0
   

The Impending Demise of the GOP (Grand Obsolete Party)

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:13 pm
candidone1 wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
What's even more interesting is how people like you take an inference about minimum wage and make it into a grand production that includes saying such bullshit as "It is interesting to see here how Reps look down on ordinary people."
It's a ridiculous conclusion that you have made and makes you appear, to me at least, to be a blathering idiot.


McGentrix wrote:
Honestly Okie! Everyone knows the 17 year old working at McDonalds is as important to society as a neurosurgeon and should be paid an equal amount.



In fine form today...good to see you still employing the McGentrix double standard for rational discussion.


Perhaps you should understudy with Drewdad?

Roxanne comes on with her typical bullshit and you guys stumble over yourselves getting in line to eat it. Yet Okie and I are the ones with issues? Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:55 pm
McGentrix wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Honestly Okie! Everyone knows the 17 year old working at McDonalds is as important to society as a neurosurgeon and should be paid an equal amount.

Rolling Eyes

Sweet! A McGentrix logical fallacy!


You've demonstrated in the past that sarcasm is beyond your intelligence level, so it's not surprising at all when it happens again.

And you've demonstrated that anything other than trolling is beyond your capabilities.

Come back when you actually have something to say.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:37 pm
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Honestly Okie! Everyone knows the 17 year old working at McDonalds is as important to society as a neurosurgeon and should be paid an equal amount.

Rolling Eyes

Sweet! A McGentrix logical fallacy!


You've demonstrated in the past that sarcasm is beyond your intelligence level, so it's not surprising at all when it happens again.

And you've demonstrated that anything other than trolling is beyond your capabilities.

Come back when you actually have something to say.


Coming from you, that's funny. Thanks for the laugh.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:41 pm
McGentrix wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
What's even more interesting is how people like you take an inference about minimum wage and make it into a grand production that includes saying such bullshit as "It is interesting to see here how Reps look down on ordinary people."
It's a ridiculous conclusion that you have made and makes you appear, to me at least, to be a blathering idiot.


McGentrix wrote:
Honestly Okie! Everyone knows the 17 year old working at McDonalds is as important to society as a neurosurgeon and should be paid an equal amount.



In fine form today...good to see you still employing the McGentrix double standard for rational discussion.


Perhaps you should understudy with Drewdad?

Roxanne comes on with her typical bullshit and you guys stumble over yourselves getting in line to eat it. Yet Okie and I are the ones with issues? Laughing Laughing


The point McG, that you continually miss, was that you habitually hold others to a standard that you do not hold yourself to, and you accuse others of being precisely what you chastize them for being.
I'm not surprised that you fail on every occasion to see it when it is presented to you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:47 pm
Which standard would that be Candidone1?

You speak as though I actually expect something more from the libbies here beyond the whiny talking points and Bush/Conservative bashing. Pointing out faults in others is a fine past time, especially here where it's so easy to do.

Do you work for minimum wage? Is that why you get defensive about the topic?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:49 pm
Advocate wrote:
The Dems brought us social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and budgetary surpluses. They brought welfare reform, the graduated income tax, etc.

It is interesting to see here how Reps look down on ordinary people. It so happens that people important in our society include those who wash dishes, prepare food, drive trucks, labor on our roads, etc. They should be treated decently and not disrespected because they didn't take further training, get advanced degrees, etc. Many of these people raise children and don't have the opportunity for further schooling. And, yes, some don't have the scholastic ability. This doesn't make them scum, which is the way Okie and McG view them.


To be real frank with you, Advocate, your comments are not only wrong but a total insult, period. You have no clue, and you go off and start drawing grand conclusions and spewing insults. I am an ordinary person, so I suggest you get lost.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:40 pm
Okie, thanks for being frank. However, your comments don't ring true.

You Reps have, time and again, illustrated your disdain for the poor or worker classes. For instance, your support for wildly disproportionate tax cuts for the super-rich says a lot. Your opposition to increases in the minimum wage, when at the same time rich individuals and corporations are lavished with tax and other gifts, is telling. Bush telling us that uninsured poor children may visit ERs for their health care is just sickening. The Reps opposition to unions, which strive to afford a modicum of decent treatment for the worker, is illustrative.

I notice that your retort lacks any substance, and consists of name-calling.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 03:14 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Which standard would that be Candidone1?

You speak as though I actually expect something more from the libbies here beyond the whiny talking points and Bush/Conservative bashing. Pointing out faults in others is a fine past time, especially here where it's so easy to do.

Do you work for minimum wage? Is that why you get defensive about the topic?


I actually don't McG...but what bearing would that have on the topic?

I am a teacher, (as I believe you once were...) but have been very fortunate with some of my past investments....so I do OK. I just don't seem to understand the need to be rude to people or about people because of their income, career choice or place in life. I get that some people measure the worth of an individual by their net worth or their earning potential...I just get satisfaction out of knowing what a shithead perspective that must be to carry around all the time. That's all.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 03:27 pm
Advocate wrote:

You Reps have, time and again, illustrated your disdain for the poor or worker classes.

That statement pretty much summarizes why you are truly clueless. I would try to reason with you, but I think you are hopeless. It is not the poor, but the elitists like yourself that I have problems with.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 03:32 pm
okie wrote:
Advocate wrote:

You Reps have, time and again, illustrated your disdain for the poor or worker classes.

That statement pretty much summarizes why you are truly clueless. I would try to reason with you, but I think you are hopeless. It is not the poor, but the elitists like yourself that I have problems with.


I think you are both speaking in too general of terms. Okie may or may not stand for everything a "Republican" stands for. Perhaps it's not fair to generalize his/her beliefs based on a model rather than an their individual beliefs.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 03:36 pm
Yes. Painting all Republicans with Okie's opinions is a bit harsh.

Okie made his feelings clear here:

okie wrote:
Everybody worth a nickel makes more than minimum wage anyway.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 03:48 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Yes. Painting all Republicans with Okie's opinions is a bit harsh.

Okie made his feelings clear here:

okie wrote:
Everybody worth a nickel makes more than minimum wage anyway.



I think their opposition to a minimum wage supports my position.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 04:50 pm
A minimum wage basically does little or nothing, except restrict the number of jobs for young people just entering the work force. If a minimum wage is near or below market value of the work provided, then it accomplishes nothing. If it is set above what the work is really worth, then the number of jobs are limited over what would otherwise occur. As it stands now, most minimum wages are near or below what the people would be paid anyway, so the law is nothing more than something where a Democrat can say, see, I care, and I did something, when he or she did nothing.

The minimum wage laws are good examples of artificial government mandates that have unintended consequences in a free market. Often, such mandates over the long run cause the very problem that they are intended to solve, similar to the way price controls and other artificial mandates have been shown to be disasters. But as I said, when minimum wages are set pretty low, they make people feel good, but they don't cause huge problems, and they don't do any good either. If anyone could actually make people well off by setting minimum wages high enough to do so, thus setting the price of the labor alot higher than the labor is actually worth, then the law of unintended consequences would intensify.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 05:00 pm
okie wrote:
A minimum wage basically does little or nothing, except restrict the number of jobs for young people just entering the work force. If a minimum wage is near or below market value of the work provided, then it accomplishes nothing. If it is set above what the work is really worth, then the number of jobs are limited over what would otherwise occur. As it stands now, most minimum wages are near or below what the people would be paid anyway, so the law is nothing more than something where a Democrat can say, see, I care, and I did something, when he or she did nothing.

The minimum wage laws are good examples of artificial government mandates that have unintended consequences in a free market. Often, such mandates over the long run cause the very problem that they are intended to solve, similar to the way price controls and other artificial mandates have been shown to be disasters. But as I said, when minimum wages are set pretty low, they make people feel good, but they don't cause huge problems, and they don't do any good either. If anyone could actually make people well off by setting minimum wages high enough to do so, thus setting the price of the labor alot higher than the labor is actually worth, then the law of unintended consequences would intensify.


The Minimum wage sets a lower boundary upon what work is 'worth.' As there is no objective way to judge this, there's a need for a minimum wage.

C'mon, man... setting the minimum wage up higher - especially given that little thing called inflation, you may have heard of it - makes a few people's lives a little less sh*tty. Nobody gets rich off of minimum wage increases.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 06:30 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Minimum wage sets a lower boundary upon what work is 'worth.' As there is no objective way to judge this, there's a need for a minimum wage.
....
Cycloptichorn


I thought you were an educated person, cyclops? You can't be serious?

Economics 101, cyclops, what is anything worth?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 07:12 pm
I think many U.S. citizens, that are troubled by the low minimum wage, are leaving out of their analysis one thing: the cultural desire in the U.S. mainstream culture to follow the ideal of "rugged individualism," whereby young people leave the nest at a certain age, and the nuclear family is the standard living arrangement. This I read was originally a British paradigm. Many other parts of Europe tended to live in multi-generational paradigms.

We see this in the immigrant communities, or some U.S. ethnic communities, where grandparents live with children and grandchildren as a matter of course. Parents work; grandparents watch children. Wages are not high, but rents are paid, because many people are contributing to the rent, groceries, etc.

I would guess that in the future that may become the U.S. paradigm. Or, something akin to the old sit-com Friends.

Those who have the bent towards higher education, or technical training will have, upon moving up some career ladder, the luxury of adopting the old "rugged individualistic" paradigm.

These are my opinions, based on the feeling that sociology changes as the economics change. It's the old story, I think, that at some point a crying child, that lost a favorite toy, dries his/her tears and plays with another toy.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 07:18 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Minimum wage sets a lower boundary upon what work is 'worth.' As there is no objective way to judge this, there's a need for a minimum wage.
....
Cycloptichorn


I thought you were an educated person, cyclops? You can't be serious?

Economics 101, cyclops, what is anything worth?


Economics 101, the dollars that the lower paid workers earn goes right back into the economy. You are just parroting Rush Limbaugh's nonsense. If we want to hear Rush Limbaugh's opinion, we will get it directly from the dopers mouth.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 06:52 am
This should give you folks something to grind your teeth on...

A Wall Street Trader Draws Some Subprime Lessons: Michael Lewis

By Michael Lewis

Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- So right after the Bear Stearns funds blew up, I had a thought: This is what happens when you lend money to poor people.

Don't get me wrong: I have nothing personally against the poor. To my knowledge, I have nothing personally to do with the poor at all. It's not personal when a guy cuts your grass: that's business. He does what you say, you pay him. But you don't pay him in advance: That would be finance. And finance is one thing you should never engage in with the poor. (By poor, I mean anyone who the SEC wouldn't allow to invest in my hedge fund.)

That's the biggest lesson I've learned from the subprime crisis. Along the way, as these people have torpedoed my portfolio, I had some other thoughts about the poor. I'll share them with you.

1) They're masters of public relations.

I had no idea how my open-handedness could be made to look, after the fact. At the time I bought the subprime portfolio I thought: This is sort of like my way of giving something back. I didn't expect a profile in Philanthropy Today or anything like that. I mean, I bought at a discount. But I thought people would admire the Wall Street big shot who found a way to help the little guy. Sort of like a money doctor helping a sick person. Then the little guy wheels around and gives me this financial enema. And I'm the one who gets crap in the papers! Everyone feels sorry for the poor, and no one feels sorry for me. Even though it's my money! No good deed goes unpunished.

2) Poor people don't respect other people's money in the way money deserves to be respected.

Call me a romantic: I want everyone to have a shot at the American dream. Even people who haven't earned it. I did everything I could so that these schlubs could at least own their own place. The media is now making my generosity out to be some kind of scandal. Teaser rates weren't a scandal. Teaser rates were a sign of misplaced trust: I trusted these people to get their teams of lawyers to vet anything before they signed it. Turns out, if you're poor, you don't need to pay lawyers. You don't like the deal you just wave your hands in the air and moan about how poor you are. Then you default.

3) I've grown out of touch with ``poor culture.''

Hard to say when this happened; it might have been when I stopped flying commercial. Or maybe it was when I gave up the bleacher seats and got the suite. But the first rule in this business is to know the people you're in business with, and I broke it. People complain about the rich getting richer and the poor being left behind. Is it any wonder? Look at them! Did it ever occur to even one of them that they might pay me back by WORKING HARDER? I don't think so.

But as I say, it was my fault, for not studying the poor more closely before I lent them the money. When the only time you've ever seen a lion is in his cage in the zoo, you start thinking of him as a pet cat. You forget that he wants to eat you.

4) Our society is really, really hostile to success. At the same time it's shockingly indulgent of poor people.

A Republican president now wants to bail them out! I have a different solution. Debtors' prison is obviously a little too retro, and besides that it would just use more taxpayers' money. But the poor could work off their debts. All over Greenwich I see lawns to be mowed, houses to be painted, sports cars to be tuned up. Some of these poor people must have skills. The ones that don't could be trained to do some of the less skilled labor -- say, working as clowns at rich kids' birthday parties. They could even have an act: put them in clown suits and see how many can be stuffed into a Maybach. It'd be like the circus, only better.

Transporting entire neighborhoods of poor people to upper Manhattan and lower Connecticut might seem impractical. It's not: Mexico does this sort of thing routinely. And in the long run it might be for the good of poor people. If the consequences were more serious, maybe they wouldn't stay poor.

5) I think it's time we all become more realistic about letting the poor anywhere near Wall Street.

Lending money to poor countries was a bad idea: Does it make any more sense to lend money to poor people? They don't even have mineral rights!

There's a reason the rich aren't getting richer as fast as they should: they keep getting tangled up with the poor. It's unrealistic to say that Wall Street should cut itself off entirely from poor -- or, if you will, ``mainstream'' -- culture. As I say, I'll still do business with the masses. But I'll only engage in their finances if they can clump themselves together into a semblance of a rich person. I'll still accept pension fund money, for example. (Nothing under $50 million, please.) And I'm willing to finance the purchase of entire companies staffed basically with poor people. I did deals with Milken, before they broke him. I own some Blackstone. (Hang tough, Steve!)

But never again will I go one-on-one again with poor people. They're sharks.

(Michael Lewis is the author, most recently of ``The Blind Side,'' and is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The views he expresses are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Michael Lewis in Berkeley, California, at [email protected] .
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 07:52 am
The word "poor' is anachronistic. It was correct to use during Dickens' time. Perhaps, during the 1930's depression.

It caused WWII in the inflation of the Weimar Republic. German citizens that were middle class prior to WWI were poor because of inflation.

It's a term that just reflects a blind elitism, I believe. Poor people are not poor. They are "cash poor." Many people in the U.S. own much land, and are not considered poor, but they are "cash poor." They manage nicely, but can't spend money like an urban person that is "land poor," but "cash rich."

The word poor by itself is just a pejorative term. I believe there's an inference that poor correlates to social class and level of education. Not necessarily so, if there is that inference. Also, the inference, I believe, that the poor want a free ride. Hey, the relatives/children of the "rich" are getting a free ride. Anyone complaining?

I say this in context of the fact that "rich" has many gradations. A "rich" (wealthy is really the more genteel term) person that owns miles of land may very well consider the rich individual with just stocks/bonds/cash different than themselves, I believe. Real wealth is more proper if it comes with a family history that owns land and investments.

In other words, if there's new money and old money, why isn't there new poor and old poor? Ah, poor is just poor? Well, in this country, a chronic illness can make one poor, even if they were raised in a different economic class. Tough luck?

The article said nothing salient to me.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 10:17 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Minimum wage sets a lower boundary upon what work is 'worth.' As there is no objective way to judge this, there's a need for a minimum wage.
....
Cycloptichorn


I thought you were an educated person, cyclops? You can't be serious?

Economics 101, cyclops, what is anything worth?


Economics 101, the dollars that the lower paid workers earn goes right back into the economy. You are just parroting Rush Limbaugh's nonsense. If we want to hear Rush Limbaugh's opinion, we will get it directly from the dopers mouth.

So Roxi, how would anyone know how much a gallon of milk is worth? Show us how educated you are, like cyclops did. Just how in the world would anyone know how much to charge or pay for a gallon of milk? Do we need a minimum milk price? Educate us with your infinite wisdom.

By the way, more pertinent to the Republican Party, I thought the guys last night showed us we have a stable of several great candidates, any one of which is so far superior in common sense, experience, and competence compared to the motley group of Dems, it is almost embarrassing that it should even be a close contest. Embarrassing for the citizenry.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/02/2024 at 02:39:09