Backintheday544

Some think it immoral to pay people below a living wage. Heres a church that agrees: https://www.ucc.org/justice_worker-justice/living_wage/

I’m saying businesses that require people to work at a pay level that is less than the poverty line in order to be profitable are poor business structures and as a country should re-evaluate their place in the US. For example, if you run a business and your net income is $100,000 a year. However, you’re net income is subsidized by paying you’re employees less than a living wage by $120,000. So if you were actually paying a living wage you’d have a $20,000 loss. Does a business like that actually belong in the US anymore and shouldn’t we re-allocate resources your business is using to businesses that can pay a living wage? Should businesses, even small businesses, be able to profit because they pay a minimum wage that is less than a living wage.

Unfortunately I only minored one Econ while getting my masters in Accounting and my LLM in Taxation. While you’re right about studies and theories we do have economic data from cities and states that increased the minimum wage and what actually happened. Now perhaps we would get a different result if it occurred on the Federal level vs state level but that would be more theory.

Your breakdown misses a couple of points: 1. with increase minimum wages around the country, we haven’t seen an increase in price. According to a recent piece of economic research that examined the effect of prices on minimum wage increases in various states in the U.S. from 1978 through 2015, they found that a 10% increase in minimum wage only accounts for around a 0.36% increase in prices. 2. You define the value of work based on the current minimum wage, not the actual value of the work. CEPR values the minimum wage right now would be $25 if it tracked with productivity: https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/ 3. with increased cash in the market place, which should increase demand, businesses would only need to keep up with variable costs per unit, which will should decrease with more production. While there are a lot of variables that go into businesses and business decisions, it can be broken down to a basic: if your business plan requires hiring people at a wage below the poverty line, should that business plan have a place in the US or should we use that capital on jobs that can pay people to work full time and not be in poverty?

The funniest part of this is the blame on the Green New Deal. The OP even makes comments about clean energy. Yet, if Texas had proper regulations things like windmills would actually have been fitted to handle cold and they could have been used to prevent this. There’s not enough squares to put the Gates (Republican) who flees Texas on a private jet to Orlando to escape this: https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-lawmaker-compared-to-cruz-for-fleeing-state-on-jet-2021-2 This is what people have said for years. Democrats care about the people. Republicans care about themselves.

If you can’t structure your business so that your full time employees can live above the poverty line with what you pay them, the issue isn’t with a Federal minimum wage, it’s with your business structure. Let me put this in right wing speak for you. It’s like going spending $100,000 on college for a art history degree. If you out capital into a business and that capital can’t support the living needs of you and your employees, you picked the wrong major.

I really have to question if you on the right know how the government works. The 2010 budget bill was passed late 2009. H1N1 was not declared officially over until late 2010 by WHO. By the time H1N1 was over , the work on the 2011 budget started. This was also in the turmoil of all the continuing resolutions needing to pass and the debt ceiling standoffs. Dems didn’t have a super majority and didn’t get rid of the legislative filibuster and needed support from Republicans to pass spending bills. It all boils down to Obama’s budget proposals tried to restock PPE. Republicans were against it and couldn’t get it through, especially since Republicans were eyeing HHS spending due to their anti-Obamacare agenda.

Biden COVID plan that’s been out since January: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/National-Strategy-for-the-COVID-19-Response-and-Pandemic-Preparedness.pdf

Great revisionist history there. It also ignores the years Trump could have. But what really happened: https://www.propublica.org/article/us-emergency-medical-stockpile-funding-unprepared-coronavirus After using up the swine flu emergency funds, the Obama administration tried to replenish the stockpile in 2011 by asking Congress to provide $655 million, up from the previous year’s budget of less than $600 million. Responding to swine flu, which the CDC estimated killed more than 12,000 people in the United States over the course of a year, had required the largest deployment in the stockpile’s history, including nearly 20 million pieces of personal protective equipment and more than 85 million N95 masks, according to a 2016 reportpublished by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. “We recognized the need for replenishment of the stockpile and budgeted about a 10% increase,” said Dr. Nicole Lurie, who served as the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration. “That was rejected by the Republican House.” Republicans took over the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterms on the Tea Party wave of opposition to the landmark 2010 health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The new House majority was intent on curbing government spending, especially at HHS, which administered Obamacare. Congressional Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell in the Senate and House Speaker John Boehner, leveraged the debt ceiling — a limit on the government’s borrowing ability that had to be raised — to insist that the Obama administration accept federal spending curbs. The compromise, codified in the 2011 Budget Control Act, required a bipartisan “super committee” to find additional ways to reduce the deficit, or else it would trigger automatic across-the-board cuts known as “sequestration.” Even in the aftermath of the swine flu pandemic, the stockpile wasn’t a priority then. Without a full committee markup, Rehberg introduced a bill that provided $522.5 million to the stockpile, about 12% less than the previous year and $132 million less than the administration wanted. “Nobody got everything they wanted,” Rehberg said.

Let’s also not forget part of Obama’s issue with restocking was Congress was divided and he was denied the funds he wanted to re-supply. Trump had 2 years of knowing we needed supplies with a Republican controlled Congress and decided not to do anything.

I don’t think he read the article. It’s basically saying this is a normal thing that gets done and the Democrats did it for the Republicans but now that the Republicans are the minority party who knows what they will do because they pick party over country.

Joe Biden right now is like Frank Reich stepping on the field in the second half down 35-3 vs the Oilers. Just like Reich in the second half, Biden is stepping on the field with a huge deficit and is starting to chip away at the virus lead it was able to take in the first half due to terrible play and mismanagement by the Trump admin. To be fair and balanced, we should report real news or at least context to it: https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-pandemic-cases-hospitalizations-better-300a0a05-e6bc-4ec2-9cc0-87be88fd0ecc.html An average of 108,000 Americans were diagnosed with COVID-19 infections each day over the past week. That’s a 24% decline from the week before. Hospitalizations were also down last week, by about 8%, and deaths fell by 3%. The virus is still killing an average of roughly 3,000 Americans per day. Nationwide, average daily cases have been declining by double digits for four weeks straight. Cumulatively, they've fallen by roughly 55% over that time. It’s been three weeks since even a single state reported an increase in average daily infections.

sorry, my phone went with the wrong your/you’re. While mine was more of a technological error, I’m glad I was able to enlighten you on the prefix Bi and you can now see this was bipartisan. In the words of true patriots, Knowing is half the battle.

Interesting words from McConnell: “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” said McConnell, who along with the rest of the Congress and former Vice President Mike Pence fled the mob that descended on the Capitol on Jan. 6. “The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor. “President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen,” McConnell said. “He didn’t get away with anything. Yet.” Portman too: “The question I must answer is not whether President Trump said and did things that were reckless and encouraged the mob. I believe that happened,” Senator Rob Portman in a statement. Your welcome! See when people from both parties support something, that makes it bipartisan. You can tell it needs two parties from the prefix bi. The English prefixes bi-, derived from Latin, and its Greek variant di- both mean “two. When the issue was in the House, there were votes from both parties. Both is kind of like synonym for two. We can bring that back to the prefix bi. Since we have votes from both parties, that makes it bipartisan. Then it went to the Senate. The vote of guilty had votes from both parties. We can bring this back around to that discussion of what the prefix bi means and conclude yet again it was bipartisan in the Senate. The only partisan act was the vote not to impeach and the vote to convict. Why is that? Well only one party voted for that. Remember how we defined the prefix bi? It needs two. Since those votes had one party it cannot use the prefix bi, and thus partisan would be an apt description of those votes.

l don’t think you understand what partisan and bi-partisan means.

You do understand that this has been the most partisan impeachment in the history of the country right?

And one of the great ways to reign in spending is to cut costs to cops. You bring up LA for example, $3.1 billion of the budget is for the police force. That’s 29.93 percent of the entire budget. Dems saying defund the police were just trying to fix the problem that you’re talking about. In addition, you make it sound like a Democrat only problem. Spending is an issue on both sides. Both sides have spending problems. If you want to argue which sides economic policies are more sound, I’ll go with the Democrats every day of the week. Interestingly enough, we got to see what a full on GOP economy would look like in Kansas with the Kansas experiment and it nearly bankrupted the state. For a quick read on it here’s the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment but it’s really interesting so I suggest you pursue further reading then that quick summary. With Kansas we see the devastating impact of trickle down economics and its impact on the middle class. On the flip side, we don’t see that with deficit spending. There’s even thought among economists that deficit spending isn’t terrible: https://www.reuters.com/article/sponsored/is-a-debt-doomsday-near Back to the original point of my post. If our GDP increases like it does with Democratic leaders, we have the ability to spend more as we generate larger tax revenues based on GDP.

Today’s message so far hasn’t been about Trump but it feels like the Democrats are using the national podium to let average Americans know how dangerous these far right extremists are.

My original comment was about GDP. You brought up expenses. As I pointed out, GDP is not the same thing as a budget. I find it funny that you ignored all the date from the past 3 years and point out a chart that I did not create but referenced to to highlight GDP growth based on party. You can ignore Truman and Kennedy if you wish, but those facts still hold true that the Dems after them have been able to rise GDP more than their Republican counter parts. If you want to ignore the original premise of GDP and focus on spending, we can discuss that as well. But please try to keep on topic and coherent.

The main issues: 1) he ignores separation of powers. He shouldn’t have tried to dissuade the house from transmitting. They’re their own body and can do as they please. He should take a position that this is a matter for Congress about the previous admin and leave it at that. 2. He ends the post with how this is partisan. Yet this is the most bi-partisan impeachment ever. The number 3 Republican in the house even voted to impeach.

GDP and budget are two different things. GDP looks at the actual dollars brought into the economy, budget for a city in your example looks at tax revenues and other revenues less expenses. One area where blue states do not get a lot of help here is funding. You can see percent of states budget attributable to public funding here: https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/ 9 of the top 10 states that get the most Federal dollars for their budgets are red. I’d imagine if you removed federal money from those states they would have large budgetary issues. The graph also implicitly states the obvious, Democrats win cities. For example, Cook county is 1 county but will be a huge block on their since its Chicago whereas Wyoming County NY will be tiny. The other skew is California. If California said F off IS and because it’s own country, it would be the fifth largest country in terms of GDP as of 2019. With CA in mind you may say the data is skewed due to population when looking at real numbers. However when you look at GDP per capital, the top of the list is mainly blue states and the bottom of the list is mainly red states (it’s Wikipedia but it’s an easy presentation and has the figures): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP_per_capita But the fact the charts do point out is blue counties bring more GDP to the US than red counties. The link I provided above also shows red states require more Federal assistance. Its not a crazy thing that Democrat policies lead to increased GDP, as we have seen this on the national side as well based on President:

I wouldn’t call this partisan political theater as it was a bi-partisan impeachment and it was a bi-partisan vote on the constitutionality. The only partisan vote was not to impeach and that it was not constitutional.

I think one of the most subtle arguments they made was about the GA Secretary of State. While they were laying out the facts that led to the GA SOSs family getting death threats, they were basically saying you and your family can be next on Trumps list. To lay out the tweets attacking the SOS, then the death threats made public, then Trump calling him an enemy of the state while knowing his family is getting death threats has to ring to any senator there that has a family. The other GA guy, forgot his position, telling Trump stop this or someone is going to get hurt was a great argument too. Its not like Trump wasn’t warned his conduct could lead to what it led to.

Neguse is pretty awesome.

It’s crazy how much of Trumps own words and the words of his supporters they can use. Don’t know about bombshell but I didn’t realize they arrested a bunch of people the night before on hun charges.