You guys keep saying that minimum wage causes job loss and a decrease in full time employees etc.. Well prove it then. There is plenty of data out there. Its not like we haven't increased minimum wage throughout the years. Here I'll build my case starting here. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

Thats a link to the Economics Policy Institute. Here is a little snippit to prove my case that there is NO evidence that minimum wage does anything but HELP people.

"There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.

A recent EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. These results are similar to other studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as to studies of several state minimum wage increases.
New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. This model recognizes that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. "

OH THATS A LIBERAL ORGANIZATION YOU SAY.

OK then heres another one.[/]

http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/reich/reports/pay.htm

"With unemployment at its lowest level in years, should we be tinkering with the minimum wage? Won't an increase in the minimum wage hinder the creation of new jobs?

The minimum wage is currently valued at 29% lower in real terms than it was in 1979.

A number of recent studies have found that a moderate rise in the minimum wage has little, if any, affect on job creation starting at such a low level. In fact, "The impact of a minimum wage rise on jobs is small," the New York Times quoted Nobel Laureate Robert Solow as saying. The Times also reported that economists agree that a minimum wage rise will lift the incomes of low wage workers."

These aren't political leftist sites either.

If thats not enough go search yourself, and don't do a bias search I didn't I just searched ---minimum wage--- job loss--- historically.

I think you guys are full of it. Pretty much every single point you made about minimum wage is false.

I think it was Jstricker that said minimum wage is for young people just getting into the job market..

Well here ya go....

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/living_wage/qanda.html

[b]"Q. Aren't most low-wage workers teenagers?
Extensive analysis of past and proposed minimum wage policies has determined that the primary beneficiaries are low-wage workers who are disproportionately adult, female, and people of color. Most of the workers who benefit are members of low-income families.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analyzed the current proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage from its present level of $5.15 to $6.15 per hour. EPI found that about 11.8 million workers (10.1% of the workforce) would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were raised to $6.15 per hour. Seventy-two percent of these workers are adults (age 20 and older) and 59.2% are female. Because the minimum wage workforce is disproportionately minority, 15.1% of those affected by the increase are African-American and 17.4% of those affected are Hispanics (compared to 11.6% and 10.6% respectively of these groups’ total workforce representation).

Close to half of the would-be beneficiaries of the minimum wage increase worked full-time (48.2%) and another third (32.9%) worked between 20 and 34 hours per week. Data from the last minimum wage increase reveal that 58% of the benefits went to low-income working families in the bottom 40% of income distribution. "

I *THINK* I said they were entry level and unskilled positions predominantly for young people but I also referenced Wal Mart door greeters, etc., that obviously are NOT young people.

Let's just look at what the report you posted had to say for a minute.

"The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analyzed the current proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage from its present level of $5.15 to $6.15 per hour."

$1 per hour increase is not moderate, it's almost a 20% wage increase. How much more would you make a year with a 20% increase and, additionally, how much more would it cost your employer? (don't forget that $1 increase is actually at least a $1.10 increase minimum by the time the employer pays the additional social security and other witholdings that are wage based.)

"EPI found that about 11.8 million workers (10.1% of the workforce) would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were raised to $6.15 per hour. "

Notice how carefully this is worded. It doesn't say that there are 11.8 million minimum wage earners. It says that 11.8 million workers would get a raise. That means that employees that now are getting, say, $6 would also get a bump. It also points out the reality that if you have workers that are making, say, $6.25 you're going to have to increase THEIR wages as well to get them off that minimum wage status. The minimum wage increase does not affect just minimum wage earners. 5% of our TOTAL US POPULATION DOES NOT WORK FOR MINIMUM WAGE AS THIS SUGGESTS.

"Seventy-two percent of these workers are adults (age 20 and older) and 59.2% are female. Because the minimum wage workforce is disproportionately minority, 15.1% of those affected by the increase are African-American and 17.4% of those affected are Hispanics (compared to 11.6% and 10.6% respectively of these groups’ total workforce representation)."

Interesting that they didn't say what ages they are and broke the age at the level that is borderline adult, IMHO. So 28% of them are under 20, that's a substantial chunk of them, seems I wasn't that far off after all. Do you think any other age group had a higher aggregate percentage? I doubt it. I'll bet you that 75% or more are under 23, or the average college graduate age. I also don't give a hoot what race or sex they are, this is supposed to be a color and gender blind society, right? Regardless of those demographics, minimum wage jobs are unskilled, entry level positions that take little or no training to fulfill. That's why they're minimum wage jobs. That's what the jobs are worth to the business. If the PERSON wants to be worth more to the business than that, they need to make themselves more valuable by training, experience, and character (showing up on time, doing the job properly, etc.)

"Close to half of the would-be beneficiaries of the minimum wage increase worked full-time (48.2%) and another third (32.9%) worked between 20 and 34 hours per week."

So over half are part time and I think I already touched on how McDonalds, for example, routinely worked their help 35-39 hours a week to keep them part time. Most of the other half that aren't part time are probably getting benefits, are those calculated into the pay rate? IOW, they're already getting more than minimum wage if they're getting benefits, right?

"Data from the last minimum wage increase reveal that 58% of the benefits went to low-income working families in the bottom 40% of income distribution. "

Notice it doesn't say that these are heads of households. Think about this for a minute. The jobs at McDonalds, etc., are filled by kids. Most of the kids from well to do families aren't working in these types of places. That means they're included in that 58%, right? I hope I'm making that point clear enough. It's not surprising to me that most of the minimum wage jobs are filled by people with low income families. If they weren't in that position, they wouldn't be in that job.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I think it was Jstricker that said minimum wage is for young people just getting into the job market.. Well here ya go.... http://www.responsiblewealth.org/living_wage/qanda.html "Q. Aren't most low-wage workers teenagers? Extensive analysis of past and proposed minimum wage policies has determined that the primary beneficiaries are low-wage workers who are disproportionately adult, female, and people of color. Most of the workers who benefit are members of low-income families. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analyzed the current proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage from its present level of $5.15 to $6.15 per hour. EPI found that about 11.8 million workers (10.1% of the workforce) would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were raised to $6.15 per hour. Seventy-two percent of these workers are adults (age 20 and older) and 59.2% are female. Because the minimum wage workforce is disproportionately minority, 15.1% of those affected by the increase are African-American and 17.4% of those affected are Hispanics (compared to 11.6% and 10.6% respectively of these groups’ total workforce representation). Close to half of the would-be beneficiaries of the minimum wage increase worked full-time (48.2%) and another third (32.9%) worked between 20 and 34 hours per week. Data from the last minimum wage increase reveal that 58% of the benefits went to low-income working families in the bottom 40% of income distribution. "

quote Originally posted by Toddster: It is perhaps the simplest and most well know graph in the field of economics. A simple supply/demand graph.

Yes, and our many-faced friend who claims an IQ rivaling copernicus...

..has managed to screw it up.

Anyone else see the problem???? LOL!

-Jeff

The two sites you posted are way to the political left. The EPI is as left wing as you can get and while your second link was to the Department of Labor, it was an opinion piece penned by none other than Robert Reich in 1996. I point this out not because I think the Department of Labor itself is a left wing arm, but it reflects the person heading it at the time, and there was nobody more left wing than Secretary Reich.

I quote from the link "With unemployment at its lowest level in years,". Weren't you one of those that has been bemoaning the fact that there are no jobs out there right now, that we're in the "jobless recovery"? Wouldn't that alone indicate that the report has questionable validity since the conditions have changed? Or have you now changed your mind and feel that unemployment is not as bad as you've thought?

But I'll play along. I did the search EXACTLY as you specified and came up with a few more sites, with differing opinions.

EDIT because I forgot the LINK

From a Department of Labor report "According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed increase in the minimum wage could cause the loss of up to a half-million jobs nationwide. That job loss would be most keenly felt among groups in the labor force with the lowest wages-and especially among young people. The U.S. Department of Labor says that 60 percent of all minimum wage earners are between the ages of 16 and 24."

I guess that's an insignificant amount, if you're not one of the half million.

Also, from the same report, "Perhaps the threat of inflation is the single most potent argument against raising the minimum wage. Government mandates of this type, which add nothing to private-sector productivity, are the root cause of inflation and recession. The congressional Budget Office estimates that the annual inflation rate would jump by about 0.3 percentage points under the current minimum wage proposal. That's bad news for everybody"

What this says, quite simply, is a minimum wage increase MUST reduce worker productivity. Just that simple. Productivity is the amount of work vs. the amount paid for that work. If suddenly the amount paid increases and the work stays the same, productivity is less.

So, I guess we'll continue on our Journey

"The Clinton Administration has challenged the widespread view among economists that an increase in the minimum wage will reduce jobs by referring to the recent work of economists David Card and Alan Krueger, both of Princeton. Their studies of fast food restaurant employment after New Jersey and California increased their state minimum wages found no evidence of job loss.

However, there were flaws in the data that cast serious doubt on the validity of the Card-Krueger conclusions. In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Neumark and Wascher reexamined their data, which originally came from telephone surveys. Using actual payroll records from a sample of the same New Jersey and Pennsylvania restaurants, Neumark and Washer concluded that employment had not risen after an increase in the minimum wage, as Card and Krueger had claimed, but in fact had fallen. A review of the Card study of California by Professor Lowell Taylor of Carnegie Mellon University found that the state minimum wage increase had a major negative effect in low-wage counties and for retail establishments generally. Thus Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker of the University of Chicago concluded that "the Card-Krueger studies are flawed and cannot justify going against the accumulated evidence from many past and present studies that find sizeable negative effects of higher minimums on employment."

Another paragraph, from the same report "The fact is that virtually every major study that has ever been done has found significant job losses from an increase in the minimum wage, with the rare exception of those done by Card and Krueger. (Krueger served as chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor under Robert Reich.) A survey of earlier studies by the U.S. General Accounting Office in 1983, for example, "found virtually total agreement that employment is lower than it would have been if no minimum wage existed."

Hmmmm, there's that Robert Reich name again..............

I looked at a lot of the links your mandated search had me do that supported the notion that minimum wage increases do not show a job loss. A huge percentage of them reference the same Card/Kruger study that was done in California as their basis for making their argument.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/reich/reports/pay.htm These aren't political leftist sites either. If thats not enough go search yourself, and don't do a bias search I didn't I just searched ---minimum wage--- job loss--- historically.

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

quote Originally posted by JeffMN: Yes, and our many-faced friend who claims an IQ rivaling copernicus... ..has managed to screw it up. Anyone else see the problem???? LOL! -Jeff

I don't see the problem. An increase in the minimum wage has increased the supply of workers and reduced the demand for those workers. The difference between people willing to work and people who are working is the unemployment.

L^m is the number of people employed at wage w^m
L^* is the number of people employed at wage w^*

ConnecticutFiero, I just wanted to point something out about minimum wage in CT. It is the highest in all fifty states, as a matter of fact it is $1.00 more an hour higher than the federal minimum wage by Connecticut law. I guess it has to be as Connecticut is also the highest taxed state in the union with the least return for it's taxes. Maybe if our politicians would stop campaigning to be President and get back to work in the state (as Lieberman has finally decided to do after 3 years of this stuff), we could get a bigger share of our money back for the state to use. I also think our state is in trouble because of all the corruption we have going on. I know for sure now that there is no such thing as an honest politician. I really wonder were all the money from the lotteries and casinos is going. All of that money should have been gravy on top of all the taxes collected, and yet the politicians still say we are short.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-06-2004).]

Even Republicans are having a hard time trying to figure out why Bush is spending so much on security. He is proposing a 2.4-3.2 trillion dollar budget on this alone. He is planning on cutting up to 400 billion from social programs and then tells Congress that they MUST BALANCE the budget by 2009. Not pay it down. Not increase it -like he has been doing all along - BUT just maintain a balanced spending to income ratio by the year 2009. Our president is an idiot.

Its do what I say not do what I do attitude has even his own party questioning his latest security budget proposal. They will undoubtly add amendments to make party contributors rich on the side. And since its a Republican controlled Congress this president and his fellow Republicans can go hog wild with spending and appropriating and then pass whatever the hell they want.

Democratic representative Bird and others have also pointed out that the costs of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were left out of this current budget proposal. It will be Bushs last unless he is voted back into office so maybe he qwants to go out with a bang just in case he losses.

I will say his obsession of Iraq has ruined our nation. He has neglected domestic policy and stimulus. Unless you think America can afford such ridiculous price tags like a milliion dollars a day to patrol New York harbor alone or 1 billion+ dollars every 3-4 days in Iraq is justified.

This guy has set wheels in motion for insiders to screw over America. He's worst than Saddam.
Using the threat of terrorism to milk the U.S. treasury and hand over monies to beneficiaries at this level & rate is wrong. It is quite frankly unjust.

I suppose in a dead economy thats all his advisors can think of. They made it into the highest office in the land so why not use the "powers that be" to make some quick cash.

**** GWB AND **** CONGRESS.

OUT>

Throwing those old numbers around without backing any of them up again, are we? Don't you just hate it when somebody actually looks up the numbers you throw around?

Cutting $400 Billion from Social Programs? Let's see now, the budget for the Dept of Health and Human Services:

Total Spending (in millions of dolars):

2002 $422,567
2003 $501,039
2004 $543,245
2005 $574,714

Yep, massive cuts there. OOOPS!! I guess not, that's an increase of 36% since Bush was elected and almost 6% increase in the last year, more than inflation even.

Maybe you were thinking about the Dept of Education:

2002 $30,537
2003 $58,154
2004 $63,077
2005 $63,593

Whoah!!! That's more than DOUBLED since Bush took office.

What else could it be? Hmmm, maybe the Department of Housing and Urban Development?

2002 $123,043
2003 $171,025
2004 $168,735
2005 $180, 954

Dang it, another increase and it's an increase of over 47%! That can't be it.

I know, that dirty SOB's gutting the EPA! That's it for sure!

2002 $7,391
2003 $8,061
2004 $8,129
2005 $8,277

Darn it, another almost 12% increase since the Bush administration came to town.

Let's total this up, shall we, just so we can see all the cuts in social services from President Bush.

Let's see now, the proposed budget has spending for these Departments at $827,538 Million and the first year Bush proposed a budget (in which all of these programs were raised over Clinton's budgets) was $583,538 million. So spending has INCREASED by $244,000 million dollars in the last four years or a total of almost 42%!! (Just in case anyone's keeping track, this is over 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars and these four agencies alone account for almost 30% of our entire budget)

That scoundrel! How can he expect anyone to get by when he only increases their budgets by twice the aggregate inflation? What is that fool thinking?

Next time get your rhetoric from somewhere other than the Democratic Underground.

John Stricker

PS:

Oh, and let's not forget Agriculture and Farm Welfare

2002 $68,001
2003 $72,185
2004 $77,612
2005 $81,778

That increased a whopping 20% over the 4 years, or roughly equal to the aggregate inflation rate, so in real $$$, it stayed constant. I guess in WashingtonSpeak, that's a cut.
(FYI, out of that $81,778 million, only $22,975 million (or 28%) actually go to farmers in one way or the other. The rest is for things like food stamps, US Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Regulatory and Inspection, etc., etc., etc. Yes, the USDA is now over 70% funded to pay for consumer and conservation services)

edited for a bad link

quote Originally posted by G-Nasty: Even Republicans are having a hard time trying to figure out why Bush is spending so much on security. He is proposing a 2.4-3.2 trillion dollar budget on this alone. He is planning on cutting up to 400 billion from social programs and then tells Congress that they MUST BALANCE the budget by 2009. Not pay it down. Not increase it -like he has been doing all along - BUT just maintain a balanced spending to income ratio by the year 2009. Our president is an idiot. Its do what I say not do what I do attitude has even his own party questioning his latest security budget proposal. They will undoubtly add amendments to make party contributors rich on the side. And since its a Republican controlled Congress this president and his fellow Republicans can go hog wild with spending and appropriating and then pass whatever the hell they want. Democratic representative Bird and others have also pointed out that the costs of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were left out of this current budget proposal. It will be Bushs last unless he is voted back into office so maybe he qwants to go out with a bang just in case he losses. I will say his obsession of Iraq has ruined our nation. He has neglected domestic policy and stimulus. Unless you think America can afford such ridiculous price tags like a milliion dollars a day to patrol New York harbor alone or 1 billion+ dollars every 3-4 days in Iraq is justified. This guy has set wheels in motion for insiders to screw over America. He's worst than Saddam. Using the threat of terrorism to milk the U.S. treasury and hand over monies to beneficiaries at this level & rate is wrong. It is quite frankly unjust. I suppose in a dead economy thats all his advisors can think of. They made it into the highest office in the land so why not use the "powers that be" to make some quick cash. **** GWB AND **** CONGRESS. OUT>

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

quote Originally posted by JeffMN: Yes, and our many-faced friend who claims an IQ rivaling copernicus... ..has managed to screw it up. Anyone else see the problem???? LOL! -Jeff

Thank goodness most people are smarter than you Jeff or I might be inclined to reply to this post

quote Originally posted by ConnecticutFiero: You guys keep saying that minimum wage causes job loss and a decrease in full time employees etc.. Well prove it then. ...

Already did. And as for referencing the EPI all I can say is could you possibly find a more biased group? Did you try the Kremlin yet? You have to remember that Economics is like anything else, you have demand siders like Keynes (who's single greatest observation was that, "in the long run, we are all dead". And you have supply siders like Modigliani and Duesenbury...and me. Profit is the ultimate goal of all enterprises. This fundamental fact is overlooked in the traditional leftist theories. Look at your own post!!! I quote, "This model recognizes that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. "

OK, let's assume I just fell off the banana boat. Explain to me how you increase worker morale and productivity WHILE lowering training costs and recuiting and forcing a reduction in absenteeism (make a guy with the flu work anyway)?

You can't avoid the math. It's that simple.

quote 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.

connecticutFIERO- You stated you couldn't have gotten your education, while supporting a pregnant GF, without the help from the govt. That means I, as a taxpayer had to pay for part of it. Why the hell should I, as a taxpayer have to foot the bill for your personal problems?? It's Your education-it's Your GF, and I'm guessing it's Your baby. Kindly tell me where I, as a taxpayer figure into this. Do you intend to repay me for my contribution to your life-or am I just SOL? When I had to raise MY 4 kids by myself, I worked 2-3 jobs at the same time. I didn't try to push MY responsibilities off on You did I?

quote Oh and by the way its payback time when the newly educated person increaes their income bracket with a better paying job and starts paying more taxes than they ever would have working at some minimum wage job and qualifying for the EIC credit each year.

And when that does come to pass, that person will feel like the rest of us do now. "Why do I have to pay for someone elses problems?" OR, you'll have a family, get the deductions for X # of dependants and not have to pay any more taxes than you did at min wage (maybe even less), and
those of us who have to support the wants of the rest will have to continue to do so. But, here's a thought. Maybe you will become very successfull, raise your kids to adulthood with no problems. (hopefully)
Fastforward 30 yrs down the road, you're making the big bucks, and a liberal administration decides to tax the hell out of you just because you've worked hard all your life, so you get to thinking about the unfairness of it and decide to become a conservative. Ironic

quote Originally posted by maryjane:

Well seeing as you are painting me as some kind of freeloader I guess I'll have to respond to your non sense. What I said was the money spent across the nation by our fed govt is what kept tuition down at my local community colleges. There was a lot of fed money for the states a few years back, and that helped every aspect of our lives as US citizens, yes even you. You fail to realize that as a nation we all have to look out for our institutions, structure, and people. Not only did it help me by keeping tuition affordable, but it also kept my state and local taxes lower. I'm sure it helped your community as well. Maybe your state repaved roads, fixed up elementary schools, or built a new police dept. Fortunately for me when CT got some of our nations surplus under Clintons term, my state decided to put money into our education system. Thats how I was helped by the fed government.

Don't try to spin me into me being some low life welfare recipient. As a matter of fact I am pretty offended by that, you are pretty quick to judge aren't you. I don't go around judging you because your wife wasn't around when your kids grew up. If you read the whole thread you would have seen that we already went over this. I pay my way.

Just because I mentioned that I was having a tough time keeping afloat that doesn't automatically mean I was some kind of hand out recipient. I am thankful for having the opportunity to be able to continue school and to be able to afford it thanks to people who think differently than you. Its because of people like you that think only of themselves that I usually happen to side with the democrats. I'm sure if you were running the country we would be rid of all those silly community colleges and all that wasted pell grant money. Because after all its freeloaders like myself who go to these "places". Why should we as a nation spend any money on Education, that should be left up to our state and local goverenments overflowing with surpluses right. ANd if the local community can't afford to keep tuition low enough for people like me to go then F$*k em, right? Affordable community college is just a handout and place for freeloading welfare recipients.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 02-07-2004).]

Oh I read the whole thing, but didn't have to since I've heard the same thing thousands of times in my lifetime. I didn't say you were a freeloader-you brought that spectre up yourself. I said you needed the federal funds in order to get your education--because you had personal problems and a difficult time making ends meet otherwise. Had you left out the part about the pregnant gf, I would have read but not responded in this thread at all. It is NOT my responsibility, as a resident of one state, to care for those who have personally caused problems in another. I want all of MY taxes to stay in MY state, or to go to the common defense of the nation as a whole. I paid for all of my kids schooling fully. Books tuition, lodging, transportation-the whole nine yards.You accuse me of only thinking of myself? Aren't you doing the same thing- ie concerned with your GF, child, and your education? If you're that concerned, donate a hefty% of your wages to the community college of your choice and quit asking the taxpayer to do it for you.

I don't think she painted you as a "freeloader" CT. It is a fair question. As taxpayers we work hard and cough-up a lot of money each year to our government. In return we expect to be protected. We want the cops to come runnin' when we call, we want the fire department to put out the neighbor's deep fried turkey fire so our house doesn't go up in flames, we want the Al Queda terrorist rounded up and hung, we want to a lot of things.

What we don't want is to have some under-educated bureaucrat with a "dream" for a better world telling us how he is going to spend OUR money. We don't mind lending money to help people out, we don't even mind GIVING some money away if it will provide long term benefits for society. But when people make dumb mistakes and expect good old uncle sam (the rest of us, in other words) to pick-up the pieces of their lives then I think we are, at the very least, entitled to know why? So why don't you REALLY answer Maryjane's question. Why do we owe you something?

quote posted by maryjane: I said you needed the federal funds in order to get your education--because you had personal problems and a difficult time making ends meet otherwise. Had you left out the part about the pregnant gf, I would have read but not responded in this thread at all. It is NOT my responsibility, as a resident of one state, to care for those who have personally caused problems in another. I want all of MY taxes to stay in MY state, or to go to the common defense of the nation as a whole.

So why don't you start a freedom fighting militia group and secede from the union like all the other nutcases do. Because the last time I checked Texas was part of the Union. You want all your tax dollars to go to YOUR state and to national defense? Wake up and grow up. This is a modern industrialized nation we are talking about. Not some 18th century nation tied together only through shared borders. We all live in the same nation. This isn't "Every State for itself of America" it’s the UNITED States of America. My tax dollars pay for the interstate you drive on, they pay for cleaning the environmental hazards created in your state, they pay for medical research grants that your child may benefit from some day, they even pay for people on welfare in your state. You know what? I'm OK with that, and if someone in your state can go to college because they can afford to, thanks to a subsidized federal loan, then I'm happy that our Nation is providing it to them. Because I want to live in a nation that wants to succeed instead of regress back to the dawn of the industrial revolution when people died of hunger and disease in the streets.

And if you are calling my family a "problem" for my state and inferring that you are somehow better than me. Then I would just as soon tell you to F*ck off then to continue this conversation. Learn to be an adult when debating and maybe you'll sound like someone worth listening to. Prick!

quote Posted by Toddster: But when people make dumb mistakes and expect good old uncle sam (the rest of us, in other words) to pick-up the pieces of their lives then I think we are, at the very least, entitled to know why? So why don't you REALLY answer Maryjane's question. Why do we owe you something?

Back to the same old argument are we. That somehow I think you owe me something. Well last time I checked I pay a hefty percentage of my salary to the federal government just like you do. Let me repeat myself one more time. I am grateful that our country has community colleges, and these are the types of institutions that suffer when Republicans like you start "trimming the fat" off of our government. I am proud to be in a country that affords the opportunity to someone to build his or her life with hard work. That’s what I did; I built my life through hard work. I am sick of you trying to cast me as some sort of low life that thinks I am owed everything, just because I believe in Social Programs that you don't. It doesn't mean I am connected to social programs because I believe in them. Do you think that because I earned my degree from a state funded college that I paid tuition to and taxes for that I somehow think I am owed something? Actually, I do think I am owed something. An apology from both of you, for personally attacking me and accusing me of being a burden on society simply because I went to a community college, started my family early, and believe in Social Responsibility as a nation.

Toddster if you truly are sitting there on your fat ass saying that I "screwed" up my life then I no longer wish to debate with you.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 02-07-2004).]

I didn't read CF's post as needing a handout (i.e. grants, welfare, etc.) but rather that taxes allow tuition to be lower, so he could afford it. When I was in college, I went to an in-state college and taxes allowed my in-state tuition to be lower than out-of-state tuition. I could not have afforded to go to college and pay out-of-state tuition, but I could afford the in-state tuition. And now my taxes go to keep in-state tuition lower for the next generation. I see this completely separate from welfare and entitlement programs.

So to all those taxpayers who helped fund my education, I say thank you, but will you be getting your money back? Nope. I will be paying my taxes to help fund the next generation's education. Paying it forward rather than paying it back. Also, your tax $$$ have enabled me to become a more productive member of society, so I contribute more to the economy and don't require welfare or food stamps. I can pay my own way and pay my share of taxes.

But there has to be balance. Giving people a helping hand because they've come upon hard times is one thing. Paying to pull someone out of a hole they dug for themself is another. Especially when people who do that seem to keep on digging deeper, while complaining that you're not helping them enough. (i.e. Welfare)
------------------

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-07-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And this is the kind of thinking that drives me nuts. Economic growth comes from one source....technology! You are advocating a subsidy for ignorance and I am pleading for improved education and automation so people don't HAVE to try to feed a family of 5 flipping burgers because that is all they can do. Take that SAME $1.00 you advocate giving to a burger flipper and put it into education, new government projects, reduced taxes so business can flourish and hire more people that THEY will train internally with that $1.00. The question is, "where is a buck better spent?" Think about it people.

You keep assuming all people are equal and capable of taking advantage of higher education. This is a flawed assumption and is the predominant reason why so many people are out of touch with these issues. Essentially you will always have burger flippers, trash collectors, ditch diggers and street cleaners - only the names of the peon jobs have changed; their lot in life has not. Further, technology is not the only source of economic growth, it is but one of the many sources which contribute to expansion.

Automation is not an answer to poverty and increasing the minimum wage is only a fair adjustment to inflation - the US congress continuously adjusts their income to keep up with inflation yet they do not do so for lower income individuals because they posses the same aloofness to social issues that you’re arguing with, respectfully.

I'm not even going to waste my time responding to your points.

I'm just going to say you're one of the most ignorant people I've ever seen on these forums. Maybe you are not ignorant, but defend conservative views to the bitter end.

Just a question, what do you do for a living?

I'm guessing you hold some kind of job that doesnt pay minimum wage.

My main complaint is, the minimum wage is BELOW the poverty level, even for one person. It can be as much as half the poverty level if you have 3 kids. I dont care what way you look at it, this is WRONG.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I *THINK* I said they were entry level and unskilled positions predominantly for young people but I also referenced Wal Mart door greeters, etc., that obviously are NOT young people. Let's just look at what the report you posted had to say for a minute. "The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analyzed the current proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage from its present level of $5.15 to $6.15 per hour." $1 per hour increase is not moderate, it's almost a 20% wage increase. How much more would you make a year with a 20% increase and, additionally, how much more would it cost your employer? (don't forget that $1 increase is actually at least a $1.10 increase minimum by the time the employer pays the additional social security and other witholdings that are wage based.) "EPI found that about 11.8 million workers (10.1% of the workforce) would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were raised to $6.15 per hour. " Notice how carefully this is worded. It doesn't say that there are 11.8 million minimum wage earners. It says that 11.8 million workers would get a raise. That means that employees that now are getting, say, $6 would also get a bump. It also points out the reality that if you have workers that are making, say, $6.25 you're going to have to increase THEIR wages as well to get them off that minimum wage status. The minimum wage increase does not affect just minimum wage earners. 5% of our TOTAL US POPULATION DOES NOT WORK FOR MINIMUM WAGE AS THIS SUGGESTS. "Seventy-two percent of these workers are adults (age 20 and older) and 59.2% are female. Because the minimum wage workforce is disproportionately minority, 15.1% of those affected by the increase are African-American and 17.4% of those affected are Hispanics (compared to 11.6% and 10.6% respectively of these groups’ total workforce representation)." Interesting that they didn't say what ages they are and broke the age at the level that is borderline adult, IMHO. So 28% of them are under 20, that's a substantial chunk of them, seems I wasn't that far off after all. Do you think any other age group had a higher aggregate percentage? I doubt it. I'll bet you that 75% or more are under 23, or the average college graduate age. I also don't give a hoot what race or sex they are, this is supposed to be a color and gender blind society, right? Regardless of those demographics, minimum wage jobs are unskilled, entry level positions that take little or no training to fulfill. That's why they're minimum wage jobs. That's what the jobs are worth to the business. If the PERSON wants to be worth more to the business than that, they need to make themselves more valuable by training, experience, and character (showing up on time, doing the job properly, etc.) "Close to half of the would-be beneficiaries of the minimum wage increase worked full-time (48.2%) and another third (32.9%) worked between 20 and 34 hours per week." So over half are part time and I think I already touched on how McDonalds, for example, routinely worked their help 35-39 hours a week to keep them part time. Most of the other half that aren't part time are probably getting benefits, are those calculated into the pay rate? IOW, they're already getting more than minimum wage if they're getting benefits, right? "Data from the last minimum wage increase reveal that 58% of the benefits went to low-income working families in the bottom 40% of income distribution. " Notice it doesn't say that these are heads of households. Think about this for a minute. The jobs at McDonalds, etc., are filled by kids. Most of the kids from well to do families aren't working in these types of places. That means they're included in that 58%, right? I hope I'm making that point clear enough. It's not surprising to me that most of the minimum wage jobs are filled by people with low income families. If they weren't in that position, they wouldn't be in that job. John Stricker

Since you are in college, I'm guessing you are comparatively young. Perhaps if you would look at it from a taxpayers point of view you would be able to see where I'm coming from. I've been paying federal income tax since 1967. 36 yrs of it. That's a big chunk of money, divided up among the state and federal revenue sharing programs. I've also paid state sales and property taxes during those years, a lot of which I HAVE been able to see and use the benefits. I will see very little of that federal tax used in my home state, but admittedly no less than most people in different states will. I saw about 20 yrs worth of taxes ill spent on 'The Great Society' that spawned welfare abuse and dependance. I've seen it spent on snail darters and spotted owls. I've certainly seen it spent on pork barrel add ons in all 50 states, 49 of which I don't reside in. You look at it from a user standpoint. You see it as taking advantage of a federally supplied benefit, but it's your education-in your community. Connecticut is an industrialized and modern area. It generates a pretty big sum of federal tax revenue. Should all (or most) of the federal monies generated from your state remain in your state, it would be better well spent, as your local, county & state government would know where the expenditure needs to go in order to best provide for the inhabitants. It's the same here in my state. I'll ask you this-which would you prefer? See part of your federal tax dollars spent on something like helping someone attend college in Connecticut-or spent on the new boat ramp at Twin Buttes Reservoir (federal Bureau of Land Management project) in San Angelo, Texas? I'm betting that's a no brainer. Obviously you would have no interest in seeing a boat ramp funded by a portion of your taxes on a nearly dried up lake in West Texas. But, I would, and so would everyone else around here, but I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to pay for it out of Your taxes. I'm also guessing you would prefer to see your federal tax $$ spent in state, rather than going south to Angelo State University. Call me any name you choose-it IS my money I'm talking about-earned by my sweat & toil. I have aright to be pleased or displeased concerning it's expenditure. If you prefer to let your hard earned money go down here, we'll gladly take it, but I'm betting you would rather see it kept where you & yours can benefit from it best. After all-it is YOUR money we're talking about now.

And speaking of YOUR money: Student loans. It's a little off topic, but it illustrates how much money is being spent on higher education. I don't know if you have a school loan, but you've undoubtedly help pay for them with your taxes, just as I have since it's inception over 20 years ago. Do you realize that the total defaults for federally backed school loans grew to $22 billion in 2002? That's from a total of $232 billion of outstanding loans. I have nothing against school loans, in fact, I think it is great, provided people pay them back. Evidently, many are not.

"During fiscal year 2002, an estimated 5.8 million people borrowed about $38 billion in federal student loans. Despite a dramatic reduction in annual default rates on those loans since fiscal year 1990 (from 22.4 to 5.9 percent), the total volume of dollars in default doubled to nearly $22 billion by fiscal year 2001 from about $11 billion in fiscal year 1990. During that same period, the total student loans outstanding grew from $54.1 billion to $233.2 billion."

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-07-2004).]

Yeah! There are people out there that go to these $20,000 a semester private paper mill colleges to get degrees in Art Leadership or Music Psycology and expect to get $100,000 + year job after they graduate.

A buddy of mine wife got a student loan of $17,000 to go to a private beautican college so she can learn how to cut hair.

I can see the high number of student loan defaults.

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: Just a question, what do you do for a living? I'm guessing you hold some kind of job that doesnt pay minimum wage. My main complaint is, the minimum wage is BELOW the poverty level, even for one person. It can be as much as half the poverty level if you have 3 kids. I dont care what way you look at it, this is WRONG.

JStricker is self employed. He's a farmer/rancher.

OK-I'll bite. Why does it seem wrong, especially the 3 kids part? When someone decides to have a family, I'm guessing they have figured out beforehand they will have to adequately support that family haven't they? I don't know what the min wage is or what it has been in the past. I've never taken a job that payed it. I beleive $6/hr was the least I've ever worked for, not including my military time, which probably equalled $2/hr when you consider the hrs worked, but I certainly wouldn't have had children if I knew my wages would not be enough to support them. Birth control has been around for a long time.
Now, I'm not against raising the minimum wage, providing industry can absorb the increase. Right now, I don't think they can. Too much global competition. Not only does a corporation have to pay it's contemporary costs, it also has to look down the road 10 yrs or so and ensure it has capitol for the long term contingencies. A lot of people look at companies and think "gee, they grossed $10 million bucks this year. Why can't we all get a raise?" Because next year may not show a profit at all. They may actually need that $10 million to operate on the next 12 months to even stay in business. Business dynamics were hard enough to forecast 20-30 yrs ago. Now, there is so much worldwide competition, it's nearly impossible. A company can be flying high one year and dead broke the next. I've seen it happen more than a few times. Better to provide a community with jobs at a less than stellar wage standard than to have to lay all of them off when things go bad. Look at all the tech companies that were paying hi salaries in the mid-late 90's.
Those who managed their profits well, survived the downturn and are still providing income-many went belly up. I watched the same thing in hydrocarbon exploration/drilling in the late 70's-early 80's. It wasn't minimum wages, but the same principal applies. An entry level position traditionally paid $6/hr, but a lot of companies were paying $10/hr 1st day on the job for a green hand. When the bust of 1984-86 came, those high paying companies didn't have the capitol to continue operation. As many as 50,000 drilling related personell were unemployed almost overnight. I was one of them, but had alternate skills to fall back on.

I watched the Lou Dobbs report last night and I kinda kept watching for a change

According to Lou and his panel of independent experts industry profits are up some 25% last quarter yet no new (substanece) jobs have been created other than menial retail and service orented work. In particular one company posted a gain and then immidiatly annouced it was going to "layoff workers"

Another interesting note Lou asked the editor of Forbs if the media is being distracted with other issues (spending bill and whatnot) and not on the economy. The answer was kinda "Uhhh duhh! yeah I'd say so"
Lou seemed quite perterbed about the whole thing and I think he may start looking closer into this issue..... I hope

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 02-07-2004).]

I was listening to NPR and they said that the US is 80% service sector economy. Most job loss has been in the manufacturing sector, and that sector has been decreasing for 30 years.

In happy news. Home Depot announce they will be hiring 320,000 new employees this year.

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: Essentially you will always have burger flippers, trash collectors, ditch diggers and street cleaners

Really? Needed a horse shoed lately?

Burger flipping is by definition a transitory occupation. Show me one person who started flipping burgers at 16 and is still doing it 40 years later and I will show you a person who is either mentally handicapped or lazy.

I just saw an ad for Walmart where this woman, a manager, mentioned how she started in 1989 working a minimum wage job and has advanced within the company since then. She never got a college degree she simply applied herself.
You people are arguing that minimum wage jobs are being held, and SHOULD be held, by people in their 20's and beyond to support families, etc. BULLS***!

If they are then they fall into one of the catagories listed above. Otherwise they would have long since moved on to better things...with or without advanced education.

How advanced to you need to be to learn to weld? I know welders earning $24/hour! How about driving a Semi? Doesn't exactly require a degree in astrophysics. They earn good wages too. Just ask Trailboss.

Minimum wage is for entry level positions only and typically involves a lot of training which can bolster a resume for better paying jobs down the road.

And another thing, WHO IS MAKING ASSUMPTIONS? You are wrong. Everybody DOES have the opportunity for higher education. You seem to think I got my degree from a grant or scholorship or rich daddy. That is exactly what I expect from liberal thinking. I chose to work 3 jobs, go into $30k worth of student loan debt, and give up several years of my life in pursuit of higher education because I thought it would be in my long term best interest. If others choose a short term route to wages now then that is their choice. And I will add that there is nothing wrong with that choice since we need people to do labor intesive jobs. But they shouldn't begrudge those of us who are earning big money 20 years later because we made a harder choice.

If you come away with nothing else from this thread remember this one simple thing, you are worth what the market is willing to pay you. Nothing more, nothing less. The soviets tried to control their market and the result was economic collapse. Market control themselves and the minute some "well meaning" liberal tries to out think the market the result is inevitable, high unemployment, prosperous black markets, INCREASED class division, and economic ruin.

.edit apparently you can't embed quotes. bummer.

quote You said: Really? Needed a horse shoed lately?

quote I already said: only the names of the peon jobs have changed; their lot in life has not

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And another thing, WHO IS MAKING ASSUMPTIONS? You are wrong. Everybody DOES have the opportunity for higher education. You seem to think I got my degree from a grant or scholorship or rich daddy. That is exactly what I expect from liberal thinking. I chose to work 3 jobs, go into $30k worth of student loan debt, and give up several years of my life in pursuit of higher education because I thought it would be in my long term best interest. If others choose a short term route to wages now then that is their choice. And I will add that there is nothing wrong with that choice since we need people to do labor intesive jobs. But they shouldn't begrudge those of us who are earning big money 20 years later because we made a harder choice.

Opportunity does not equate to ability - exactly what I expect from conservative thinking. Besides, before you run off yellin' the 'L' word around here you should get your facts straight - I support some issues (how dare me support a livable wage, i'm a traitor to my nation!) but I am by no stretch of the imagination a 'liberal.' Anyrate, you're making the same incorrect assumption here that you are in your explanations of economics. You are assuming that these people know of the opportunity, which there is no reason to assume they do and you're assuming they have the ability (which, no matter how much you yell and cry, it's not going to change that fact). It's true - most jobs do not pay minimum wage, most burger flippers get paid above that. It is the people who ARE getting stiffed with $5.15 an hour that are 'suffering.' Assuming they somehow manage to survive on something around $11,000 a year what makes you think these people are purposefully living in ABJECT POVERTY?

Also, minimum wage jobs are held by people over 30 with families. I'm sure you've seen them... they're lower to the ground and speak Mexican. (or Romanian or Russian or whatever). Land of opportunity, right? And before you go on a tirade about illegal labor, many of these people are legally allowed to work in this country. (rightly or wrongly). But to your argument... are you really trying to compare a minimum wage law to communism? It was because of unrestrained capitalism that these laws were needed. Not because that bleeding heart liberal FDR was tired of the unbounded expansion of the US economy in the late 30's.

And your argument about technology fueling economic growth... wouldn't the best thing to do then be to INCREASE minimum wage to encourage development in industry to reduce the needs of these people?

.edit formatting issues

[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 02-07-2004).]

If you don't know what I do for a living, and you've been reading this forum, then you have no grounds to call me ignorant, my friend. What I do is plainly visible and I've stated it several times.

I'll grant you this much, I have NEVER held a job that paid minimum wage. I've worked for less than minimum wage, though, back in high school, but those jobs weren't subject to minimum wage. Even in college as I was working my way through it, I had skills that were in enough demand that I didn't have to work for minimum wage. Now that that's cleared up, your point is??

I posted facts, figures, and links to my sources. With rare exceptions (connecticutFIERO being one of them) the liberals here could simply post a link to the Democratic Underground website for their "references". So who's the more ignorant, the person that does research and supports his point of view or the person that simply repeats the headlines and ideology of his beliefs with no basis in fact?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: I'm not even going to waste my time responding to your points. I'm just going to say you're one of the most ignorant people I've ever seen on these forums. Maybe you are not ignorant, but defend conservative views to the bitter end. Just a question, what do you do for a living? I'm guessing you hold some kind of job that doesnt pay minimum wage. My main complaint is, the minimum wage is BELOW the poverty level, even for one person. It can be as much as half the poverty level if you have 3 kids. I dont care what way you look at it, this is WRONG.

It is approx 40 billion 6% of all social programs while proposing in increase of that 2.9 + trillion for seciurity while leaving out the costs of the Afghan and Iraq invasion.

You have missed the point all together by nit picking numbers.
Ask yourself why this guy is spending so much in security and who is really benefiting.

I could care less if your better at google and search engines than I am.
You have obviously missed the big picture in this guys grand SCHEME of things.
Using the threat of terrorism to throw around money to his beneficiaries needs to stop.
This Repub controlled Congress is salivating as no entity can stop thier militarized spending madness. To put it in your simple farmer mentality: The fox owns the hen house.

OUT>

It doesn't take too much "Google Savvy" to go to The Whitehouse website and look at the budget, I'd think someone that throws numbers around like you do would have that bookmarked to use as ammunition.

If calling you on a 1,000 % overstatement of cuts that don't even exist is nitpicking, then you can expect a lot more of it. Either check your facts or don't be specific.

You might explain to me how the budget next year increases the cost of security by $2.9 trillion dollars, though, when the entire budget for FY 2005 is $2.5 trillion. And since social programs alone take up about 1/3 of that budget, that's some trick he's going to pull off. budget

It's real simple, just be accurate and you make a strong case. Throw around exaggerated headlines and you're going to get called for it by somebody.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by G-Nasty: It is approx 40 billion 6% of all social programs while proposing in increase of that 2.9 + trillion for seciurity while leaving out the costs of the Afghan and Iraq invasion. You have missed the point all together by nit picking numbers. Ask yourself why this guy is spending so much in security and who is really benefiting. I could care less if your better at google and search engines than I am. You have obviously missed the big picture in this guys grand SCHEME of things. Using the threat of terrorism to throw around money to his beneficiaries needs to stop. This Repub controlled Congress is salivating as no entity can stop thier militarized spending madness. To put it in your simple farmer mentality: The fox owns the hen house. OUT>

You agree with whats going on in Iraq. Yes
You're for combination of church and state. No
You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. No
You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000. Yes for all pepole
You're against having cleaner air. Not at a price
You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. any where we can get it
You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else) Yes
You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level). A bussines shouldnt be told what they have the pay someone
You're against helping people who are struggling. I dont know what you saying by that

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: .....

Jeremiah, didn't you see the graphs I posted earlier? You keep flying in the face of the MOST obvious and simplistic of Economic principles. I gotta ask why? Why do you disagree with the greatest giants of economic thought in history. Men like Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Milton Firedman, Michael Rothschild, etc. ? I really gotta know why I should toss out all of my economics text books and follow your wisdom.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Jeremiah, didn't you see the graphs I posted earlier? You keep flying in the face of the MOST obvious and simplistic of Economic principles. I gotta ask why? Why do you disagree with the greatest giants of economic thought in history. Men like Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Milton Firedman, Michael Rothschild, etc. ? I really gotta know why I should toss out all of my economics text books and follow your wisdom.

Alright, I'll respond to this as soon as I can compose an adequate explanation. I must confess that 1) it wont be original and 2) it wont be an indefensible argument, but at least it will explain why I don’t agree with the simple explanations behind your graphs.

Barbara Boxer was the one who made a good point on him eliminating 6% of social programs while increasing FBI 11% and Defense 7% (In 2003 Defense went up 4.5% so its an increase of 12% in 2 yrs)
Round ALL of it up as interests from the Fed and Central Banks will undoubtly top 3 trillion.
The check could look like this>
Two Thousand Billion Nine Hundred Million for: FBI, mini nukes, more satelites, tanks, etc...
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590040401,00.html
looks familiar to 2003 doesnt it?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/politics/main539262.shtml
This guy is an idiot.
"We will devote the resources necessary to win the war on terror and protect our homeland," Bush said in his weekend radio address. "America will not let down its guard."

In plain English: " I will handout money to my beneficiaries so they can turn a buck in a bad economy. I will spend it as I see fit and dont ask where its going...even though its used in your name. I have been recieving kickbacks for giving these corporations federal monies.

On a side note: This guy could literally build an underground city full of blue eye-blonde hair clones to fight all the muslims of the world w/ this kind of money...Im just sayin' it$ a LOT of bread.

John: our national debt is beyond belief- read some of the follow ups on this credible page if you have the time- I dont see how cutting 6% of all social programs will add accountability and restraint to his world record spending budget. His fellow Repubs will give him a retirement bonus and vote it INTO LAW -
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

John our national debt is THE REAL THREAT. Its unbelieveable. Increases 1.8 billion a day! This U.S. govt has some big tits and GWB is suckin' em dry.

[This message has been edited by G-Nasty (edited 02-08-2004).]

Nasty,

I don't care what the esteemed Ms. Boxer's point was, show me the numbers. I showed you the last 3 years and proposed next years social programs budgets, there are simply no cuts in there. If you (or she) can show me the numbers otherwise, then let's see them, otherwise it's nothing but election year political rhetoric.

I hear Democrats on the news shows throwing around figures like you just did all the time, but never with any substantiation for any of them when you actually go look them up in what was spent and what is proposed.

Of course Defense Spending is up, we're at war and have a military to rebuild.

2002 $291,749
2003 $388,101
2004 $434,107
2005 $428,930

So if you figure it from 2002, Bush's first budget, it's up a lot, 47%. But as opposed to last year it's actually been reduced slightly in the President's proposal.

As for the FBI and Dept of Justice,

2002 $3197
2003 $4197
2004 $4591
2005 $5115

So again, you're numbers are wrong, but the other way. FBI funding has gone up almost 60% since the 2002 budget and about 12% from last year in the proposed budget.

BTW, the other areas of Law Enforcement went up about the same % as the FBI. (US Marshall, DEA, ATF, etc.)

It wouldn't be so bad if the numbers in your links reflected reality, but they don't. For example, the article in "The Desert News" says "Natural resources and environment: $30.4 billion 2004, $28 billion 2005" when a quick look at the budget for the EPA shows it to be $8.129 Billion in 2004 and $8.277 Billion in 2005. Of course they might be adding things like the Conservation programs in the USDA Budget which have also increased from $2.867 Billion to $2,987, but that's still only about 1/3 the amount they report.

This is the problem with using simple news stories to form an opinion. Right wing/Left wing it doesn't matter. The writer of the story has a bias and the data and how it's presented will reflect that bias. I prefer to just go look at the numbers and the numbers don't figure out with what THIS reporter had in the paper.

With regards to your link from CBS, you do realize that was discussing the LAST budget, not the one just proposed, don't you? The date on the story is 2/3/2003 so it would be pretty hard for them to be talking about the 2005 budget.

I can turn around your comment of "This guy could literally build an underground city full of blue eye-blonde hair clones to fight all the muslims of the world w/ this kind of money". We are going to spend over $827 BILLION on social programs. That's over $3,300 per US Citizen. You'd think, with all that money, and that money has been going out there now in roughly the same or greater percentage since LBJ's "great society" that at least a few of those social problems would have been solved by now, wouldn't you? Why not? Maybe money isn't the answer there? Military spending is one thing, tanks and planes wear out and need replaced, stuff breaks down, soldiers need to be paid, supplies purchased. But what do we get for our $$$ in social spending? Where are the tangible results after 40 years of experimentation and spending?

Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that they be curtailed. What I am suggesting is why don't you use the same criteria in showing how it has to be producing results on the SOCIAL side of the issue as you are demanding on every other side of the issue?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by G-Nasty: Barbara Boxer was the one who made a good point on him eliminating 6% of social programs while increasing FBI 11% and Defense 7% (In 2003 Defense went up 4.5% so its an increase of 12% in 2 yrs) Round ALL of it up as interests from the Fed and Central Banks will undoubtly top 3 trillion. The check could look like this> Two Thousand Billion Nine Hundred Million for: FBI, mini nukes, more satelites, tanks, etc... http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590040401,00.html looks familiar to 2003 doesnt it? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/politics/main539262.shtml This guy is an idiot. "We will devote the resources necessary to win the war on terror and protect our homeland," Bush said in his weekend radio address. "America will not let down its guard." In plain English: " I will handout money to my beneficiaries so they can turn a buck in a bad economy. I will spend it as I see fit and dont ask where its going...even though its used in your name. I have been recieving kickbacks for giving these corporations federal monies. On a side note: This guy could literally build an underground city full of blue eye-blonde hair clones to fight all the muslims of the world w/ this kind of money...Im just sayin' it$ a LOT of bread. John: our national debt is beyond belief- read some of the follow ups on this credible page if you have the time- I dont see how cutting 6% of all social programs will add accountability and restraint to his world record spending budget. His fellow Repubs will give him a retirement bonus and vote it INTO LAW - http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ John our national debt is THE REAL THREAT. Its unbelieveable. Increases 1.8 billion a day! This U.S. govt has some big tits and GWB is suckin' em dry.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: It doesn't take too much "Google Savvy" to go to The Whitehouse website and look at the budget, I'd think someone that throws numbers around like you do would have that bookmarked to use as ammunition.

How much "Internet Savvy" does it take to notice that's a .org website and any official government site is a .gov?
Check out their Disclaimer page here: http://www.whitehouse.org/tos.asp

"WHITEHOUSE.ORG is a digital parody of the Executive Branch of the United States Federal Government. WHITEHOUSE.ORG uses the names and images of public figures for purposes of satire. Any other names are invented. The content of this web site should in no way be construed as factual"

My Salary
2001 32,135
2002 22,089
2003 4,361

Yeah, those government figures seem right.