2012 Elections results finally in US officially applies 4 Banana Republic status @ UN

[BGChuckLee]

Welfare is a double edged sword. I don't object to giving the poor money to keep themselves alive, but I do object to creating dependance on welfare. If a person can get by on welfare, they have no incentive to actually go and get a job. Indeed, some forms of welfare simply create more problems by adding more money (i.e. having extra kids gets you more money, so the incentive will be to produce more children).

Getting rid of welfare won't work unless we first sort out the economy so that business (especially small business) with thrive. Competition needs to be a factor. The minimum wage is also something that holds this back; it sounds great on paper, but in reality, the government cannot rationally judge how much a job should be worth to a company...only the company can do that. Some jobs are not worth $7.25 an hour, period.

Well said. Another argument is from the employee's perspective. If I want to work for $5 an hour, why are people stopping me?

[Tiberius]

A contract is an agreement between two entities; the employee and the employer. People are not forced into taking a job (that would be illegal). Both entities agree on an amount for a salary. If an employee doesn't think the employer is offering enough for their labor, they can demand more, or cease negotiations. Likewise, if an employer thinks the employee is demanding too much, they can negotiate or try to find someone else.

There are poor people out in the world who would love to find a job, any job. Of course, the more money the better, but when the government sets a minimum wage, it just restricts companies (especially smaller businesses) from hiring people.

[Ryantology]

Well said. Another argument is from the employee's perspective. If I want to work for $5 an hour, why are people stopping me?

I'll ignore the fact that your argument has zero practical value and just remind you that nobody is stopping you from returning the balance of your money to your employer if you feel you're being overpaid.

If you cut out the minimum wage (or keep it so low that it doesn't even come close to constituting a living wage for more than an individual), more people will need more assistance to survive. That's why every Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers almost half a million dollars per year.

And, I don't buy the 'I didn't consent' argument. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and use resources I help pay for. Go someplace where the government isn't capable of interfering with your free markets. I hear Somalia is a libertarian paradise these days. Don't forget your armed guards.

Of course, the more money the better, but when the government sets a minimum wage, it just restricts companies (especially smaller businesses) from hiring people.

If a CEO is average, he or she is making 10 million dollars a year. Clearly you have no shortage of companies which can afford to hire a few hundred more people. The Waltons are worth almost $100 billion. Why can't Wal-mart pay workers a living wage? Why do they cut hours and benefits every chance they get? And, this is, of course, typical behavior for large corporations (and it's the small business owners who often have to subsidize it, when the Wal-marts of the world aren't consuming them like Pacman pellets, that is).

You can say what you like about socialism, but unrestrained capitalism is destructive for everyone who isn't on top, and the evidence is all over America.

[BGChuckLee]

Well said. Another argument is from the employee's perspective. If I want to work for $5 an hour, why are people stopping me?

I'll ignore the fact that your argument has zero practical value and just remind you that nobody is stopping you from returning the balance of your money to your employer if you feel you're being overpaid.

If you cut out the minimum wage (or keep it so low that it doesn't even come close to constituting a living wage for more than an individual), more people will need more assistance to survive. That's why every Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers almost half a million dollars per year.

And, I don't buy the 'I didn't consent' argument. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and use resources I help pay for. Go someplace where the government isn't capable of interfering with your free markets. I hear Somalia is a libertarian paradise these days. Don't forget your armed guards.

Again, this is what I was speaking about when people oversimplify economics. If you set a minimum wage- that means EVERYONE's required wage goes up, as in- the person farming your food, delivering your food, stacking your food on the shelves- and everything in between goes up in cost. So naturally, the cost of everything goes up with the minimum wage. And what happens in a fiat currency country, all that happens as a result- is more money is printed. So if anything, the standard of living goes down across the board, since you are devaluing currency now too, as well as shacking fists at businesses. So the minimum wage back fires completely, as the previous poster just said. The Government should never pick winners and losers in the market.

You are way off board. I'm against violence, I don't really care what costume you wear, or what flag you are under. Somalia's violence is monopolised by 'private' thugs, rather than state thugs, so it's not my place. I'm just against violence, the government just happens to have a monopoly on violence here.

[Tiberius]

You can say what you like about socialism, but unrestrained capitalism is destructive for everyone who isn't on top, and the evidence is all over America.

America does not have unrestrained capitalism. It has corporatism.

[Violet]

Edit: Before someone objects, let me state that when I say people who can get by on welfare have "no incentive", I refer to the minority of welfare receivers who just mooch off the government. I am well aware that there are people on welfare who would rather have a job, and actively try to find one. It was bad phrasing on my part.

I enjoy commercial fishing too much to not do it if I can

[TheSteelGeneral]

I would just like to ad, that from a European point of view this looks crazed.

The popular vote should determin the presidency.

Because that's never ended poorly before.

That is not argument. You're basically saying: Because traffic light didn't prevent all deads, let's scrap em.
Just because one system isn't perfect, it doesn't mean it isn't better than another system.

Proportional representation is better because
For ONE thing we elect our governors by it.
For another, it's crazy to elect a leader who does NOT have the popular vote. Even when it's a 3-way race, in a proper democracy the one who get's the most votes, should be the winner.
For a third: electing the president by pop vote would take away this lopsided situation that one county in Ohio will determine who's gonna be president. I love Ohioans, but not that much.

Oh and "tantrums"? If you think getting angry about the APPOINTED president by the 5 SC ... well Nazis is a good description of them, so perhaps Fascism is a good system for you. Bush was and forever will be an illegitimate president, no matter how you scream "whiner" or "sore loser".

[Violet]

That is not argument. You're basically saying: Because traffic light didn't prevent all deads, let's scrap em.
Just because one system isn't perfect, it doesn't mean it isn't better than another system.

Sure it's an argument. Just about everything is with brickheads

I'm not making an argument that it's a horrible system. Only stating it's not perfect, and should not be heralded as such. Not that perfection is overly desirable of course, just that it doesn't always work, and arguing that it does is untenable

Even brickheads must know that much. Ballheads are hilarious too, you should see the things they come up with

Proportional representation is better because
For ONE thing we elect our governors by it.
For another, it's crazy to elect a leader who does NOT have the popular vote. Even when it's a 3-way race, in a proper democracy the one who get's the most votes, should be the winner.
For a third: electing the president by pop vote would take away this lopsided situation that one county in Ohio will determine who's gonna be president. I love Ohioans, but not that much.

No, we elect our governors by not proportion, but by number. Not in accordance to the whole (which would be proportion), but in comparing to each other. What matters under such a system is not 'which portion of the whole is greater'... it is 'which is the most popular among those who deigned to vote?'. You can win an election with but 10.00001% of a country's votes under such a system (assuming there are at least 10 candidates voted for), because portion is irrelevant and comparence of singular import.

For another... no it is not crazy to elect an unpopular leader. It isn't about what is and is not a proper democracy: it is about what is and is not a proper leader. America is NOT a democracy, it is a republic. And in a republic: it is the popular vote of the *senators* that matters, and them alone. Popular vote is more of an appeasement and sensationalism to the masses than anything else. The romans understood this... why do you think there were major colosseum events for any election of importance? You do know America is based upon the Roman Republic of old?

Oh, there are many problems with the current implementation. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. See: Obama gets cockblocked once again

Oh and "tantrums"? If you think getting angry about the APPOINTED president by the 5 SC ... well Nazis is a good description of them, so perhaps Fascism is a good system for you. Bush was and forever will be an illegitimate president, no matter how you scream "whiner" or "sore loser".

So... Godwin? Already? Well that's alright, I didn't expect much better from you anyway

[Tiberius]

Proportional representation is better because
For ONE thing we elect our governors by it.

Really? Where do you live? Surely if there is one electable position (i.e. the governor) you can't use proportional representation. Proportional representation can only be used for electing bodies of people...

[Violet]

Really? Where do you live? Surely if there is one electable position (i.e. the governor) you can't use proportional representation. Proportional representation can only be used for electing bodies of people...

Oh look at you, using big words like representation and electable XD

Evidently, this 'proportional representation' is not a literal phrase, but some category only political fanatics might even be aware of.

And for everything else, there's Mastercard. I'm still curious about our latest poe, btw. Can I get away with that bullshit too? Maybe if I add in a special symbol everytime, like maybe this one? " "