Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Claiming to be fisally conservative and consequently voting republican is ridiculous.
Wow. The "fact that [the Iraq war] was started on false pretenses is irrelevent" could be the biggest load of crap I have ever read. The fact that Bush started a war on false pretenses is highly relevant, particularly given the civil war that is breaking out there. Bush lied to the American public to start a war that has now devolved into a worse situation than we had under Saddam. Highly relevant. Did you really mean to say that the Democrats "are the only party with idiots?" I think that the example you gave would be one of GOP idiocy as Dems are not exactly the "abstinence only" proponents.
Irrelevent to whether the war was a good idea to begin with and to whether or not the war should be continued. Very relevent to a referendum on Bush. Did the fact that the American people were lied to about such things as sending pilots to help the British prior to WWII mean that we should have stayed out of the European theater, or was that irrelevent to the the fact that fighting the Nazis was good? No, I meant to say NOT the only party with idiots, as my example made clear. I guess that slip kind of betrays my bias though eh? I'm gonna go edit it, so thanks for pointing that out.
But StupidMoniker does know that safety standards raise prices right? Probably far more so than the minimum wage too. Why doesn't he tell his employer that he don't need them? Why isn't StupidMoniker complaining about his inability to compete with other workers by practicing what he preaches with regard to labor markets and making himself more competitive? Why is it only the low wage workers and not yourself who should be forced to give up legal protections? How is it you put it -- oh yes, self interest is a great motivator. StupidMoniker want lower labor costs and fewer legal protections for laborers. When given an opportunity to put that into action, StupidMoniker refuses. ...thank you for rationalizing WHY you support the use of race and gender in addition to merit, though it really isn't necessary as you say; we've already established that you think it's permissible to consider race and gender.
Paying workers at all raises prices. Making the products actually function raises prices. A lot of things raise prices. I never said I was against anything that raises prices. Maybe you and the strawman you are arguing with should stop quoting me. Safety standards are put in place to protect people's lives. We do a lot of things in this country to protect people's lives - like have speed limits, prohibit jaywalking, hell even outlaw suicide. Minimum wage does not protect people's lives, it makes companies pay more than that for which people are willing to work. The beautiful part is, if people don't want to work for less than the current minimum wage, they don't have to. No one is forced into a job in this country (well, maybe some soldiers who are subject to stop loss programs.) Anyway, I am glad we moved away from the StupidMoniker is a hypocrit angle and into the StupidMoniker is unfair in his policy proposals angle. That is really more of a difference of opinion, while your previous stance was factually incorrect. StupidMoniker wants labor costs to be whatever value is agreed upon between the worker and the employer, and has never refused to have that put into action. I guess we didn't move past the hypocrit angle afterall. See, for me to be a hypocrit, I would have to advocate one position for everyone else, and another for myself. Since I have not done that, your argument doesn't make sense. Yep, in deciding who to vote for, not only can you consider race and gender, you can consider the style of speach a person uses, what clothes they wear, if they have ever used a word beginning with the letter x, how tall they are, if you find them attractive and would like to see them on TV a lot, their positions on various issues, the flip of a coin, or any other method you so choose. You got me, I have admitted that people are free to vote for whomever they so choose. I think I understand the problem, you are really confused about what affirmative action entails. It has nothing to do with voting, and is about giving racial preference in hiring (but only for women and minorities). There is no company that has an affirmative action plan that is based on pissing people off. There is also no company that has a legitimate affirmative action plan that calls for the one time "hiring" of one minority for a position that is time limited by statute. Maybe this clarification will show you the difference between my posts and support for affirmative action in the future. Somehow I doubt it.
For StupidMoniker to be a hypocrite - he would have to learn how to spell the word correctly. You just advocated decreasing protections for low wage workers while generally citing to efficiency gains and singing the praises of the unencumbered marketplace. (and cited none of the mountain of empirical and historical evidence relative to the minimum wage to examine its real world effects of course - that would be too complicated, not to mention damaging to your argument. Shockingly in the real world it's harder to isolate certain effects). I'm advocating you to PERSONALLY eliminate some other protections in order to further this principle of freer labor markets, for the exact same reasons that you outlined above when you gave us the Cliffs Notes version of Microecon for Dummies above. You're declining to do so. There's no straw man here. That's exactly what happened, sure it might sound asinine, but it is no more asinine than YOUR suggestion that all advocates of a certain fiscal policy do the same. I'm making a suggestion to you that you personally pursue your own labor policy and waive certain protections (against your own self interest, knowing full well that nobody else will), just like your're asking others to personally pursue their own fiscal policy against their own self interest, knowing ull well that nobody else will. Again, no straw man, this is the game you want to play, what goes around comes around, a man of principle should recognize this. Nope, it is obvious from reading this that you clearly don't understand what affirmative action entails, and more importantly what the underlying principles are behind the arguments against it are.. The argument against it, in a nutshell, is based on the (unrealistic, IMO) idea that merit is everything, and color blindness must follow. (aside: I think this is an impossible goal because it is simply not possible for human beings to push racial biases out the window completely). Accordingly your willingness to toss that away and willingly, conscously, and without being prompted, consider race and gender when determing who you want to hire for the most important job in the country (actually, the universe) provides a real illustration of how far you personally are willing to go with this principle: Not very. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Don't feel bad, you're not the first conservative to use race-based preferences while pretending not to accept them on principle. LOL, how do you think Clarence Thomas got to be on the supreme court?
hypocrit Just kidding, that wasn't really my intention, but spelling smack? That is pretty weak. No I didn't. Workers don't need a minimum wage law, because they can individually or collectively bargain for higher wages. There is no minimum wage law for NBA players, but that doesn't mean they are making less than 6 bucks per hour. They have collectively bargained for a minimum salary in the 6 figure range, and the vast majority individually negotiate contracts much higher than that. They make what the market will bear. The same thing happens with auto workers, engineers, actors, and longshoremen. Why does everyone else have no trouble working for their fair market value, but the unskilled need an artificial wage floor? No one is forcing them to take a job that pays 3 cents per hour. They can choose to refuse any offers they get, up to and including the minimum wage. If there are those who are willing to work for less, why oh great econ guru, should companies not be able to pay them that lower wage. I gladly give up my minimum wage protection. The government does not need to mandate my salary now or in the future. In every job I have had, I have negotiated my own salary, and that has seemed to work out fine. Any other protections are available to both me and to everyone else in America. That you equate everything that raises costs is not my problem, nor is it a very clever rhetorical trap that I will fall into. You have no response to my point, so you keep comming up with this rediculous idea that because I feel everyone should be free to negotiate their own contract, that I should somehow be forced to forfeit vacation time (or whatever else you want me to do to show good faith in the principles I am advocating) to compensate. Oh, but there is. The straw man is that I am advocating a totally free market with no worker protections. I am not. I am pursuing my own labor policy, which as it happens is not against my own self-interest. Since I am doing so, I see no problem holding others to the same standard. I am against affirmative action in government hiring practices, because I do not want other people to spend my money on less qualified applicants based on criteria over which I have no control. I am against affirmative action in private hiring practices because I feel that individuals should be allowed to hire whoever they want. If someone only wants to hire white people (or black people, Chinese people, women with big t***, guys named Darren, whatever) that should be up to them. That someone somewhere choose to argue that affirmative action is bad because all hiring dicisions should be based on merit does not in any way restrict my reasons for opposing it. Thus, I have no NEED to understand the underlying principals that cause OTHERS to oppose AA, only those that cause me to oppose it. Given my statements above, along with what I posted earlier about electing officials (which I see as a personal decision, like hiring your own employees), I don't see the inconsistancy that is bothering you. If I did subscribe to the notions that you attribute to all those who oppose affirmative action, I could see where you are coming from, but I do not.
Is it true that the stock market has been at higher volumes on average post 9-11? Is it true that this means more flow of money, therefore more tax coming from it? Is it then possible that the percentage of tax taken in can be reduced, but that the fact that a higher percentage of tax was coming in to begin with makes it easier on the taxed, but still yields more than a previous time period? Then how is it so "non-conservative" to cut taxes in war-time? I know it's not so simple... yet it is, when you really open your eyes. Furthermore, with so many first generation millionaires... something is growing... the economy. And at the rate it continues, taxes incoming to government vs. designated monies are at near the same levels they were in the Reagan years... Who by the way had a 49 state landslide victory over incumbent Carter, a democrat... For all of you that just know that the dems will take the house and senate... don't be so sure. The economy is actually still on the incline. The GOP is still the party of greater integrity regardless of recent scandals... Remember this kids... dems run on scandals, GOP runs on agenda and record. This message endorsed by Sheep for W. Scared yet? The prophecies of some are quite funny in here. Oh and btw, I don't care how much my post is sliced and diced, who proves what wrong. DON'T LET THE MEDIA CAST YOUR VOTE.
This is all a very fancy way of saying that you're for a free labor market, save for when it disadvantages you personally, which is why you are refusing to give up vacation time and other legal entitlements (I'm not asking you to give up vacation time - I'm asking you to voluntarily waive your legal rights thereo, which you refuse to do), and you're against affirmative action in hiring, save for when it benefits you personally, such as when you're deciding on candidates for the most important job around. Thanks but we already established that several pages ago. Right now you're just going in circles. Why don't you just admit that you are inconsistent in these two things? Are you that worried about "losing face"? Who cares?
you do realize that germany declared war on the united states? the comparison to iraq is irrelevant in this regard.
Well its been pretty steady for several years but I suppose so. No that doesn't prove anything at all. Money in the stock market is only taxed when you take it out. A lot of people invest in the stock market as a savings tool and hold it in there without getting taxed. Also, even if they take it out, capital gains taxes are much much lower than income taxes so the money they earn in the stock market is taxed comparatively less than money I earned in my job for example. Also, stock market investment is filled with tax loopholes. All you really need to do is show that you "lost" money for the fiscal year which most people usually do. Additionally, things like IRA accounts which are tax free allow you to invest and earn money without being taxed. The stock market has created a new area of earnings which avoids most taxes, so putting money in there means less taxes, not more. Its possible but that's about it. You are citing the laffer curve which was created by Arthur Laffer on a napkin in a diner one day. Laffer even admits that his curve is largely theoretical and can't be practically applied in many cases. Plus there's no data to support this claim. Tax reciepts have started to rise lately but tax reciepts always naturally rise because of inflation and growth. The issue is whether or not that growth was hindered by tax cuts, which I would say it was. Couple with the fact that government spending is still growing 10 times faster than the rise in tax reciepts, this is a moot point. The administration is overspending because of bad domestic spending practices and two wars (afghanistan and iraq) so cutting taxes really isn't appropriate right here. Because conservatives are supposed to get hard-ons at the idea of fiscal discipline and financial solvency, both of which have eluded our government so far. And cutting taxes at a time in which wartime spending is out of control, deprives the government of even more necessary revenue that is needed to at least minimize the ridiculous deficit that we have. This has absolutely nothing to do with the above but ok.. The economy is still growing no doubt, but the question of the budget deficit and federal spending is one that you still have not addressed. Our deficit is still gigantic and our president still has not vetoed one spending bill (except for stem cell research). If the GOP stood for fiscal conservatism, it certainly hasn't displayed that. As for "greater integrity," I'm not sure where you came up with that one but I honestly don't care enough to waste time on such nonsense. Uh huh.. because when the Democrats were doing all sorts of unethical and stupid stuff in the 90s, Gingrich and the Republicans said nothing about those dealings. Same with the Clinton affair. The Republicans didn't say anything about that either. Come on man, both parties tend to take advantage of this stuff. In this case, the GOP is on the wrong side for a change so the Democrats are going to bash them on this.
Do you have any evidence at all that says this? Because the math says you're wrong. Were you correct, the deficit would be increasing. The deficit, ridiculous as it may be, has decreased since the tax cuts.
You do realize the economy is much larger than it was in 2000, yet net tax revenues are still lower than they were in 2000? That adds up to a whole hell of a lot of debt. Do you believe conservative and fiscally irresponsible are the same thing?
Do you invest in the Stock Market at all? If you are posting a loss to your taxes every year (and not losing money every year) you can count on getting audited and being convicted of tax evasion. Also, you do know that money earned by pubicly traded companies is taxed twice (theoretically), right? The simple example is this: A company posts all of its after-tax profit to dividend. The company pays a corporate tax on its profit and pays the rest to the shareholders. The shareholders then have to pay taxes on their portion of it. In that example it is exactly double-taxed. The more common example is the company who re-invests the profit (or some portion thereof) to grow the company. In theory, the company value increases as represented by the stock price. Now, because stock price is market-driven, any individual company and it's stock holders will not pay double taxes or might even sell their stock for a loss and pay less taxes than the original profit. IRA's and 401(k)'s are tax-deferred. They put off the individual portion of these taxes until retirement. But even they do little to reduce the overall tax receipts.
There was an article in Business Week or Forbes about this. it's not that people are lying, which would get you audited. It's that people are able to legally manipulate the numbers to post a loss for the fiscal year. I'm not much of an investor and don't know anything about this but it actually is fairly common.
