quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

and we descend into the ridonkulous again

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Nope, and you dont possess any smidgen of intellect that would allow you to even attempt to impugn my words with your chickenshit dipshittery, that is nutsuckerbotism right out of Goebbels.

So what you are saying is you are a fucking shiteater in keeping with your characterizations.  


As a matter of course for the less cogent and cognizant among us....the non-working poor, having the foodstamps and so on, will thru the increased revenues brought in be given a miserly raise that will allow them their pound of hamburger. And still be a weeping pus on you nutsackers.

But if it cannot be bought at any price, then the price is of no concern, it is a Goebblesy bitch by nutsackers, propaganda, a distraction, a derail, a red herring, a straw man, a overarching imbecility they are imbued with.   A thing called reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmandaPeace

Well for what it's worth, I'm a huge fan of raising minimum wages and enacting living wages. Because we're all valuable human beings and we should probably start acting like it.

Frankly, workers need food clothing, and heat and people should be able to have things like that.

The 6 members of the Walton family (as in Wal-Mart) have more wealth than the poorest 42% of Americans combined.

Yeah. Read that again.

There's a difference between making a living and making a killing. And the Waltons are making a killing at the expense of their own workers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

try being a little realistic, and you wont get derision.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Please learn to read English. I simply pointed out a major reason that most of the activity is aimed at Wal-Mart.

Please learn to stay on topic.

WalMart wages being singled out has nothing to do with it's illegal actions in other wage matters. By making the argument that WalMart's illegal labor actions are why their wages are being singled out, it implies that if the wages would be acceptable if there hadn't been these illegal activities.

If that's what you're saying, then, by all means, continue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

yeah because LMAO how many millions of jobs were lost in the past decade? How many companies shut down, technology is getting rid of jobs, higher demands by shareholders, trickle down economics? Entry level is all some people have and will have....to survive on. Yet you wanna castigate them for taking the only jobs they can find, of course they are the problem....
fucking typical

LMAO, there is actually no such thing as trickle down economics. That term was invented by liberals, as they so often do, to ridicule things they couldn't argue, exactly as you do here. Economics, basically is supply and demand. Supply side economics, as implemented by Reagan, was also how Kennedy wanted to jump start the economy after WWII and Korea forced the US into using a sluggish economy as a way to divert material to the wars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

yeah because LMAO how many millions of jobs were lost in the past decade? How many companies shut down, technology is getting rid of jobs, higher demands by shareholders, trickle down economics? Entry level is all some people have and will have....to survive on. Yet you wanna castigate them for taking the only jobs they can find, of course they are the problem....
fucking typical

LMAO, there is actually no such thing as trickle down economics. That term was invented by liberals, as they so often do, to ridicule things they couldn't argue, exactly as you do here. Economics, basically is supply and demand. Supply side economics, as implemented by Reagan, was also how Kennedy wanted to jump start the economy after WWII and Korea forced the US into using a sluggish economy as a way to divert material to the wars.

WTF? The economy through the 50's grew at levels that are far higher than anything we've seen under supply side stupidity. The fact is that supply side economics has destroyed the US economy and no legitimate economist even still considers it worth debating. The only place supply side is still believed is in far right politics where it is simply an object of faith despite decades of failure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

yeah because LMAO how many millions of jobs were lost in the past decade? How many companies shut down, technology is getting rid of jobs, higher demands by shareholders, trickle down economics? Entry level is all some people have and will have....to survive on. Yet you wanna castigate them for taking the only jobs they can find, of course they are the problem....
fucking typical

LMAO, there is actually no such thing as trickle down economics. That term was invented by liberals, as they so often do, to ridicule things they couldn't argue, exactly as you do here. Economics, basically is supply and demand. Supply side economics, as implemented by Reagan, was also how Kennedy wanted to jump start the economy after WWII and Korea forced the US into using a sluggish economy as a way to divert material to the wars.

WTF? The economy through the 50's grew at levels that are far higher than anything we've seen under supply side stupidity. The fact is that supply side economics has destroyed the US economy and no legitimate economist even still considers it worth debating. The only place supply side is still believed is in far right politics where it is simply an object of faith despite decades of failure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Please learn to read English. I simply pointed out a major reason that most of the activity is aimed at Wal-Mart.

Please learn to stay on topic.
WalMart wages being singled out has nothing to do with it's illegal actions in other wage matters. By making the argument that WalMart's illegal labor actions are why their wages are being singled out, it implies that if the wages would be acceptable if there hadn't been these illegal activities.
If that's what you're saying, then, by all means, continue.

Actually it does.
First even if Wal-Mart pays what it claims, there are serious doubts about that, the fact is the company routinely forces employees to work off the clock and otherwise takes actions which drive down the size of their employee's pay checks. Secondly Wal-Mart is far larger than Target etc. so putting pressure on them is likely to affect more people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I've just provided you a source to validate my comments. Please provide the same for your "supply side economics has destroyed the US economy" and "no legitimate economist even still consider it worth debating". Or are those, again, just derision used as argument on the left such as you "supply side stupidity" comment. Perhaps, you should, as Lucy says, get real, argue with something to back up what you say other than "all your friends believe the same thing" and don't expect derision to fly as reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

yeah because LMAO how many millions of jobs were lost in the past decade? How many companies shut down, technology is getting rid of jobs, higher demands by shareholders, trickle down economics? Entry level is all some people have and will have....to survive on. Yet you wanna castigate them for taking the only jobs they can find, of course they are the problem....
fucking typical

LMAO, there is actually no such thing as trickle down economics. That term was invented by liberals, as they so often do, to ridicule things they couldn't argue, exactly as you do here. Economics, basically is supply and demand. Supply side economics, as implemented by Reagan, was also how Kennedy wanted to jump start the economy after WWII and Korea forced the US into using a sluggish economy as a way to divert material to the wars.

WTF? The economy through the 50's grew at levels that are far higher than anything we've seen under supply side stupidity. The fact is that supply side economics has destroyed the US economy and no legitimate economist even still considers it worth debating. The only place supply side is still believed is in far right politics where it is simply an object of faith despite decades of failure.

My comment was with respect to a person using derision as argument. JFK stated he wanted to cut taxes from high wartime level to stimulate the economy. Argue your point with him. I use the point because Kennedy is apparently a god to liberals and the only reason that supply side economics became derisive in the left is because Reagan employed it and the left hates Reagan. As to your point about the system working or not, compare the Reagan recovery to the Obama, or even FDR, recovery and what you argue just isn't true. It's just residual hatred from the left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You may doubt all you want, but if you can't back up that allegation, you'll be even less relevant in your ravings. Any proof of them "routinely" forcing workers to work off the clock?

quote:

It's capitalized in business creating jobs for millions of people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I've just provided you a source to validate my comments. Please provide the same for your "supply side economics has destroyed the US economy" and "no legitimate economist even still consider it worth debating". Or are those, again, just derision used as argument on the left such as you "supply side stupidity" comment. Perhaps, you should, as Lucy says, get real, argue with something to back up what you say other than "all your friends believe the same thing" and don't expect derision to fly as reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I've just provided you a source to validate my comments. Please provide the same for your "supply side economics has destroyed the US economy" and "no legitimate economist even still consider it worth debating". Or are those, again, just derision used as argument on the left such as you "supply side stupidity" comment. Perhaps, you should, as Lucy says, get real, argue with something to back up what you say other than "all your friends believe the same thing" and don't expect derision to fly as reason.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/10/29/071029on_onlineonly_surowiecki?currentPage=1
http://www.itep.org/debunkinglaffer/
http://sharepoint.mvla.net/teachers/RobertF/Micro%20Economics%20AP/Documents/THE%20RISE%20OF%20SUPPLY%20SIDE%20ECONOMICS.pdf

You are also welcome to search academic economics journals where the subject is no longer even written about at all. Supply side economics is thoroughly disproven.