Barack Obama: Socialist

reply to post by Johnmike


Morgan Stanley on last years minimum wage hike....

...(minimum wage hike) adding perhaps 0.1 percentage point annually to the core inflation rate over the next few years compared to what it otherwise would have been....
...On balance, we expect the minimum wage hike to give both real wages and inflation only a slight lift, and to have a negligible effect on economic growth.

Source

Edited to add...

But of course under real socialism there would be no need for a minimum wage. All workers would share equally in the money produced by their labor. Companies would be collectives (COOPS) owned by those that work them. Production would increase, as the workers directly benefit from their labour they would have more motivation to work harder. I see this as a win-win situation for all of us.

[edit on 23/6/2008 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


Well that's really speculative, I can find people and institutes that speculate nearly anything. I meant the EPI and FPI studies that supposedly proved that the past minimum wage increases didn't have an effect on job loss.
Even though Slackerwire linked to an EPI report that said just the opposite.

And I don't want to go too far off topic, but your version of socialism... You mean that a company would be sort of like what a credit union is?

reply to post by slackerwire


The EPI I referred to is the Economics Policy Institute, and FPI is the Fiscal Policy Institute, both nonpartisan research think tanks.

I don't see anything about your EPI (The Employment Policies Institute) being nonpartisan.

As for Santa Fe, it was provided as an example. Santa Cruz, Baltimore, Milwaukee and another 100 cities and counties feel the same way so again, it's not just my opinion, plenty of other people have it, and plenty of cities and counties and states do not agree with federal law. Just because something is federal law, doesn't mean you have to agree with it, and evidence shows cities, counties and states feel the same, and have their own laws. I'm sure there are federal laws you don't agree with.

As for hoping the country goes to sh*t, it's nice to know that you hope the country which aides you through the capitalist system you love so much should go to sh*t. Your defending something you hate?! So now we know you're selfish, un-patriotic, and stupid.

Again, if it's such a sh*t country that should go to hell, why don't you move? Go buy an island with all the money you've made through your investments and start over yourself and have yourself a nice little circle jerk with your buddies.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Alethia]

reply to post by Alethia


Well Alethia, you do know America hasn't really been capitalist for the better part of a century now. Ever since the end of Hoover and FDR, we've seen a wave of huge government economic intervention.

reply to post by ANOK



And what about those who don't work, yet still take a piece of the pie?

Socialism is unconstitutional, and a danger to liberty.

Originally posted by Alethia


The EPI I referred to is the Economics Policy Institute, and FPI is the Fiscal Policy Institute, both nonpartisan research think tanks.

Yet you have failed to provide links to either of these alleged studies.

I don't see anything about your EPI (The Employment Policies Institute) being nonpartisan.

Other than the fact it proves you wrong, there is nothing about "my" EPI to suggest partisanship.

From "my" EPI's about page:

EPI sponsors nonpartisan research which is conducted by independent economists at major universities around the country.

You should really try researching something before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

As for Santa Fe, it was provided as an example. Santa Cruz, Baltimore, Milwaukee and another 100 cities and counties feel the same way so again, it's not just my opinion, plenty of other people have it, and plenty of cities and counties and states do not agree with federal law. Just because something is federal law, doesn't mean you have to agree with it, and evidence shows cities, counties and states feel the same, and have their own laws. I'm sure there are federal laws you don't agree with.

Yes, as for Santa Fe:

This study, by Dr. Aaron Yelowitz of the University of Kentucky, utilizes government collected data to examine the labor market effects of Santa Fe’s living wage increase. Dr. Yelowitz finds that the living wage in Santa Fe significantly increased unemployment and decreased hours worked for those who were able to keep their job. Even more troubling, this research found that almost the entire negative effect of the living wage was concentrated on the city’s least-skilled and least-educated employees

Source

Cato Institute Report on Minimum wage

National Federation of Independent Businesses Report


A higher minimum wage puts strong upward pressure on the entire wage structure, which is the real reason that unions support it. But as any first-year economics major will tell you, if you tax something (in this case, jobs) or increase its cost, you end up with less demand for that thing.

Those are called sources, something you have avoided providing.

As for hoping the country goes to sh*t, it's nice to know that you hope the country which aides you through the capitalist system you love so much should go to sh*t. Your defending something you hate?! So now we know you're selfish, un-patriotic, and stupid.

unpatriotic? I served 6 years in the U.S. Army and have bled for this country. Other than making good use of the public school systems short bus program, what have YOU done?

Again, if it's such a sh*t country that should go to hell, why don't you move? Go buy an island with all the money you've made through your investments and start over yourself and have yourself a nice little circle jerk with your buddies.

Unlike you and your type, I prefer to stay and fight. Until a state secedes from this so called union and becomes a sovereign nation, it's sad to say but the U.S. sucks the least worst.

Just out of curiosity, were you the result of a botched back alley abortion?

Alethia-

Perhaps you could answer this question:

If your "nonpartisan" EPI was actually nonpartisan, could you explain why the executive director of it attended a conference sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America?

Maybe you could also explain why your "nonpartisan" FPI is part of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative which just so happens to be funded by the very leftist Ford Foundation and the Charles Mott foundation? (incidentally, Charles Mott was an avowed socialist)

You're welcome.

Good to see you again SlackerWire....


Good job on this too...

It is clearly evident that Obama is a socialist... everyone can see this... some, choose to ignore it.


Obama is a Lennist, of the Marx style of socialism.

People can easily see this, they just choose to ignore it, no one can understand the mind of the Obamabots...

Keep up the good work

Why do you say Lenninist?

Originally posted by slackerwire

Yet you have failed to provide links to either of these alleged studies.

Again, clear evidence you can't read, because my very first post on the EPI has a big section highlighted with "external source", and in blue lettering the link to that external source and the study it mentioned. Not my problem you can't read.

This really isn't hard man. It's not like we're talking and have forgotten what each other has said, it's all written down, you can go back and check. You're not very bright at all, I expected at least someone who can read.

EPI sponsors nonpartisan research which is conducted by independent economists at major universities around the country.

Uh huh, "sponsors". Like Pfizer "sponsoring" research into erectile dysfuntion drugs which just so happen to prove it to be the best thing in the world. Or Merck "sponsoring" senators, the same senators who just so happen to pass legislation making it state law all girls aged 12 must get a cervical cancer vaccine, which Merck just so happen to have launched.

I quote the people who do the research, you quote people who "sponsor" it. Nice.

Those are called sources, something you have avoided providing.

Er, no, I have provided sources, see above on "links".

Just out of curiosity, were you the result of a botched back alley abortion?

Awwwww, didums, are you getting upset because you don't like the way things are going? Are you name calling because you can't do anything better. Tut, tut, tut, didn't take long for you to resort to that did it. Not my fault you can't read or have a baseless argument. It's not me who wants the country to go to sh*t, it's you. You're a very poor example of a human being.


[edit on 25-6-2008 by Alethia]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Alethia]

reply to post by Alethia



Time out sweety. You are the absolute last person who should be commenting on other peoples intelligence. So far you haven't shown anything even remotely close to it.


You certainly didn't provide a link to your little FPI study, why is that? Your post completely avoided addressing the links between your "sources" and known leftist organizations. Why did you avoid it?

You can whine, cry, and moan about my source being partisan, but you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever. Why?

I asked if you were the results of a botched back alley abortion because there seems to be something wrong with you. Either brain damaged, or born without full cognitive functions.


It was my nice way of asking if you are partially mentally retarded, but your little post here just proved my assumption correct.

The numbers and evidence speak for themselves. Raising the minimum wage means business incur greater costs, therefore they have to reduce labor in order to maintain the current prices.



[edit on 25-6-2008 by slackerwire]

Time for a change in the Constitution. Pardon the short post.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Tomis_Nexis]

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by ANOK

 

And what about those who don't work, yet still take a piece of the pie?

Socialism is unconstitutional, and a danger to liberty.

So is industrial fascism --- If we go way right thats what we will be--- In fact the tax code as is, is way more fascist than socialist--

currently 90% of the countries wealth is held by 1% of citizens-- this 1% richest Americans pay a lower tax rate then you or me!!!

This is the Reagan mentality that all the right whackos love so much. But it is funny because they ordinary folks who fight tooth and nail for the rich folks have to pay more money per dollar taxed then a $1,000,000,000 --aire

you who earn -$50,000 - $100,000 - pay more per dollar, then people who live without want or need unmet ...

The current tax code is similar to industrial fascist ideas and very very far from socialist -

the rich provide jobs, so they receive a positive bias in the financial realm-this is not socialist or even close -- current policies are miles right of even the greyest of socialist doctrine.


In the 50's the tax rate on these same 1% of people was a 90% taxation rate. The 1950's- arguably our countries golden age was a time of economic growth and expansion.
This 90% tax rate was brought in to law by Eisenhower a republican. This taxation policy was an attempt to keep industry from having exponential influence on a government that was intended to be of the people by the people. The current state of economics is much more in line with of the company for the company- Industrial Fascism -

If Republican values reflected this 50's mentality in modern day, I might be a republican. I believe the current economic policies are very far right, so this argument of socialist anything is pure pigeon S%#t.





[edit on 25-6-2008 by mental modulator]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Alethia

 

Either brain damaged, or born without full cognitive functions.


It was my nice way of asking if you are partially mentally retarded, but your little post here just proved my assumption correct.

The numbers and evidence speak for themselves. Raising the minimum wage means business incur greater costs, therefore they have to reduce labor in order to maintain the current prices.



[edit on 25-6-2008 by slackerwire]

Wow thats using the old intellect --

In your last Stanza of wisdom you fail to recognize that raising the minimum wage
puts more money in the pockets of the workers. In turn these extra quarters get reinserted back into to the economy at much quicker rate-

the workers who got the "raise" spend this $ at the pump, target, walmart, 7-11... This influx of money stimulates businesses and profits because the $ is spent at a faster rate.

the money spent by workers is money earned by business isn't it?

- Do you think someone who make $6.25 hr is going to be able to save any portion of monthly wages? Really be logical...

NO!

So if $$$ is not being saved by minimum wage workers then it MUST be spent.

The money does not disappear does it???

NO!

$$$ gets directly inserted back into the economy - In fact this was the logic behind Bushes tax stimulus program...

If you give a million dollars to a billionaire the million dollars will not be spent immediately, if there is a billion vesting - why would one think that the million would be injected back into the economy?


If you give twenty dollars to a "hundredaire" it will be spent within a couple of weeks!

Who is more beneficial to everyday business transactions? ten billionaires? or thirty million hundredaires????

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by ANOK

 

And what about those who don't work, yet still take a piece of the pie? Socialism is unconstitutional, and a danger to liberty.

First off understand I'm coming from the Libertarian Socialist view point, not the authoritative Marxist type socialism which I also disagree with as much as capitalism.

This is what is annoying about your argument, you have no clue what socialism is and are just making assumptions. You seem to think that socialists don't know how to organize for the good of ALL. You are still under the impression that somehow it has to be authoritative, and it will take your piece of pie to give to someone else by force...

"when we see a peasant, who is in possession of just amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work. . . [W]hen we see a family inhabiting a house which affords them just as much space as . . . are considered necessary for that number of people, why should we interfere with that family and turn them out their house? . . . And finally, when we see a . . . cutler, or a . . . clothier working with their own tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or handloom to give to another workers. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody." [Act for Yourselves, pp. 104-5]

Unless you are an exploiter you will only gain, and if you are and have more than you need while others have nothing then why be surprised if you have to actually share? And don't give me you worked hard for it, the African slaves should be billionaires if that is a justifiable excuse. Most of America's wealth was created by the slave trade.

Labour would be organised into collectives (COOPS) and the community into syndicates (unions with representatives democratically voted based on their experience not their bank accounts or ability to raise political funding, and NO special interest groups).
Those that refuse to work, when they are able to, will not benefit from what the community produces, pretty simple.

All this will be voluntary. If you choose to not join and work for a collective (COOP), then you won't benefit from the collective, you would be a free individual who would fend for themselves.

We need society to change from one based on selfishly making money to one based on real Human needs and desires.

How can socialism be a threat to liberty when it's liberty that socialism advocates. You have been conditioned to believe liberty is the freedom to exploit.

Originally posted by ANOK
Unless you are an exploiter you will only gain, and if you are and have more than you need while others have nothing then why be surprised if you have to actually share? And don't give me you worked hard for it, the African slaves should be billionaires if that is a justifiable excuse. Most of America's wealth was created by the slave trade.

Labour would be organised into collectives (COOPS) and the community into syndicates (unions with representatives democratically voted based on their experience not their bank accounts or ability to raise political funding, and NO special interest groups).
Those that refuse to work, when they are able to, will not benefit from what the community produces, pretty simple.

All this will be voluntary. If you choose to not join and work for a collective (COOP), then you won't benefit from the collective, you would be a free individual who would fend for themselves.

I'm not entirely understanding what you are talking about, so if I may I'd like to ask a few questions.

1) I don't understand if you are speaking of companies beginning this move or government, could you explain the transition from the current model to the one you propose?

2) Would the unions be national or local? If national, wouldn't this be problematic? If local, how could you prevent them from becoming nationalized?

3) How collective are we talking about? Total? Partial? If partial in which respects?

Thanks.

We need society to change from one based on selfishly making money to one based on real Human needs and desires.

On this point I disagree. When you say "selfishly making money", I really don't see all that much difference than "real human needs and desires". What you see as greed is simply an extension of self-preservation and I, for one, don't see anything immoral or selfish about making money (and as much money as you can for that matter).

Being rich or becoming rich isn't an indictment, nor is it selfish. Money is a tool that can be used in many ways. Some horde, some are generous, and some are in between. In the end, however, it is their money.

How can socialism be a threat to liberty when it's liberty that socialism advocates. You have been conditioned to believe liberty is the freedom to exploit.

I fail to see what is exploitative. I would agree that monopolies have become the standard and we need a return to increased small business and small corporation sizes, but I think we might disagree as to how to get there.

Thanks
KJ

reply to post by mental modulator


You neglect to take into account that is a business wants to keep prices the same (I'm sure you know that old supply/demand/price scale right?), he would be forced to reduce labor costs.

Lets assume you are right for arguments sake. If min. wage is raised, prices will go up , thereby offsetting any improvement in the entry level workers paycheck.

Originally posted by slackerwire

Time out sweety. You are the absolute last person who should be commenting on other peoples intelligence. So far you haven't shown anything even remotely close to it.

Sorry, but it was you who claimed I had no links or sources. It's all written down, so it's clearly evident I did, I guess your intelligence meant you couldn't read it.

You certainly didn't provide a link to your little FPI study, why is that? Your post completely avoided addressing the links between your "sources" and known leftist organizations. Why did you avoid it?

I'm not avoiding it, I'm just not doing your homework for you. Google it, it's easy, educate yourself. Or were you the guy who bullied or bribed others to do your homework for you?

You can whine, cry, and moan about my source being partisan, but you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever. Why?

So my links are not evidence? The EPI report is not evidence? If it's not evidence what is it? How is it different from the "evidence" you provide? More childish behavior on your behalf.

I asked if you were the results of a botched back alley abortion because there seems to be something wrong with you. Either brain damaged, or born without full cognitive functions. It was my nice way of asking if you are partially mentally retarded, but your little post here just proved my assumption correct.

Wow, that's you being nice? I guess your wife and kids must be in a world of bliss huh. I'm above your tiresome games just because you have people who can prove the contrary to you.

The post proved your assumption how? Just because someone doesn't think what you do? It's evident from your signature that you are close minded and retarded, if someone doesn't think like you, kill 'em. That shows the level of your intelligence is set on redneck.

The numbers and evidence speak for themselves. Raising the minimum wage means business incur greater costs, therefore they have to reduce labor in order to maintain the current prices.

Really? Hmmmm, "evidence" says different, you can re-read my post on that, look at the links and sources which apparently aren't there, maybe second time around you might understand it. If not, then your just a lost cause, and come January when Obama is in office, we'll hear news of you leaving this sh*t country you hate so much.

We'll throw a good riddance party for you.

Originally posted by Alethia




Sorry, but it was you who claimed I had no links or sources. It's all written down, so it's clearly evident I did, I guess your intelligence meant you couldn't read it.

You cited 2 different sources, yet did not provide 2 links. Why?

I'm not avoiding it, I'm just not doing your homework for you. Google it, it's easy, educate yourself. Or were you the guy who bullied or bribed others to do your homework for you?

You made the claim, the burden of proof lies on you to substantiate that claim.

So my links are not evidence? The EPI report is not evidence? If it's not evidence what is it? How is it different from the "evidence" you provide? More childish behavior on your behalf.

Wow, comprehension flew right over your head in school didn't it?

I asked for proof that my source was partisan. You claimed it was, yet again, failed to provide any evidence.

Wow, that's you being nice? I guess your wife and kids must be in a world of bliss huh. I'm above your tiresome games just because you have people who can prove the contrary to you.

You haven't proven anything except you rely on sources with leftist agendas.

Really? Hmmmm, "evidence" says different, you can re-read my post on that, look at the links and sources which apparently aren't there, maybe second time around you might understand it. If not, then your just a lost cause, and come January when Obama is in office, we'll hear news of you leaving this sh*t country you hate so much.

Your "evidence" is pumped out by leftist organizations. When you rely on them as your sole source of info, you prove exactly what you are: A dimwitted leftist, just like the rest of them who are parasites and would rather not actually put forth any effort to make something of themselves.

We'll throw a good riddance party for you.

Can we do that at your funeral too?

reply to post by Alethia



However, for the 3rd time, I will point out, you stated the minimum wage is not a "living wage" but an "entry level". THIS IS WRONG.

As the source pointed out, each state can set it's own "minimum wage" level. As an example, Santa Fe has set a level of $9.50, and this is defined as a "living wage". Therefore, your statement of a minimum wage only being an "entry level" wage is incorrect, Santa Fe's minimum wage is a "living wage". Now, if you won't take that on board from that source, try this one.

___________________________________________________________

Please don't speak about things that you don't have first hand knowlege of. I was born and raised in Santa Fe and the 9.50 you are touting is not a "living wage". The standard for some time has been that 9.50 was the acceptable amount to pay people living here. And without going into a Sociological, 7 page discussion on the matter of why, I will tell you that we have absolutely no middle class. None, zero, nada, ziltch. We have one of the highest excises taxes, nearly 8% , on all goods and services, And to top it off just to rent a 1 room apartment costs in excess of $1000 USD a month. 9.50 is the "Entry Wage" and most people don't even want to take a job that pays 9.50 here. We need jobs that pay $15 - $20 just to make the most menial of ends meet.

Since the time that it was put on paper that the minimum wage was to be 9.50, the cost of goods and services jumped 5 - 10% over night once the law was passed.

(plus the "9.50 living wage" you use in your example to prove that "minimum wage" is not an "entry wage" only applies to companies over 25 employees.)

Minimum wage will always be an "entry wage" inflation, tax and greed will always dictate that.