US on track to borrow most money since 2008 financial crisis: report
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
Moron thinks there is data showing how arbitrary minimum wage laws made life better for those earning it.Your kids certainly will have nothing from you. Nor your parents after you bleed them dry financially. They will have learned though to not make it on their own from you.
cawacko
Well-known member
Nope. Your ignorance of the premise doesn't make me a scumbag
cawacko
Well-known member
So you don't understand the people we are talking about and you don't under cause and effect. That's the problem here
cawacko
Well-known member
Raising minimum wage makes it more difficult for those at risk, since margain is difficult to comprehend. It does t allow them an opportunity to gain much valued and needed work experience. Remember, these are the people you supposedly care about.
cawacko
Well-known member
Yes, I'm a liar because you don't understand pensions nor the at risk kids you claim to care about
hvilleherb
Verified User
And just where are the howling teabaggers now?
The Treasury Department predicted in a report Monday that the government's borrowing needs for the second half of 2018 will be $769 billion - the highest its borrowed since 2008 during the financial crisis.
Bloomberg reports that Treasury foresees issuing $329 billion in net marketable debt between July and the end of September, and another $440 billion between October and the end of the year. The total $769 billion comes in at the highest borrowing estimate since $1.1 trillion between July and December of 2008 in the middle of the financial crisis.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...since-2008-financial-crisis-report/ar-BBLjgQC
We can fix that by cutting spending we currently waste on entitlements. If that's not enough to cover it we should consider a national sales tax.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Cut out the religious exemption
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
And you don't think Corporate profiteers would not do that anyway? As the cost of automation comes down it is inevitable.
Fast food workers do not typically even GET 40 hours. Many are on the dole. When we bump their pay to $15, many will earn enough to get OFF the dole. Raising the minimum wage is an easy way to cut government spending.
And you don't think Corporate profiteers would not do that anyway? As the cost of automation comes down it is inevitable.
Fast food workers do not typically even GET 40 hours. Many are on the dole. When we bump their pay to $15, many will earn enough to get OFF the dole. Raising the minimum wage is an easy way to cut government spending.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Nordberg,
My, what sense you make:
I totally agree. I WANT to eat into the wealth gap. That's what needs to happen. All these people are so crazy about capitalism, worship capital as if it is the holy grail, but capitalism is not all good. Capitalism needs to be regulated. That's why we HAVE a minimum wage.
Point 1: We HAD A MINIMUM WAGE WHEN AMERICA WAS GREAT. Whatever era people alive today fondly remember, there was a minimum wage then. And it was stronger than today.
Point 2: Allowing the minimum wage to become irrelevant due to inflation is the same thing as slowly eliminating the minimum wage. That's the same as saying employers should only pay the lowest wage that will get the work done, that even a full time worker may not earn enough to afford the basic comforts of life.
With Point 1 and Point 2 in mind, and the fact that an inflation-adjusted minimum wage to 1968 dollars would be over $10 an hour, coupled with the fact that 40 hours of work per week per job is history, we need to immediately raise the minimum wage to $15 and thereafter tie it to inflation. People don't work full time any more. There is no longer enough work for that.
We need to get far more of America working at whatever capacity possible and on good financial footing. That will generate more consumerism, and a revitalized economy from the grass roots on up.
President Trump's idea of how to get rich is to sell luxury high rise condos and high priced golf country club memberships to really rich people. That's just not a very practical model to apply to young struggling people just trying to put a life together. It is no way to guide an economy. It is how the rich, in President Trump's own words, "Just got a lot richer."
People on minimum wage tend to spend their entire income just getting by. There are a lot of people on minimum wage. That is a LOT of spending. Raising the minimum wage represents a huge injection of demand into the economy.
Corporations are flush with cash. They don't need tax breaks to hire. They already have the money to hire if they want to. What they need is more DEMAND for their products for more hiring.
We build wealth in America by working. Let's get more people working by making work pay more, and by generating more demand for hiring! We pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
The rich need to make it easier for others to prosper, not throw nails on the road behind them.
The rich need to pay more taxes, use the power of their own wealth to make America great again.
Together, the rich could pay more taxes and wipe out the deficit, and set us on the road to paying down the debt, making our nation stronger and more independent.
When we tax the rich more it will make America great again.
Hey. I like that. I don't often do this but that one needs to be said again, said prominently:
My, what sense you make:
I totally agree. I WANT to eat into the wealth gap. That's what needs to happen. All these people are so crazy about capitalism, worship capital as if it is the holy grail, but capitalism is not all good. Capitalism needs to be regulated. That's why we HAVE a minimum wage.
Point 1: We HAD A MINIMUM WAGE WHEN AMERICA WAS GREAT. Whatever era people alive today fondly remember, there was a minimum wage then. And it was stronger than today.
Point 2: Allowing the minimum wage to become irrelevant due to inflation is the same thing as slowly eliminating the minimum wage. That's the same as saying employers should only pay the lowest wage that will get the work done, that even a full time worker may not earn enough to afford the basic comforts of life.
With Point 1 and Point 2 in mind, and the fact that an inflation-adjusted minimum wage to 1968 dollars would be over $10 an hour, coupled with the fact that 40 hours of work per week per job is history, we need to immediately raise the minimum wage to $15 and thereafter tie it to inflation. People don't work full time any more. There is no longer enough work for that.
We need to get far more of America working at whatever capacity possible and on good financial footing. That will generate more consumerism, and a revitalized economy from the grass roots on up.
President Trump's idea of how to get rich is to sell luxury high rise condos and high priced golf country club memberships to really rich people. That's just not a very practical model to apply to young struggling people just trying to put a life together. It is no way to guide an economy. It is how the rich, in President Trump's own words, "Just got a lot richer."
People on minimum wage tend to spend their entire income just getting by. There are a lot of people on minimum wage. That is a LOT of spending. Raising the minimum wage represents a huge injection of demand into the economy.
Corporations are flush with cash. They don't need tax breaks to hire. They already have the money to hire if they want to. What they need is more DEMAND for their products for more hiring.
We build wealth in America by working. Let's get more people working by making work pay more, and by generating more demand for hiring! We pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
The rich need to make it easier for others to prosper, not throw nails on the road behind them.
The rich need to pay more taxes, use the power of their own wealth to make America great again.
Together, the rich could pay more taxes and wipe out the deficit, and set us on the road to paying down the debt, making our nation stronger and more independent.
When we tax the rich more it will make America great again.
Hey. I like that. I don't often do this but that one needs to be said again, said prominently:
When we tax the rich more it will make America great again.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello hvilleherb,
Bad idea.
Most consumer spending is done by the poor. What you are suggesting is a tax on the poor. It is not enough to cut taxes on the rich, now you want to increase taxes on the poor. That's ridiculous. That would cause the economy to recede. There would be less consumer spending, less demand, less hiring. It could cause a recession.
Bad idea.
Most consumer spending is done by the poor. What you are suggesting is a tax on the poor. It is not enough to cut taxes on the rich, now you want to increase taxes on the poor. That's ridiculous. That would cause the economy to recede. There would be less consumer spending, less demand, less hiring. It could cause a recession.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello guno,
You know what the religious exception sounds like to me?
It sounds like Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion.
I wonder if that has ever been heard before the SCOTUS...
(not that such a case would go anywhere NOW.)
But you know. If there is a blue wave, the next president could nominate liberal judges.........
Can you say: 'Supreme Court Justice Kamala Harris?'
You know what the religious exception sounds like to me?
It sounds like Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion.
I wonder if that has ever been heard before the SCOTUS...
(not that such a case would go anywhere NOW.)
But you know. If there is a blue wave, the next president could nominate liberal judges.........
Can you say: 'Supreme Court Justice Kamala Harris?'
You laughably cry crocodile tears over the loss of low-wage jobs as you ignore that loss is made up in gains in higher wage employment.
I understand pensions just fine.
What you don't understand is the pension liabilities you're screeching about.
You don't understand what those liabilities even are.
You don't understand the revenue baseline used to determine the liabilities.
You don't even understand how far out the liability goes.
All questions directed at you regarding these details come up empty. You won't say. Instead, you fall back on the same old Op-Eds that don't answer any of those questions either.
You say there's a "trillion dollar liability".
OK, so how much is that liability exactly?
What is the period of time you say this liability is over?
What is the revenue baseline you're using to conclude there's a liability?
Everything you say on this topic is designed to be vague and ambiguous, and then you bristle when asked to go into detail of the very argument you're making.
You should be able to say something like, over the next 50 years, there's a $1.5T liability that is based on a revenue baseline from 2016.
THAT is how you articulate what a pension liability is. That way, we can do a deep dive into your numbers to find out if there actually is a liability, or if you're overstating it because you're using a revenue baseline from the Great Bush Recession. The liaibility picture looks worse if you use revenue from 2009 or 2010 as your baseline, which is what most of your Op-Eds seem to be doing. So you can manufacture panic about an issue by using deliberately skewed and outdated info.
That's what you do every time you post one of those Op-Eds in lieu of actually doing the work yourself.
So not only are you a liar by omission, but you're incredibly fucking lazy.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^
Getin the ring
Verified User
Since most government assistance is income-determinant, the higher the wage, the less in benefits that worker qualifies. So if a worker qualifies for less benefits because their wage is higher, that's less government spending.
Not hard to figure out.