ADVERTISEMENT

The National Debt

BlueRaiderFan

Hall of Famer
Oct 4, 2003
5,590
69
48
This is reality:
"According to the Treasury Department's daily debt calculator, when Bush took office on January 20, 2001, total debt stood at $5.728 trillion. The national debt on January 20, 2009, Bush's last day in office, was $10.627 trillion.
O'Reilly claims Obama "borrowed more money than every other president combined"; if this were true, Obama would have added more than $10.627 trillion to the debt during his tenure. But as of publishing, the Treasury Department calculator states the debt is $16.338 trillion -- which means it increased less than six trillion dollars under Obama."
 
If true. lets celebrate

Lots of ways to look at it, using your logic, the debt was about $10T, not its 18T so that is an 8T increase with almost 2 years to go.

Just so you know, I don't blame Obama for the huge deficits, much of it is baked in, some of it is because of a weak economy, but I do blame him for not trying to solve the long term problem. And his method of just taxing more and adding more entitlements will do nothing to fix it, but might make it worse.

So what was your point? O'Reilly misspoke?



This post was edited on 3/17 12:56 PM by Blueraider_Mike
 
Two points: 1) Bush did plenty to increase the debt, so all of the talk about "Owebama" is bull. 2) If we want to ensure that everyone has healthcare (yes even the poor that can't afford it), we are going to have to raise taxes a bit...around 3-5%...and it's the right thing to do, especially when we are buying $500 million in tanks that our own generals say we don't need.
 
Originally posted by BlueRaiderFan:
Two points: 1) Bush did plenty to increase the debt, so all of the talk about "Owebama" is bull. 2) If we want to ensure that everyone has healthcare (yes even the poor that can't afford it), we are going to have to raise taxes a bit...around 3-5%...and it's the right thing to do, especially when we are buying $500 million in tanks that our own generals say we don't need.
Your right, the debt increased a lot under Bush, and its increasing at a faster rate with Obama - I blame both of them. As far as your point #2 - that isn't happening now, taxes are only raised on the more wealthy and to my knowledge we still have 32 million people uninsured.

Just so you know, I think defense is the only line item actually decreasing. You should be happy.
 
When President Obama took office in 2009 the public debt was $6.3 trillion. Total debt was over $10.6 trillion. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current


http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?tartMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2009&endMonth=03&endDay=18&endYear=2015

As of 3/16/2015 13.1 trillion for public and $18.1 total. So public debt increased almost $7 trillion and almost $7 trillion on total.



According to the calculator Bush had a total debt of 5.7 trillion when he took office. It didn't provide much on public debt.

49973-land-fig2.png


I think it is worth saying that both President Bush and Obama have contributed to the debt increas. Bush's tax cuts, housing bubble, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the stimulus bill and tax cut deal by Obama. But there is still some big issues here. The CBO projects that fed debt held by the public would amount to 73 - 74% of the GDP over the next several years - more than twice that of 2007 and more than in any previous year since 1950. This could be negative for the nation because when interest rates return to normal or higher levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Since Fed borrowing reduces national saving over time the nation's capital stock would ultimately be smaller and productivity and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was smaller.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49973

Obama has gotten the deficit back in order, though. Q1 for 2009 was pretty bad as the economy fell 6.1% because of leaner inventories. Q2 -.05% because the government spending propped up the economy. Q3 1.3% - the economy grew 3.5%. The stimulus package actually ended the recession. It was signed in March. Q4 3.9% the economy grew again 5.7%, but that was due to businesses restocking inventory. Would likely only have been 1.8% without the inventory adjustment. Consumer spending was down in that quarter as well. Also worth noting that the stimulus package did not have the impact Obama and his advisors said it would.

49973-land-fig1.png


CBO website has a ton of information - great place to read. I would recommend following them on twitter if you have an account.



This post was edited on 3/18 11:29 AM by MidTnBlues
 
Just so long as those on the right can see their bullshit hypocrisy on debt...that's all this post was really about. As far as the extremely wealthy, cry me a river. They have plenty of money to start and grow businesses, live lavishly and help others.
 
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49979

CBO did a 2016 budget analysis for Obama's budget. Worth a read.

If you want to talk about BS hypocrisy with budget - my favorite is how GOP complains about insuring people with Obamacare (which was funded), but under Bush passed Medicare Part D unfunded. Meaning that Obamacare was passed with the expectation that taxes would be raised and penalties were to fund it. Medicare Part D was passed with nothing to offset its costs.
 
They want to see Medicare fail and be shut down. The quickest way to do that is to not fund it and complain that it costs too much to be sustainable.
 
Do you guys really believe that R's want to see Medicare fail? Come on. We can disagree on policy but when you say things like this you just look silly.

Here are the facts, The entitlements (SSI, Medicare) are going to break us as currently designed. They are built on a model that needs every increasing demographics - this is NOT happening. We have gone from having 17 workers for every beneficiary, not we are at 3 for 1. Its just math. So the way the programs will have to be changed in order to survive.

So at least in the last 10 years, you have had a few R's come up with proposals - demonized by people like you. We had the bipartisan commission sanctioned by Obama - then he took their findings and did absolutely nothing. Not only that, he created a new entitlement to add to the challenge.

There isn't enough private wealth and income to tax to plug these holes. So when your done demonizing, feel free to offer potential solutions.
 
Our income stream is just fine, regardless of how many people are paying in. Our tax coffers are not hurting. Republican ideas are poor at best in this area. I've seen some of the proposals. Yes, republican leaders want to see it fail. I have no doubt. They want as little money going to assistance programs. You can deny it, but it's true. We have a solution: Go through all areas and address waste, including the huge military budget that we have and then apply the savings to assistance programs that need funding.

This post was edited on 3/21 8:57 PM by BlueRaiderFan
 
According to a report from Heritage, all projected tax revenues will go towards entitlements and interest on the debt by 2031. Entitlements include health care (Medicare and Medicaid, including CHIP and Obamacare) and Social Security.
The conservative solution: Entitlement reform, which means reducing how much we spend on the unconstitutional endeavor to guarantee, not promote, the general welfare.
The liberal solution: Tax and spend our way into prosperity, which is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick it up.

Thomas Sowell on how welfare affects the poor:
"Poverty" once had some concrete meaning -- not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare state spending. Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers' money…
Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit "tax" on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire. If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it? In short, the political left's welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty…
…the left's agenda is a disservice to [the poor], as well as to society. …The agenda of the left -- romoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for "rights" to what other people have produced -- is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world. This agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty. But it has lifted the left to positions of power and self-aggrandizement, while they promote policies with socially counterproductive results.[/B]

All Tax Revenue Will Go Towards Entitlements
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:

According to a report from Heritage, all projected tax revenues will go towards entitlements and interest on the debt by 2031. Entitlements include health care (Medicare and Medicaid, including CHIP and Obamacare) and Social Security.
The conservative solution: Entitlement reform, which means reducing how much we spend on the unconstitutional endeavor to guarantee, not promote, the general welfare.
The liberal solution: Tax and spend our way into prosperity, which is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick it up.

Thomas Sowell on how welfare affects the poor:
"Poverty" once had some concrete meaning -- not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare state spending. Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers' money…
Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit "tax" on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire. If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it? In short, the political left's welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty…
…the left's agenda is a disservice to [the poor], as well as to society. …The agenda of the left -- romoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for "rights" to what other people have produced -- is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world. This agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty. But it has lifted the left to positions of power and self-aggrandizement, while they promote policies with socially counterproductive results.
So let me get this straight. You don't want to increase the minimum wage, and you think that people stay on welfare and medicaid because they make more off the government that an actual job?
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
10911_864527890270404_5060750842876693701_n.jpg
Flash, isn't it amazing how liberals are so full of "love" and "compassion"; however, they always want SOMEONE ELSE to pay for their giveaway programs? If they're so interested in helping others, why don't they just write a check to the federal government themselves? Typical liberal hypocrisy per usual, eh?
roll.r191677.gif
 
725x601xminimum-wage-sign.jpg.pagespeed.ic.E9xFlG8jf2aU5QC7h6dh.jpg



If you really want to help poor people, raising the minimum wage is one of the worst things you can do. It kills jobs that poor people desperately need.
Thomas Sowell breaks down a minimum wage increase:
There was a time when there was no federal minimum wage law in the United States. The last time was during the Coolidge administration, when the annual unemployment rate got as low as 1.8 percent. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum wage law. In 1991 its unemployment rate was under 2 percent.
As for being "compassionate" toward "the poor," this assumes that there is some enduring class of Americans who are poor in some meaningful sense, and that there is something compassionate about reducing their chances of getting a job.
Most Americans living below the government-set poverty line have a washer and/or a dryer, as well as a computer. More than 80 percent have air conditioning. More than 80 percent also have both a landline and a cell phone. Nearly all have television and a refrigerator. Most Americans living below the official poverty line also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European - not Europeans in poverty, the average European.
Why then are they called "poor"? Because government bureaucrats create the official definition of poverty, and they do so in ways that provide a political rationale for the welfare state - and, not incidentally, for the bureaucrats' own jobs.
Most people in the lower income brackets are not an enduring class. Most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.[/QUOTE]

What will happen if you increase the minimum wage
 
My mind is pretty much made up on this issue. A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.

I will take the 600 Nobel Prize winners versus your one guy that has his own financial interests in mind.

http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

The CBO - plenty of benefits in their findings

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

It acknowledges some job loss but there are also some off setting factors that virtually no one opposing the increase brings up. The benefits of raising the minimum wage outweigh any potential costs. 60 (ish) % economists polled agreed with this.

Your article states that Switzerland does not have a minimum wage law and has 3.9 % unemployment. This is true, they don't have a minimum wage law, but it does have collective bargaining agreements between its workers and employers and pretty much everyone is covered by it. These agreements can generally be considered binding agreements. The branch employers' associations negotiate for employers and branch trade unions negotiate for the employees.This was left out for some unknown reason. So if you want Switzerland's system you are going to have to be Pro Union.


Everyone tends to point at fast food establishments for their minimum wage arguments citing that owners will go to self checkouts and machines to take place of the workers. This is already in the process of happening with or without the minimum wage increases. Machines are a one time purchase with cost for maintenance and upgrades, but are still more cost effective than a human. Even a human working for 90s minimum wage of $5.15. In fact these things go beyond the fast food cashier. Brian Arthur has a term called "The Second Economy" that speaks of how technology and machines are progressing at incredible rates. I have a 1 Terabyte external hard drive I can fit in my coat pocket. Compared to the computers I was using in high that is incredible progress. You can read the article but fast food jobs are not the only jobs at risk - suppose that the smart machines of tday have the IQ of a normal person (100). If those machines continue to improve at the rate they are going present day, these machines will have an IQ greater than 90% of the U.S. population. That increase gives smart machines another 50 million jobs within reach of smart machines. Machines have already replaced job functions of an anesthesiologists with the Sedasys device.

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/the_second_economy


This is the last of my argument with minimum wage because it is a complete waste of resources for governments to be bickering about when the real problem is training the population for the skills needed to enter the workforce and be able to train at the rate of progress that technology makes. So the minimum wage argument should be put at the bottom of the list and reworking Common Core and No Child Left Behind, making college affordable, and stop this culture in the education system that if you don't have a 4 year degree you are going to be riding the back of a garbage truck can be made more of a priority that it is currently.


This post was edited on 3/25 11:54 AM by MidTnBlues
 
Same Old Playbook: Raise Minimum Wage January 28, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The media wants you to see this as, "Can Obama revive his sagging poll numbers? Can Obama successfully make an end run around the Congress? Can Obama use the power of the office and executive powers and executive orders to move his agenda forward? Can Obama thumb the Republicans in the eye? Can he finally just tell the Republicans to leave?" That's the interest that the media has in this.

As always, "Can Obama revive what are considered to be plummeting fortunes? Can Obama save the liberal agenda? Can Obama overcome the mean-spirited, extremist, racist Republicans in the House of Representatives and make this the nation we all know it should have been when it was founded?" Let's go back listen some audio sound bites. Let's go back to February 12th, 2013, just a little shy of a year ago. Last year's State of the Coup address. Here is a portion of what Obama said...

OBAMA 2013: Tonight, let's declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour.

RUSH: There it is. The old, trusty minimum wage and the old, trusty, "We are a nation of inequality and unfairness." And there it is, the false premise that people live in poverty because of the minimum wage. Another false premise is that there is poverty because of inequality. The minimum wage has nothing to do with poverty. Inequality is not the reason for poverty. The government is the reason for poverty. The welfare state is it the reason for poverty. We began a War on Poverty in 1964.

It was first led by the president of the day, Lyndon Johnson.

DemocratPlaybook101Minwage2.jpg
Since that day, we have effectively had redistribution of wealth to the tune of nearly $20 trillion, somewhere between $15 trillion and $20 trillion, and we still have the same percentages of people in poverty and below the poverty line that we had when we started. Expressed as percentages, we haven't made a dent. Now, why? How can this be? We have essentially, folks, been giving people $50,000 a year. It hasn't worked out that way because of the administrative costs, but we have effectively been spending that kind of money.

Why haven't we raised people out of poverty? It's the welfare state. Do you realize the welfare state, wherever it's been tried, in the history of the world, it's never worked. If your definition of working is removing people from poverty, making them self-sufficient, making them self-reliant, and getting them off of the dependency rolls and taking care of themselves, do you realize that using that as the definition of working, no welfare state ever has. What welfare states succeed in doing is keeping in power those who are in charge of them, those who run them.

The welfare state puts the brakes on human advancement, human ambition, human desire, human education, human self-reliance, human self-sufficiency, and human achievement. The welfare state prevents all of that from happening by becoming or making possible total dependence on the state, which requires no ambition, no education, no desire, no upward mobility, nothing. All you have to do is be a sponge. As such, the welfare state is one of the worst things that can happen to a country. It's one of the meanest things a country can do to its people.

However, in the current iteration the welfare state's cloaked in compassion. The welfare state exists because people are in poverty because of Republicans and conservatives. It's because Republicans and conservatives are so mean and rich, and the Republicans and conservatives have taken all the money. They've taken the money from the poor, and they continue to exploit them. And if it weren't for welfare, the poor would have nothing, 'cause the rich would take it. The Republicans would take everything they've got and give it to their rich buddies. I mean, that's what passes for political explanation today to the low-information voter. When in fact the welfare state is destructive because it assumes that nobody receiving benefits is capable of doing anything.

"Mr. Limbaugh, are you saying that this country should never provide for the people who are less fortunate?"

ObamaWhiteHouse.jpg
No. We're a compassionate country and people, and we have always provided for people who are genuinely incapable of helping themselves for whatever reason, but we have not supported expanding the opportunities and reasons for the lack of self-reliance. We count and define compassion by counting the number of people no longer needing welfare. The Democrats define compassion by adding up all the people who get it and saying, "Look at us; aren't we great people?" There hasn't been a welfare state that worked as it's been advertised by people trying to sell it to a society, ever, in world history.

It can't. It simply cannot work. Never has. It never will. And here comes the president tonight essentially suggesting we need a bigger one, that we've got poverty 'cause we need to raise the minimum wage. We need to raise the minimum wage 'cause we haven't raised the minimum wage enough. People aren't making enough and because of that there's poverty. That was President Obama last year. Let's go back to 1995. January 24th, 1995, let's listen to Mr. Hope and Change of that era.

CLINTON: The goal of building the middle class and shrinking the underclass is also why I believe that you should raise the minimum wage. (applause) It rewards work. Two and a half million Americans, two and a half million Americans, often women with children, are working out there today for four and a quarter an hour. In terms of real buying power, by next year, that minimum wage will be at a 40-year low. That's not my idea of how the new economy ought to work.

RUSH: I play these two sound bites just to illustrate for you that the Democrats are peddling the same tired, worn-out, meaningless, worthless idea forever. Inequality, class warfare, raise the minimum wage. They've been in power for most of these years and they've done all of this. Can somebody show me where the people in this country in the welfare state or who earn the minimum wage are any better off because the Democrat Party has been in charge?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So you heard in the clip, last year Barack Obama demanding to raise the minimum wage to nine dollars an hour to eliminate poverty. I have to ask the question, "How?" In doing show prep this morning I noted that Obama just said, screw it, I'm gonna raise the minimum wage for federal workers to $10.10 an hour. (interruption) What? Federal contractors, federal contractors, just raise it by fiat. He's just gonna announce that he's raising the minimum -- does the president get to do that? Contractors. So the president can just take a certain segment of people that do work for the federal government and arbitrarily determine what they're gonna be paid, on his own?

Some of the congressmen are saying he can do that. Yeah, I was gonna say he doesn't have the power to do it unless nobody stops him. It's the same old answer. Well, he can cut their pay, but he's not gonna cut federal pay. But that's not the point. The point is he's gonna do it by fiat. I didn't know that the president single-handedly could determine anybody doing work for the federal government could have their salaries or their rate of pay changed by him by fiat. But apparently he doesn't care. He's just gonna do it anyway. Wanted nine bucks a year ago. Now $10.10.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Dan in Clark Summit, Pennsylvania. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: It's an honor to speak with you.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: Rush, I just want to say, this minimum wage issue? I see coming down the line they're gonna be out there appealing to everyone's emotion. They want to raise the minimum wage and if you're against it, then you hate poor people. The thing is, Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, always said, "No single law has caused more poverty or hurt more people than the minimum wage law because what it does is it officially prices unskilled labor out of the workforce." So I think the Republicans need to call Obama's bluff. I think that we should say that we want to raise it to $30 or $50 or something ridiculous, and let them explain why we shouldn't.

RUSH: Well, you know, I have often used that very trick in discussion with leftists and Democrats. And what happens is this. You eventually will get to a dollar figure minimum wage per hour that even they will say, "No, that's too much," and at that point, you've got 'em.

CALLER: Exactly. Exactly my point.

ObamaQuoteAmericanBusiness2.jpg
RUSH: You say, "If $25 an hour is okay, why is $50 too high?" "Well, you can't pay somebody doesn't know what they're doing $50 an hour!" At some point, it doesn't matter. It changes from person to person. But right now Obama is pushing for, what, a $10 an hour minimum wage? Why not make it $15, Mr. President?

CALLER: I heard $15. I think it was in Seattle or somewhere they're passing a law that it has to be $15 an hour.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: That's $31,000 a year.

RUSH: Yeah, that'd be good.

"Okay, well, how about $20?"

"Oh, yeah, even better."

"Well, let's get serious here. How about $25-an-hour minimum wage?"

Finally you'll reach a point where they say it's too much, and at that point you say, "Well, wait a minute. Why is that too much?" And they start explaining, and then you own them. At that point you have won the argument. The minimum wage is artificial and phony and is destructive. But, you know, Milton Friedman was one of my idols, one of those brains I wish I'd had. Unfortunately, what you said at the very beginning in quoting Friedman, that it is the single greatest destructive thing in pricing... How did you describe it? What kind of labor?

CALLER: Unskilled labor, or low-skilled labor.

RUSH: Do you realize how few people understand it? To most people, the minimum wage... The reason the Democrats go back to it and go back to it is because it works at tugging people's heartstrings. It makes an emotional connection. Everybody wants the poor to have more. Everybody wants the poor to do better.

CALLER: Especially me and you and everyone else.

RUSH: Yeah. So when you --

CALLER: The wrong way to do it is to tell employers, "This is the minimum you can pay someone," because then if someone's value as a laborer is less than that number, they cannot be employed, unless it's through charity.

RUSH: You and I know that, but people don't look at it that way. They look at minimum wage as a welfare benefit and they look at the business's unwillingness to pay it as selfishness and greed. I'm probably... I hope I'm wrong about this, but the number of people who even understand... The concept of the way Milton Friedman explains it, it makes total sense.

You know, economics is one of the simplest, most complicated subjects that you can encounter. It is intimidating-ly tough to understand until somebody who understands it can explain it to you logically, and then it all makes perfect sense. The minimum wage, as you say, is basically unskilled, inexperienced labor. Now, we want people like that in the job market because we want them learning, and we want them getting experience.

We want them learning to show up. We want them learning the requirements of responsibility and achievement and following through on the work and advancing. But for the government or any other entity to place an artificial value on that labor is totally gumming up the market. The people that hire those people know what those jobs are worth -- and if, as you say, that kind of worker is not worth $10, he's not gonna be hired.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: So it's self-defeating, which perpetuates unemployment, which allows the Democrats to keep coming back to it and to keep portraying business owners as greedy and selfish and unfeeling and no compassion and all of that, and that's why they benefit from it, is because they play off of people's lack of understanding of labor, skilled labor, job markets, all these nefarious things. My fear of your theory is if the Republicans suggested to Obama to make it $30, that he's go for it, that he'd take it just like that (snaps fingers), and come back with, "Why not $40?" and still make the Republicans look like the cheapskates.

END TRANSCRIPT




Related Links

AP: Obama Speech To Challenge Congress On Minimum Wage
 
March 16, 2015



Seattle Libs Kill Restaurant Industry


"Seattle, Washington: Why Are So Many Seattle Restaurants Closing Lately? -- Last month -- and particularly last week -- Seattle foodies," restaurant lovers, "were downcast as the blows kept coming: Queen Anne's Grub closed February 15. Pioneer Square's Little Uncle shut down February 25. Shanik's Meeru Dhalwala announced that it will close March 21. Renee Erickson's Boat Street Cafe will shutter May 30 after 17 years with her at the helm ...


"Furthermore, less than a week after he was named a James Beard Semifinalist (Best Chef: Northwest) for his work at northern Italian restaurant Spinasse, Jason Stratton announced he would be stepping down from that restaurant and his others -- Artusi and Vespolina -- immediately to head to Spain." These are high-class, white-tablecloth (in most cases), upscale restaurants, and they are closing in droves. Along with the normal reasons for closures... I mean, restaurant business is tough. Attrition is high in that business.


But these are successful restaurants that had been open for years in many cases, and they are shuttering. They are closing. They are going out of business. They're not even going to try it anymore. A "major factor affecting restaurant futures in our city is the impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour. Starting April 1, all businesses must begin to phase in the wage increase: Small employers have seven years to pay all employees at least $15 hourly; large employers (with 500 or more employees) have three.


"Since the legislation was announced last summer, The Seattle Times and Eater [magazine] have reported extensively on restaurant owners' many concerns about how to compensate for the extra funds that will now be required for labor: They may need to raise menu prices, source poorer ingredients, reduce operating hours, reduce their labor and/or more. Washington Restaurant Association's [Anthony] Anton puts it this way: 'It's not a political problem; it's a math problem.'"


Oh, yes, it is a political problem.


It's a math problem because of politics.
This post was edited on 3/25 1:18 PM by bigbadjohn45
 
Originally posted by bigbadjohn45:
March 16, 2015



Seattle Libs Kill Restaurant Industry

"Seattle, Washington: Why Are So Many Seattle Restaurants Closing Lately? -- Last month -- and particularly last week -- Seattle foodies," restaurant lovers, "were downcast as the blows kept coming: Queen Anne's Grub closed February 15. Pioneer Square's Little Uncle shut down February 25. Shanik's Meeru Dhalwala announced that it will close March 21. Renee Erickson's Boat Street Cafe will shutter May 30 after 17 years with her at the helm ...

"Furthermore, less than a week after he was named a James Beard Semifinalist (Best Chef: Northwest) for his work at northern Italian restaurant Spinasse, Jason Stratton announced he would be stepping down from that restaurant and his others -- Artusi and Vespolina -- immediately to head to Spain." These are high-class, white-tablecloth (in most cases), upscale restaurants, and they are closing in droves. Along with the normal reasons for closures... I mean, restaurant business is tough. Attrition is high in that business.

But these are successful restaurants that had been open for years in many cases, and they are shuttering. They are closing. They are going out of business. They're not even going to try it anymore. A "major factor affecting restaurant futures in our city is the impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour. Starting April 1, all businesses must begin to phase in the wage increase: Small employers have seven years to pay all employees at least $15 hourly; large employers (with 500 or more employees) have three.

"Since the legislation was announced last summer, The Seattle Times and Eater [magazine] have reported extensively on restaurant owners' many concerns about how to compensate for the extra funds that will now be required for labor: They may need to raise menu prices, source poorer ingredients, reduce operating hours, reduce their labor and/or more. Washington Restaurant Association's [Anthony] Anton puts it this way: 'It's not a political problem; it's a math problem.'"

Oh, yes, it is a political problem.

It's a math problem because of politics.
This post was edited on 3/25 1:18 PM by bigbadjohn45
I travel throughout the NE for my job. In many places around NYC, I am seeing more and more automated ordering in both restaurants and convenience stores. As as a consumer I actually like it better than a person. Many min wage jobs will be automated.
 
Yes, republicans slash taxes on the wealthy and increase military spending, which makes for a bad combination when you want to be "fiscally conservative."
 
It is fascinating to see brilliant people belatedly discover the obvious -- and to see an even larger number of brilliant people never discover the obvious.

A recent story in a San Francisco newspaper says that some restaurants and grocery stores in Oakland's Chinatown have closed after the city's minimum wage was raised. Other small businesses there are not sure they are going to survive, since many depend on a thin profit margin and a high volume of sales.
At an angry meeting between local small business owners and city officials, the local organization that had campaigned for the higher minimum wage was absent. They were probably some place congratulating themselves on having passed a humane "living wage" law. The group most affected was also absent -- inexperienced and unskilled young people, who need a job to get some experience, even more than they need the money.
It is not a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge that minimum wage laws reduce employment opportunities for the young and the unskilled of any age. It has been happening around the world, for generation after generation, and in the most diverse countries.
It is not just the young who are affected when minimum wage rates are set according to the fashionable notions of third parties, with little or no regard for whether everyone is productive enough to be worth paying the minimum wage they set.
You can check this out for yourself. Go to your local public library and pick up a copy of the distinguished British magazine "The Economist."
Whether it is the current issue or a back issue doesn't matter. Spain, Greece and South Africa will be easy to locate in the table near the back, which lists data for various countries. Just look down the unemployment column for countries with unemployment rates around 25 percent. Spain, Greece and South Africa are always there, whether or not there is a recession. Why? Because they have very generous minimum wage laws.
While you are there, you can look up the unemployment rate for Switzerland, which has no minimum wage law at all. Over the years, I have never seen the unemployment rate in Switzerland reach as high as 4 percent. Back in 2003, "The Economist" magazine reported: "Switzerland's unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9% in February."
In the United States, back in what liberals think of as the bad old days before there was a federal minimum wage law, the annual unemployment rate during Calvin Coolidge's last four years as president ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent.

Low-income minorities are often hardest hit by the unemployment that follows in the wake of minimum wage laws. The last year when the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate was 1930, the last year before there was a federal minimum wage law.
The following year, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was passed, requiring minimum wages in the construction industry. This was in response to complaints that construction companies with non-union black construction workers were able to underbid construction companies with unionized white workers (whose unions would not admit blacks).
Looking back over my own life, I realize now how lucky I was when I left home in 1948, at the age of 17, to become self-supporting. The unemployment rate for 16- and 17-year-old blacks at that time was under 10 percent. Inflation had made the minimum wage law, passed ten years earlier, irrelevant.
But it was only a matter of time before liberal compassion led to repeated increases in the minimum wage, to keep up with inflation. The annual unemployment rate for black teenagers has never been less than 20 percent in the past 50 years, and has ranged as high as over 50 percent.
You can check these numbers in a table of official government statistics on page 42 of Professor Walter Williams' book "Race and Economics."
Incidentally, the black-white gap in unemployment rates for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds was virtually non-existent back in 1948. But the black teenage unemployment rate has been more than double that for white teenagers for every year since 1971.
This is just one of many policies that allow liberals to go around feeling good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake.

Ruinous 'Compassion'
 
BRF, my last post was in response to MidTnBlues' question regarding minimum wage. With respect to spin, let me quote Micheal Saltsman in his article, "The Record is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs."

In the last paragraph, Saltsman writes,

Undoubtedly, wage hike advocates will continue to be creative in their pro-minimum wage arguments-focusing on the hefty profits of restaurant corporations instead of the far-smaller profits of their affiliated franchisees, for instance, or describing $13-an-hour tipped restaurant employees as "subminimum" wage earners. But no amount of spin can erase the consequences of a wage hike for the poor and others in the entry-level job market.








Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs
 
I didn't have a question. I already told you no amount of opinion articles will change my mind on this. My stance is based off of 600 economists; 7 are nobel prize winners and plenty of non partisan studies that I already provided.As for the post before hand the article leaves out a lot of other factors that the research I cite does not. They just give part of the story.

In your other article by Saltsman - that is an opinion article - for one. Second, at the end of the article it states that Saltsman is he is the research director at EPI. So, I can easily dismiss the credibility of the author as someone who is writing these pieces for their own financial gain.

EPI is one of Berman & Company's PR firms. They are funded by just about every fast food business there is. Rick Berman should ring a bell with you - Rick Berman.....Newt Gingrich.....ethics violations back in the mid to late 90s? Remember that?

enhanced-buzz-31088-1327551819-4.jpg


The letter from lobbyist Rick Berman promising $25k donation for Newt's class under the condition that Newt would teach the class values supported by Berman's business-backed organization, the ..............................wait for it....................

Employment Policies Institute Foundation. (EPI)


enhanced-buzz-31100-1327551884-11.jpg

Cover of the Mariette Daily Journal when Gingrich was fined $300,000 for ethics violations.



Berman has also argued against Mother Against Drunk Driving initiative to lower blood alcohol content saying that it punishes responsible social drinkers. Said that the CDC's salmonella warnings were a ploy to cause people to fear food.

Not buying into research from people with their own financial interests in mind.





This post was edited on 3/27 7:09 PM by MidTnBlues
 
Let us take a closer look at the 600 economists that you referenced. It appears that close to half don't possess expertise in labor economics (the discipline central to understanding the minimum wage) and many of the signers are either self-declared radical researchers or full-time staff at union-supported organizations (see link).

Let's be honest, leftists will only believe what they want to believe. If you want to believe that a minimum wage hike will not hurt the poor because it will result in a loss of jobs and deny people a place on the first rung of the job ladder that is your prerogative.

As a capitalist, I will continue to believe capitalist economists on this issue. Again, if you choose to believe socialist economists or Marxist economists on economic issues that is your prerogative. I'm just not buying into what socialist/Marxist economists have to say when it is clear they are more interested in promoting a socialist/Marxist agenda.
Don't believe me? Take a look at what three of the 600 economists have to say about Marxism and tell me they are not committed Marxists.

"As Marxists we are committed to a rejection of capitalism, 'root and branch'…."
- Arthur MacEwan

"The particular model of socialism pioneered by the Soviet Union undoubtedly brought significant economic and social progress …."
- David Kotz

"Marxist analysis is as useful today as it ever was."
- Renee Toback



About Those 600 Economists Who Support MW
 
For what it is worth, I studied Karl Marx as a student at Kent State University. I read his writings not because I was enamored by him like so many college students today but because Marx was required reading in the course, Recent Political Thought (see below), along with Nietzsche, Freud, Friedman, Arendt, and Sartre. As a conservative, you can imagine how I must have felt studying political science at a politically left university such as Kent State. But actually I did very well and despite my instructor being a committed leftist, she was more than fair with me. When I think of Ted Cruz and how he must have felt as a conservative student at Harvard, I believe I can relate.

(See link to read a Boston Globe piece on Cruz as a Harvard Law outsider)


Recent Political Thought


Overview

This course will examine selected works of major thinkers in the tradition of Western political thought from Marx to the present. An attempt will be made to place these writers in terms of their proper historical, economic, social, and cultural perspectives. The major focus of the course, however, will be thematic. We will be concerned with the ideas of these thinkers, their notions of---for example---what constitutes the "good life;" the role of the state in the life of the individual; and the ideal form of political arrangement.

A political theory is a particular way of looking at reality. It incorporates, among other things, the author's perception of the historical process, his or her epistemology, and her or his conception of human nature. This period in political theory should be of interest to the contemporary student. By and large, the world of the people we will be reading is our world; and their hopes and fears are our own.

Required Readings

The following texts are required. All books are available in paperback editions, and the bookstores should have used copies of each text. Don't feel, however, that you must use the editions ordered by the bookstores. In most cases, I have ordered the least expensive editions; but, if you have access to different versions, feel free to use them.

Marx, The Early Writings, ed. Bottomore

Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Kaufmann

Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Arendt, On Revolution

Sartre, No Exit

Expectations

Students are expected to do required reading prior to class time. Since politics consists largely of dialogue, class participation is strongly encouraged and will affect the final grade you earn for the course. There will be three take-home essay exams. Each exam will account for 28 1/3% of your grade. The remaining 15% will be determined by the instructor based on your attendance and participation. Incompletes will be given in emergency cases only.
The following outline contains information on the assigned readings and gives you an idea when the exams will take place.

Marx, Early Writings, ed. Bottomore

Assignment:

1. "On the Jewish Question"
2. "Introduction to the Contribution to the Critique Hegel's Philosophy of Right"
3. "Alienated Labor"
4. "Private Property and Communism"
5. "Money"

Note: #3, 4, and 5 are contained in the "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts"

Nietzsche, Portable Nietzsche, ed. Kaufmann

Assignment:

1. "Zarathustra," pp. 121-191
2. "Beyond Good and Evil," pp. 443-446
3. "Toward a Genealogy of Morals," pp. 450-454
4. "Twilight of the Idols," pp. 466-505
Note: Page numbers refer to the Kaufmann edition. I will supply you with equivalent page numbers for any other translation or edition you might choose to use.


First Exam

Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

Assignment: The entire text

Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Assignment: The entire text

Second Exam

Arendt, On Revolution

Assignment:
1. chapter 1
2. chapter 5
3. chapter 6

Sartre, No Exit

Assignment:
1. "The Flies
2. "No Exit"

Third Exam (This will be due on the scheduled time for the final for this course.)

Harvard Law outsider became Tea Party hero
 
EPI again. I already see where they cherry pick the report. The report does say there will be job losses but at the same time leaves out the offsetting factors. But yeah, I remember the ad and that site you reference is the same PR firm that I am talking about.Figured you would throw that back at me. It is red baiting for one and as well cherry picks information to benefit their constituents. Im familiar with Mattheau. Not the others. She teaches Marxist economics at some University.I read a book written by her in college. I don't agree with all her views and Im sure I could find 100 people on that list I disagree with. For one it was a letter with many different styles of study and theories. It is diverse views who agree this is beneficial. Regardless of the views of the people you point out on that letter there is still the CBO study that gives the facts and the study shows it is beneficial when you read the whole thing and not cherry pick things to spin it. 70% of Americans polled were in favor of the increase.So why go against the wishes of the majority to please a few? Like net neutrality and the keystone pipeline,or climate change? Because you have retailers and fast food giants, Koch Industries, and a foreign Canadian company paying for red tape to benefit theirselves and to hell with everyone else. Including you; the big supporter who voted for them. The good news is people are realizing this. We just need them to go vote.

Also no rebuttal on GDP and the debt? Its been all about minimum wage with you but nothing in regards to how detrimental Republicans have been with debt and GDP. Any EPI articles for that? Or do they only write about what the retail industry executives ask them to?


This post was edited on 3/28 12:45 AM by MidTnBlues
 
Now for more economic reality. The real unemployment rate is 23.2% (see link). Durable goods fell last month by 1.4%. Business investing was down 23% last month. January GDP and jobs numbers have been revised down (as usual). All these numbers are from the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ describes the economic situation as stagnation, a term you should be familiar with since you claim to be an economics major.




Alternate Unemployment Charts
 
With respect to the national debt, I suggest you watch the video, "The National Debt and Federal Budget Deficit Deconstructed" (see link). I realize this video is a little dated since the current national debt is now over $18 trillion and not $15 trillion as it was three years ago when this video was done, but I believe the point that Tony Robbins is making is even more telling today.

But like all liberals, you still want to blame Bush for everything. It doesn't matter that Obama called Bush "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" to have a $9 trillion deficit and now Obama has it over $18 trillion. When Obama came to office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. Certainly, I'm not pleased when a Republican is not fiscally responsible but by Obama's own reasoning, your beloved president has reached a new level of irresponsibility. Regardless of how bad Bush was with spending, Obama has the worst record of any president when it comes to putting our nation deeper in debt. Liberals will never understand it but spending more money than we have is immoral because it hurts future generations who will be left to pay off the debt.

But liberals, like yourself, don't care about our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. Liberals will keep on supporting Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren because they have been part of the system, either as beneficiaries or worker bees, who have all kinds of hang ups about capitalism and the the free-enterprise system. They vote based strictly on hurting the other 48% of America whether or not by doing so they also hurt themselves as we have seen with Obama. It's irrelevant to them. Now that liberals have control, they are going to pound it to the rest of us. It doesn't matter if the country goes down the toilet and them with it.

Just like all liberals, you will watch this video and still not have any concern about the national debt. You will continue to vote for who will provide the most free stuff because you can only look at the short term, which is exactly what liberals want you to do.




The National Debt and Federal Budget Deficit
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
BRF, my last post was in response to MidTnBlues' question regarding minimum wage. With respect to spin, let me quote Micheal Saltsman in his article, "The Record is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs."

In the last paragraph, Saltsman writes,

Undoubtedly, wage hike advocates will continue to be creative in their pro-minimum wage arguments-focusing on the hefty profits of restaurant corporations instead of the far-smaller profits of their affiliated franchisees, for instance, or describing $13-an-hour tipped restaurant employees as "subminimum" wage earners. But no amount of spin can erase the consequences of a wage hike for the poor and others in the entry-level job market.

We've been over this before. It has been proven that small incremental increase don't have a large effect on jobs or inflation. In most areas an increase like we saw to $15 an hour will cause issues, however, in that area, it may be supported. It's really too soon to tell. Many of these restaurants that are closing are closing due to other reasons...they were already on their way out and are a normal part of the business cycle.
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
Let us take a closer look at the 600 economists that you referenced. It appears that close to half don't possess expertise in labor economics (the discipline central to understanding the minimum wage) and many of the signers are either self-declared radical researchers or full-time staff at union-supported organizations (see link).

Let's be honest, leftists will only believe what they want to believe.
If you want to believe that a minimum wage hike will not hurt the poor because it will result in a loss of jobs and deny people a place on the first rung of the job ladder that is your prerogative.

As a capitalist, I will continue to believe capitalist economists on this issue. Again, if you choose to believe socialist economists or Marxist economists on economic issues that is your prerogative. I'm just not buying into what socialist/Marxist economists have to say when it is clear they are more interested in promoting a socialist/Marxist agenda.
Don't believe me? Take a look at what three of the 600 economists have to say about Marxism and tell me they are not committed Marxists.

"As Marxists we are committed to a rejection of capitalism, 'root and branch'…."
- Arthur MacEwan

"The particular model of socialism pioneered by the Soviet Union undoubtedly brought significant economic and social progress …."
- David Kotz

"Marxist analysis is as useful today as it ever was."
- Renee Toback
Back at ya buddy. You've got 600 economist, nobel prize winners etc telling you what they know to be true, yet you choose to believe an opinion article in Forbes (a well known right wing supporter).
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
With respect to the national debt, I suggest you watch the video, "The National Debt and Federal Budget Deficit Deconstructed" (see link). I realize this video is a little dated since the current national debt is now over $18 trillion and not $15 trillion as it was three years ago when this video was done, but I believe the point that Tony Robbins is making is even more telling today.

But like all liberals, you still want to blame Bush for everything. It doesn't matter that Obama called Bush "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" to have a $9 trillion deficit and now Obama has it over $18 trillion. When Obama came to office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. Certainly, I'm not pleased when a Republican is not fiscally responsible but by Obama's own reasoning, your beloved president has reached a new level of irresponsibility. Regardless of how bad Bush was with spending, Obama has the worst record of any president when it comes to putting our nation deeper in debt. Liberals will never understand it but spending more money than we have is immoral because it hurts future generations who will be left to pay off the debt.

But liberals, like yourself, don't care about our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. Liberals will keep on supporting Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren because they have been part of the system, either as beneficiaries or worker bees, who have all kinds of hang ups about capitalism and the the free-enterprise system. They vote based strictly on hurting the other 48% of America whether or not by doing so they also hurt themselves as we have seen with Obama. It's irrelevant to them. Now that liberals have control, they are going to pound it to the rest of us. It doesn't matter if the country goes down the toilet and them with it.

Just like all liberals, you will watch this video and still not have any concern about the national debt. You will continue to vote for who will provide the most free stuff because you can only look at the short term, which is exactly what liberals want you to do.
I have concern for it. Where was your concern when Bush was in charge and running it up? What a joke.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT