Michigan considers $10 minimum wage

[Mavorpen]

And this is bad why...? It's like whining about all of the puppies you COULD have adopted.

Because reduces available choices of those that are worst off?

Again... this is bad why? You're going to need to do better than, "LESS CHOICES R BAD!"

[Sibirsky]

And how does the highest spending being under Obama not qualify him as a big spender?

Someone having debt shifted upon them does not make them a "big spender."

That's not debt. That's current spending. That's what your chart showed the growth rates of.

[Sibirsky]

See, we restricted you, so you became more free. This is not a difficult concept.

Glad you agree with us.

I'm sure you actually believe that, so, congratulations!

[Mavorpen]

Someone having debt shifted upon them does not make them a "big spender."

That's not debt. That's current spending. That's what your chart showed the growth rates of.

I...are you seriously being that obtuse? Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think that spending is magically brought to 0 when a new President is brought into office?

[Mavorpen]

Glad you agree with us.

I'm sure you actually believe that, so, congratulations!

Why wouldn't I?

Do you think I would be GLAD for whites to have the ability to lynch me?
Do you think I would be GLAD for white supremacist organizations to actively organize to murder me?

If so, you know utterly nothing about me.

[Sibirsky]

Because reduces available choices of those that are worst off?

Again... this is bad why? You're going to need to do better than, "LESS CHOICES R BAD!"

Are you not capable of any thinking?

Nobody wants to work for $7/hour. Nobody wants to work for $2/day in Cambodia either.

Yet people do it. People choose to do it. What does that tell us? It tells that sometimes life gives people only shit choices. It also tells us that these people have decided that these choices, are the best choices they have.

The best choice is still bad. But less bad than the other available choices.

And your solution is to remove these people's ability to choose their best available option. In the case of the 3rd world, that would drive people into horrific things like selling organs, prostitution, or worse.

A more reasonable, intelligent and humane solution would be to increase the number of available choices they have. And concentrate on the better choices.

[Sibirsky]

That's not debt. That's current spending. That's what your chart showed the growth rates of.

I...are you seriously being that obtuse? Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think that spending is magically brought to 0 when a new President is brought into office?

What are you talking about? Your chart showed the percentage of average annual increase of spending under different presidents.

No where in my post is there anything indicating that spending drops to 0.

YOU brought the debt up. And you seem to be very, very confused.

[Sibirsky]

I'm sure you actually believe that, so, congratulations!

Why wouldn't I?

Do you think I would be GLAD for whites to have the ability to lynch me?
Do you think I would be GLAD for white supremacist organizations to actively organize to murder me?

If so, you know utterly nothing about me.

I know that you are extremely confused about your own chart and the conversation that followed.

[Mavorpen]

Are you not capable of any thinking?

I can already tell this is going to answer utterly nothing.

Nobody wants to work for $7/hour. Nobody wants to work for $2/day in Cambodia either.

Yet people do it. People choose to do it. What does that tell us? It tells that sometimes life gives people only shit choices. It also tells us that these people have decided that these choices, are the best choices they have.

The best choice is still bad. But less bad than the other available choices.

And why is this preferable than the choice being limited to even better options? You completely and utterly failed to address this.

And your solution is to remove these people's ability to choose their best available option. In the case of the 3rd world, that would drive people into horrific things like selling organs, prostitution, or worse.

Please quote me saying ANYTHING about third world countries.

A more reasonable, intelligent and humane solution would be to increase the number of available choices they have. And concentrate on the better choices.

According to what? Nothing you've said so far provides ANY reasoning as to why this is true.

[Mavorpen]

No where in my post is there anything indicating that spending drops to 0.

Then attempting to "correct" me by dismissing debt and insisting I talk about spending makes utterly no sense.

YOU brought the debt up. And you seem to be very, very confused.

More like I can use basic reasoning to connect simple dots. I mean really, you CAN'T comprehend the basic connection between debt and spending? You REALLY couldn't take 5 seconds to understand my point? Tell me, is debt passed over to the next president? Nod your head "yes." Now tell me, does spending does as well? Nod your head "yes." Now tell me, outside of insinuating that spending doesn't start off at 0 with a new president, what was the point of criticizing my usage of debt instead of spending?

[Mavorpen]

Why wouldn't I?

Do you think I would be GLAD for whites to have the ability to lynch me?
Do you think I would be GLAD for white supremacist organizations to actively organize to murder me?

If so, you know utterly nothing about me.

I know

Stop lying.

[Sibirsky]

And why is this preferable than the choice being limited to even better options? You completely and utterly failed to address this.

Why would these people not choose the better option in the first place?

Because that option is not available. They choose the best option available, and you are removing it.

And your solution is to remove these people's ability to choose their best available option. In the case of the 3rd world, that would drive people into horrific things like selling organs, prostitution, or worse.

Please quote me saying ANYTHING about third world countries.

It's an example of where these policies would do the most damage.

A more reasonable, intelligent and humane solution would be to increase the number of available choices they have. And concentrate on the better choices.

According to what? Nothing you've said so far provides ANY reasoning as to why this is true.

Basic logic?

I mean, how in the fuck can removing their best option make them better off?

[Occupied Deutschland]

I know

Stop lying.

There is this tool in the English language called an ellipses. It looks like this '...' and I would suggest learning its usage.

[Sibirsky]

No where in my post is there anything indicating that spending drops to 0.

Then attempting to "correct" me by dismissing debt and insisting I talk about spending makes utterly no sense.

YOU brought the debt up. And you seem to be very, very confused.

More like I can use basic reasoning to connect simple dots. I mean really, you CAN'T comprehend the basic connection between debt and spending? You REALLY couldn't take 5 seconds to understand my point? Tell me, is debt passed over to the next president? Nod your head "yes." Now tell me, does spending does as well? Nod your head "yes." Now tell me, outside of insinuating that spending doesn't start off at 0 with a new president, what was the point of criticizing my usage of debt instead of spending?

Your chart shows the rate of spending increases in percentage terms. It has nothing to do with debt. It shows, absolutely nothing about revenues.

Because that is not what the chart is for. It only measures the rate of spending increases.

[Mavorpen]

Why would these people not choose the better option in the first place?

Because that option is not available. They choose the best option available, and you are removing it.

I...what? Congratulations on completely failing to read my post. No shit the option isn't available. Therefore we make it available with minimum wage. That isn't complicated at all, yet I guess I have to explain this to you.

Man choose option A or B.
B is better than A.
B still bad option.
Government creates option C, which is better than both A and B.

It's an example of where these policies would do the most damage.

It's an example of a Red Herring as well.

Basic logic?

I mean, how in the fuck can removing their best option make them better off?

By introducing an even better option.

See, that wasn't difficult.

[Sibirsky]

I know

Stop lying.

I'm not lying.

You posted a chart and you don't even know what it is.

[Mavorpen]

Your chart shows the rate of spending increases in percentage terms. It has nothing to do with debt. It shows, absolutely nothing about revenues.

I didn't say it has anything to do with debt. Seriously. I didn't. Nowhere did I say that.

Because that is not what the chart is for. It only measures the rate of spending increases.

Again, didn't say it was. Ever.

[Mavorpen]

Stop lying.

I'm not lying.

You posted a chart and you don't even know what it is.

Only in your magical pixie land where I claimed that the chart mentioned debt when in fact...I didn't. At all.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Why would these people not choose the better option in the first place?

Because that option is not available. They choose the best option available, and you are removing it.

I...what? Congratulations on completely failing to read my post. No shit the option isn't available. Therefore we make it available with minimum wage. That isn't complicated at all, yet I guess I have to explain this to you.

Man choose option A or B.
B is better than A.
B still bad option.
Government creates option C, which is better than both A and B.

And when 'Option C' doesn't exist, the worst of all possible options exists. That being starvation or a turn to the black market.

[Mavorpen]

I...what? Congratulations on completely failing to read my post. No shit the option isn't available. Therefore we make it available with minimum wage. That isn't complicated at all, yet I guess I have to explain this to you.

Man choose option A or B.
B is better than A.
B still bad option.
Government creates option C, which is better than both A and B.

And when 'Option C' doesn't exist, the worst of all possible options exists. That being starvation or a turn to the black market.

Wow. How long did it take you to come up with that? Really, I applaud your ability to state the obvious.

[Sibirsky]

Why would these people not choose the better option in the first place?

Because that option is not available. They choose the best option available, and you are removing it.

I...what? Congratulations on completely failing to read my post. No shit the option isn't available. Therefore we make it available with minimum wage. That isn't complicated at all, yet I guess I have to explain this to you.

Man choose option A or B.
B is better than A.
B still bad option.
Government creates option C, which is better than both A and B.

Option C does not materialize because businesses are not charities.

Man chooses option B. The best available choice.

It's an example of where these policies would do the most damage.

It's an example of a Red Herring as well.

No it isn't. Basic laws of economics are the same, everywhere.

Basic logic?

I mean, how in the fuck can removing their best option make them better off?

By introducing an even better option.

See, that wasn't difficult.

What makes you think government can introduce those better options? Unicorns?

[Castille de Italia]

Misleading chart is misleading.

Measuring the rate of growth of spending is something, certainly. All that really says, is that Obama has only increased spending modestly, after it was already sky high, from the Bush years.

This certainly qualifies Obama as a big spender.

Perhaps, but Bush increased spending more, which means he was worse. Obama's rate of spending increase is half that of Clinton's.

You know, the thing is, Obama has been blaming Bush for economic issues since 2004. He seriously needs to update his teleprompter. After him being in office for three years after the 2008 election, he had added almost 4.5 trillion dollars in additional spending, he seriously needed to own up to his own lack of progress. Now, that number is even bigger, and he was just re-elected. I love how liberals say that Obama has helped the economy, when Obama has the worst job record of any US president since WWII. Unemployment soared after he took office and remained abysmal through his first term. Then they say Obama kept us from going into depression, and he'll lead us out of recession in his second term. The national deficit is in the trillions, and the overbearing costs of the Affordable Health Care Act and job-killing regulation is going to send it through the roof, as if it already isn't. Unnecessary government agencies like the EPA which regulate the economy cause corporations, who are the job-creating Americans, to move their manufacturing to other countries, like China, who have little concern for the environment. Pollution has no respect for international borders. In truth, the EPA and FDA are destroying the economy. In 2010, new regulations cost the economy 26.5 billion while total regulations cost 2 trillion. I, like anybody else, want clean air and safe medicine, but adding excessive regulations that stack up year after year isn't good for the economy. Add the lack of a work ethic due to today's society, and you get the current state of the US economy.

[Romanum Tellus]

cool, less jobs for people who need them.

[Occupied Deutschland]

And when 'Option C' doesn't exist, the worst of all possible options exists. That being starvation or a turn to the black market.

Wow. How long did it take you to come up with that? Really, I applaud your ability to state the obvious.

Well, as both you and I posted at 3:43 PM according to the site's tags, it took me less than a minute to think up. Minus of course the time it took for me to write it.

If you see how obvious it is you're arguing on the wrong side.

[The Whispers]

Nobody wants to work for $7/hour. Nobody wants to work for $2/day in Cambodia either.

Yet people do it. People choose to do it.

No. No, this is not the case.

The 'choice' of whether you eat or not is not really a choice, it's an absolute imperative, and if the only way to do that reliably is to work for shit wages, your genes will scream so hard that you'll do it in the end.