The Conservative Voice

[Minimalist]

Like I said, I'm for a minimum wage, but there is the fact that increasing wages across the board costs jobs.

Parasitical corporate boards seem to have no trouble increasing their own compensation at the same time that they are slashing the wages, benefits or jobs of their work force.

Sorry. Greedy cocksuckers are simply greedy cocksuckers and I think they might find the slavery option quite attractive.

These motherfuckers would love to be called "Massa."

[DeistPaladin]

I studied this logic in business school. It made a lot of sense to me at the time but, like many economic theories, it's oversimplifying the issue.

Companies don't hire workers because they have a lot of cash lying around and don't know what else to do with it. They hire workers because they need someone to perform certain jobs. If you make their base labor cheaper, it will just mean more money for executive bonuses, not more people hired.

This is why trickle down economics failed. Rich people will simply take the tax cuts, smile and stuff it in their pockets.

Same goes for mega-banks that were bailed out. They were supposed to take the money they received and then loan it out to small businesses and stir economic growth. Didn't happen. It was much safer to give the money to each other in bonuses.

Reagan himself once said that throwing money at a problem won't solve it. In this case, he was right.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The underline problem can't be solved. Finite resources and an expanding population is the underline problem.

Which is a problem that can be solved, but that is a seporate discussion that is neither here nor there.

What would be your suggestion to raising minimum wages without losing jobs and/or having a negative impact on small business owners?

I don't recommend raising minimum wages. That is not what I'm discussing here.
The overall point I'm trying to argue against is the idea that the government should have absolutely no role in the economy, which includes things like minimum wage.
Which is to say that I believe that government should have a role in the economy - which means that there should be a minimum wage that keeps pace with the cost of living.

What does maintain a balance and make higher base wages attractive for companies is if business taxes are lowered proportional to rises in a baseline wages (or proportional increase in wages across the board), the only person who has less in this situation ins the Govt - Not good for you welfare fiends but in more centre-right systems it's effective - The business doesn't have to cut costs (which ultimately means fire lots of people) in order to maintain their bottom line.

That only works if business taxes are significant enough to make up the difference created by the wage increase. As it stands, the most recent wage increases in the US - when it went from 5.25$/hour to 7.25$/hour is just to catch it up with inflation and the cost of living after many, many years of letting minimum wage remain stagnant. If anything, the cost of it was made up from the difference between the value of a dollar then and the value of a dollar now.
As such, there is no need to do anything else except make sure that people are still getting a minimum wage that keeps pace with inflation and the wellness of the economy.

I am not a conservative. Pointing out their problems to me is like pointing out the problems with creationism and thinking you are scoring points.

Everything you've said to this point has led me to believe otherwise. You certainly seem to be arguing for that position.
Be that as it may...

Anyway, They did not make wage increases mandatory nor was the tax cuts on business, it was on the income of the persons - A business tax cut makes sure the adjustment goes through the calculus, taxing less after the fact is nowhere near as effective, so that is simply a false analogy.

Uhh... what? I don't understand what your point is here.
If wage increases like the one that was done more recently - it was done to keep pace with inflation because minimum wage has been stagnant for so long that inflation has outpaced it by a fair margin. By all accounts, the increase is paid for.

The problems in the banking system was part of the same flawed currency system that has seen it collapse multiple times since it's institution pre 1920s and did not arise from the bush tax-cuts, it may have helped, but it was not in any way the driving factor behind the economic collapse. The problem there was the net worth of the nation was (and still is) an imaginary number.

... are you arguing against paper money? Have I died and gone to the 19th century?
Technically speaking, all numbers are imaginary. I don't really see how assigning a value to something like gold is different than assigning a number to paper money based on the overall productive output of an entire nation is different. They're both imaginary numbers.
Moreover, I can think of a 1000 uses for metals and such other than for use as currency.
Not that it'll matter as even paper money is slowly being eliminated in favor of electronic transactions.

Cutting taxes for the population must be done in proportion to a retraction in social services. Doing it for any other reason makes absolutely no sense, you get yourself into the red.

If he was going to increase taxes and increase social services it would make sense. Doing both a tax-cut and increasing social services simultaneously could have extremely negative consequences. Any time the balance is not maintained the peaks between high and low rise as equilibrium diminishes.

Social services isn't the only way to balance the payments off of things like that, but yes, paying for things you purchase is always better than not doing so, when it can be helped.
I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the topics I was discussing earlier with Adrian, but sure.

[GANIMEDE]

The problem with the "Intellegent Design" argument as employed by Fundamentalist Doomsday Christians is the fact that they attribute the source of all intellegence to their prive Diety. Neither does the Human Race, nor some fantastic diety imagined by them, have the monoply on intellegence!

Intellegence in universal. It can be observed in every creature and is not limited to those who claim they have "souls". All living things have intellegence and dignity and Evolution is quite naturally driven by that universal intellegence. INTELLEGENT DESIGN DOES EXIST IN NATURE, but this fact does not give Christianity nor any other fantastic religion validity: Intellegence in Universal.

The Universe was neither created by a "Big Bang" nor a "Big Watchmaker". The UNIVERSE has always existed and does not require a "Prime Mover". If it did, then the next logical question must be: WHO CREATED GOD? (Ofcourse we Atheists all know the answer to that one).

What right does the Christian Creationist God have to being exempt from "The Creation Process" ?

FACT: The Universally Intellegent Universe needs no "Bearded Human Kraftsman" to justify it. . . . In fact, we do the Universe, and ourselves, an injustice by proscribing it to an obscure, confused, lonely, vengefull, disfunctional, "Clock-Maker-Sheppard" who has abandond his flock. "Conservative" is just annother word meaning "Sheep".

[Ashendant]

The problem with the "Intellegent Design" argument as employed by Fundamentalist Doomsday Christians is the fact that they attribute the source of all intellegence to their prive Diety. Neither does the Human Race, nor some fantastic diety imagined by them, have the monoply on intellegence!

Intellegence in universal. It can be observed in every creature and is not limited to those who claim they have "souls". All living things have intellegence and dignity and Evolution is quite naturally driven by that universal intellegence. INTELLEGENT DESIGN DOES EXIST IN NATURE, but this fact does not give Christianity nor any other fantastic religion validity: Intellegence in Universal.

The Universe was neither created by a "Big Bang" nor a "Big Watchmaker". The UNIVERSE has always existed and does not require a "Prime Mover". If it did, then the next logical question must be: WHO CREATED GOD? (Ofcourse we Atheists all know the answer to that one).

What right does the Christian Creationist God have to being exempt from "The Creation Process" ?

FACT: The Universally Intellegent Universe needs no "Bearded Human Kraftsman" to justify it. . . . In fact, we do the Universe, and ourselves, an injustice by proscribing it to an obscure, confused, lonely, vengefull, disfunctional, "Clock-Maker-Sheppard" who has abandond his flock. "Conservative" is just annother word meaning "Sheep".

I link to the stonemakers argument

Stonemaker argument I

If we can assert a magic monkey could exist eternally and then one day design something, then we can equally assert that the universe itself existed eternally and then one day began expanding, or been in an endless loop of expansion and contraction, or thousands of other examples.