Republicans V Democrats: The Difference

During the 2012 DNC Convention there were a large number of signs in the arena that said "Middle Class First". That's all fine and good but please stop with this 'we care so much about the poor' rhetoric.

No you freaking don't.

Here is a quiz. Which party and political philosophy were largely responsible the following programs? Liberals/Democrats?? Or Republicans/Conservatives??

Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Food Stamps
Obamacare expansion of Medicaid
Family Leave Act
SS Disability Insurance
Section 8 Housing Assistance
Grants and low interest loans for higher education
Head Start programs
Child care assistance programs.

To name a few
 
That's because your book is all about politics and money, not factual information that impacts lives.

I posted the study that demonstrated how the study you cling to was flawed, and how they came by their flawed results .. but studies aren't the point. The point is 2.6 unemployment and a booming city and job market. Refute that.

Seattle's high minimum wage hasn't cost jobs, study finds
http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattles-high-minimum-wage-hasnt-cost-jobs-study-finds/450850532

Tell me how a city in the midst of all the good news is so depressed by a study?

The Berkeley people claim they refuted the study. Go read the backstory on why the Mayor had the Berkeley study done. It was because he got word of the results of his own study.

You are trying to conflate two different issues. If your argument is the minimum waged should be increased to help low income people then the Seattle study refutes that. Arguing how Seattle did overall is irrelevant to the point of discussion of the poor.
 
Here is a quiz. Which party and political philosophy were largely responsible for spending too much money on the following programs? Liberals/Democrats?? Or Republicans/Conservatives??

Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Food Stamps
Obamacare expansion of Medicaid
Family Leave Act
SS Disability Insurance
Section 8 Housing Assistance
Grants and low interest loans for higher education
Head Start programs
Child care assistance programs.

To name a few

ftfy.....
 
The Berkeley people claim they refuted the study. Go read the backstory on why the Mayor had the Berkeley study done. It was because he got word of the results of his own study.

You are trying to conflate two different issues. If your argument is the minimum waged should be increased to help low income people then the Seattle study refutes that. Arguing how Seattle did overall is irrelevant to the point of discussion of the poor.

That's just insane .. and you're still running from the facts.

Low unemployment. No doubt lower than where you live
A booming and thriving economy
New businesses sprouting all over the city

You don't like the Berkley study because it refutes the nonsense you want to believe because you don't care about the poor.

You're attacking the democrats .. the only party that legislates for the poor .. while at the same time refusing to accept the benefits to the poor from democrats in a city most likely doing better than where you live.

Dude, this is kinda' typical for you. You attack democrats for doing things that you and your party would never do.

Here .. I'm going to slap you with truth again ..

No, Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Is Not Hurting Workers

Contrary to what one unrepresentative study found, the city’s workers are actually benefiting from the wage hike.

seattle-minimum-wage-15-ap-img.jpg


What happens when wages go up? Workers make more money. It seems intuitive, but now we have proof of concept. It’s happening in one of the first major cities to delve into the $15 wage experiment.

In April of 2015, Seattle implemented a new law that raised the city’s hourly base wage, with the ultimate target of reaching $15 per hour by 2021. The slow phase-in, which has increased the minimum wage each year at different levels depending on various factors like the size of the company paying a given worker, would eventually be indexed to inflation. In 2017, the increases finally began reaching the full $15 base wage, and now the nationwide “Fight for 15” campaign is finally bearing fruit in the industry where the mobilizations began: restaurants.

The study, by University of California-Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE), tracks the policy’s initial implementation phases, starting with firms with 500 or more employees without insurance. Other researchers found that, at least for restaurant workers, bosses are complying with the law, and workers benefit. Much of the improvement accrues to so-called “limited service” restaurants (such as fast-food franchises), where some of the poorest workers, in the most precarious positions, are concentrated.

According to economist Sylvia Allegretto, coauthor of the study, the analysis shows that under the $15 minimum wage “we do see, especially in the limited service sector…a large and statistically significant increase in wages.” They concluded that “the policy is working as much as you want the policy to increase the wages of low-wage workers.”

The researchers also stress that food-service workers are generally reflective of other local low-wage workers, like retail workers, indicating that similar industries would also see gains as the $15 hourly wage is phased in.

There are, of course, naysayers. A recent University of Washington study argued that Seattle’s wage hike would actually hurt workers overall because an hourly increase would be offset by a reduction of workers’ hours and decreased employment. But IRLE researchers and others challenged that study as excessively limited in scope, based on an unrepresentative sample of workers. The Berkeley researchers contend that their analysis focuses on material impacts in a more representative sector.
https://www.thenation.com/article/no-seattles-15-minimum-wage-is-not-hurting-workers/

You don't know what you're talking about because you're standing on right-wing meme, not statistics, not compassion, not even common sense.

No disrespect intended.
 
That's just insane .. and you're still running from the facts.

Low unemployment. No doubt lower than where you live
A booming and thriving economy
New businesses sprouting all over the city

You don't like the Berkley study because it refutes the nonsense you want to believe because you don't care about the poor.

You're attacking the democrats .. the only party that legislates for the poor .. while at the same time refusing to accept the benefits to the poor from democrats in a city most likely doing better than where you live.

Dude, this is kinda' typical for you. You attack democrats for doing things that you and your party would never do.

Here .. I'm going to slap you with truth again ..

No, Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Is Not Hurting Workers

Contrary to what one*unrepresentative study found, the city’s*workers are actually benefiting from the wage hike.

seattle-minimum-wage-15-ap-img.jpg


What happens when wages go up? Workers make more money. It seems intuitive, but now we have proof of concept. It’s happening in one of the first major cities to delve into the $15 wage experiment.

In April of 2015, Seattle implemented a new law that raised the city’s hourly base wage, with the ultimate target of reaching $15 per hour by 2021. The slow phase-in, which has increased the minimum wage each year at different levels depending on various factors like the size of the company paying a given worker, would eventually be indexed to inflation. In 2017, the increases finally began reaching the full $15 base wage, and now the nationwide “Fight for 15” campaign is finally bearing fruit in the industry where the mobilizations began: restaurants.

The study, by University of California-Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE), tracks the policy’s initial implementation phases, starting with firms with 500 or more employees without insurance. Other researchers found that, at least for restaurant workers, bosses are complying with the law, and workers benefit. Much of the improvement accrues to so-called “limited service” restaurants (such as fast-food franchises), where some of the poorest workers, in the most precarious positions, are concentrated.

According to economist Sylvia Allegretto, coauthor of the study, the analysis shows that under the $15 minimum wage “we do see, especially in the limited service sector…a large and statistically significant increase in wages.” They concluded that “the policy is working as much as you want the policy to increase the wages of low-wage workers.”

The researchers also stress that food-service workers are generally reflective of other local low-wage workers, like retail workers, indicating that similar industries would also see gains as the $15 hourly wage is phased in.

There are, of course, naysayers. A recent University of Washington study argued that Seattle’s wage hike would actually hurt workers overall because an hourly increase would be offset by a reduction of workers’ hours and decreased employment. But IRLE researchers and others challenged that study as excessively limited in scope, based on an unrepresentative sample of workers. The Berkeley researchers contend that their analysis focuses on material impacts in a more representative sector.
https://www.thenation.com/article/no-seattles-15-minimum-wage-is-not-hurting-workers/

You don't know what you're talking about because you're standing on right-wing meme, not statistics, not compassion, not even common sense.

No disrespect intended.

BAC, i'm standing on the study put out by the City of Seattle. Low income people got less hours and made less money. That's the study, not a meme. Desh tells me multiple times a day I hate facts. Well the facts of the study are what I just said. I posted them. Not sure what else i can do.

I can post you more that backs the study and rebukes the Berkeley study. How deep should we go?
 
BAC, i'm standing on the study put out by the City of Seattle. Low income people got less hours and made less money. That's the study, not a meme. Desh tells me multiple times a day I hate facts. Well the facts of the study are what I just said. I posted them. Not sure what else i can do.

I can post you more that backs the study and rebukes the Berkeley study. How deep should we go?

NO, you're not. You're standing on bullshit .. and you're STILL running from the truth.

REFUTE THIS ..

Seattle has a booming and thriving economy, lots of new businesses, low unemployment, and a hungry and robust job market.

Let me help you out .. YOU CAN'T. All you have is a flawed and unrepresentative study. but you can't deal with the reality of Seattle's market and economy.

You do hate facts .. because those are the facts and you're running from them. Not a study .. FACTS

I don't care what you post, I can post counter-evidence more than you .. just as I've been doing.

You're not even using common sense.

Angela Stowell, an owner and the chief executive of Ethan Stowell Restaurants, which has about 300 employees in 14 restaurants around the city .. “Of the 20 restaurateurs I am close friends with in Seattle,” she said, “none have told me they are hiring fewer staff due to the increased minimum wage.”
How a Rising Minimum Wage Affects Jobs in Seattle
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/business/economy/seattle-minimum-wage.html

Checkmate
 
BAC, i'm standing on the study put out by the City of Seattle. Low income people got less hours and made less money. That's the study, not a meme. Desh tells me multiple times a day I hate facts. Well the facts of the study are what I just said. I posted them. Not sure what else i can do.

I can post you more that backs the study and rebukes the Berkeley study. How deep should we go?

the study BAC relies on compares seattle not with any other cities but on a fictional seattle that never enacted a wage increase. Given that the comparison is not based on a real life city with verifiable numbers you can just make up any numbers you want for fictional seattle and use that as a comparison.
 
NO, you're not. You're standing on bullshit .. and you're STILL running from the truth.

REFUTE THIS ..

Seattle has a booming and thriving economy, lots of new businesses, low unemployment, and a hungry and robust job market.

Let me help you out .. YOU CAN'T. All you have is a flawed and unrepresentative study. but you can't deal with the reality of Seattle's market and economy.

You do hate facts .. because those are the facts and you're running from them. Not a study .. FACTS

I don't care what you post, I can post counter-evidence more than you .. just as I've been doing.

You're not even using common sense.

Angela Stowell, an owner and the chief executive of Ethan Stowell Restaurants, which has about 300 employees in 14 restaurants around the city .. “Of the 20 restaurateurs I am close friends with in Seattle,” she said, “none have told me they are hiring fewer staff due to the increased minimum wage.”
How a Rising Minimum Wage Affects Jobs in Seattle
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/business/economy/seattle-minimum-wage.html

Checkmate

Your article states "Most seriously, skeptics argue that the researchers confused the effects of a minimum-wage increase with the effects of a hot labor market. During a boom, which Seattle has experienced in recent years, employers bid up wages, effectively replacing low-wage jobs with higher-paying ones.

Under such a scenario, one would expect to see a decline in the overall number of hours worked in low-wage jobs. In their place would be a significant increase in hours worked at somewhat higher-paying jobs."

as justification for why the washington study is wrong. Yet no data at all is presented that there is actually this boom in higher paying jobs. In fact data suggests that wages in the US have been stagnant so far for the middle and lower classes.
 
its also funny that BAC says cawacko hates facts when his very own article states the washington study had access to a lot more data than the berkley one.

"The University of Washington authors held one significant advantage over other economists studying the issue: detailed data on hours and earnings for workers affected by the increase."

which means the washington study is based on the most verifiable data aka facts than any other. And again fictional seattle is a made up place.
 
Your article states "Most seriously, skeptics argue that the researchers confused the effects of a minimum-wage increase with the effects of a hot labor market. During a boom, which Seattle has experienced in recent years, employers bid up wages, effectively replacing low-wage jobs with higher-paying ones.

Under such a scenario, one would expect to see a decline in the overall number of hours worked in low-wage jobs. In their place would be a significant increase in hours worked at somewhat higher-paying jobs."

as justification for why the washington study is wrong. Yet no data at all is presented that there is actually this boom in higher paying jobs. In fact data suggests that wages in the US have been stagnant so far for the middle and lower classes.

Again, all you and Ca have is a flawed study and a flawed right-wing meme. I presented a different study that demonstrates that flaws in the one you're relying on, but why rely on studies alone? when REALITY awaits judgement?

I have not only that study along with many others, but I also have REALITY on my side. Try arguing against the REALITY.

Seattle is booming and unemployment is historically low. Neither businesses nor workers have experienced any appreciable drop-off in hiring nor employment .. as demonstrated.

Those are facts and I don't believe that you will fare any better with them than Ca did.
 
Democrats have hearts.

We care about the poor.

Republicans have no heart.

Right....the democrats care about the "poor" as a voter base, the reason the great society welfare programs were created to purchase a poor voter base by dangling a carrot in front of the minorities. Don't believe history actual? Here is a direct quote from the president who instigated the great society welfare giveaway programs for one reason.....to purchase the votes of the poor especially the blacks who had historically supported the Republican Party because it was the party that was started to end slavery and fought against the democrat "JIM CROW" laws and the democrat "KKK" supporters, and the democrats that began GUN CONTROL legislation to keep guns out of the hands of the now free black populations in the south.

The damnest thing? They have spent over 22 trillion over the 50 years purchasing and maintaining that voter base with the minorities still having a poverty index that has not moved since 1967..."Just enough to keep them voting democrat" and generational welfare people.

LBJ clearly said, "I'll have these niggers voting democrat for the next 200 years...." when he was speaking to a couple of southern state governors on air force one in relation to the true intent of the democrat great society programs, as they thought he had went off the rails...attempting to get the blacks to vote democrat...the party that had enslaved them just a few decades previously.

Yep...the democrats sure love poor people, especially black poor folk, except they historically wanted to "own them" and when they could not own them they wanted to "hang them"...and then segregate them through a series of JIM CROW laws.

Indeed as Johnson was also quoted, "These Negroes, they're getting pertty uppity these days, and that's a problem for us (democrats) since they've got something they've never had before...political pull..........we'll figure out a way to give them a little something, but not too much, just enough to quite them down....."

Its the (wink, wink) Republican's that have no heart, they support the killing of infant children in the womb, pulling the plug on ill patients, they attempted to make their own nation with (the civil war) because they wanted to continue to own people....then they created the KKK...and as recently as 2010 had a former high official in the senate that supported and held office in that racist organization (Robert Byrd).....and of course who could forget the way those damn evil republicans voted tooth an nail against the civil rights of women and minorities in congress in denying them the right to vote and own property...and the way a president ( Wilson) helped institute JIM CROW law at the federal level...segregating the minorities.....

MY BAD...history actual documents that it was the DEMOCRAT PARTY...the party that likes women's rights, poor minorities etc., that showed their love and devotion to the poor over the course of this nation's history. But the greatest trick of all was when all those evil republicans moved south and was replaced by the true democrats in the 1960s that took their place in the north. LMAO

www.quotes.net/authors/Lyndon B. Johnson

clashdaily.com/2014/03/allen-west-lbj-ill-niggers-voting-democrat-next-200-years/
 
Last edited:
Republicans are horrible people. It's cool that society has contrived from itself a shit vortex that sucks the worst of humanity within. All that is left to do is flush.

And also use one of those blue thingys that makes it look clean.

It's like "build it, and they will come." Well, Repuke leader built a party platform filled with all the most disgusting shit, and sure enough, drosophila Repugnicanus is circling and laying maggots and vomitting on their food and sucking it back up and having a cesspool party. Trump, the king stinkbug at the shitshow.
 
LOL. I will vote for Nancy Pelosi in2018. I will be compassionate.

I mean Desh and TTQ64 will still call me racist but I will vote for Nancy
 
I can't read this rambling but McConnell said he was willing to work with Obama if Obama was willing to work with him and if not he wanted to make him a one term President. Not sure why he said that publicly but point being he also said he was willing to work with him.

Paul Ryan and Speaker Boehner tried to work with Obama many times. Each time Obama kept moving the goal post, and with Ryan, basically spit in his face at his budget plan.

Boehner sacrificed his entire career trying to work with Obama.

So its true that Republicans didn't work with Obama on many issues, but its NOT true to suggest they didn't try. Obama wanted it his way or the highway, and got burned.
 
Back
Top