Democratic Nominee in 2020

Quote: Mission146

Based on previous occupations mentioned, your tax receipts are insufficient to build every road that you have ever been on. Although, perhaps enough to get a few blocks down and back.

But they get pooled with other stolen money so it evens out.

If taxes are not theft, explain why if I choose not to pay men with guns will make me.

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, AR and FL are above the federal level. But what does what southern states do matter? Have you noticed that southern states have a strange mix of booming areas and areas of extreme poverty with few jobs? When a place has few jobs, the last thing you want to do is take away their competitive advantage on lower labor costs. You want to tell the guy in Appalachia who loses his $9 an hour job how great the $15 minimum is but too bad he has to go hungry because his employer laid him off?

No, which is precisely why I do not support moving the federal minimum wage to $15 and particularly not in a way that would take effect immediately. I believe I said that already, perhaps more than once.

My point is really more about the fact that many deeply conservative states would not (in my opinion) ever4 change the minimum wage again if they didn't have to. In my opinion, which could be wrong, it would still be $5.15/hour if that were still the federal minimum wage.

Quote:

Uh, not exactly. As I said, some people work for a lower amount for a variety of reasons. It is what the Bernie Sanders campaign is paying bottom level people. It is what the not for profit pays. It is what the work-study pays. Other jobs are out there but people make tradeoffs. I took MW as work-study for both flexibility and because the "work" was a joke. I used the time to study or explore the early days of the internet.

Not every job that pays MW is a, "Joke." Also, what you just said doesn't apply to everyone. Again, I can probably find such a person if I must prove my point, but I'm sure I can locate at least one person being paid federal minimum wage who would prefer to be making more money. Also, disabled people? I know you wouldn't prefer that they just sit home and collect a check for doing nothing, I know you better than that.

Quote:

Not really. Hardly anyplace can pay the floor, not in this booming economy. In the real world (i.e.: places that make a profit not government where many wages are indexed to MW) workers do not just get a raise because the MW below them went up. If a MCD franchisee can pay $10 now they can only pay $10 when the wage goes up.

What the "floor" is about is union contracts, many of which are tied to the MW. This is the dirty little secret. Unions kick money to Democrats, MW workers do not. Follow the money.

Yeah and what the hell good is that going to do when the economy inevitably stagnates? Also, the economy is mainly, "Booming," in terms of paper wealth, which has little to no bearing on minimum wage or equivalent employees. Doesn't help them at all.

If businesses were already paying what they could afford to pay, then the minimum wage would not have been created or would never have been increased to begin with. That's the entire point of the minimum wage. If every business was already affording to pay what it could, and then that amount suddenly went up, they would all need to dramatically increase prices or immediately go out of business.

I'm not suggesting that companies should pay literally every penny that they can afford to pay. I am suggesting that the minimum wage needs to be indexed to something because there are people out there who will completely screw workers at every turn if they get the opportunity. Maybe you don't believe that.  That's fine, you don't have to. Everyone that owns any sort of business or runs one is 100% benevolent and always and unfailingly acquired their wealth completely on the up and up with no exceptions whatsoever for any reason. Workers don't need to be protected. Safety laws, for another example, were put in place despite workplaces already being as safe as they possibly could be. Similarly, child labor laws were enacted pointlessly because there were never any children working.

Quote: AZDuffman

But they get pooled with other stolen money so it evens out.

If taxes are not theft, explain why if I choose not to pay men with guns will make me.

First thing is that I would suggest that those of us not in the top small percent of income earners have disproportionately enjoyed the benefits of the concept of taxation. Whether or not you see it that way or are willing to admit it is up to you.

If men with guns can come along and make you stop doing any manner of things that you might otherwise want to do, are you not a slave to the men with guns by the same logic?

Time for an update on the Dem primary odds, assuming one of the top 8 wins:

Biden 35.1%
Bernie Sanders 21.8%
Elizabeth Warren 14.0%
Pete Buttigieg 11.1%
Bloomberg  6.2%
Hillary Clinton 5.6%
Andrew Yang 3.3%
Amy Klobuchar 2.9%

This all seems reasonable to me. If forced, I think Biden, Bloomberg and Sanders should be higher while everybody else should be less.

As for the general election, the odds suggest Trump has a 54.5% chance to win. I think they're higher. Anyone want to prove me wrong?

Duffman has used the so-called stolen goods or money before he ever paid enough into it. He knows it; we know it.

He's apparently agreed to other laws of the land without complaint and without signing any agreement.

Since he thinks it's stolen and he's been a beneficiary, it's only right and good that he report his deeds to the authorities and offer to do time in the pen.

Ten years of taxes in his adult life, wouldn't even pay for 10 miles of road.

Quote:

for the production of a 4-lane highway, the cost per mile will run between $4 and $6 million in rural or suburban areas, and between $8 to $10 million in urban areas.

Sorry not even a quarter mile.

Quote: Mission146

If men with guns can come along and make you stop doing any manner of things that you might otherwise want to do, are you not a slave to the men with guns by the same logic?

No. Because most of the other things are active laws that take an active role on my part. They steal my money no matter what I do or do not do.

If more people thought of taxes as their money being stolen and not "the government's money" we might get more responsible government.

Quote: AZDuffman

No. Because most of the other things are active laws that take an active role on my part. They steal my money no matter what I do or do not do.

If more people thought of taxes as their money being stolen and not "the government's money" we might get more responsible government.

Good morning to you!

The second sentence in the first line is false. If you consider paying taxes as having your money stolen, then you could very simply not pay the taxes by way of either:

A.) Not reporting them.

OR:

B.) Not working.

That's not to say that you would particularly enjoy the result of either of those two things, but you are doing something actively (i.e. working, reporting your earnings) that results in the need to pay taxes under the law.

To the second line, responsible government out of a sense of what, exactly? Altruism? Would we have a donation-based government? Would those involved in Government all do their jobs for free?

Quote: Mission146

No, which is precisely why I do not support moving the federal minimum wage to $15 and particularly not in a way that would take effect immediately. I believe I said that already, perhaps more than once.

My point is really more about the fact that many deeply conservative states would not (in my opinion) ever4 change the minimum wage again if they didn't have to. In my opinion, which could be wrong, it would still be $5.15/hour if that were still the federal minimum wage.

Maybe they would still have it at $3.35. But who would be working for that low an amount. No employer outside of the state prison could find people to work at that rate.

Quote:

Not every job that pays MW is a, "Joke." Also, what you just said doesn't apply to everyone. Again, I can probably find such a person if I must prove my point, but I'm sure I can locate at least one person being paid federal minimum wage who would prefer to be making more money. Also, disabled people? I know you wouldn't prefer that they just sit home and collect a check for doing nothing, I know you better than that.

Of course not all are. But any job on a political campaign pretty much is. Lots of work-study jobs are. My point is plenty are, but people take them for various reasons. I am sure I could find a person being paid $20 per hour who would prefer to be paid more money. Who would not prefer to be paid more money? If you want to be paid more money you look for a better job, you do not wait for the feds to force someone to pay you more.

Quote:

Yeah and what the hell good is that going to do when the economy inevitably stagnates? Also, the economy is mainly, "Booming," in terms of paper wealth, which has little to no bearing on minimum wage or equivalent employees. Doesn't help them at all.

Uh, no. Get out and talk to some people in the employment field. I interviewed at a place last year for a factory job. I did not have the electronics background and the other stuff they had paid too low for me. But I got to talking with the recruiter. They said their phone started ringing off the hook literally days after the election. They said and this is a quote with their emphasis.

"TRUMP DID THIS!"

They said they were no longer taking clients because they could not fill the orders they had and their biggest problem was too many people would rather collect a government check than work. This was a place that filled factory manufacturing jobs. They are not the only ones I talked to that said business turned on a dime that way. No, it is not "paper wealth." It is full employment.