Minimum wage

LOL! Doofe, if you spent half as much energy answering a question instead of dodging it, you might be allowed at the grown up table.

LOL! Doofe, if you spent half as much energy answering a question instead of dodging it, you might be allowed at the grown up table.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Do you really have fun being so lame?

Doofe forgets that we are a Republic of states. If the states refuse it is because the states think that it is a bad deal.The constitution made sure that if you as a citizen did not like one state that you could go to any of the other states and nobody could stop you.

Oh unless you are Boeing and you want to open a plant in a right to work state.

RaggedyAndy, you could answer the questions as well. And thanks, T2D, I expected that would have been Doofe's answer had he ever decided to answer. Which he won't.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Get back to me on that, cosFb, when the discussion is raising the minimum wage from $30 to $35. Your delusional world just doesn't do it for me.

As expected, RaggedyAndy, you missed the point, and failed to answer the question. You may go to the children's table with Doofe until you can communicate like an adult.

But seriously, if raising the minimum wage is a good thing, why not $35 or more? The reason is, that would be stupid, of course. So what raise in the minimum wage would be smart? I think I have proven the absurdity that raising the minimum wage is a good thing. And of course, you have said nothing to disprove that. Therefore, raising the minimum wage is not a good thing, and harms the economy.

Game, set, match. COG wins again!

cosFb, I can't miss a point that's nonexistent. Your little, "when did you stop beating your wife" tactic used to work way back there in the 5th grade. Stick with your original $35, it suits you so much better.

I rest my case. Next!

But seriously, if raising the minimum wage is a good thing, why not $35 or more? The reason is, that would be stupid, of course. So what raise in the minimum wage would be smart? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Straw man.

COG, then if you insist on playing that game, do you think cutting taxes can lead to increased revenues?

Doofe forgets that we are a Republic of states. If the states refuse it is because the states think that it is a bad deal.The constitution made sure that if you as a citizen did not like one state that you could go to any of the other states and nobody could stop you. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

But in order for COG to believe that, he would have to ignore his own comment (which would make him a hypocrite, but that's no surprise) where he states, and i quote, "We are not to turn a blind eye to the unfortunate."

Keeping in mind, again, that he's already allowed for a scenario in which charities are unable to keep with their demand.

So, do we turn a blind eye to the unfortunate if the federal government is their last opportunity or not?

The minimum wage will never keep up with inflation as long as the government keep printing money and spending money that has to be borrowed. The end refult is that those hurt the worst are again the middle class. It does not hurt the rich and it does not hurt the poor it only hurts those trying to buy a home or raise a family, it hurts those in the middle class. It steals from their savings, it steals from their retirement savings, it steals from their budget. In the end it leaves the extremely rich and the rest of us.

Doofe, you misunderstand the argument, as usual. The current minimum wage is $7.25 p/hour. Is that high enough? If not, is $8 p/hour enough? If not, how about $9? At what level does increasing the federally mandated minimum wage cease to be a good idea? That's all I was asking. You refuse to answer, and try to deflect to tax policy, which is not part of the discussion. That simply shows you can't answer the question, and want to change the subject. I will answer your question after you answer mine.

And I did say we are not to turn a blind eye to the unfortunate. We, not the government. There is no provision in the Constitution which allows for federal money to be used for charity. However, we, as people, are better off if we offer of ourselves to our fellow human. The federal government has strictly defined duties. The rest is left to us.

And now, for the last time, answer the question.

Arrrrrggghhhhhh! Some freaking drive-in law skool gradjiate you are cosFb. Since you wish to ignore anything that's happened to the Constitution since the late 18th century, decisions or case law (whatever), ammendments, etc. why don't you 'splain to the wimmen how they no longer get to vote.

Let's see what else's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution:

Prohibition of chlid labor
Prohibition of secession

I've wasted too much time on you today, anyhow. Two not enough for you? Well, here's another one:


The fact that you're a DUMBASS who thinks he's too clever by half

Doofe, you misunderstand the argument, as usual. The current minimum wage is $7.25 p/hour. Is that high enough? If not, is $8 p/hour enough? If not, how about $9? At what level does increasing the federally mandated minimum wage cease to be a good idea? That's all I was asking. You refuse to answer, Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I answered your question(s), very clearly, in post #140. You've now wasted 5 posts claiming i didn't. Your learning to read would save us all a lot of time.

If you want an exact dollar amount, oh, i suppose i could throw one out there. But then be prepared to give an exact dollar amount every time you toss out the notion that this program or that program should be cut. If that's what you want, then just let me know.

And I did say we are not to turn a blind eye to the unfortunate. We, not the government. There is no provision in the Constitution which allows for federal money to be used for charity. However, we, as people, are better off if we offer of ourselves to our fellow human. The federal government has strictly defined duties. The rest is left to us.

So your attitude is, and by all means, correct me if i'm wrong, that we should not turn a blind eye to the unfortunate. Unless we do. Do i got that right?

Child labor is not the responsibility of the federal government it is the responsibility of the states if they so choose.
You are correct there is not a prohibition of secession. In fact there was a war fought over states rights in which the states tha seceded and formed a new government lost a war.
The fact is that Texas would be much better of if we did secede.

The same goes for establishing a minimum wage, it is not the duty of the federal government to do so but the right of the state if the state so chooses.

The reason the federal government is so far in debt is because it sticks it grimy fingers into shit it should stay out of. One of these days you guys will open your eyes and finally understand there was a reason for limiting the role of the federal government.

Arrrrrggghhhhhh! Some freaking drive-in law skool gradjiate you are cosFb. Since you wish to ignore anything that's happened to the Constitution since the late 18th century, decisions or case law (whatever), ammendments, etc. why don't you 'splain to the wimmen how they no longer get to vote.

Let's see what else's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution:

Prohibition of chlid labor
Prohibition of secession

I've wasted too much time on you today, anyhow. Two not enough for you? Well, here's another one:


The fact that you're a DUMBASS who thinks he's too clever by half Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Amendments are part of the Constitutional process. As are repealing them. I only advocate for the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments. But they are part of the Constitution. If you want to add Social Security, or national health care, go ahead. Just amend the Constitution first. That's how gender become a non issue with respect to voting.

Amendments are how the Constitution says it can be changed, not by judicial fiat. But the justices have taken it upon themselves to amend the Constitution by decision, which is, unconstitutional. Yes, the SCOTUS sometimes acts against the Constitution.

Congress passed a law to eliminate child labor, based on the Commerce clause.

We fought a war to stop the South from seceding. What has that got to do with the Constitution?

RaggedyAndy, your ignorance is showing more and more.