Online Now 3439

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2036
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3575
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

State of the Union thread.....

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    So I have a concern from this study.

    It mentions a "significant size differential associated with the likelihood of the store closing" in regards to smaller stores/restaraunts not being able to handle the increase.

    I think the idea that McDonalds won't be able to handle paying its employees an extra two bucks an hour is silly, but a mom and pop drug store might not have the capital.

    This brings me back to another point - WalMart supports increasing the minimum wage, even though it will cost the government subsidies (making WalMart a bad example to use in the first place, my bad on that). Why? Because they know it will drive small businesses away.

    Fair point.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • NLeininger said...

    Here's my biggest issue, that no one has addressed. When did it become the apex of someone's career to reach minimum wage? Minimum wage was never established to be livable for a family. It was established to get cheap labor into the workforce while at the same time giving these employees valuable experience to improve their marketability. When I worked at the Country Club, Burger King, Subway, Intramural official in high school and college I wasn't thinking, "Hot damn I've finally arrived." I was thinking, "I need to get better educated so that I can achieve a higher salary."

    Obama sells minimum wage as it's some sort of nobelilac idea that everyone should be happy to achieve, and take up residence. Just like most liberal ideas minimum wage is a disaster in action.

    I don't think that's the point at all.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    This brings me back to another point - WalMart supports increasing the minimum wage, even though it will cost the government subsidies (making WalMart a bad example to use in the first place, my bad on that). Why? Because they know it will drive small businesses away.

    Sorry, I have a question: what subsidies are these? Are you talking about the defacto effect of low-paid Walmart workers turning to government assistance programs to supplement their income, or is there some other subsidy program that I'm forgetting about?

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • The south does have more families living on minimum wage than most of the rest of the country. They are below poverty line and benefit from higher minimum wage. Teens working part time frequently have family support to live. If there was a way to help the poverty level family and not teens more people would support the idea of higher minimum wage. It is also about redistributing wealth that rankles some a lot of people.

    This post was edited by tennreb on 2/13/2013 at 1:25 PM

    tennreb

  • VTSmitty said...

    What percentage of people earning minimum wage rely it for a living? You have a lot teens and college students just trying to make a few bucks for pocket change. Probably quite a few spouses that are not the primary income. And then some percent, no idea how much, that have maxed out their earning potential and are reliant on minimum wage. It seems like pushing that up to a living wage is rewarding people for being the least educated and least skilled in the job market.

    Yeah and all of the above spend their money the second they get it. Housewives, people who need it for electric bill immediately, that pair of shoes she wants to wear to this weekends kickass party, etc. My apologies, I thought that was the topic, getting people to spend money.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Nobody makes me bleed my own blood, nobody!"

    Red Goodman

  • Here's another affirmative study.

    Edit: it's not letting me link it. Oh well.

    This post was edited by BamaLivesFootba on 2/13/2013 at 1:42 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • tennreb said...

    The south does have more families living on minimum wage than most of the rest of the country. They are below poverty line and benefit from higher minimum wage. Teens working part time frequently have family support to live. If there was a way to help the poverty level family and not teens more people would support the idea of higher minimum wage. It is also about redistributing wealth that rankles some a lot of people.

    In this case, I think the "redistribution of wealth" argument is wildly overblown. There are very few government monetary policies that aren't some form of redistribution of wealth, and raising the minimum wage is no more or less a redistribution than cutting taxes on the rich.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • Josh Barro is a smart and talented writer. I think this makes a lot of sense.

    A Smarter Alternative to Raising the Minimum Wage - Bloomberg

    Josh Barro explains why raising the earned-income tax credit is preferable to increasing the minimum wage. 

    www.bloomberg.com
    signature image

    You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#

    CockAtLaw

  • CockAtLaw said...

    Josh Barro is a smart and talented writer. I think this makes a lot of sense.

    Make sense, but I don't know how much more politically expedient it is.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • CMXI said...

    Sorry, I have a question: what subsidies are these? Are you talking about the defacto effect of low-paid Walmart workers turning to government assistance programs to supplement their income, or is there some other subsidy program that I'm forgetting about?

    You got it - the defacto subsidy that is paying your employees little enough that they qualify for government aid.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Make sense, but I don't know how much more politically expedient it is.

    Yeah, anything that increases the deficit will get shouted down.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    You got it - the defacto subsidy that is paying your employees little enough that they qualify for government aid.

    Ah, thanks, just checking, I wasn't sure if there were any other subsidies I didn't know about.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • CMXI said...

    Yeah, anything that increases the deficit will get shouted down.

    As it should.

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    As it should.

    Always? coffee

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Always? coffee

    Yeah unless there is some national emergency in which spending is necessary it is rather foolish to just keep spending money we don't have. At what point is the left going to realize we don't have unlimited funds? We can't do this crap forever.

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    Yeah unless there is some national emergency in which spending is necessary it is rather foolish to just keep spending money we don't have. At what point is the left going to realize we don't have unlimited funds? We can't do this crap forever.

    So are tax cuts without offsets a national emergency? In a time of war no less?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    So are tax cuts without offsets a national emergency? In a time of war no less?

    I am not rehashing the Bush administration with you. Nor was it my intention to defend it.

    Either argue with me on my point or move on. I am not doing this well the GOP did this and the Dems did this game.

    This post was edited by TroyTide on 2/13/2013 at 3:22 PM

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    I am not rehashing the Bush administration with you. Nor was it my intention to defend it.

    Either argue with me on my point or move on. I am not doing this well the GOP did this and the Dems did this game.

    Sorry I just think it's complete horse shit that the deficit matters now. Especially when the notion that expanding the EITC (which would be inherently deficit spending) wasn't even discussed in the context of or couldn't be offset.

    Carry on.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • TroyTide said...

    Yeah unless there is some national emergency in which spending is necessary it is rather foolish to just keep spending money we don't have. At what point is the left going to realize we don't have unlimited funds? We can't do this crap forever.

    If we have been running annual deficits every year from 1980 to 2013 except for 3 years in the Clinton administration, how is it that "the left" deserve the sole blame for the deficit?

    That doesn't really make sense.

    rms02d

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Sorry I just think it's complete horse shit that the deficit matters now. Especially when the notion that expanding the EITC (which would be inherently deficit spending) wasn't even discussed in the context of or couldn't be offset.

    Carry on.

    I was in high school when Bush was in his last year in office so don't give me that crap about how it suddenly matters to me now.

    And at any rate the deficit does matter. The Dems can't make the reality of the deficit go away by saying "we'll what about Bush? Blah blah blah"

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    I am not rehashing the Bush administration with you. Nor was it my intention to defend it.

    Either argue with me on my point or move on. I am not doing this well the GOP did this and the Dems did this game.

    When you have GOP presidential candidates saying broadly that they'll cut taxes by 20 percent, and offering practically no specific offsets, it makes no sense. Clearly the deficit doesn't matter there, so how can the GOP attack the left on the basis of deficit-reduction?

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • What's the minimum you have to earn to qualify for the EITC. I found the max but no minimums. Is there one

    Go bucky go ●

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Sorry I just think it's complete horse shit that the deficit matters now. Especially when the notion that expanding the EITC (which would be inherently deficit spending) wasn't even discussed in the context of or couldn't be offset.

    Carry on.

    Republican politicians don't care about the deficit. I'm convinced of it. If they actually did care about eliminating the deficit/debt, they would unquestionably be for some or all of the following:

    1. Closing corporate tax loopholes which allow companies to record billions in profits and pay no taxes
    2. Change the capital gains tax rate to that of normal income
    3. Ramp down *ahem* defense spending dramatically

    But proposing any of those 3 is republican suicide. Instead, republicans will talk about social security, medicare, and 'other entitlements' almost exclusively.

    The only conclusion is that they don't hate deficits or debt (since they would discuss all of if they did), but they just don't like SS/medicare.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • About 10 trillion of the 16 Trillion falls to Dem administrations. It was a bipartisan effort but the Dem Presidents bear the burden.

    However party lines aside it is Bush and Obama that bear the vast majority of it all by themselves. The two most fiscally irresponsible presidents in American history.

    It is also fair to blame the Dems now because they are the only party that doesn't even acknowledge it is a problem and has absolutely no intention of correcting it at all.

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    The Dems can't make the reality of the deficit go away by saying "we'll what about Bush? Blah blah blah"

    Obviously. Bush or RR (who started this whole mess) have no say in the current debt of the US.

    But we can use those administrations to point out the obvious hypocrisy. No one was screaming deficit when RR blew them up. No one screamed deficit during the Bush years, but the day Obama gets elected the country is spending at an out of control rate?

    My BS meter is going off.

    ramssuperbowl99

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports