mikecgrimes

Huh? You clearly lack an understanding of how business works, by the way in the examples I used a non minimum wage was used. Living wage is such a silly concept as it has very little to do with reality. It's simply a rough estimate of what it would take an adult to function and has nothing to do with the value of labor. I get it you don't care you are in favor of shutting down Main street. We can start every response with insults or we can actually discuss economics and reality. This is a simple question, I know people refuse to answer questions but if you want to continue the debate answer this question? If nobody found a wage under a proposed minimum wage agreeable would we need minimum wage laws?

The only thing propping this economy up is businesses with low profit margins. You want the print shop on Main street in a town of 600 to shut down. You want the 4 high school kids who work there to be out of work. This is who the Democrat party is they have such an angry attitude that they don't care who they actually hurt so long as they feel like they hurt who they want to hurt. Gotta make a living wage, never mind the fact your dad is a farmer who us up at 4 AM along with 2 of your brothers and the only thing keeping the family afloat is the $8.75 an hour you make at Merl's print shop. Meanwhile Vern your 63 year old co worker just wants to help keep Mearl from having to shut down the business his grandpa built in 1912. Meanwhile Wal Mart and cub foods probably will be just fine at $15 an hour, they already have machines taking over the checkout lanes, at $14.30 an hour it becomes cost effective to have robots stock the shelves. But hey some random #'s that you aren't capable of interpreting suggest Seattle wasn't a complete disaster so lets continue to make otherwise agreeable wages illegal and assume nothing bad will ever come of it. Minimum wage laws end up being so statistically insignificant that the negative effect never shines brightly, but they are nothing more then a law for the sake of having a law, and are just a symptom of the problem that is a do something legislative body. Why not raise it to a level 25% above the historic inflationary high? If there was actually a net positive effect why would that stop at the exact point of a "living wage" which is nothing more then an estimate.

I asked two questions care to answer them or would you rather throw out insults? If you want a minimum wage you better be willing to prop up failed business owners. Work is work.

You can't measure job numbers at point A and Job numbers at point B and make any conclusion on any single factor. That would be like crediting an $8 minimum wage elsewhere for similar job growth. There is no question a law making otherwise agreeable wages illegal will cost jobs.

Do we ban volunteering? Do we send some cash to owners of failed businesses? I just see nothing being accomplished by having a minimum wage. What about the college graduate who has settled into a job paying $75,000 who doesn't realize they could easily make $150,000 what should we do to prop that guy up? If your worth $15 an hour ask for it. You'll get it. If your not worth $15 an hour you'll be the first one out of a job when the minimum legally acceptable contract has no possibility of including you. As long as the wages at low level jobs is going up why should we even worry about it. 38 year olds who still work at McDonalds should be encouraged to try to do better, and then we should accept that they like the deal they have.

I have no objection to any of that so long as you don't tell the church or even the cake maker what they have to do. Less laws not different laws.

Hi I'm a member of the tea party. If your wondering why we exist read this. We'll raise your taxes and then raise them again for trying to avoid them. If our taxes drive you out of business we'll fine you. You owe us money just for existing. We need to make some new laws so we can see if they work cause we just have to get something done.

And the get somtten dun crowd does?

Do you need me to say it over and over again? He didn't vote in favor of bad legislation for the sake of "getting something done". WE DON'T WANT ANY NEW LAWS. WE DON'T NEED ANY NEW LAWS.

The question asked since you refused to answer was how long ago was Al Gore's 10 year warning? The science is anything but clear, but if enough people repeat that phrase I guess it makes it true? Now we get called deniers which I assume was supposed to be some sort of an insult. So let me ask you this lets just assume Al Gore's 10 year warning was 10 years off and we really better do something about it now. What can government do that would actually make a difference, and are Democrats willing to do those things. What are you willing to do, what are you willing to make me and everybody (and by everybody i actually mean everybody) do? If we need to save the planet as we continue to hear the science is clear when are Democrats going to start to be willing to try to save the planet. The science is clear. Was getting on a computer and typing those insults good for the planet or bad for the planet? Did it increase or decrease CO2 levels? If your side lived it instead of talking it I'd actually question my opinion.

And this is why Democrats will lose this election. We already have laws, we've had a country that has functioned for nearly 250 years. We're sick of new laws and new promises that only create more debt and no real solutions. When Democrats are ready to repeal some laws let us know until then no laws is far greater of an accomplishment then new laws.

Who says he expected the other side to cave. Your saying he needs to pass a bunch of laws and I'm telling you that's not what voters want when they elected him.

Climate change huh? Remind me how long ago Al Gore gave the 10 year warning.

When New Hampshire voted we still thought Rommney won Iowa He did just fine. South Carolina is a must win for Cruz otherwise Rubio will just about sweep his way to the nomination.

Cruz just about out performed Rommney and Santorum combined

No. We already have a set of laws. Sometimes we need new or different laws, but not often. It would be nice to change some but if the other side isn't willing to agree to those changes what exactly would you suggest he do?

It was probably the right move. His opponents closed on him as you would expect. If he was in that debate his entire campaign might have blown up. Hard to win a Republican race when your a Democrat.

Sounds about right as none of the other establishment candidates hit over 2%, the question is how far does Trump fade in New Hampshire. The big story is turnout was way up and Trump underperformed big time. Republicans were never gonna let it happen no matter how much Democrats wished he won the nomination. Hopefully the idiot drops out after South Carolina.

What do you think the original tea party would have done in the current climate? Just say oh well things are out of control lets not do anything to stop it?

While I don't really think socialism could work I as a tea partier would rather have pure socialism then what we have now. I think on most issues we are far better off going to one extreme or the other even if it's the extreme I disagree with. If socialist had the same point of view we could get somewhere. I think people mislable what the tea party really is for political purpose so I get why people are afraid of us, but we want what the socialist want we just have a different and in our opinion better way to get there.

For Bernie to deliver on his promises it's tough to see this not being true or close to true. I know he has some tax the rich ideas but there's only so much money you can get, and you can never apply a tax on what you would collect under current conditions. Oddly the same is true with Trump, usually a third party type candidate like him who has large support has national dept at the top of his list.

If you were going to support Trump you would already support him. Trump might get 2 or even 3% of that support but the majority will go to Cruz.

I get being against Sanders I can't comprehend being for Clinton which is why I knocked O'Malley up over his poll #'s.

I agree Cruz has peaked except one thing Ben Carson is still polling at 10% so when he drops out Cruz goes back up. Problem is Iowa is probably one of the strongest states for Cruz so that factor doesn't help as much as if Iowa came after Carson was gone. Also as for Trump getting momentum this is different then Romney getting momentum and the party deciding OK fine pretty quick. Trump can have a clear win going into the convention and a decent percent of the party will still do whatever it takes to try to stop him. There's still a lot of good stuff that can be put out against Trump, it might be that the establishment has decided to let Trump do well early to squash Cruz, these are really smart political people if you know you can beat Trump later why not let him knock out some of the competition.

I think I need to alter my guess again as Bushmentum doesn't seem to exist. Cruz 32 Trump 22 Rubio 18. Sanders 53 Clinton 40 O'Malley 7