jobs if the minimum wage was raised. I think you have all forgotten what its like to work 40 hrs a week and take home like $150.00 You all sit in your place of comfort and look down upon theese poor folks who don't have the skill or education to do something better. I remember the hell of working minimum wage and being treated like sh!t.

John Stricker

I'd like to expound on one point you made about the Budget, John.

Even though the President does not have any actual control over spending and taxation, he can be either a dynamic leader who inspires Congress to show restraint and work towards a vision the HE has created. Or he can sit there biting his nails hoping Congress does not upstage him and do what ever they want.

Reagan (with a Democratic Controlled Congress) was the former, Clinton (with a Republican Controled Congress) was the latter, Bush ? The jury is still out, but he is leaning towards the former. Admittedly, he does not have to contend with a hostile Congress ...yet. If they keep spending as they have been doing things may change in the next election. Then his mettle will truly be tested.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: About the only thing Bush could do to kill this off is to force big business into spending that money they have locked up and HIRE some people for work NOW ("work" being the sorely lacking operative).

I agree, it's kinda ironic Bush being the supporter of big business and special interests that you'd think they would help him out about now?

Thing is they can't help him.

Real jobs, manufacturing, etc and money, potential tax revenues, are fleeing the country like none other in favor for cheap labor and free trade and all the president can think of is making it legal for companies to hire illegal immigrants. I see you mentioned NAFTA in an earlier post. Do you know what the president's stance is on NAFTA? and the democrats running for office? He's had 4 years to modify or create a new agreement that promotes fair trade and hasn't had to deal with a hostile congress, instead you'll find he's promoted expansion of free trade. He has done very little to give businesses incentives to stay in this country. I believe it's good to give companies tax incentives and abatements to place jobs and work here but it should be agreed at that time that they will forefeit those if they choose to move work to another country.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: In other words you can get an education in technology but you better plan on moving to India or working for a contractor. If you get lucky you MAY get a job in management and that is where the real benefits are.... if you manage to dodge the "management cuts" that come along every 7 to 10 years.

Is that what we as Americans want? I sure don't. Why are people even arguing over whether or not government should help or not help college students. It won't matter, high skilled and educated people will be leaving the country to work elsewhere and if that keeps up who cares about the education systems, there simply will not be any work here. If it is they will be low skilled, low wage service jobs, however if you're lucky you might get the management job at a McDonalds.

[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 02-04-2004).]

Here in Connecticut minimum wage is mandatory for part timers as well. Are you saying that part time employees don't have a "minimum" wage?

The only other point I have enough energy to make is that all people are worth more than what the minimum wage in this country is. I think you need to step down off of your high horse and appreciate what a hard job it is to deal with people all day long that think pretty much the way you do about them. I thank my lucky stars every day that I am fortunate enough to be worth something to my employer, but I don't discount those hard working folks that work harder than I do for 1/4 the pay. Every human is worth at least enough to be independent. Whichis damn near impossible on minimum wage. Minimum wage hasn't increased with cost of living and these people are falling farther and farther behind. What would you have happen if the fed shouldn't do anything. Should we let these people be slaves to corporations like walmart? Do you really think walmart or McDonalds is willing to raise people's pay on their own?

Maybe their are some downfalls to raising the minimum wage, but I don't think a loss of jobs is one of them. You probably are right about these places trying to staff only part timers, but at $10 an hour they could get a few part time jobs.

quote Originally posted by Tigger: Is that what we as Americans want? I sure don't. Why are people even arguing over whether or not government should help or not help college students. It won't matter, high skilled and educated people will be leaving the country to work elsewhere and if that keeps up who cares about the education systems, there simply will not be any work here. If it is they will be low skilled, low wage service jobs, however if you're lucky you might get the management job at a McDonalds.

That is a bleak outlook but OUR GOVERNMENT wants high paying jobs so they can get the tax dollars so don't worry about the low pay and total lack of work, that will never happen. Our government is greed driven so if they are smart (and they are) the will feed the golden goose just enough to keep it alive.

NAFTA
Collage and education are nothing more that fraternaty network generators. If I was your frat brother in collage and you had a good position somewhere, who are you going to call when there is an opening I can fit into? Particularly if I "call in a favor".
NAFTA works the same way but it's more of a "global enconomic fraternity" that has spread the wealth around but the real motivation was so that select people who had BIG INVESTMENT MONEY (gaind from the 80's/90's boom) could shelter it off shore and make even bigger money on the return. Kinda like what our vice president IS DOING. Don't be shocked and surprised by this (I'm not} because it has been going on since the dawn of our government.

Bush or whoever just may modify NAFTA however if Bush did it now it would definatly KILL any and all possibilities for reelection not to mention pissoff the many investors who will be cought when it slams shut. It will happen but not to fast because the BIG MONEY insiders need to close shop and move somewhere safe and that takes time, Time to shred documents and bury the evidence.
The way american companies to business off shore will DEFINATLY change over the next term.

The money is there and it's in american hands, unfotunatly it's not being spent yet but it is gathering interest.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 02-04-2004).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: You appear to me a person of inaction much like Gore, a mouth without teeth. I happen to feel the moves Bush made in Afganistan and Iraq were not only to benefit himself and his interests (personally) but will have a long range effect that will not be seen for a decade or there bouts. .

WOW you are so observant! from 1-2 posts you know me.
I do not disagree that it will have a long term effect , I never said that I do not think Sadam should have been taking out or steps should not have been taken against either country, but people talk like Gore would have done nothing. I do not feel that would be true, but that does not matter what Gore would have done. It is not like Bush has done anything amazing in the capture of Osama either. My point is why go into Iraq to eliminate an axis of evil that is not currently a direct threat , when the direct threat has not been eliminated? If it was so important to take Saddam out why wasnt it done the first time? Its not like he just started being defiant the past few years, he gassed the kurds in the 80's nothign was done. Wouldnt it make more sense to finish captureing the current direct threat then take care of something that might be a threat once agenda #1 is complete.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Sorry, he didn't pass either of those, a Republican Congress did that, he just signed them into law. I'll say it again, the PRESIDENT has little to do with taxing and spending. The CONGRESS CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS OF THE NATION.

Its his signature thats req'd to make it law. The bills start in Congress w/ thier respective committees that also get $$$ from lobbyists to throw in amendments and scam pork fat. The process then moves UP to the executive branch who then signs the **** .

At least thats what I was tought in fine exclusive public schools...

ALSO Executive powers are used to streamline the spending and wartime process. Ex: DoD running the show in Iraq [NOT the State Dept]

The president is the one who directs all major policies and objectives for that nation.
He will put in motion the monies neccessary to strengthen or weaken any nation or cause.

He has everything to do w/ the economy and job growth. ex: Roosevelt

Johnboy would have us all believe Bush is just along for the ride (like riding a ferris wheel or something).

Im here to say thats simply NOT THE CASE.

OUT>

[This message has been edited by G-Nasty (edited 02-05-2004).]

quote Originally posted by jb1: My point is why go into Iraq to eliminate an axis of evil that is not currently a direct threat , when the direct threat has not been eliminated?

Mainly for a stable economic global community. Not only is our government saving us from ourselves but it is also saving the world from itself.

We only have roughtly 30 to 40 years of oil left on this planet, add 10 years to that number and thats why the Kurds were cannon fodder, Osama was a friend because he was thumping on Russia for us. Now that we are a bit older an wiser our policy has changed, our weapons are much much better and we want to have the last drop of crude oil to sell at a very tidy profit.

You are confusing policy/government with logic. NEVER do that, it wont work. Government is not going to ever do "the right thing" if it does not benefit itself (IE the person in charge) first.

People will always protect themselves from inconvienence even if it means they are FORCED to pay a few dollars more.
An example (true story)
There is a guy I know who has an airplane on a local PUBLIC airport. The FBO (that controls his tiedown) disallowed him (rather a close friend who is an A&P) from changing the oil in his airplane himself thus forcing him to have the FBO do the REQUIRED maintinence at a premium. He was asked to sign a formal complaint but refused because he FEARS the FBOs retaliation (and he will have to drive 20 miles from the office to the next airport). To date 2 people have been THROWN OFF A PUBLIC AIRPORT for just that reason and this person along with a few others have been threatened. Oddly enough this same person screams "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!" at every meeting and calls the AOPA airport advisor (the one who recomended he sign a complaint against the FBO) inept and unresponsive!!
It makes no sense but thats how people are.

Like I explained before, the job situation will change next term no matter who is in office, it has to because this government needs the tax money to pay for things like "area 51"

I don't golf but the guy who owns the airplane does, He is a doctor and I'm sure he don't give a hoot about buying somethimg made in the US. Why pay for a 100 dollar golf club made in the US when you can get a 500 dollar club (cost 35 dollars to manufacture) in China by an (off shore US) company he owns stock in. MY GOD MAN look at all the retirement money that company is making for him!

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 02-05-2004).]

In many cases, that's exactly what I'm saying. Minors working, for example, are not required to be paid minimum wage. I do think that Wal Mart does pay their part timers minimum wage but to be sure, I'd have to ask my son who has some college friends that work for them part time.

Regardless, what will happen if the minimum wage is raised is there will be fewer full time minimum wage positions and more part time positions (of whatever pay rate) that have no benefits at all. Simple economicsl The benefits I pay my employees in insurance, perks, housing (yes, I furnish them a house) along with the witholdings nearly doubles their pay. A part time position would save a ton of money to any company that paid dividends.

What's really interesting is that some of the "liberals" (and I'm not thinking about you or anyone in particular, I'm just remembering posts I've read in the past) on the forum that are continually complaining about the job market and how Bush hasn't done anything to create new jobs are at the same time pushing to increase the cost to business to have those jobs. Do you really think the two aren't connected?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Here in Connecticut minimum wage is mandatory for part timers as well. Are you saying that part time employees don't have a "minimum" wage? The only other point I have enough energy to make is that all people are worth more than what the minimum wage in this country is. I think you need to step down off of your high horse and appreciate what a hard job it is to deal with people all day long that think pretty much the way you do about them. I thank my lucky stars every day that I am fortunate enough to be worth something to my employer, but I don't discount those hard working folks that work harder than I do for 1/4 the pay. Every human is worth at least enough to be independent. Whichis damn near impossible on minimum wage. Minimum wage hasn't increased with cost of living and these people are falling farther and farther behind. What would you have happen if the fed shouldn't do anything. Should we let these people be slaves to corporations like walmart? Do you really think walmart or McDonalds is willing to raise people's pay on their own? Maybe their are some downfalls to raising the minimum wage, but I don't think a loss of jobs is one of them. You probably are right about these places trying to staff only part timers, but at $10 an hour they could get a few part time jobs.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You're forgetting that Clinton was in office during the dotcom boom. There were more federal tax dollars to spend. Same thing is happening here in California, less tax rev to spend, gotta cut the budget. Of course, the Demos blame the big, bad Repubs, who have the misfortune for being in office durnig the leaner times, for cutting the budget. More bulls**t politics. Nice try, Connecticut.

The dotcom boom had nothing to do with it. Clinton spent less on the military, so there was more money to spend on other more important things.

I dont think its any conicidence that when republicans are in office that things are leaner. Maybe it has something to do with the tax cuts for the rich?

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: Brilliant post. I think the problem here is, many people only care about themselves. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to help someone making 30k/year or higher. It's only going to make the cost of Big Macs go up and thats all they care about.

uh, no. Big Macs will still cost the same, but 10% of the people who used to make them will be out of a job. But then again I guess us conservitives are only thinking of ourselves.

McDonals has a strategy of getting people through the drive thru in something like 2 1/2 minutes. That can't be accomplished with less people. I have a feeling they will (yes will because minimum wage will eventually go up no matter who is in office) probably have to cut costs some other way. Like raising the price of Big Macs or finding cheaper packaging. Who knows maybe they will even have a reduction in the specified amount of ketchup packets they give when people ask. Or they could try to short people of straws like they do now. I hate it when they forget the straw and you have to suck through the straw opening.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: uh, no. Big Macs will still cost the same, but 10% of the people who used to make them will be out of a job. But then again I guess us conservitives are only thinking of ourselves.

If this is the conclusion you reach from this very simple economics problem, you're certainly not doing much time thinking about economics. I would have thought someone who boasts about an IQ rivaling Copernicus would have arrived at a different conclusion...

Oh well. There must be an explanation if you honestly think about it. Maybe Occam was wrong...

-Jeff

Occam was right, but Copernicus never worked for Ray Kroc.

quote Originally posted by JeffMN: If this is the conclusion you reach from this very simple economics problem, you're certainly not doing much time thinking about economics. -Jeff

Since I am in the process of getting a Masters degree in the subject from Santa Clara University I would have to tend to disagree with you. Perhaps you'ld care to impart your many years of education and experience on this subject for the benefit of those of us who dare to trust in the mountain of text books we read.

Why would a McDonald's Franchise owner risk sending his customers across the street to Burger King by raising the price of Big Mac when he can reduce head count by one employee in order to maintain his cost model and necessary profit margin? It sound to me like you are advocating High cost - Low volume as a way of doing business instead of High volume - Low cost. But do tell, perhaps I just missed that chapter back in Economics 101.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Since I am in the process of getting a Masters degree in the subject from Santa Clara University I would have to tend to disagree with you. Perhaps you'ld care to impart your many years of education and experience on this subject for the benefit of those of us who dare to trust in the mountain of text books we read. Why would a McDonald's Franchise owner risk sending his customers across the street to Burger King by raising the price of Big Mac when he can reduce head count by one employee in order to maintain his cost model and necessary profit margin? It sound to me like you are advocating High cost - Low volume as a way of doing business instead of High volume - Low cost. But do tell, perhaps I just missed that chapter back in Economics 101.

Perhaps what you said makes absolutely no sense. Seeing as Burger King would also be affected by a minimum wage increase of course?

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Perhaps what you said makes absolutely no sense. Seeing as Burger King would also be affected by a minimum wage increase of course?

Really? Do they buy meat from the same source? Do they have the same Pensions and Retirement Plans? Health care costs? McDonald's has a supplier agreement with Coca-Cola, Burger King with Pepsi; does Coke charge the same for syrup as Pepsi? What does a McDonald's Uniform cost vs a Burger King Uniform? Is McDonald's overhead more or less than Burger King's? Do Franchise signs, advertisements, cups, drink lids, straws, etc. cost more for Burger King or for McDonalds?

Pleeeeeeeeze tell me more about how the economies of scale for McDonald's and Burger King are exactly the same.

Moreover, if Burger King chooses to raise the price of Whopper to offset high minimum wages and McDonald's chooses instead to fire someone, who's going to get more business? If McDonald's gets more business as a result of lower costs what is going to happen to the high priced employees who are unsuccessfully trying to sell a more expensive hamburger? does the word DUH mean anything to you? Looks like you just can't avoid losing jobs now does it?

Making no sense? Put the mouse down and step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: uh, no. Big Macs will still cost the same, but 10% of the people who used to make them will be out of a job. But then again I guess us conservitives are only thinking of ourselves.

Uh, back that statement up?

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: Uh, back that statement up?

Well, seeing how the first action of companies that are struggling is usually to lay off employees rather than raise prices, I don't see that as a completely outrageous statement.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Well, seeing how the first action of companies that are struggling is usually to lay off employees rather than raise prices, I don't see that as a completely outrageous statement.

When was the last time you saw a minimum wage paying company lay off workers?

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: Uh, back that statement up?

It is perhaps the simplest and most well know graph in the field of economics. A simple supply/demand graph.

In a competitive environment (ie, non-monolpoly firms) employment decisions are determined by marginal analysis. Since Price is a product of demand as price increases, value decreases. Px = ha/mpa = Marginal Cost

Where :
ha = Price
a = Quantity
Vmpa = Value of the Marginal Product

The supply of labor is a constant in this model. The point at which price equals the value of the marginal product STOP HIRING! If the cost to produce the product goes up then the value goes down and your employees go down as well.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 02-06-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: When was the last time you saw a minimum wage paying company lay off workers?

Turnover is generally much higher at minimum wage paying companies. So they can just wait until someone quits and not replace them.

Actually, it is very likely increasing minimum wage will improve the economy. I'm sure I could find names of independent economists... Joe Stiglitz comes to mind. As it turns out the minimum wage jobs are the most difficult to fill anyway, so increasing the minimum wage will not adversely effect the ability of a person to find one. Also, paying a person more will allow them to spend more - pretty solid economics really.

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: Actually, it is very likely increasing minimum wage will improve the economy. I'm sure I could find names of independent economists... Joe Stiglitz comes to mind. As it turns out the minimum wage jobs are the most difficult to fill anyway, so increasing the minimum wage will not adversely effect the ability of a person to find one. Also, paying a person more will allow them to spend more - pretty solid economics really.

Wrong. It all goes back to cost. The business will NOT make lees profit so something has GOT to give... job loss, raising prices, cutting benifits, etc. While it mak feel good for the minimun wage employee to get a small bump in income, he will pay more in the grocery store, gas station, restaurant, amuisment parks, etc. very soon, all his "extra" income is being spent at the same rate as before.

Raising minimum wage is only a hand-out. If you want to make more, apply for more education. Unless you come from a wealthy family and are a minor, the government will gladly give you lots of money for education. Once you bettered yourself, better jobs will be available to you.

Roy

quote Originally posted by mrfixit58: Raising minimum wage is only a hand-out. If you want to make more, apply for more education. Unless you come from a wealthy family and are a minor, the government will gladly give you lots of money for education. Once you bettered yourself, better jobs will be available to you. Roy

Actually minimum wage is not a hand-out. It is mandating a fair and livable wage for people who have to work such jobs. Demographically these people are the least likely to succeed in higher education (let alone know where to get funding for it). Similarly we have been brooking deflation for the past 4 years while average income continues to increase (again, of those with income to increase). I refer you to Eric Sclosser's Fast Food Nation to see the cost increase you would incur by an increase in minimum wage on your hamburger. It is on the order of 2 cents. Billions served, remember. Let's not forget volume.