Dean advocates more goverment spending

[charrison]

linkage

More goverment spending will fix the economy he thinks.


--Raising the minimum wage to put more money in the hands of working Americans

This does not create job, it only causes rising prices, which in the end will negate much of the higher wages.

--Expand unemployment insurance to cover more full and part-time workers

This also does not create jobs, not does it encourage people to get off the goverment gravy train

--Expand aid to state and local government for homeland security and through doubling the Community Development Block Grant

states are in trouble because they are spending too much, not because they are not getting enough federal aid

--Invest in job-creating infrastructure programs like school construction and increasing rural broadband access

local again local issues, not federal issues. I am sure the goverment will be willing to run fiber to every farm house that is a mile apart rather than setting up wireless. Wireless options already exist in many small towns.


--A health care plan that reduce costs to employers and frees up additional private money for investment and job creation

goverment health care plan, no thanks

--A trade policy that ensures that strong and enforceable labor provisions are included in all trade agreements--to ensure that trade helps both us and our trading partners shore up middle class jobs.

At least one item I can agree with. We should make sure we are not having product dumped below cost.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

But Bush hasn't increased spending.

Pot... kettle, kettle... pot.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ELP
But Bush hasn't increased spending.

Pot... kettle, kettle... pot.

Your right, I disagree with the amount that has been spent in washington.

 

[ElFenix]

--Expand aid to state and local government for homeland security and through doubling the Community Development Block Grant

states are in trouble because they are spending too much, not because they are not getting enough federal aid

when states are required by the feds to do things for the feds and then the feds don't give them any money to do those things it helps make the state go into deficit.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Wouldn't it be more prudent to criticize the current administration which will produce $500B deficits in each of the next two fiscal years (if you include Emergency supplementals) instead of criticizing a man that has nothing but a history of balanced budgets? Your bullets are typical doublespeak . . . Homeland Security must be a National priority with federal funding b/c defending CA, TX, FL, and NY is essential to protecting the nation's physical and fiscal status.

Many of the elements you criticize are included in pending (and enacted) legislation supported by President Bush.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Wouldn't it be more prudent to criticize the current administration which will produce $500B deficits in each of the next two fiscal years (if you include Emergency supplementals) instead of criticizing a man that has nothing but a history of balanced budgets? Your bullets are typical doublespeak . . . Homeland Security must be a National priority with federal funding b/c defending CA, TX, FL, and NY is essential to protecting the nation's physical and fiscal status.

Many of the elements you criticize are included in pending (and enacted) legislation supported by President Bush.

It would be more prudent if this was a thread talking about that. This is a thread talking about Dean.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well excuse the poo out of me. Last time I checked we had options during elections . . . I guess you plan to vote for Dean or not Dean.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Well excuse the poo out of me. Last time I checked we had options during elections . . . I guess you plan to vote for Dean or not Dean.

Sorry. Way to many threads around here get turned into "teh Bush is eval!!!!!!!!".

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Sorry. Way to many threads around here get turned into "teh Bush is eval!!!!!!!!".

Understood . . . I think those people are quacks. Bush is clearly just stupid . . . now Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are evil. Cheney sold his soul to the Devil for a refurbished heart.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Sorry. Way to many threads around here get turned into "teh Bush is eval!!!!!!!!".

Understood . . . I think those people are quacks. Bush is clearly just stupid . . . now Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are evil. Cheney sold his soul to the Devil for a refurbished heart.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Don't roll your eyes at me . . . prove Bush isn't dense and provide any evidence that DOD doesn't consider human life quite expendable particularly if it doesn't have US citizenship. As for the topic . . . Dean proposes spending which exceeds current receipts for the forseeable future . . . he should take a lesson from the current administration and GOP Congress.

We should keep Bush. My wife discovered Maserati over the weekend.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Don't roll your eyes at me

Yes, sir.

prove Bush isn't dense

Well he is the Prez. Although I sometimes wonder if people who aspire to be that are smart or stupid. Or just plain nuts

and provide any evidence that DOD doesn't consider human life quite expendable particularly if it doesn't have US citizenship.

The DoD always has this thing called "acceptable losses". You would have to admit that outside of the hostilities themselves we have done more to avoid "collateral damage" or civilian casualties. Which is probably outweighed by the increased aggressiveness.

As for the topic . . . Dean proposes spending which exceeds current receipts for the forseeable future . . . he should take a lesson from the current administration and GOP Congress.

Correct.

We should keep Bush. My wife discovered Maserati over the weekend.

Mine discovered Jaguar. Looking at mine and your projected earnings, even with me entering the private sector next year, I feel sorrier for me than I do for you.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Wouldn't it be more prudent to criticize the current administration which will produce $500B deficits in each of the next two fiscal years (if you include Emergency supplementals) instead of criticizing a man that has nothing but a history of balanced budgets? Your bullets are typical doublespeak . . . Homeland Security must be a National priority with federal funding b/c defending CA, TX, FL, and NY is essential to protecting the nation's physical and fiscal status.

Many of the elements you criticize are included in pending (and enacted) legislation supported by President Bush.

It would be more prudent if this was a thread talking about that. This is a thread talking about Dean.

So, it's OK to talk about Clinton when there's a thread criticizing Bush, but not OK to bring up Bush when talking about Dean?

 

[Spencer278]

local again local issues, not federal issues. I am sure the goverment will be willing to run fiber to every farm house that is a mile apart rather than setting up wireless. Wireless options already exist in many small towns.

Try setting up wireless in the green mountains. I would rather have fiber.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

--Expand aid to state and local government for homeland security and through doubling the Community Development Block Grant

states are in trouble because they are spending too much, not because they are not getting enough federal aid

when states are required by the feds to do things for the feds and then the feds don't give them any money to do those things it helps make the state go into deficit.

There are few unfunded mandates.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Wouldn't it be more prudent to criticize the current administration which will produce $500B deficits in each of the next two fiscal years (if you include Emergency supplementals) instead of criticizing a man that has nothing but a history of balanced budgets? Your bullets are typical doublespeak . . . Homeland Security must be a National priority with federal funding b/c defending CA, TX, FL, and NY is essential to protecting the nation's physical and fiscal status.

Many of the elements you criticize are included in pending (and enacted) legislation supported by President Bush.

It would be more prudent if this was a thread talking about that. This is a thread talking about Dean.

Homeland security is not mandated by the fed. Arizona i beleive has opted to not follow everything the fed wants on this subject.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ElFenix

--Expand aid to state and local government for homeland security and through doubling the Community Development Block Grant

states are in trouble because they are spending too much, not because they are not getting enough federal aid

when states are required by the feds to do things for the feds and then the feds don't give them any money to do those things it helps make the state go into deficit.

There are few unfunded mandates.

Can't vouch for the veracity of any of these but some do quote the Congressional Budget Office.


Mandates

 

[drewshin]

More goverment spending will fix the economy he thinks. so does our current administration, i believe


--Raising the minimum wage to put more money in the hands of working Americans

This does not create job, it only causes rising prices, which in the end will negate much of the higher wages.

i agree that people will be put out of jobs, but they've got to suck it up and find another jobs (just look at your local classified section, hundreds of jobs available) and not rely on the "government gravy train" right?
raising the minimum wage is like a tax cut for those who earn it, extra money in their pocket. isn't that good for job creation? those people will spend more, and businesses will end up hiring more in the long run. those who lose their job will have to end up finding another job.
and your notion that raising the minimum wage raises prices is neglegible because there are so many other factors that play into how prices are
set. also, if you're looking at the nominal minimum wage since 1970, it has increased, but if you look at the REAL minimum wage (what you should be looking at, since it takes inflation into account), it has gone down steadily since 1970, meaning that people on minimum wage now can buy less with their money than their counterparts could in 1970.



--Expand unemployment insurance to cover more full and part-time workers
This also does not create jobs, not does it encourage people to get off the goverment gravy train
i think you're assuming he's saying this will create jobs, the title also mentions economic growth, which i think he's referring to. he'd have to explain
further how he thinks this would happen...education or training programs for the unemployed using unemployment benefits?

--Expand aid to state and local government for homeland security and through doubling the Community Development Block Grant
states are in trouble because they are spending too much, not because they are not getting enough federal aid
i agree, but the homeland security program is a federal program, and federal money should be used and divvied out.

--Invest in job-creating infrastructure programs like school construction and increasing rural broadband access
local again local issues, not federal issues. I am sure the goverment will be willing to run fiber to every farm house that is a mile apart rather than setting up wireless. Wireless options already exist in many small towns.
i agree, i dont know what his point is here.

--A health care plan that reduce costs to employers and frees up additional private money for investment and job creation
goverment health care plan, no thanks
without further details, it's hard to make a good judgment on this one. i dont see where government health plan is mentioned.

--A trade policy that ensures that strong and enforceable labor provisions are included in all trade agreements--to ensure that trade helps both us and our trading partners shore up middle class jobs.
At least one item I can agree with. We should make sure we are not having product dumped below cost.
i agree

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: drewshin
More goverment spending will fix the economy he thinks. so does our current administration, i believe


--Raising the minimum wage to put more money in the hands of working Americans

This does not create job, it only causes rising prices, which in the end will negate much of the higher wages.

i agree that people will be put out of jobs, but they've got to suck it up and find another jobs (just look at your local classified section, hundreds of jobs available) and not rely on the "government gravy train" right?
raising the minimum wage is like a tax cut for those who earn it, extra money in their pocket. isn't that good for job creation? those people will spend more, and businesses will end up hiring more in the long run. those who lose their job will have to end up finding another job.
and your notion that raising the minimum wage raises prices is neglegible because there are so many other factors that play into how prices are
set. also, if you're looking at the nominal minimum wage since 1970, it has increased, but if you look at the REAL minimum wage (what you should be looking at, since it takes inflation into account), it has gone down steadily since 1970, meaning that people on minimum wage now can buy less with their money than their counterparts could in 1970.


I guess we could raise minimum wage to $30/hour, that would ensure everyone would have enough money. I mean after all labor is just a single factor in prices. Raising minimum wage only makes things more expensive.




--Expand unemployment insurance to cover more full and part-time workers
This also does not create jobs, not does it encourage people to get off the goverment gravy train
i think you're assuming he's saying this will create jobs, the title also mentions economic growth, which i think he's referring to. he'd have to explain
further how he thinks this would happen...education or training programs for the unemployed using unemployment benefits?


I dont know how many such programs exist. The current president passed some sort of education training package in the last unemployment extension(or something recently).

Actually it would probably be a better idea to propose to consildate all such education assistance programs.




--Expand aid to state and local government for homeland security and through doubling the Community Development Block Grant
states are in trouble because they are spending too much, not because they are not getting enough federal aid
i agree, but the homeland security program is a federal program, and federal money should be used and divvied out.


According the CBO homeland security program only has a marginal effect on state budgets
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=44327


--A health care plan that reduce costs to employers and frees up additional private money for investment and job creation
goverment health care plan, no thanks
without further details, it's hard to make a good judgment on this one. i dont see where government health plan is mentioned.


Yes it is lacking details, but i bet a keyword is going to be universal.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Mine discovered Jaguar. Looking at mine and your projected earnings, even with me entering the private sector next year, I feel sorrier for me than I do for you.

Oh don't get me wrong . . . if she gets a Maserati she either won the lottery . . . or call the police . . . my death was NOT an accident.

I'm starting to warm up to Dean. He's really starting to be a real prick to the other Dems . . . all he needs now is Wesley Clark to give the ticket some balls.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: drewshin
More goverment spending will fix the economy he thinks. so does our current administration, i believe


--Raising the minimum wage to put more money in the hands of working Americans

This does not create job, it only causes rising prices, which in the end will negate much of the higher wages.

i agree that people will be put out of jobs, but they've got to suck it up and find another jobs (just look at your local classified section, hundreds of jobs available) and not rely on the "government gravy train" right?
raising the minimum wage is like a tax cut for those who earn it, extra money in their pocket. isn't that good for job creation? those people will spend more, and businesses will end up hiring more in the long run. those who lose their job will have to end up finding another job.
and your notion that raising the minimum wage raises prices is neglegible because there are so many other factors that play into how prices are
set. also, if you're looking at the nominal minimum wage since 1970, it has increased, but if you look at the REAL minimum wage (what you should be looking at, since it takes inflation into account), it has gone down steadily since 1970, meaning that people on minimum wage now can buy less with their money than their counterparts could in 1970.

I guess we could raise minimum wage to $30/hour, that would ensure everyone would have enough money. I mean after all labor is just a single factor in prices. Raising minimum wage only makes things more expensive.

heh heh no, just raise the minimum wage along with inflation (vice versa as well), that's the most common sense way to do it. maybe i should have made it clearer, i meant that gradual rise with inflation every so often is negligible, a spike to $30 would sure be disastrous and funny at the same time.

what will raising the minimum wage make more expensive? mcdonald's/burger king/your local liquor store might raise prices a tiny bit, but i doubt it, janitorial services???...most minimum wage earners are in service occupations, what things will become more expensive???? will the cars you buy be more expensive? dont think so. supermarkets, another big employer of minimum wage workers, just won't hire more people, so probably no price raising there. also, something like 30% of minimum wage earners are teenagers, i think you can assume that most job cuts would affect this age group the most.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: drewshin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: drewshin
More goverment spending will fix the economy he thinks. so does our current administration, i believe


--Raising the minimum wage to put more money in the hands of working Americans

This does not create job, it only causes rising prices, which in the end will negate much of the higher wages.

i agree that people will be put out of jobs, but they've got to suck it up and find another jobs (just look at your local classified section, hundreds of jobs available) and not rely on the "government gravy train" right?
raising the minimum wage is like a tax cut for those who earn it, extra money in their pocket. isn't that good for job creation? those people will spend more, and businesses will end up hiring more in the long run. those who lose their job will have to end up finding another job.
and your notion that raising the minimum wage raises prices is neglegible because there are so many other factors that play into how prices are
set. also, if you're looking at the nominal minimum wage since 1970, it has increased, but if you look at the REAL minimum wage (what you should be looking at, since it takes inflation into account), it has gone down steadily since 1970, meaning that people on minimum wage now can buy less with their money than their counterparts could in 1970.

I guess we could raise minimum wage to $30/hour, that would ensure everyone would have enough money. I mean after all labor is just a single factor in prices. Raising minimum wage only makes things more expensive.

heh heh no, just raise the minimum wage along with inflation (vice versa as well), that's the most common sense way to do it. maybe i should have made it clearer, i meant that gradual rise with inflation every so often is negligible, a spike to $30 would sure be disastrous and funny at the same time.

what will raising the minimum wage make more expensive? mcdonald's/burger king/your local liquor store might raise prices a tiny bit, but i doubt it, janitorial services???...most minimum wage earners are in service occupations, what things will become more expensive???? will the cars you buy be more expensive? dont think so. supermarkets, another big employer of minimum wage workers, just won't hire more people, so probably no price raising there. also, something like 30% of minimum wage earners are teenagers, i think you can assume that most job cuts would affect this age group the most.

So you admit a tiny minimum wage increase will increase prices a tiny bit? The cost of paying workers more will find its way to higher prices. You are foolish to think otherwise.

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: drewshin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: drewshin
More goverment spending will fix the economy he thinks. so does our current administration, i believe


--Raising the minimum wage to put more money in the hands of working Americans

This does not create job, it only causes rising prices, which in the end will negate much of the higher wages.

i agree that people will be put out of jobs, but they've got to suck it up and find another jobs (just look at your local classified section, hundreds of jobs available) and not rely on the "government gravy train" right?
raising the minimum wage is like a tax cut for those who earn it, extra money in their pocket. isn't that good for job creation? those people will spend more, and businesses will end up hiring more in the long run. those who lose their job will have to end up finding another job.
and your notion that raising the minimum wage raises prices is neglegible because there are so many other factors that play into how prices are
set. also, if you're looking at the nominal minimum wage since 1970, it has increased, but if you look at the REAL minimum wage (what you should be looking at, since it takes inflation into account), it has gone down steadily since 1970, meaning that people on minimum wage now can buy less with their money than their counterparts could in 1970.

I guess we could raise minimum wage to $30/hour, that would ensure everyone would have enough money. I mean after all labor is just a single factor in prices. Raising minimum wage only makes things more expensive.

heh heh no, just raise the minimum wage along with inflation (vice versa as well), that's the most common sense way to do it. maybe i should have made it clearer, i meant that gradual rise with inflation every so often is negligible, a spike to $30 would sure be disastrous and funny at the same time.

what will raising the minimum wage make more expensive? mcdonald's/burger king/your local liquor store might raise prices a tiny bit, but i doubt it, janitorial services???...most minimum wage earners are in service occupations, what things will become more expensive???? will the cars you buy be more expensive? dont think so. supermarkets, another big employer of minimum wage workers, just won't hire more people, so probably no price raising there. also, something like 30% of minimum wage earners are teenagers, i think you can assume that most job cuts would affect this age group the most.

So you admit a tiny minimum wage increase will increase prices a tiny bit? The cost of paying workers more will find its way to higher prices. You are foolish to think otherwise.

It really depends on the amount of increase and the timing. I would say that a small increase during a period of growth would have a negligible effect. Yet wages would be increasing to begin with.

We are a long ways off form say Germany's economy with extremely high wages and all of the consequences of those inflated wages. The real min. wage factoring inflation is so low we definitely need to address this issue in some form.