Coincidence?
Democrats prepare to raise minimum wage
Milton Friedman Dies
We lost a hero in Milton Friedman. We elected fools last week.
Hasn’t it been proven over and again that government meddling is a lethal injection for an economy…especially one that is currently booming? These boobs are economic illiterates married to a bankrupt ideology shown to fail wherever and whenever implemented. Either they know this and are willing to slash the country’s wrists or do not know this, which is proof positive that people like this have no business running the country. Yes, in this republic elections have consequences.
Though the Republicans deserved Louisville Slugger to the kneecaps, it is a scary thing to watch the Left pompously screeching about “a living wage” (BTW — very few make minimum wage and nearly NO ONE is “living” on minimum wage) when we are threatened with extinction at the hands of a global terror network that **it’s unanimous!!!** WANTS US ALL DEAD. The more important “wage” is the war we must continue to wage. That the Leftocrats have chosen to make the failed policy of economic meddling a centerpiece of the “First Hundred Hours” shows that this party is not serious about confronting the apocalyptic threat we face. Gripping small business with the Iron Fist of the State is bad for the economy and it thieves time from fighting a war we MUST win.
Email This
Posted by G. Fortunato on November 16, 2006 7:15 pm
Trackback URL:
- Hang Right Politics: The Minimum Meddling Wage Proposition
- Good Richard's Almanac: Milton Friedman, In Memoriam
Comments
13 Responses to “Coincidence?”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Minimum wage increases are just another liberal band aid. The fact that people think the cost of living won’t sky rocket as a result is laughable.
I oppose the minimum wage as well, but I take issue with a couple parts of your argument.
Nah, some actions, when used judiciously, have can be helpful. Lowering taxes, increasing spending, and increasing the minimum wage all have positive short-term results. You just have to be careful not to overdo it because their long-term impact can easily negate any short-term gains.
I don’t believe the war on Islamic extremists is a valid reason for ignoring domestic issues.
I also don’t see how raising the minimum wage can be “a lethal injection” if it doesn’t increase the income of a large number of the working poor. In order to assert that it will have a significant impact on the economy, you have to acknowledge that it will impact the paychecks of a lot of people at the low end up the income scale.
Again, I’m not arguing in support of the minimum wage or its inevitable increase. I just think your argument could use some refining.
The only effect minimum wage will have on low income workers is mentally. They see more money in their check, the Dems get another vote. Its a band-aid liberal quick-fix. They don’t see the price hikes, tax hikes, and the like all sky rocketing around them.
“Lowering taxes”
Uh, Jeff…cutting taxes is a way to REDUCE government meddling in the economy. Right when you characterized tax reduction as government meddling, the rest of what you say goes **Poof…evaporate**
Drinking tonight?
You’re assuming that the inflation occurs at the same rate as the pay increase. I think it’s fair to say that the income will increase with the stroke of a pen, while the resulting inflation will occur gradually over a certain period of time. During that period of time, those affected by the wage hike will indeed have an increase in purchasing power. It won’t last and it may even decrease in the beyond its original point, but the short-term impact is very real.
Yes, it is a step in the right direction, but that doesn’t change the fact that the act of cutting taxes is a conscious attempt to alter the economy. All in all, it is an attempt that I virtually always support, but it is not always beneficial.
The Laffer curve and its related theories show us that government spending does not have to be cut at exactly the same rate as taxes, but that doesn’t mean you can cut it at any rate you please. You could easily cut taxes to an extent that blows right by the peak of the Laffer curve and into the territory where the damage from deficit spending far outweighs the benefits of the rate cut.
As I said, any change in the interaction between the private and public sectors must happen in moderation or the friction involved in the transition can outweigh whatever benefits the transition was intended to have.
Life must be much easier for someone who can disregard an entire argument simply because he either doesn’t agree with or understand a portion of said argument.
Errr, correction:
The Laffer curve and its related theories show us that government spending does not have to be cut at exactly the same rate as taxes…
And again:
benefits of the rate cut
e.Maybe I should be drinking, Glib.
I think you should be drinking Jeff. I think after I may need to go pour a tall one myself. Glib is correct that cutting taxes is not government meddling. Taxes are government meddling period. Increasing taxes is government meddling. Lowering taxes is reducing government meddling.
Since you also disagree with minimum wage increases there really isn’t a reason to debate that one with you.
When has cutting taxes not been beneficial? No, the war on terror is not a reason to ignore domestic issues, but the Democrats have the priorities out of order. The war on terror is a big issue that they want to run away from and put their focus on something that you have agreed is useless in the longrun.
We do agree that spending too much too fast has its consequences later on as well.
After double-checking the definition of “meddle”, I’ll concede the point. I believe cutting taxes affects the economy in much the same way as the other two actions, but it doesn’t qualify as an “intrusion”, so I concede that Glib did choose his(?) words properly.
I probably should have clarified my position.
I don’t think they are necessarily very harmful, so as far as social programs go, they’re not so bad. Especially when you consider that you only qualify to the extent that you get off your butt and work. But, given my strong libertarian leanings, I am against them in principle.
I haven’t studied the history of tax cuts, so I don’t know if there are any examples, but I did lay out the conditions under which they could prove detrimental.
We’ll probably never know, because the Democrats will almost certainly let them expire, but Bush’s tax cuts might have turned out to be an example of cuts that helped short-term, but hurt long-term. Regardless of what the Republicans say, we are accumulating debt at a rate significantly greater than we were a few years ago. A lot of the spending may be off-budget, but it is no less real.
Please, not the liberal usage of words like “probably”, “could”, and “might”. None of it is certain, or even probable, but it is definitely possible.
Priorities are not so simple.
Let’s presume you decide that your family’s state of affairs compelled you to accomplish 5 tasks this month. One is extremely important and extremely time consuming. The other 4 are less important and less time consuming by several orders of magnitude.
Do you devote all of your energy towards completing the tasks in descending order of importance?
Or do you devote most of your energy toward the big task, while knocking out some of the smaller tasks along the way?
I would devote most of my energy on the task that protects them from harm.
I agree: “most”. Some of it has to be reserved for less critical, yet still important tasks.
Of course, we can all agree that we would choose to use that “some” amount for something other than a minimum wage hike, but it’s disingenuous to assume that they’re neglecting the war simply because they’re not focusing on it exclusively.
BTW, what’s your drink of choice? If you’ve survived my slew of typos tonight, the least I can do is buy a round.
I detest free trade since it is responsible for both our huge trade deficit and our huge federal deficit. The government merely transfers the trade deficit to the federal budget by corporation welfare measures. Countries like China and Japan keep the U.S. from going bankrupt despite our massive debt.
We can not compete with poor nations since we have a higher standard of living.