Quote:Typical jj...  Deflect, demean, dissassociate.

 

Defelct - You change the discussion the moment your pinned down and shown to be wrong.  

 

Demean - you make personal insults to make yourself feel better.  (I do this too, though, and at times I find the banter fun.  So I'm not gonna call too much attention to that)

 

Dissassociate - Pretent that the point that was blown apart was not the point you were making...

 

I mean, come on, jj.  What are you even talking about now in regards to the bolded?? We're clearly talking about the purchasing power of the dollar then compared to now.  The purchasing power has gone down based on the neo-con supply side economic model.  But again, once your exposed, you're gonna deflect and disassociate the topic in order to try and gain the upper hand, or wiggle out of being exposed for being wrong.

 

But whatever...  Let's move on.  Anchorman 1, jj 0...  :-)

 

You don't like the minimum wage, but it's clear that its something Eisenhower (a sensible republican) was in favor of...  

 

1.) you can't use Eisenhower as a reference and then use the numbers from the end of the great society as your benchmark.   

 

2.) Going back to the dollar under Eisenhower, the economy was roughly 2.5 trillion in gdp at the time, its roughly 16.5 now.  That's 6.6 times greater which correlates to a $6.60 dollar minimum wage in today's economy.  Depending on the CPI calculator that you use the inflation adjusted number would be somewhere between 8.50 and $9.00.  The average between the inflation adjusted number and the number indexed to GDP is roughly what we have now.  If you want to make the case that you believe in a higher minimum wage then be my guest, but the idea that you can use Eisenhower as a benchmark to lecture conservatives as heartless is just disingenuous.  

 

3.) the benchmark of a great economy isn't the minimum wage.  The minimum wage is a floor that's set for the kid who can only say "Do you want fries with that but doesn't know how to work the fry machine yet.  The idea that it's the driver or the lead indicator of economic success is just ridiculous.  

 

4.) You decry SUPPLY SIDE economics, but leave out the fact that one of the reasons that laffer and his economic team designed what we currently call SUPPLY SIDE economics in the early 80s was due to the runaway inflationary trends created in mid 60's policies (that you champion).  It was so bad that Jimmy Carter had to give a speech about trying to WHIP inflation and Ray Stantz had to pay 19.5% interest on a mortgage.  Keynesian economics didn't prescribe a policy to counteract both runaway inflation and economic stagnation.  Reagan says you're welcome.  

 

5.) Most importantly, you can try and cherry pick about the average increase of the minimum wage all you want.  you're undoing is what you don't say.  As someone who FEELS THE BERN, you are in favor of an ever increasing state and taxing people at a rate high enough to pay for it.  You don't mention the fact that at current we are in the middle of the largest government expansion in the history of man, underwritten by zero percent interest rates and quantitative easing  which have contributed to one of the largest monetary expansions in history.  I don't hear you running around shouting from the rooftops about the roaring 21st century economy.  All of that money flowing from the printing presses and the banks of the world and yet in the 8 years of this administration we will never see 3% GDP growth and the labor force participation rate stands at historic lows.  Now that's change you can believe in. 

---