Quote:You guys realize before the neocons brainwashed you, Eisenhower--a conservative-- was pro livable wages and sensible government regulation.


Maybe trump will wake some of you up. The racist stuff is kind of a shame, though...

 

Quote:<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Oh dear...  I don't even know where to start, or whether it's worth it or not...  You're just gonna ignore what I say and just make up some more non-sense.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">1st off, your "theory" on the laffer curve is cute and may garner you some nods of approval from your neo-con friends (wink wink, Malabar), but it's just not accurate.  I mean, I have this theory called the Anchorman Curve.  In the Anchorman Curve, you give all your money to me, and then inflation goes down, wages go up, the middle class grows, and women all want you.  (It's like RAINNN on your wedding day...  It's a free ridddddeeeee when you're already late!)  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Yes, you specifically, JJ...  See, just because I say something doesn't make it true, just because.  Inflation went up because of the monetary policy started in the 60's and then exacerbated by Nixon, and then the great oil crisis came to head under Carter.  So to blame it all on "liberals" would be foolish, but not beneath you. Kensyian economics actually models this issue.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Two democrat administrations and one administration that pioneered abandoning the bretton woods system, founding opec, instituted wage and price controls etc. etc. and you want to blame conservatives?  Good luck with that.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">However, to say that the laffer curve was the only way to resolve this problems is ridiculous.  Keynsian eonomic models and theories would have gotten us out of this mess just as easily, and probably with more benefits to workers.  Reagan can put another coal on the fire of whatever perdition he resides with in.  Millionaires and Billionaires can thank Reagun, I tell him to go kick rocks.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">The laffer curve was the theory about optimizing revenue.  That's actually not directly correlated to the idea of leaving more money in the private sector to stimulate the economy without direct devaluation of the currency or the inefficiency that plagues public works. 20 million jobs created tells YOU to kick rocks.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">As for the minimum wage discussion...  You're changing the topic.  The miminum wage has been stagnant to getting lower in terms of dollars...  That's the point.   That's why your boy Trump thinks it needs to be looked at and possible raised.  Obviously, minimum wage isn't the gold standard of how an nation/economy is doing.  There you go again...  Deflecting.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">No, not getting off that easy.  You called me out by name.  You insinuated that just because i don't read or comment on every post in a thread that i am in some way DENYING FACTS.  You did this based on a post about LIVING WAGE and how SENSIBLE Eisenhower was.  a.) emotional qualifiers don't pass as fact.  b.) I then pointed out to you what the minimum wage was with Eisenhower and then further elaborated that in reality our current minimum wage is mathematically in line with the rate under Eisenhower.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">You can point out that it was higher in inflation adjusted dollars in 1968, but that negates the idea that Eisenhower's rate had anything to do with it!  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">And as for government expansion under Obama...  Care to elaborate?  Or are you just parrotting what you hear on Fox News and your boy Hannity/Limbaugh?  Federal employment under Obama has actually DECREASED!!!  You may call them whatever you like, but that's what historians and 

 

You advocate more spending to drive the growth of the economy.  We will have spent a greater percentage of GDP through the federal government than at any time in our history at the end of the current administration.  Yet we will have never grown at a rate of 3% or higher...  Who needs the nutmeg now brother?

 

A livable wage and sensible regulations...  So then I provided you how the wages have decreased based on purchasing power over time...  But during Eisenhowers period, it was pretty respectable...  Here's the link AGAIN!!!!   https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf

 

Additionally, Eisenhowever himself was looking to increase the minimum wage, here's a quote from his State of the Union Address in 1955  First, in the past five years we have had economic growth which will support an increase in the Federal minimum wage. In the light of present economic conditions, I recommend its increase to ninety cents an hour. I also recommend that manyothers, at present excluded, be given the protection of a minimum wage.

 

Whether or not you like the term livable wage and sensible regulations, it's clear that republicans before Reagun saw it's importance.  And additionally, you are still trying to skip out and deflect from this point.  I will not let you get away with it, my good friend.

 

As for the laffer curve, your statement is my point.  The laffer curve didn't generate jobs, it just redistributed wealth.  The increase of jobs over time is a normal process of the business cycle.  It didn't occur because of the laffer curve!!  All economists that aren't paid shills for the republican party know this. Every economist knows that based on providing additional revenue to businesses does not increase jobs.  That extra money stays at the top.  The laffer curve is a joke.  And Laffer can kick rocks right along side Reagun.  :-)

 

Your definition of government spending and your discussion of government expansion are clearly 2 different things that you are trying to use to create a political point.  That's fine, but it's really too much to discuss here in this threat that is already becoming multiple things.  Let's stick to the minimum wage issue and your boy trump's love of increasing it...  If you want to talk about Obama, let's create a new thread to fight over that topic separately.

---