Stick a fork in this moron.

[bobblehead]

Ok, let me get this straight, we are going to tax the rich (who invest) more, and then raise minimum wages (reducing return on investment). Sounds like a lock solid job destroying plan to me. Its also a good way to chase capital out of the country. An individual that I won't name is actively opening a corporation in a foreign country as we speak so he has somewhere to move his capital in december of '09 (right before the bush tax cuts expire). Should be good though, cuz he is evil and rich and we want him out of this country anyway...he is an exploiter who provides (low paying) jobs.

PS...yes national health care, I almost forgot. Lets add a huge social program to a country that is 9.6 Trillion in debt with a 460 billion dollar annual deficit and 59 Trillion in future unfunded Liabilities. Good plan, just in case we were going to grow out of this while spending more responsibly this will definately drive the final nail in the coffin.

[packinpatland]

Ok, let me get this straight, we are going to tax the rich (who invest) more, and then raise minimum wages (reducing return on investment). Sounds like a lock solid job destroying plan to me. Its also a good way to chase capital out of the country. An individual that I won't name is actively opening a corporation in a foreign country as we speak so he has somewhere to move his capital in december of '09 (right before the bush tax cuts expire). Should be good though, cuz he is evil and rich and we want him out of this country anyway...he is an exploiter who provides (low paying) jobs.

PS...yes national health care, I almost forgot. Lets add a huge social program to a country that is 9.6 Trillion in debt with a 460 billion dollar annual deficit and 59 Trillion in future unfunded Liabilities. Good plan, just in case we were going to grow out of this while spending more responsibly this will definately drive the final nail in the coffin.

Is this with or without the recent 700 billion bailout added in?

What a true patriot your 'individual' is............

[MadScientist]

2. Obama's 95% getting a tax cut is pure fiction--an out and out LIE. McCain's tax cuts will be across the board, which means everybody gets them except those who pay no tax at all.

From Factcheck.org:
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

You can argue merits, likelihood of passing and impact, but when you call Obama's claim a lie, it is you who are lying.

3. Putting more money in the hands of low income people--"those who will spend most or all of it" would indeed be a good thing, but first of all, it would NOT be the result of Obama's plans, and secondly, would NOT be MORE beneficial than increasing the money in the hands of upper income people--who would invest it. If you don't believe me, just ask Howard.

The independent analysis above shows more money would be put in the hands of lower income people. This will be more stimulating in the short term (see http://www.cbo.gov//ftpdocs/88xx/doc...mulustable.htm). Your comments about investment would hold water for long-term growth only if the high end tax cuts were targeted specifically to investments that produce growth within the U.S.

4. Historically, raising the minimum wage has been a nightmare for the very people the libs claim to want to help. Increasing the cost of employing individuals invariably causes employers to employ less individuals--a lot of working poor get laid off. Still, Dem/libs continue to push the same fail idea. More people end up ON welfare instead of getting off--assuming you include "unemployment compensation" as welfare. In addition, the economy is NOT stimulated by purely private sector transactions, but only by either government confiscating less tax money or injecting money. Forcing employers to pay higher wages does neither.

Perahps because actual results do not agree with your opinions. Analysis showed states with higher minimum wages than the federal standard had higher job growth. A more detailed analysis of Oregon's 1997 minimum wage hike showed real wage gains for those on the bottom, no net job loss, even in the retail sector, and an increase in the proportion of welfare recipients moving to employment. Even looking at a generally negative projection by South Dakota, concludes that the amount of money gained by the low income earners by the hike would be about 5 times greater than the amount lost due to lost jobs.

5. You're right that Obama's health care plan has a much better chance of getting through a Dem/lib controlled Congress. However, it also has a 100% chance of doing more harm to the country and everybody in it than McCain's. The best plan of all is NO PLAN AT ALL--leaving well enough alone.

What's the wait in emergency rooms where you are? How much money (ultimately coming out of our pockets) is wasted paying for high-priced ER visits for people with no insurance?

6. I don't recall commenting about sex ed. I'm pretty much neutral/don't care about that. Similarly, while I am tacitly against abortion, it ranks pretty far down the list of issues for me.

You mentioned abortion in your rant about democrats and their immoral agenda. I just point out that the democratic position is to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and comprehensive sex ed is effective in doing so. I would agree that given what this country is facing, abortion should be a minor issue.

[SkinBasket]

From Factcheck.org:
[i]We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “redistribute wealth for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would funnel wealth to 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average redistribution of $1,118 of someone else's hard earned money.

Fixed.

[hoosier]

I see the line item veto power that skinbasket has been lobbying for has finally been delivered.

MS, as soon as you cited the Brookings Institute you lost Tex. Since the Brookings played a key role in founding the UN, Tex undoubtedly considers it part of the fiendish and widespread left-wing, media-driven conspiracy he has discovered, which is hell-bent on undermining this country and corrupting all decent, normal, god-fearing Americans. So please keep the Romper Room free of all references to subversive, communist-infested institutions.

[mraynrand]

What's the wait in emergency rooms where you are? How much money (ultimately coming out of our pockets) is wasted paying for high-priced ER visits for people with no insurance?

The COST of an ER visit is identical for people being treated for the same trauma, regardless of their ability to pay. With regard to non-emergencies, many hospitals are conducting more 'triage' in the ER and rescheduling non-emergency cases to a later time. People without insurance who appear the next day get treated in a regular clinic and receive 'economic triage' - that is, their ability to to pay is assessed and they are signed up for either an existing coverage or a payment plan. Fact is that the largest group of uninsured are people making at least 40K/year who choose not to carry insurance, and most everyone else is covered by some existing plan, except illegal aliens.

The question about health care is who will pay. Will we support turning it into a completely government run welfare program, or encourage personal responsibility. If those who can pay, do pay, and people are accountable for their treatment options, and mechanisms exist for individuals to get large group insurance, there would be a whole lot more money and resources available for those who truly cannot pay.

[mraynrand]

2. Obama's 95% getting a tax cut is pure fiction--an out and out LIE. McCain's tax cuts will be across the board, which means everybody gets them except those who pay no tax at all.

From Factcheck.org:
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

You can argue merits, likelihood of passing and impact, but when you call Obama's claim a lie, it is you who are lying.

You can't have a tax cut when you're not paying any tazes. Under Bush's tax cuts, about 10 million stopped paying income tax and the lowest tax bracket went from 15% to 10%. When Obama gives a 'tax cut' to 95%, that includes all the folks making less than 37,595, including many who pay NO income tax. Thus, these folks would get a check from the government, courtesy of other tax payers. Now, some have called this a cut because it will essentially reduce the FICA withholding, but FICA isn't supposed to be a tax - it's supposed to be a 'pension/retirement' payment - even if it does work like a ponzi scheme. In effect, Obama's cut amounts to shift in FICA from a retirement plan to another welfare program.

I doubt your cause and effect argument with regard to minimum wage. In the few instances were business has changed positively following minimum wage increases, there are multiple other factors involved. Minimum wage hikes are typically a loser, especially for the lowest paid people - unskilled (usually minorities) and new high school or college grads. Some estimates indicate that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 of the unemployed are new grads who can't find work because of the recent minimum wage increases.

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

[bobblehead]

Ok, let me get this straight, we are going to tax the rich (who invest) more, and then raise minimum wages (reducing return on investment). Sounds like a lock solid job destroying plan to me. Its also a good way to chase capital out of the country. An individual that I won't name is actively opening a corporation in a foreign country as we speak so he has somewhere to move his capital in december of '09 (right before the bush tax cuts expire). Should be good though, cuz he is evil and rich and we want him out of this country anyway...he is an exploiter who provides (low paying) jobs.

PS...yes national health care, I almost forgot. Lets add a huge social program to a country that is 9.6 Trillion in debt with a 460 billion dollar annual deficit and 59 Trillion in future unfunded Liabilities. Good plan, just in case we were going to grow out of this while spending more responsibly this will definately drive the final nail in the coffin.

Is this with or without the recent 700 billion bailout added in?

What a true patriot your 'individual' is............

Since you know nothing about said individual making a judgement of him is kinda...well...

More importantly I think your definition of patriot is "one who allows an abusive gov't to confiscate his wealth and distribute it to those who have not earned it or be spent by those who have proven incapable of responsible behavior"

I personally have absolutely ZERO problems with someone moving capital out of this country if other countries offer a better environment for investing it....what would you expect to happen?

[bobblehead]

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

Barrack Obama should determine how valuable a job is and therefore determine what the pay scale should be.

[mraynrand]

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

Barrack Obama should determine how valuable a job is and therefore determine what the pay scale should be.

I think that's pretty much what the dems want to do under the 'equal pay' legislation they have lined up if he gets elected. Determine the 'absolute value' of each and every job and legislate wages, using equal protection and Title 19 precedent. (So that a teacher, social worker, for example, will be paid more than a truck driver or construction worker, based on 'objective criteria' such as training and education required involved, etc.).

[bobblehead]

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

Barrack Obama should determine how valuable a job is and therefore determine what the pay scale should be.

I think that's pretty much what the dems want to do under the 'equal pay' legislation they have lined up if he gets elected. Determine the 'absolute value' of each and every job and legislate wages, using equal protection and Title 19 precedent. (So that a teacher, social worker, for example, will be paid more than a truck driver or construction worker, based on 'objective criteria' such as training and education required involved, etc.).

This sounds suspiciously like socialism....

[MadScientist]

I doubt your cause and effect argument with regard to minimum wage. In the few instances were business has changed positively following minimum wage increases, there are multiple other factors involved. Minimum wage hikes are typically a loser, especially for the lowest paid people - unskilled (usually minorities) and new high school or college grads. Some estimates indicate that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 of the unemployed are new grads who can't find work because of the recent minimum wage increases.

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

You are correct in saying that there is not enough evidence to say that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in jobs, as correlation != causality. However the original claim by Tex was that raising the minimum wage would cause net job losses. The lack of correlation certainly argues against causality.

The 'thought experiment' is of course just silliness, not much different than if you had said 'If you liberals think it was a good idea to drop the voting age from 21 to 18, why aren't you saying its an even better idea to drop it down to 3? Huh? Huh? Why? Why?'

If you insist on having the obvious flaws in your argument pointed out, here goes. 1) The numbers actually being proposed are in line with the minimum wage levels at times in the past, whereas the numbers you threw out are way out of line with that. 2) The big jumps you throw out can only cause massive inflation (you can't sell a burger for .99 when the guy flipping it is making $50 an hour). The actual proposals are slow enough and small enough that not all of the costs of the increase in salary will be turned immediately into higher prices. Yes this will cause a little inflation, but not so much as to wipe out the gains for low end workers. You can argue that this is effectively a tax on business / a redistribution of wealth program, etc, but the fact is there already are such programs in the form of welfare, food stamps, low income tax credits, so reducing them by increasing wages is a more efficient solution. (Or do you like more government programs better )

[HowardRoark]

I doubt your cause and effect argument with regard to minimum wage. In the few instances were business has changed positively following minimum wage increases, there are multiple other factors involved. Minimum wage hikes are typically a loser, especially for the lowest paid people - unskilled (usually minorities) and new high school or college grads. Some estimates indicate that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 of the unemployed are new grads who can't find work because of the recent minimum wage increases.

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

You are correct in saying that there is not enough evidence to say that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in jobs, as correlation != causality. However the original claim by Tex was that raising the minimum wage would cause net job losses. The lack of correlation certainly argues against causality.

The 'thought experiment' is of course just silliness, not much different than if you had said 'If you liberals think it was a good idea to drop the voting age from 21 to 18, why aren't you saying its an even better idea to drop it down to 3? Huh? Huh? Why? Why?'

If you insist on having the obvious flaws in your argument pointed out, here goes. 1) The numbers actually being proposed are in line with the minimum wage levels at times in the past, whereas the numbers you threw out are way out of line with that. 2) The big jumps you throw out can only cause massive inflation (you can't sell a burger for .99 when the guy flipping it is making $50 an hour). The actual proposals are slow enough and small enough that not all of the costs of the increase in salary will be turned immediately into higher prices. Yes this will cause a little inflation, but not so much as to wipe out the gains for low end workers. You can argue that this is effectively a tax on business / a redistribution of wealth program, etc, but the fact is there already are such programs in the form of welfare, food stamps, low income tax credits, so reducing them by increasing wages is a more efficient solution. (Or do you like more government programs better )

Has there ever been a study on the "wage economics" (made up word?) in the Illegal Immigrant Community. I am being serious. I was reading this thread earlier today and was trying to think of a petri dish that might shed some light on the subject.

Real data, not anectodal. This is, after all, an unregulated model.

[mraynrand]

If you insist on having the obvious flaws in your argument pointed out, here goes. 1) The numbers actually being proposed are in line with the minimum wage levels at times in the past, whereas the numbers you threw out are way out of line with that. )

What times in the past? When minimum wages were originally instituted? Do you know why the minimum wage was put in pace in the first place? Do you know what it's affect was on employment, specifically for the most unskilled workers? Look it up.

I proposed a number of wages. You agreed with me that 50 dollars an hour for minimum wage is too much, because it would cause inflation. But again, at some point if you impose a minimum wage, you must know better than all the businesses what wage will not drive away business. How will you do this? How will you know what is the correct wage for millions of different jobs? If 6.75 an hour is better for workers, why not 6.80 or 7.50? Or 10?

[mraynrand]

2) The big jumps you throw out can only cause massive inflation (you can't sell a burger for .99 when the guy flipping it is making $50 an hour). The actual proposals are slow enough and small enough that not all of the costs of the increase in salary will be turned immediately into higher prices. Yes this will cause a little inflation, but not so much as to wipe out the gains for low end workers. You can argue that this is effectively a tax on business / a redistribution of wealth program, etc, but the fact is there already are such programs in the form of welfare, food stamps, low income tax credits, so reducing them by increasing wages is a more efficient solution. (Or do you like more government programs better )

It is a tax on business, and businesses always pass taxes onto the consumer. So, either prices will increase, or employees will be laid off. And unemployed person is a tax on society. So increasing the minimum wage artificially wipes out any gains SPECIFICALLY for low end workers - it is well documented that they are the first to lose jobs with higher minimum wage standards (or to not get jobs in the first place). From your final point, it's clear that you view raising the minimum wage as equivalent to a tax to generate a social program. I agree - it is like a hand out program, with the effect of discouraging hiring and encouraging firing employees and raising prices. That's why it's a bad thing.

[texaspackerbacker]

2. Obama's 95% getting a tax cut is pure fiction--an out and out LIE. McCain's tax cuts will be across the board, which means everybody gets them except those who pay no tax at all.

From Factcheck.org:
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

You can argue merits, likelihood of passing and impact, but when you call Obama's claim a lie, it is you who are lying.

3. Putting more money in the hands of low income people--"those who will spend most or all of it" would indeed be a good thing, but first of all, it would NOT be the result of Obama's plans, and secondly, would NOT be MORE beneficial than increasing the money in the hands of upper income people--who would invest it. If you don't believe me, just ask Howard.

The independent analysis above shows more money would be put in the hands of lower income people. This will be more stimulating in the short term (see http://www.cbo.gov//ftpdocs/88xx/doc...mulustable.htm). Your comments about investment would hold water for long-term growth only if the high end tax cuts were targeted specifically to investments that produce growth within the U.S.

4. Historically, raising the minimum wage has been a nightmare for the very people the libs claim to want to help. Increasing the cost of employing individuals invariably causes employers to employ less individuals--a lot of working poor get laid off. Still, Dem/libs continue to push the same fail idea. More people end up ON welfare instead of getting off--assuming you include "unemployment compensation" as welfare. In addition, the economy is NOT stimulated by purely private sector transactions, but only by either government confiscating less tax money or injecting money. Forcing employers to pay higher wages does neither.

Perahps because actual results do not agree with your opinions. Analysis showed states with higher minimum wages than the federal standard had higher job growth. A more detailed analysis of Oregon's 1997 minimum wage hike showed real wage gains for those on the bottom, no net job loss, even in the retail sector, and an increase in the proportion of welfare recipients moving to employment. Even looking at a generally negative projection by South Dakota, concludes that the amount of money gained by the low income earners by the hike would be about 5 times greater than the amount lost due to lost jobs.

5. You're right that Obama's health care plan has a much better chance of getting through a Dem/lib controlled Congress. However, it also has a 100% chance of doing more harm to the country and everybody in it than McCain's. The best plan of all is NO PLAN AT ALL--leaving well enough alone.

What's the wait in emergency rooms where you are? How much money (ultimately coming out of our pockets) is wasted paying for high-priced ER visits for people with no insurance?

6. I don't recall commenting about sex ed. I'm pretty much neutral/don't care about that. Similarly, while I am tacitly against abortion, it ranks pretty far down the list of issues for me.

You mentioned abortion in your rant about democrats and their immoral agenda. I just point out that the democratic position is to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and comprehensive sex ed is effective in doing so. I would agree that given what this country is facing, abortion should be a minor issue.

MadScientist a.k.a. LiberalWithBalls, you're a credit to your political persuasion--relatively formidable, as leftists go--maybe that's because most of them only "go" back under their rocks to run and hide.

On the most significant point above, Obama's claim of cutting taxes for 95% of the people, the HUGE reason why that simply is NOT true is because his figure begins at a point AFTER he fails to renew the Bush tax cuts--which in effect, is a LARGE tax increase. Yeah, maybe after taking THAT kind of a bite out of people's incomes, maybe 95% get a little bit back. The even MORE significant point is that even Obama admits that his program is a net TAX INCREASE--in other words, his sinister redistribution of wealth away from upper income people outweighs what he intends to give back on the lower end--even if you disregard his nonrenewal of the Bush Tax cuts. Thus, his program amounts to same ol' same ol'--liberal TAX AND SPEND crap.

On 3. above, I am actually a little bit receptive to your argument there. As I said, Howard and some other conservatives have gone around and around on this, and I've even been called "not conservative" and a "redistributionist". Yes, there is some credibility to your argument that the early burst of stimulus comes from consumers--who tend to be more on the lower end, although, as you admit, the longer term benefit comes from cutting the taxes of those who invest.

On 4. above, I tend to think you are citing one liberal-backed study and ignoring the preponderance of evidence. I'll just fall back on the other argument against raising minimum wage--that it tends to be inflationary, and thus, does relatively more harm to the people it's designed to help. And the best argument of all against raising the minimum wage, of course, is NOT an economic one at all. It goes completely against the grain of our free enterprise system for employers to be FORCED to pay more than market conditions dictate is necessary.

Regarding 5., my position--which seems to be roundly disagreed with by many conservatives AND liberals, is that any downside of leaving well enough alone--including your mention of uninsured visiting ERs--is insignificant compared to the Quantum Grab of our freedom and horrendous cost that goes with Obama's plan--or merely the Quantum Grab of freedom that comes from what some on the other side--especially in this forum--advocate, just legislating a requirement that people get insured--whether they like it or not. I say, we have the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD right now--including almost a monopoly on medical, pharmacological, and technical advancements. It's stupid to screw that all up--as, of course, the Obama plan would.

And lastly, on 6., I really don't give a damn. I can see pro and con about sex ed--pragmatic "pro" of less pregnancies--probably, and moral "con" of schools assuming the role parents should have--sometimes against the parents' wishes. And while abortion is a lesser issue to you, a liberal, and even to me, a conservative, I do feel a certain need to maintain solidarity with other conservatives, to whom the abortion issue is a very big deal.

[MJZiggy]

I doubt your cause and effect argument with regard to minimum wage. In the few instances were business has changed positively following minimum wage increases, there are multiple other factors involved. Minimum wage hikes are typically a loser, especially for the lowest paid people - unskilled (usually minorities) and new high school or college grads. Some estimates indicate that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 of the unemployed are new grads who can't find work because of the recent minimum wage increases.

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

You are correct in saying that there is not enough evidence to say that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in jobs, as correlation != causality. However the original claim by Tex was that raising the minimum wage would cause net job losses. The lack of correlation certainly argues against causality.

The 'thought experiment' is of course just silliness, not much different than if you had said 'If you liberals think it was a good idea to drop the voting age from 21 to 18, why aren't you saying its an even better idea to drop it down to 3? Huh? Huh? Why? Why?'

If you insist on having the obvious flaws in your argument pointed out, here goes. 1) The numbers actually being proposed are in line with the minimum wage levels at times in the past, whereas the numbers you threw out are way out of line with that. 2) The big jumps you throw out can only cause massive inflation (you can't sell a burger for .99 when the guy flipping it is making $50 an hour). The actual proposals are slow enough and small enough that not all of the costs of the increase in salary will be turned immediately into higher prices. Yes this will cause a little inflation, but not so much as to wipe out the gains for low end workers. You can argue that this is effectively a tax on business / a redistribution of wealth program, etc, but the fact is there already are such programs in the form of welfare, food stamps, low income tax credits, so reducing them by increasing wages is a more efficient solution. (Or do you like more government programs better )

Has there ever been a study on the "wage economics" (made up word?) in the Illegal Immigrant Community. I am being serious. I was reading this thread earlier today and was trying to think of a petri dish that might shed some light on the subject.

Real data, not anectodal. This is, after all, an unregulated model.

How would they gather the data? They can't even track these people much less force wage increases to that sector of the population.

[HowardRoark]

How would they gather the data? They can't even track these people much less force wage increases to that sector of the population.

As far as gathering the data, they could get Obama's donor list and interview the household help.

Forced is the point. Without any forcing at all, they could be earning more than minimum wage anyway. The invisible hand. There is always demand for good labor. That demand will "magically" push up wages.

I don't know the answers, but I think it would be interesting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How would they gather the data? They can't even track these people much less force wage increases to that sector of the population.

As far as gathering the data, they could get Obama's donor list and interview the household help.

THat wouldn't work, we wouldn't want to bust repubs for hiring illegals.

[MadScientist]

On the most significant point above, Obama's claim of cutting taxes for 95% of the people, the HUGE reason why that simply is NOT true is because his figure begins at a point AFTER he fails to renew the Bush tax cuts--which in effect, is a LARGE tax increase. Yeah, maybe after taking THAT kind of a bite out of people's incomes, maybe 95% get a little bit back. The even MORE significant point is that even Obama admits that his program is a net TAX INCREASE--in other words, his sinister redistribution of wealth away from upper income people outweighs what he intends to give back on the lower end--even if you disregard his nonrenewal of the Bush Tax cuts. Thus, his program amounts to same ol' same ol'--liberal TAX AND SPEND crap.

Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

On 4. above, I tend to think you are citing one liberal-backed study and ignoring the preponderance of evidence. I'll just fall back on the other argument against raising minimum wage--that it tends to be inflationary, and thus, does relatively more harm to the people it's designed to help. And the best argument of all against raising the minimum wage, of course, is NOT an economic one at all. It goes completely against the grain of our free enterprise system for employers to be FORCED to pay more than market conditions dictate is necessary.

I found 3 studies (New Jersey 1992, Oregon 1997, and a 10 state study 1999-2003). None of those showed negative impact on jobs. I specifically mention the Oregon one as it was the only one that included welfare analysis. More data would of course be welcome, but this is a Packerrats debate, not a social-economic thesis. As for the inflation, it simply does not create anywhere near as much inflation as the percent increase in the minimum wage. We've had several 10%+ increases in that did not produce a 10% spike in inflation.

I say, we have the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD right now--including almost a monopoly on medical, pharmacological, and technical advancements. It's stupid to screw that all up--as, of course, the Obama plan would.

Just a couple of points to consider. There are definite costs associated with the uninsured (lost productivity, ER costs that could have been reduced by prevention, etc). With the spiraling costs expected to continue, the number and therefore costs of uninsured will shoot up as well. With Glaxo-Smith-Kline and AstraZeneca based in the UK, I don't see how you can claim we have anything related to a monopoly in the pharmacological industry. Finally of all the plans put forth by the various candidates to reduce the number of uninsured, Obama's is designed to leave more of the existing insurance structure in place.