Bigbadwooof said:

\His proposed $1 Trillion in infrastructure projects would really get the economy humming again. If we're going to continue throwing that kind of money around, let's do it at home. Our infrastructure could use some repair, and the people can use jobs.

.

---

starfire_xes said:

Bigbadwooof said:

\His proposed $1 Trillion in infrastructure projects would really get the economy humming again. If we're going to continue throwing that kind of money around, let's do it at home. Our infrastructure could use some repair, and the people can use jobs.

.

---

What happened from the Trillion of infrastructure spending in 2009?  Sure didn't fix any infrastructure.

---

Sfb said:

Specific to your not understanding how higher minimum wage benefits places like walmart. Yes it is very easy to say that since people have more money, they wouldn't spend it a walmart. This is based on feeling and not fact. With higher wages, small businesses who operate on smaller margins have to raise prices to stay in business faster than their corporate counterparts. Consumers demand low prices. Low price demand isn't going to change over night. Over time it would, but the beginning will do enough damage to the little guy that they are many times forced to close up shop. Since this town is rural, there aren't really any other options for work, so they end up going to work for the corporation who shut them down with low prices.

---

Quote:

I am not saying that happens in every instance. You are saying you are perfectly willing to let it happen in some. Seems like you are OK with hurting some to help others but you wrap it in a hippy style message.

---

Quote:

Again, my problem isn't with raising wages, it is doing it in places that it can't be afforded. My town will be hurt, not might be, not can't be, but absolutely will be just like the last time. And the last time was a much smaller raise, so one can only assume that the damage this time will be that much more severe. You may be ok with destroying rural america to help the cities, but I am not.

---

Quote:

I propose an alternative idea. What about a tax break for companies who choose to pay more than the minimum wage. What is a break existed that proportionally went up as companies paid closer to your desired 16/hr. I think greedy corporations would rather pay wages than taxes. Maybe giVing a reason for them to give more raises is better than forcing them to do it.

---

Quote:

Under that idea, wages could go up more naturally, so the cost of living wouldn't be dramatically raised (if at all) which is what wold hurt people in my situation. Thax breaks are enjoyed by companies both large and small, and I suppose through negotiations, you could add an equality clause that disallowed the breaks when companies get to a certain point.

---

Quote:

That little idea is just food for thought. I haven't heard any candidate talk about implementing anything like that. Maybe that is the kind of solution that we need. Liberals get higher wages while conservatives get tax breaks...if that is really what either side actually wants anyway.

---

starfire_xes said:

Let the states take care of their own fucking infrastructure.  Is it not stupid to take money from the citizens of a state, filter it through washington, then send some of it back to that state so they can fix things.  Why not just leave it there in the first place?

---

Bigbadwooof said:

starfire_xes said:

Let the states take care of their own fucking infrastructure.  Is it not stupid to take money from the citizens of a state, filter it through washington, then send some of it back to that state so they can fix things.  Why not just leave it there in the first place?

---

I see what you're saying, but no, I don't think it is stupid. There are governors in this country who would be perfectly content to watch their state's infrastructure fall to pieces, and never spend a dime fixing any of it. Sam Brownback types. Whether the money gets channeled through the federal government or not, it doesn't really matter to me, as long as it goes where it needs to go.

The intention of this infrastructure project is to A) Infuse a large amount of money into the economy to stimulate it and B) Repair our infrastructure for future generations.

We could really use something like this right now, because it's starting to look like we may be heading for another serious economic downturn.

---

hostileuniverse said:

Quote:

California, New York, and the other highly paid liberal states could still raise the minimum wage higher than the Federal amount, as they already do.

---

Yup, and the consequence of that is fewer full time jobs

---

Sfb said:

Again, you assume that everyone will magically have more money by raising the minimum wage.

---

Sfb said:

When a small business simply doesn't have the money to pay that wage, where does it come from.

---

Sfb said:

...why do liberals insist on putting their fingers into everyone's pie thinking that what they can fix everything with the same solution.

---

Because it's been shown to work, and people like you say things like "You can point to all the statistics you like..." but you'll continue to believe what you want to believe.  Here's another of many statistics I'll point to showing liberal policies work better:



Frankly, I'm sick of paying red states for failed policies.

Sfb said:

The original question was what is wrong with bernie. My answer is that he wants the federal government to fix problems that just aren't their job to fix.[/quote My ideal government would be liberal locally, conservative at the state level, and libertarian at the federal level. That would be a good setup to actually help everyone be a bit more fee and prosperous.

---

Sfb said:

With higher wages, small businesses who operate on smaller margins have to raise prices to stay in business faster than their corporate counterparts. Consumers demand low prices. Low price demand isn't going to change over night. Over time it would, but the beginning will do enough damage to the little guy that they are many times forced to close up shop. Since this town is rural, there aren't really any other options for work, so they end up going to work for the corporation who shut them down with low prices.

---

Sfb said:

Again, my problem isn't with raising wages, it is doing it in places that it can't be afforded. My town will be hurt, not might be, not can't be, but absolutely will be just like the last time. And the last time was a much smaller raise, so one can only assume that the damage this time will be that much more severe.

---

Quote:

Sfb said:I propose an alternative idea. What about a tax break for companies who choose to pay more than the minimum wage. What is a break existed that proportionally went up as companies paid closer to your desired 16/hr. I think greedy corporations would rather pay wages than taxes. Maybe giVing a reason for them to give more raises is better than forcing them to do it.

---

Shins said:

Falcon thinks that if you steal $100 from a store and then spend that $100 in the same store that that would make the store better off.

---

Stealing $100 from a store and then spending it on the same store would leave the owner much worse off, as he'd lose $100 and he'd only get back a fraction of that money when it's spent at his store after he pays expenses.  This is even more ridiculous than the "broken window" fallacy.

After losing all your economics arguments (or as you call it, "don't have time or desire to respond"), now you resort to make believe accusations. 

starfire_xes said:

In 2001 the federal budget waw 2 Trillion.  15 years later it is 3.5 Trillion.  Did inflation increase by 150% in 15 years? 

Think about it this way--Government increased their spending 150%, how much did the average wage increase?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

hostileuniverse said:

Quote:

California, New York, and the other highly paid liberal states could still raise the minimum wage higher than the Federal amount, as they already do.

---

Yup, and the consequence of that is fewer full time jobs

---

Are you joking?

First of all, you're comparing pre-recession numbers with post recession numbers, so of course unemployment will be higher.  The same would be true in most states.

Secondly, California has the highest population of any state in the country, so of course they also have the most involuntary part time workers. 

Are you that easily tricked, or are you just hoping you can trick someone yourself?

---

Sfb said:

You want to see the real world example of my claim. Well, it wasn't published in any newspapers or national statistics, but 2006 wapakoneta, Ohio. My wife and I were both working. I was working for a wage mildly over minimum wage and she was working at minimum wage. We were struggling but getting by. We both campaigned to raise the minimum wage. During this time I was looking to change jobs and had negotiated a preliminary deal with a small business to get me out of working for a much larger corporation in a stressful job with very long hours. We had not yet signed a contract when the minimum wage was raised. The business owner and I had a meeting and went over his Financials. He did not have the money to pay me what we had agreed along with the required raises he would have had to give his 5 other employees. His new offer was less than the job I held at the time so I declined. Within a month of the new wage being enacted, I noticed the increased prices of things we used every day. We couldn't afford milk or eggs any more. Her employer closed down shortly after that and we lost our (very cheap) apartment. Now I was homeless and broke, but did not qualify for any assistance (not that I would have taken it, since I think it is morally wrong to take things that don't belong to me). We ended up moving to another state with lower minimum wage. I worked for less than the minimum in the new town doing odd jobs until I found my current job. Two years later, I went back to wapakoneta to see that the business I had planned to work for was also closed. This is why I say that you can point to statistics about job totals and feel good, but the reality is that those small numbers of losses that seem negligible are in fact lives that are ruined or set back a decade with the stroke of a pen by people who are trying to help. So tell me again how Seattle's model proves that every town in america is exactly the same. When was the last time you were broke enough to steal? What happens when you don't know where your next meal is going to come from and even the slightest increase in prices could break your back? It took me nearly ten years to get out of the hole dug because of a slight wage increase that I though was for the best and wouldn't apply to my over minimum job. Now people want to do it again. I am slightly better insulated from the same fate, but not by much. I could probably now go six months instead of three. Are you that sure it will work that you would risk putting me back on the street? Deny it all you want but it does happen regardless of what your charts say. So please, step back up on your soap box and tell me how my life experience doesn't matter again. Maybe you will quote how it didn't happen to someone in Seattle a couple more times to make me feel better about it not happening to me again.

---

Sfb said:

Seattle has a fine time reading posts without needing paragraphs. I can show you a chart that proves it if you like.

---

Quote:

These are the exact same things that ran through my head, but I don't post serious responses to HU anymore. Ain't nobody got time for that!

---

Quote:

If Federal Overspending was good, we should all be shitting in high cotton right now.

---