hostileuniverse said:

And, I'm pretty sure the SJW's here have absolutely no idea what your metaphor is referring to, lol

---

akira_akuma said:

hostileuniverse said:

And, I'm pretty sure the SJW's here have absolutely no idea what your metaphor is referring to, lol

---

another term that you learned recently that you're misusing again. bravo.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

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?

---

1.5 Trillion is 75% of 2 Trillion, not 150%. Just throwing that out there. It was increased by 75%.

---

i was stoned when i wrote that.  Just use the same example.  75 percent increase in Federal spending justified by what?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

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:

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.

---

As you may know, I'm a data guy, because when people disagree on a theory, you always can look at the data to see what's right.

I appreciate you posting your city because we can look at the actual unemployment data for Wapakoneta:



And below is a chart showing minimum wage in Ohio relative to the Federal Minimum wage:



From the second chart, you can see that minimum wage in Ohio was raised above the Federal minimum wage on 1 Jan 2007.  The first chart shows that unemployment in Wapakoneta or Ohio relative to national unemployment didn't get any worse at that time.  Then in 2009, the Federal minimum wage jumped up to that of Ohio, and Federal unemployment got better relative to Wapakoneta and Ohio.  After the recession, minimum wage in Ohio went back above the Federal level again, and unemployment then got a lot better relative to the national unemployment both in Wapakoneta and the entire state of Ohio.

In other words, the actual data clearly shows a minimum wage increase had no negative effect on unemployment (in fact, it appears to show a positive effect).  ANOTHER piece of evidence in support of raising the minimum wage!

starfire_xes said:

You are a master of the logical fallacy.  This is cum hoc ergo propter hoc--there isn't more money spent in most of these states by the federal governement because of the failed policies of state government and the number of poor people.

Most of these states have higher federal spending per tax dollar because they have small populations and large government facilities .  New Mexico and Alaska are prime examples.

---

Sfb said:

Wonderful that the chart shows it works. It cost me everything I had worked to build, and it took me five years to fix it, but that chart should have been enough to pay my rent. I should have thought of that then. Better for some I suppose and my loss was a necessary casualty to help the people in the same situation I was just about to get out of. Thanks for wanting to let me sacrifice again.

---

Sfb said:

Wonderful that the chart shows it works. It cost me everything I had worked to build, and it took me five years to fix it, but that chart should have been enough to pay my rent. I should have thought of that then. Better for some I suppose and my loss was a necessary casualty to help the people in the same situation I was just about to get out of. Thanks for wanting to let me sacrifice again.

---

hostileuniverse said:

You have to understand, progressives care not for the individual, if it helps what they see as the "greater good" then your sacrifice on the alter is justified.

---

The Straw Man King. 

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

hostileuniverse said:

You have to understand, progressives care not for the individual, if it helps what they see as the "greater good" then your sacrifice on the alter is justified.

---

The Straw Man King. 

---

akira_akuma said:

oh this is even worse. because you also don't have any clue what a progressive is...just stick to "regressive" so we can all know that you are at least attempting to learn something.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

starfire_xes said:

You are a master of the logical fallacy.  This is cum hoc ergo propter hoc--there isn't more money spent in most of these states by the federal governement because of the failed policies of state government and the number of poor people.

Most of these states have higher federal spending per tax dollar because they have small populations and large government facilities .  New Mexico and Alaska are prime examples.

---

Can you back up your claim that this is the reason?  What about low population states like Delaware and New Hampshire that pay in much more per capita than they take?

---

Maybe their per-capita amount paid in is because they are wealthier and have higher marginal tax rates on average>??? DUH....isn't that what you like?

"Federal government spending is a major driver of the New Mexico economy. In 2005 the federal government spent $2.03 on New Mexico for every dollar of tax revenue collected from the state. This rate of return is higher than any other state in the Union.[17] The federal government is also a major employer in New Mexico providing more than a quarter of the state's jobs.

Many of the federal jobs relate to the military; the state hosts three air force bases (Kirtland Air Force Base, Holloman Air Force Base, and Cannon Air Force Base); a testing range (White Sands Missile Range); and an army proving ground and maneuver range (Fort Bliss – McGregor Range).

In addition to the National Guard, New Mexico has a New Mexico State Defense Force. Other minor locations include the New Mexico Army National Guard Headquarters in Santa Fe county and the National Guard Armory in far northern Rio Rancho in Sandoval county.

Other federal installations include national observatories and the technology labs of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). SNL conducts electronic and industrial research on Kirtland AFB, on the southeast side of Albuquerque. These installations also include the missile and spacecraft proving grounds at White Sands. Other federal agencies such as the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, and the United States Bureau of Land Management are a big part of the state's rural employment base."

ThaT IS from wiki.  Do you think the massive spending is the government paying out food stamps to the small population or paying for major military and research facilities>?

That's a better explanation than the state's population.  But I maintain that red states are still a lot poorer, and need a lot more help as evidenced by this chart:

starfire_xes said:

Maybe their per-capita amount paid in is because they are wealthier and have higher marginal tax rates on average???

---

Precisely! 

starfire_xes said:

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/the-8-least-expensive-states-to-live-in-the-u-s.html/?a=viewall

State median income means NOTHING unless you take into account cost of living, which is highest in DEMOCRAT states. 

your argument holds no water at all.

States receive more or less tax money per capita for a number of reasons other than being poor.  If you have a small population and high median income, you will pay a higher amount of federal tax per capita than a state that has a small population, low income.'


States with major military and goverrnment research facilities and small populations will receive more tax dollars returned than paid in, especially in low cost of living states.

It haw NOTHING to do with how poor the state is due to republicans.  You should be ashamed of yourself to post such bullshit meaningless statistics like that.

---