Minimum Wage Hike

[Cancel 2016.2]

I love watching SF meltdown whenever Krugman is posted.

I love watching Darla's obsession with Krugman blind her to the fact that he is a partisan propagandist. She then insists anyone who disagrees with her beloved hack is having a 'meltdown'. Truly comical.

It's fascinating just how much smarter than this world renowned, nobel prize winning economist SF is.

And Obama won the Nobel peace prize. yeah... lot of validity with that organization. That said, do you even know what he won the nobel prize in economics for?

 

[zappasguitar]

LMAO... wrong... he is a partisan hack and a shill for the Democrats. You quite obviously don't read his articles.

And yet once again all you can do is post your FEELINGS on the matter...not one cite to corroborate your opinion.

Odd, given that I did indeed counter his 'points'

I'm sorry you feel that "first mistake" or "and now back to more propaganda from Krugman..." is a sufficient response to prove you've refuted his statements. You countered nothing, merely made your feelings known.

Wrong again. Unlike Krugman, I did cite the BLS data on those earning minimum wages. Tell me, what did Krugman cite as evidence to support his claims? Oh yeah, nothing.

Well good...at least once you bothered to find the facts to back up your point.

Um... dearest Zappa... Krugman himself stated that minimum wage hikes are a very controversial and highly debated topic as to whether or not they work to the benefit of the economy. He then stated it was 'clear' the answer was yes. One need not provide evidence that a person is wrong when the person does it on his own.

Oh my...minimum wage is a highly controversial topic?

And highly debated?

Well that there proves without a shadow of a doubt that you are right...because if the subject is "controversial" and "highly debated" then that must mean the author's points were wrong...LOL!

LMAO... tell us... what 'facts' did he provide? List them out for us so that we can discuss.

No, let's deal with your lack of refutation first.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And yet once again all you can do is post your FEELINGS on the matter...not one cite to corroborate your opinion.

LOL... as I stated, you clearly do not read his articles.

I'm sorry you feel that "first mistake" or "and now back to more propaganda from Krugman..." is a sufficient response to prove you've refuted his statements. You countered nothing, merely made your feelings known.

again dearest little Zappa... Krugman himself refuted it. I just said that and you ignored that entire portion of my comment. Which shows you wish not to discuss, but instead wish to simply make blind accusations.

Well good...at least once you bothered to find the facts to back up your point.

unlike Krugman

Oh my...minimum wage is a highly controversial topic?

And highly debated?

Well that there proves without a shadow of a doubt that you are right...because if the subject is "controversial" and "highly debated" then that must mean the author's points were wrong...LOL!

It does prove that his point of stating that a hike in minimum wage was 'clearly a yes' as to whether or not it was a good thing most certainly was wrong. How can it be 'clear' if there is evidence to say it is not a good thing and when many economists think he is flat out wrong. That would indicate that it is anything but clear.

No, let's deal with your lack of refutation first.

Except I did provide links to evidence to back my positions, Krugman did not. Yet you want to hold me to a standard higher than him. It simply shows how desperate you are. You flail away with your absurdity thinking it makes you appear intelligent. It does not. You are looking quite foolish right now.

 

[tinfoil]

Krugman even discounts his argument, admitting that it does some damage.




Being the premier hackonomist, he ignores it and claims it will have a positive impact, even though there is no real reason to believe that.

The policy hurts the unskilled and can make skilled workers more attractive. Proponents of this hike are really the ones saying, "screw the entry level workers."

No! They're well meaning. They want to increase the wealth of the working poor. But they are too ingorant in economic theory and they allow themselves to be tricked by Krugman even though he admits the flaw in his argument.

They are not saying "fuck the poor unskilled worker", they're saying "We're too stupid to understand this math stuff so we'll trust the guy at the news paper"

 

[tinfoil]

And yet once again all you can do is post your FEELINGS on the matter...not one cite to corroborate your opinion.





I'm sorry you feel that "first mistake" or "and now back to more propaganda from Krugman..." is a sufficient response to prove you've refuted his statements. You countered nothing, merely made your feelings known.





Well good...at least once you bothered to find the facts to back up your point.





Oh my...minimum wage is a highly controversial topic?

And highly debated?

Well that there proves without a shadow of a doubt that you are right...because if the subject is "controversial" and "highly debated" then that must mean the author's points were wrong...LOL!




No, let's deal with your lack of refutation first.

Stick to worn out hippie music, buddy, because you don't know shit about economics.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

https://prospect.org/article/minimum-wage-101

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/interview-dube-eitc-and-minimum-wage-complements

Here's some more really great info on raising the minimum wage that backs Krugman up. And in fact, it really does matter if you raise the minimum wage from around where it is now, and you raise it to 20 dollars an hour, a moronic comparison as usual from the board drama queen.

 

[zappasguitar]

LOL... as I stated, you clearly do not read his articles.

Which doesn't change the fact you provided nothing to corroborate your feelings about Krugman.

again dearest little Zappa... Krugman himself refuted it. I just said that and you ignored that entire portion of my comment. Which shows you wish not to discuss, but instead wish to simply make blind accusations.

Still got nothing more substantive than "first mistake" or "and now back to more propaganda from Krugman" to refute Krugman's points? You thouhgt it was an acceptable answer earlier...why not continue to trot it out so you can hide behind it.

It does prove that his point of stating that a hike in minimum wage was 'clearly a yes' as to whether or not it was a good thing most certainly was wrong. How can it be 'clear' if there is evidence to say it is not a good thing and when many economists think he is flat out wrong. That would indicate that it is anything but clear.

What is "clear" is that there is also evidence that says it's a good thing and many more economists think he is right on the money.

Except I did provide links to evidence to back my positions, Krugman did not. Yet you want to hold me to a standard higher than him. It simply shows how desperate you are. You flail away with your absurdity thinking it makes you appear intelligent. It does not. You are looking quite foolish right now.

You provided ONE LINK...to the bls site regarding the number of minimum wage workers and their demographic makeup...other than that...you provided the same tired feelings.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

https://prospect.org/article/minimum-wage-101

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/interview-dube-eitc-and-minimum-wage-complements

Here's some more really great info on raising the minimum wage that backs Krugman up. And in fact, it really does matter if you raise the minimum wage from around where it is now, and you raise it to 20 dollars an hour, a moronic comparison as usual from the board drama queen.

Of course it matters if it is $9 vs. $20 as it is a degree of magnitude. The higher you go the worse the effect will be.

Quite humorous that you run to the American Prospect for 'backing up' Krugmans nonsense. Amazing how another liberal site would back his crap up.

Again, the majority of those on min wage are 25 and under. A fact that continues to escape you.

Now perhaps you will answer the question that Rana and Zappa have yet to do...

Where does this extra money for the hike come from?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Which doesn't change the fact you provided nothing to corroborate your feelings about Krugman.

Again dear little Zappa... it shows that you don't read his articles. Anyone that does understands he is a partisan hack.

Still got nothing more substantive than "first mistake" or "and now back to more propaganda from Krugman" to refute Krugman's points? You thouhgt it was an acceptable answer earlier...why not continue to trot it out so you can hide behind it.

If you are going to ignore my answers, why is it that I should continue to answer the same question over and over again for you?

What is "clear" is that there is also evidence that says it's a good thing and many more economists think he is right on the money.

Really... where is that clear Zappa? You continue to ask for data to back up my assertions... where is the link that backs up yours?

You provided ONE LINK...to the bls site regarding the number of minimum wage workers and their demographic makeup...other than that...you provided the same tired feelings.

No Zappa... you clearly missed the other link and you clearly did not read the article in the OP.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=141

bumping for poor lil Zappa.

 

[zappasguitar]

Again dear little Zappa... it shows that you don't read his articles. Anyone that does understands he is a partisan hack.

Again, dear little Super...I ask for some evidence to corroborate your feelings about Krugman, and once more your inability to come up with a more substantive answer than "well you don't read his articles. Anyone who does understands he is a partisan hack" highlights how unable you are to counter his claims with anything other than your feelings.

If you are going to ignore my answers, why is it that I should continue to answer the same question over and over again for you?

Because you have yet to satisfactorily answer several questions.

Really... where is that clear Zappa? You continue to ask for data to back up my assertions... where is the link that backs up yours?

Typical...you of course are allowed to make ridiculous claims over and over and provide no data to back up your assertions, but I am again expected to immediately provide corroboration for my claims.

No Zappa... you clearly missed the other link and you clearly did not read the article in the OP.

Wow...resorting to that old Rightie trick of repeating a lie over and over until everyone believes it? Im afraid it isn't going to work no matter how many times you lie and claim I haven't read the article.

You are clearly acting on your feelings and making patently outrageous, completely unfounded claims based solely on your anger. It must be the best you've got because you've fallen back on it three times now...which is an indictment of just how pathetically weak your case is.

 

[Bonestorm]

So SF shits on a citation to Krugman while relying on a "study" by Employment Policies Institute? Yikes.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So SF shits on a citation to Krugman while relying on a "study" by Employment Policies Institute? Yikes.

LMAO... So Dung once again has nothing to support his position? Shocking.

I suppose the BLS data set is also highly partisan. My point about Krugman is that he didn't provide anything to back up his assertions. He has been a political hack for a long time now. Much like yourself.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... So Dung once again has nothing to support his position? Shocking.

I suppose the BLS data set is also highly partisan. My point about Krugman is that he didn't provide anything to back up his assertions. He has been a political hack for a long time now. Much like yourself.

Dude, I'm not stating a position on anything other than your asininity in shitting on Krugman while citing to a "study" created by a right-wing "think tank" set up by a public relations outfit run by a right-wing hack.

 

[GoBears]

Whose head would explode if there was a maximum wage?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Argue the economics all you want too.....politically Republicans are stupid to fight an increase in the minimum wage. Tie it to the rate of inflation and be done with it so that Democrats can't exploit it to political advantage. You know the old saying "Choose your fights well"? This isn't a fight Republican want to make or need to make and it can hurt them with demographics they are trying to attract. I mean Democrats are just toying with Republicans on this issue as they know what the knee jerk reaction will be. Sure enough, Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot, politically speaking, over this.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Of course it matters if it is $9 vs. $20 as it is a degree of magnitude. The higher you go the worse the effect will be.

Quite humorous that you run to the American Prospect for 'backing up' Krugmans nonsense. Amazing how another liberal site would back his crap up.

Again, the majority of those on min wage are 25 and under. A fact that continues to escape you.

Now perhaps you will answer the question that Rana and Zappa have yet to do...

Where does this extra money for the hike come from?

Just out of curiosity, does talking to people as if they were retarded work for you in real life? How about with women? I am always curious as to what sort of reaction you expect from posts like this. I am the kind of woman who responds "go fuck yourself" when a man talks to me in this manner, but perhaps you have had success with it? What sad little bitches they must be.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Again, dear little Super...I ask for some evidence to corroborate your feelings about Krugman, and once more your inability to come up with a more substantive answer than "well you don't read his articles. Anyone who does understands he is a partisan hack" highlights how unable you are to counter his claims with anything other than your feelings.

Ok, you are quite obviously not intelligent enough to grasp this, so let me spell it out for you. It is an observation from having read countless articles from Krugman regarding what should be done to fix the economy. He continuously bashes Republicans and makes up one straw man after another in order to bash them. He is a warped Keynesian which is a position taken by the bulk of the Democratic party leaders in DC. By warped I mean they are warping what Keynes theory is to meet what they want it to be.

Because you have yet to satisfactorily answer several questions.

So you ignore answers because they are not the answers you want to hear. Understood. Essentially you are saying you are worthless when it comes to this discussion. (like so many others)

Typical...you of course are allowed to make ridiculous claims over and over and provide no data to back up your assertions, but I am again expected to immediately provide corroboration for my claims.

So in your world, I should back up my claims, but the author of the article in the OP doesn't have to and neither do you? Typical liberal bullshit.

Wow...resorting to that old Rightie trick of repeating a lie over and over until everyone believes it? Im afraid it isn't going to work no matter how many times you lie and claim I haven't read the article.

Had you read the article in the OP Zappa, then you would know that Krugman contradicted himself, just as I stated he did. So either you didn't read it or you are too ignorant to understand it. I will let you tell us which of the two it is.

You are clearly acting on your feelings and making patently outrageous, completely unfounded claims based solely on your anger. It must be the best you've got because you've fallen back on it three times now...which is an indictment of just how pathetically weak your case is.

LMAO... and there you have it folks... as soon as the left on this board comprehend they are on the losing side of an argument, they proclaim their opponent to be 'angry'.

What unfounded claim are you referring to Zappa?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Ok, you are quite obviously not intelligent enough to grasp this, so let me spell it out for you. It is an observation from having read countless articles from Krugman regarding what should be done to fix the economy. He continuously bashes Republicans and makes up one straw man after another in order to bash them. He is a warped Keynesian which is a position taken by the bulk of the Democratic party leaders in DC. By warped I mean they are warping what Keynes theory is to meet what they want it to be.



So you ignore answers because they are not the answers you want to hear. Understood. Essentially you are saying you are worthless when it comes to this discussion. (like so many others)


So in your world, I should back up my claims, but the author of the article in the OP doesn't have to and neither do you? Typical liberal bullshit.



Had you read the article in the OP Zappa, then you would know that Krugman contradicted himself, just as I stated he did. So either you didn't read it or you are too ignorant to understand it. I will let you tell us which of the two it is.



LMAO... and there you have it folks... as soon as the left on this board comprehend they are on the losing side of an argument, they proclaim their opponent to be 'angry'.

What unfounded claim are you referring to Zappa?

They were backed up. And I posted more links. Krugman also delves further into it on his blog. YOu just don't like the sources and prefer your right wing "studies".

I have stipulated that you can find studies to say what you want, either way. You are just a bully who thinks if you type "louder" you win. Mostly you just make an ass out of yourself.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just out of curiosity, does talking to people as if they were retarded work for you in real life? How about with women? I am always curious as to what sort of reaction you expect from posts like this. I am the kind of woman who responds "go fuck yourself" when a man talks to me in this manner, but perhaps you have had success with it? What sad little bitches they must be.

You really really need to stop injecting your own emotions into the words typed on the screen.

But I know you must deflect now to your standard 'oh you an evil man for talking like that' line of bullshit given that you are incapable of answering that simple question.

Funny how liberals won't answer it...

Where does the money come from?

Simple question. You support the minimum wage increase, yet you have no idea who is going to pay for it.