Why not Kerry?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why not vote for Kerry? This is a question that has popped into my mind. Amazing Rando mentioned something about having reservations about Kerry, but liked him on the economy. And I thought... well, other than the War on Terrorism, what other issue is nearly as important? So why not vote for Kerry?

Of course, talking points won't be accepted as reasons, and misspeaks won't as well, there is a book published full of Bush misspeaks. And any reference to Kerry's record should be made with footnotes to the actual bills spoken about. But to the point, why not Kerry?

Abortion

Roe v Wade. Well, if abortion is your red button topic, why not vote for Kerry? The partial birth abortion law, has already been deemed illegal. And honestly, partial birth abortion is only about 3% of abortions in the US. (I've been told in an argument with an anti-abortion advocate that 2000 occur a year. Taking 1997 abortions in the US as 60000 from the US Census, would lead to 3.3%) Is abortion a reason not to vote for Kerry? I ask because, if it is, that must mean that you feel that in the next 4 years Bush can make abortion illegal. Well, in order for that to happen, Bush must put an anti-Roe v Wade person on the Supreme Court, if there is a vacancy. Do you really think that this will pass the Senate approval? There is no law requiring 9 justices. The court can exist with 8 justices. Has Bush really accomplished anything to prohibit abortion? Do you think he can end it in the next term? On the other side, what do you think Kerry would do? Make it mandatory to have abortions? How could Kerry make it worse?

Gun Control

I got a call from the NRA last week (yeah, I was a member) about how Hitler... err I mean Clinton wanted to ban guns... again. He spoke of doom and gloom. That this was the first step of them taking all the guns from us. I responded, "Well, that can't happen. It'd be unconstitutional. Any law like that would be thwarted unanimously by the US Supreme Court. The 2nd Amendment is rather clear." The guy on the line didn't have much of a response. Some people tend to think the 5 moderate to liberal Justices are evil and would vote for anything that is "liberal." Is this really an honest statement? I certainly doubt it. The 2nd Amendment says that the citizens have the right to owning firearms. That is pretty clear. The gray area is to what limits can these rights be made. But a gun ban would certainly be against the Constitution... and besides, it could never pass the Senate... ie at the very least, the Republicans would filibuster it to death... as they probably should.

So if Kerry can't take your guns, if he even wanted to, why not vote for Kerry on the gun issue? What protection to gun ownership does Bush offer that Kerry wouldn't?

Gay Marriage

An amendment to the Constitution is perhaps the second most difficult thing to do, the first being getting toothpaste back into the tube. We know Bush is against redefining marriage. We know that Bush is for a Constitutional Amendment. Such an attempt already failed... not even getting through the Congress... ie the first step before being ratified by 3/4 of the states. It is highly unlikely that such an amendment would ever get through Congress. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the amendment would get pass enough states to become part of the Constitution. So why back a dead hore?

John Kerry is for giving gay couples, the right to unions with the same rights as with a marriage. However, is this even relevent? He'd be President. There would be no way to pass a Constitutional Amendment that'd be for civil unions or gay marriage... it wouldn't pass in the Congress most likely, nor would it have a prayer in the South. Marriage is a state issue. And it will stay that way because the Constitution won't be amended to include it. So why would Kerry's stance on civil unions have any real function on whether you'd vote for him or not?

I feel these are 3 hot button issues. I have no idea if one or more of these issues is what is preventing you from voting for Kerry. Any input would be nice, but as I stated, lets not make with talking points or misspeaks or mindless stats that are being misrepresented.

[Amazing Rando]

Abortion is a very important issue for me. Not Number One, but certainly up there. One of the only good things I can see about a Bush presidency (in my view) would be the possibility that he would appoint a Supreme Court Justice or two who might tip the balance against Roe v. Wade.

But that said, I'm not casting a vote for president this year because I cannot in good conscience vote for either Kerry or Bush.

[$cirisme]

A couple reasons I don't support Kerry...


International Criminal Court... I don't think that violates not talking about the WOT, but it is one of the biggest strikes against Kerry for me.
Abortion. Even if Roe v Wade isn't overturned, tax payer dollars shouldn't be used to support it. In the second debate, Kerry didn't do anything to help himself with me on this issue.
Economy. The economy is growing, Kerry says it's not growing fast enough. With all of the big changes he is proposing(tax rollbacks, lots of new spending, socialization of health care, etc), most of which I disagree with anyway, it's possible they may backfire. He may make it better, faster, or he may not. I'll stick with what is working, thank you very much.
Healthcare. IMHO, Bush's position is bad, but Kerry's is worse.

There's more, but in brief that is about it.

(excluding the WOT, of course, which is a major issue for me)

[Seasanctuary]

Nice presentation, Jimmy.

Abortion - One way Kerry could make it worse is start spending our money on aborting embryos for stem cell research. But, overall, I agree that the President isn't going to ban abortion either way. I'm not making my decision based on this.

Gun control - No big deal to me. I haven't had my ability to own a hunting rifle threatened (that I know of). Again, not a hot button issue for me.

Gay marriage - I'm for gay marriage. Bush intends to stop it and Kerry pretends the same because it's popular to "defend" marriage from gays. It's a warm button issue for me and I'd rather vote for a candidate for gay marriage, but being wishy washy on it is better than being full bore against it. So Kerry wins on this point.

So, why not Kerry? Here's a couple of reasons:

* Kerry is a snob toward countries that aren't in Western Europe. He prides himself on being better at international diplomacy, but insults score of countries every time I hear him talk about the subject. I was also insulted at his comment in the second debate where he said that everyone but the three guys on stage didn't look wealthy.

* Kerry believes the solution is for the government to pay for everything. "Free money" politicians are to be avoided. I don't want this country going farther along the road of Socialism.

* He's just boring.

P.S. - I agree with Cirisme's mention of the International Criminal Court. I'm surprised the ACLU isn't crucifying Kerry for being for that.

[Amazing Rando]

What's the big deal with the International Criminal Court? If other nations are to be held accountable for their war crimes it only makes sense that we should be too.

[Epoetker]

Simple. I don't trust Kerry to do half the things he says he will and I don't think I'd like the other half of what he actually did much anyway. If Bush says he's going to do something, he generally does it, and I tend to like about half of it.

But I don't vote by halves, so its Bush all the way.

[Theolog]

Your figures on abortion are a little fuzzy. there were about 3000 partial birth abortions is 2001 about the same amount of cases of severe encephalitis in unborn babies. Their little heads swell up from 7 inches to 20 inches in diameter, they become brain dead with no hope of ever being consious. These poor mothers have to decide whether they want to live or die by aborting the brain dead baby.....

For Christians to make this a political issue can only be called sinister and evil. But then whats new for republicans.

That issue alone should tip the scales in favor of the demo.

Bush is a smite your enemy Christian. kind of like king Saul

[Seasanctuary]

What's the big deal with the International Criminal Court? If other nations are to be held accountable for their war crimes it only makes sense that we should be too.

I don't want to waive my rights as an American citizen.

[Amazing Rando]

I don't want to waive my rights as an American citizen.

Be more specific? You wouldn't be waiving any rights if you'd just abstain from all those war crimes! :wink:

[Kevin Wayne]

First off, here's my assessment of Bush & Kerry after debate #1:





http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39040

I didn’t watch the debate, I read the text of it the next day in the Portland paper. Both seem to argue well and made excellent points (as in “for their purposes”). Bush refuted Kerry’s claim that he went to war with no alliances. But when pressed about whether the war was a good idea to begin with, Bush’s only response was “well gosh John Kerry, you voted for it too!” :shrug:

Kerry’s response to that was that he had seen the same intelligence reports and initially believed them. To me that says he doesn’t understand what role “intelligence” actually plays. Several years ago I saw former Pres. Ford intervened, and he made the point that the purpose of the CIA is to serve the current President. Whatever their “boss” wants them to prove is exactly what they are going to “prove.”

Essentially all Kerry could say was “I thought the war was right, I now see it’s dumb, but I’m not going to do anything different than Bush, I can just do it better!” And that’s why I’m still voting for Nader, despite the Democrats efforts to kick him off the ballot here in Oregon.


So there’s why not Kerry on that issue.


Here’s the Bush/Kerry/Nader exchange that Crisme posted on another thread:

http://youthdebate.newvotersproject.org/the_candidates_respond.html

On the 1st issue, capital punishment for minors, Kerry says little of substance. Bush says more and tries to use it to plug his accomplishments. Nader is the only one of the 3 who’s position is the same as mine on that issue, and for the same reasons.

On social security, Nader articulates why he’s against privatization. You may not agree, but once again, he is more articulate than Kerry.

On foreign policy, Kerry finally gives us a longer answer, but it’s mostly a lot of hot air, just “emoting” about what Bush did wrong, and about what he would do if elected, but all short of specifics. Nader is like a pistol here- lots and lots of specifics about what is wrong with current US foreign policy.

Btw, does anyone know what Kerry’s plan is to get us off of foreign oil? Nader asked him for specifics on that when the 2 met in person earlier in the year, and the Senator wouldn’t divulge.

On the draft, I’ll let Ralph speak for himself:



The Rangel and Hollings bills not only failed to provide exemptions for college students and only children, but the bills offered no special status for conscientious objectors. Despite the House's recent resounding 402-2 defeat of the draft bills in question, the spectre of a draft remains. With candidate John Kerry calling for 150,000 more troops in Iraq, but not indicating where they will come from, and with President Bush promising endless warfare, American youth must act now to prevent forced conscription.

On election reform, Kerry again doesn’t say much, Nader is for lowering the voting age to 16. (Yeah!)


On and on and on… Nader is way more on top of things than Kerry. I’ll let y’all read the rest of it if you like. But I wonder… why did Bush dodge the question of changing his mind?


Bottom line, Kerry says very little of substance, and when he does, he doesn't represent me on the issues!

[Amazing Rando]

First off, here's my assessment of Bush & Kerry after debate #1:





So there’s why not Kerry on that issue.


Here’s the Bush/Kerry/Nader exchange that Crisme posted on another thread:

http://youthdebate.newvotersproject.org/the_candidates_respond.html

On the 1st issue, capital punishment for minors, Kerry says little of substance. Bush says more and tries to use it to plug his accomplishments. Nader is the only one of the 3 who’s position is the same as mine on that issue, and for the same reasons.

On social security, Nader articulates why he’s against privatization. You may not agree, but once again, he is more articulate than Kerry.

On foreign policy, Kerry finally gives us a longer answer, but it’s mostly a lot of hot air, just “emoting” about what Bush did wrong, and about what he would do if elected, but all short of specifics. Nader is like a pistol here- lots and lots of specifics about what is wrong with current US foreign policy.

Btw, does anyone know what Kerry’s plan is to get us off of foreign oil? Nader asked him for specifics on that when the 2 met in person earlier in the year, and the Senator wouldn’t divulge.

On the draft, I’ll let Ralph speak for himself:



The Rangel and Hollings bills not only failed to provide exemptions for college students and only children, but the bills offered no special status for conscientious objectors. Despite the House's recent resounding 402-2 defeat of the draft bills in question, the spectre of a draft remains. With candidate John Kerry calling for 150,000 more troops in Iraq, but not indicating where they will come from, and with President Bush promising endless warfare, American youth must act now to prevent forced conscription.

On election reform, Kerry again doesn’t say much, Nader is for lowering the voting age to 16. (Yeah!)


On and on and on… Nader is way more on top of things than Kerry. I’ll let y’all read the rest of it if you like. But I wonder… why did Bush dodge the question of changing his mind?


Bottom line, Kerry says very little of substance, and when he does, he doesn't represent me on the issues!


You vote for Nader last time around?

[Kevin Wayne]

You vote for Nader last time around?


As I stated on my Nader thread, this and the last election for me came down to Nader or Bush. And... yep!

[Amazing Rando]

As I stated on my Nader thread, this and the last election for me came down to Nader or Bush. And... yep!

You've got guts, man! :teeth: Me, I'm just not going to vote for President this year because I find both Bush and Kerry to be equally intolerable.

[Kevin Wayne]

You've got guts, man! :teeth: Me, I'm just not going to vote for President this year because I find both Bush and Kerry to be equally intolerable.

Why wouldn't you want to cast a vote for Ralph?

[$cirisme]

Be more specific? You wouldn't be waiving any rights if you'd just abstain from all those war crimes! :wink:
Err, define "war crimes".

I'll take a limited, accountable judicial system with certain constitutional guarantees(the right to trial by an impartial jury, double jeopardy, etc) over an unaccountable, (practically) unlimited judicial system that has no regard for our law.

[AtheistArchon]

- The trouble with an international criminal court is that so many nations would (try to) hold U.S. troops accountable for war crimes that really do have significance. Things like juries, double jeopardy, and speedy trial... those things can easily be incorporated into an international court. The problem is hypocrisy. We just can't allow ourselves to get bogged down in such a court... we might just be found guilty.

- My outlook: if the ICC is engineered to have all the modern legal protections standard to U.S. law, then why not step up?

[$cirisme]

The problem is hypocrisy.

Err, no it's not. We don't drag people off to "international" courts that have jurisdiction everywhere regardless of the law of the land. We either have temporary tribunals administered by the new government, or by the victors.

If the US ever has a new government or is ever defeated, then such tribunals can be administered as we do. It's not like we would have a choice anyway, in such a case.


- My outlook: if the ICC is engineered to have all the modern legal protections standard to U.S. law, then why not step up?

Including making it subordinate to the Supreme Court and Constitution?

That's never gonna happen...

[Seasanctuary]

We just can't allow ourselves to get bogged down in such a court... we might just be found guilty.

Have you noticed that it's quite popular right now to falsely accuse the USA of war crimes? I'm just a tad worried that politics would find me guilty for being an American.

The major failing of any ICC is that the leaders out there dropping chemicals on their own people aren't exactly going to be the ones who decide to hand themselves over. You would have to resort to war or be impotent anyway. You just plain can't enforce laws when you're unwilling to use force. The whole scheme is fundamentally lame.

[Jimmy Higgins]

- The trouble with an international criminal court is that so many nations would (try to) hold U.S. troops accountable for war crimes that really do have significance. Things like juries, double jeopardy, and speedy trial... those things can easily be incorporated into an international court. The problem is hypocrisy. We just can't allow ourselves to get bogged down in such a court... we might just be found guilty.I find this reasoning as irrational. The US is not joinging the International court to protect the soldiers. How many soldiers from the Balkans who commited crimes are sitting on trial at the Hague? What? Speak up? Oh that's right. NONE! They are trying the big cheese himself, Milosevich. The US doesn't want to join the International Court because people like Rumsfield (who dealt with Hussein), Cheney (who dealt with bin Laden), Baker (who sold his soul to defend the Saudi's against the victims of 9/11), and Kissenger (what isn't he responsible for) would all be susceptible to the International Court. The International Court doesn't care about the troops. They don't have the resources to do all that. They are after the big dogs... the people responsible for the crimes, such as supporting uprisings in Chile in support of Pinochet's coup. They'd be after the ones pulling the strings, not those who are on the strings. This is what the Administration fears.

[Calvinist4Him]

A Basic Outline of Reasons

1. Morality

A.) Abortion - I am pro-life.

B.) Gay Marriage - Homosexuality is sin in the eyes of God. I am against anything which promotes it to become socially and legally acceptable.

2. Freedom

A.) Religious Freedom - I support religious freedom, including the public expression thereof. I am against the suppression of religious freedom.

B.) Gun Control - I am for the rights of gun owners.

3.) National Security

A.) Military - I support our troops and am in support of keeping the armed forces up to date and strong.

B.) War on Terrorism - The Bush administration has done an incredible job, despite all the criticism. I do not believe the war on terrorism will be won at the negotiation table.

[Seasanctuary]

B.) Gay Marriage - Homosexuality is sin in the eyes of God. I am against anything which promotes it to become socially and legally acceptable.

Unless you're for outlawing everything that's "sin in the eyes of God," you may as well admit it's your personal prejudice that's the deciding factor here.

'course, maybe you do want every religion but Christianity outlawed in the USA.

[Calvinist4Him]

Unless you're for outlawing everything that's "sin in the eyes of God," you may as well admit it's your personal prejudice that's the deciding factor here.

Non-sequitur. I could approach the subject of homosexuality apart from religious grounds, and I would end up with the same conclusion.


'course, maybe you do want every religion but Christianity outlawed in the USA.

Which flavor of Christianity? :wink: Sure that would be ideal, but not in the world in which we live. I am a realist, and that is why I think Religious freedom is the best possible solution.

[Patroclus]

My biggest beef with Kerry is his minimum wage issue. He wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.00 per hour over the next two years. He claims that this will ease the quality of living for people who work at minimum wage jobs. However, as long as there is a minimum wage in a capitalist system, it can never remain a sustainible wage because inflation will always surpass it. I can see indexing the wage to match the rate of inflation, therefore keeping the relative difference more or less constant, but driving the minimum wage ahead of inflation only accelerates inflation. The increase will be great for a few months, but eventually it will balance out to its current relative difference (from the sustainible wage).

His environmental policy is based upon financial incentives for businesses to adopt more eco-friendly policies and proceedures. However, if business is losing money due to the cost of employment, they will not be able to take advantages of the incentives until inflation balances the minimum wage.

Furthermore, and this is where it gets personal, raising the minimum wage is bad for private school educators on a salary. A 40% raise for minimum wage jobs does not translate into a 40% increase wage for most salary workers (especially those of us in private education), yet inflation will continue forward while the cost of living becomes more and more difficult.

That is why I will not vote for Kerry.

[Amazing Rando]

Furthermore, and this is where it gets personal, raising the minimum wage is bad for private school educators on a salary. A 40% raise for minimum wage jobs does not translate into a 40% increase wage for most salary workers (especially those of us in private education), yet inflation will continue forward while the cost of living becomes more and more difficult.

That is why I will not vote for Kerry.

But Pat- since you're a teacher, you're making much more than minimum wage, are you not? Your salary is between you and your employer since it's likely that your salary amounts to a significantly greater amount each year than someone working a comparable amount of hours on minimum wage. Why do you feel you need to stay that far ahead of the guys who sweep the floors and flip the burgers? :huh:

[Seasanctuary]

Why do you feel you need to stay that far ahead of the guys who sweep the floors and flip the burgers? :huh:

I don't see how raising the minimum wage would benefit minimum wage earners.

Sure, the numbers on their paycheck go up, but that just raises the cost of living because employers will need to raise the cost of goods. That makes the value of the numbers on their paycheck go back down. Oh, and the value on all the rest of our paychecks too.

Good going.

[The Bard's Song]

Why not Kerry?

-Kerry supported the war in Iraq and wants to commit more troops; he's as much a militarist as Bush, without the messhianic complex.
-Kerry voted for and supports the USA PATRIOT Act.
-Kerry is just as much a corporate whore as Bush; he opposes a living wage and universal health care.
-Kerry is only average in his environmental record as of late, and this can only get much worse when it comes time to pay the fiddler (the corporations that backed him in the election).
-Kerry LOVES the drug war--as a prosecutor one of his specialties was sending non-violent drug offenders to prison.
-Kerry is anti-gay marriage.

Basically, I'd be one hell of a traitor to my progressive ideals if I voted for Kerry.

[Amazing Rando]

I don't see how raising the minimum wage would benefit minimum wage earners.

Sure, the numbers on their paycheck go up, but that just raises the cost of living because employers will need to raise the cost of goods. That makes the value of the numbers on their paycheck go back down. Oh, and the value on all the rest of our paychecks too.

Good going.

Sea, have you ever had to live on minimum wage? How about raise a family on minimum wage? Try it sometime, or meet some folks who do- you might be changing your tune.

[Patroclus]

But Pat- since you're a teacher, you're making much more than minimum wage, are you not? Your salary is between you and your employer since it's likely that your salary amounts to a significantly greater amount each year than someone working a comparable amount of hours on minimum wage. Why do you feel you need to stay that far ahead of the guys who sweep the floors and flip the burgers?

***

Sea, have you ever had to live on minimum wage? How about raise a family on minimum wage? Try it sometime, or meet some folks who do- you might be changing your tune.

You are missing the point, Rando. First of all, considering all the hours that I put into teaching, I don't really make minimum wage, but that is a whole different issue.

I do not care about being ahead of minimum wage earners. This is what I care about:

The current rate of inflation is 3% per annum. Milk costs, roughly, $4.95 at my local grocer. Next year, I can expect to pay about $5.10 per gallon. That is okay, however, because I can expect a raise of about 4%, which would put me at $25,376 annual, and believe me when I say that a $25grand salaray does not go far in California. This four percent raise is possible because we, in keeping with the national average, increase tuition by 5% every year. However, if Kerry gets his way with a hike in minimum wage to $7.00 per hour, which is about a 40% increase, lets pretend that that will increase inflation by twenty percent, making the price of milk at my grocer about $6.00. This is a significant increase because I do not produce a liquid commodity, but an intellectual commodity. Therefore, we cannot expect to raise tuition in consideration of inflation. It would take about ten years before our tuition would better reflect the inflationary trend. So, lets say that we increase our tuition in the first year by 6%, and increase wages by 5%. I am less able to afford milk, or any other liquid commodity.

Furthermore, Rando, because of Adam Smith's law of wages, your brand new minimum wage will no longer be sustainable in a matter of a few years, if it takes that long. Heaven help you if you have a variable rate loan. If inflation increases rapidly due to a spike in the minimum wage, your loan payments will spike when interest rates increase as a response to the accelerated inflation.

Those families who get a boon from the increased minimum wage will only be benefitted for a few months. Once inflation balances out, they will be right back in the same place, because a minimum wage can never be a permanently sustainable wage.

[Amazing Rando]

The current rate of inflation is 3% per annum.

Then let's raise the minimum wage by 3% a year! It hasn't been raised since 1998 I believe, so that means that the $5.15 an hour these poor folks are earning is now worth over 18% less than it was worth back in 1998 (6 years times 3% equals 18 percent, right? It's late and my math skills fade away when I'm sleepy!). I agree that $7.00 is much too big to be sustainable. But a more moderate increase in minimum wage is critical to these folks being able to feed their families. We can't allow inflation to overtake the minimum wage like that.

[Patroclus]

Then let's raise the minimum wage by 3% a year! It hasn't been raised since 1998 I believe, so that means that the $5.15 an hour these poor folks are earning is now worth over 18% less than it was worth back in 1998. I agree that $7.00 is much too big to be sustainable. But a more moderate increase in minimum wage is critical to these folks being able to feed their families. We can't allow inflation to overtake the minimum wage like that.

Of course! Like I said, we whould index the minimum wage for inflation. That puts us at $6.33 in 2005 (if mw'05 = 5.15 x (1.03^7) ). The problem is that neither candidate advocates this sort of thing. Bush advocates no increase to appease the upper class (I think), and Kerry advocates a huge increase to appease the lower class (I think). I hate to sound heartless, but it is smarter to go with the more conservative approach and deal with the mess before we drive inflation too high.

[Amazing Rando]

Of course! Like I said, we whould index the minimum wage for inflation. That puts us at $6.33 in 2005 (if mw'05 = 5.15 x (1.03^7) ).

Oh, okay! Sounds great! :thumb: But somebody PLEASE tell Dubya that it needs to go up some!

[Patroclus]

Please see my editition to my last post, as it expresses my frustration with Bush on this issue.

[Seasanctuary]

We can't allow inflation to overtake the minimum wage like that.

Raising minimum wage doesn't make free money rain down from the sky.

Raising minimum wage causes more inflation, causing you to think we need to raise minimum wage again, causing more inflation, etc. I know your heart's in the right place, but all you're doing is offering people higher numbers on their paychecks in exchange for those numbers being worth less than they did before.


But a more moderate increase in minimum wage is critical to these folks being able to feed their families.

No, if someone is trying to live on minimum wage, they need to raise themselves above it. That's the only way they can ever actually make more.

[Patroclus]

No, if someone is trying to live on minimum wage, they need to raise themselves above it. That's the only way they can ever actually make more.

True, but some marginal increase helps fund our bread and circuses. Inflation is a natural phenomenon, so a slight increase now and again to keep people from rioting is not a bad thing.

[Amazing Rando]

Raising minimum wage doesn't make free money rain down from the sky.

Raising minimum wage causes more inflation, causing you to think we need to raise minimum wage again, causing more inflation, etc. I know your heart's in the right place, but all you're doing is offering people higher numbers on their paychecks in exchange for those numbers being worth less than they did before.

Did you miss my last exchange with Pat just now? The minimum wage hasn't been raised since 1998, meaning that the people on minimum wage are currently earning 18% less than they did back then. Inflation has [/b]passed[/b] the minimum wage, meaning it's time to raise it up to a sustainable level. Of course Kerry's $7.00 an hour is too much of a jump- as Pat mentioned, we can't put it past inflation. But $6.33 would be just about right.


No, if someone is trying to live on minimum wage, they need to raise themselves above it. That's the only way they can ever actually make more.

Ah, the ol' conservative "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality. :teeth: If only it were that simple...

[Seasanctuary]

Of course Kerry's $7.00 an hour is too much of a jump- as Pat mentioned, we can't put it past inflation. But $6.33 would be just about right.

I'm saying minimum wage increases will move inflation up further. A vicious cycle kind of thing.


Ah, the ol' conservative "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality. :teeth: If only it were that simple...

If only it were as simply as saying everyone makes $10/hour minimum...and suddenly that money would appear at the same value it is today.

Is it just parts of the country where all these adults are stuck with no way out of minimum wage? I didn't make minimum wage when I worked fast food. And even if it is as difficult as you make it sound, I'm all for spending money on helping people find such jobs and skill training.

I don't want people to be unable to pay for their needs. I just want to help them for real, not by some sounds-good "free money" measures that adds to their problem as fast as it supposedly helps them out of it.

[Ben Franklin]

I'm saying minimum wage increases will move inflation up further. A vicious cycle kind of thing.



Minimum wage increases will move cost of goods or services up only when operating income is maintained at the same level. Currency values fall when the money supply outgrows production (inflation), so money and profit are the problems, not wage laws. Flawed capitalist pricing must be abandoned.




If only it were as simply as saying everyone makes $10/hour minimum...and suddenly that money would appear at the same value it is today.



Money is no more than the collective value of the national product. Without the labor, they money would have no value, because nothing would exist for purchase. Labor's value must be directly linked to a good's or service's value. If it takes $50 bucks to create something, then that is value of the product. Profit must bow to value-bartering to create an equitable economic system.

[Losvedir]

Not entirely on topic, but interesting:

I just learned the other day in one of my classes how in certain situations imposing a minimum wage can be a *good* thing for the economy. When there's what's called a monopsony -- one primary employer in a given area with an undue amount of power over the wage (like, say, a factory town in small town, midwest) -- then a minimum wage can actually increase employment, with I believe no adverse affects to inflation because of it. Weird...

I don't like these politician battles that go on periodically. I think it would be best just to tie it down to the consumer price index or something. Republicans don't want to, though, because as time goes on the real minimum wage will decrease, which is what they want, and democrats don't want to because these political crusades for the lower classes wins them votes...

[Amazing Rando]

I'm saying minimum wage increases will move inflation up further. A vicious cycle kind of thing.

Ergo... never raise the minimum wage until $5.15 won't buy a stick of gum? :poke:


If only it were as simply as saying everyone makes $10/hour minimum...and suddenly that money would appear at the same value it is today.

Is it just parts of the country where all these adults are stuck with no way out of minimum wage?

Primarily inner city and low-income rural environments.


I didn't make minimum wage when I worked fast food. And even if it is as difficult as you make it sound, I'm all for spending money on helping people find such jobs and skill training.

I don't want people to be unable to pay for their needs. I just want to help them for real, not by some sounds-good "free money" measures that adds to their problem as fast as it supposedly helps them out of it.

Raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation as Pat has suggested (note: NOT the $7.00 an hour Kerry would like to see) is a very real, very viable solution to a lot of people's problems. Only two years ago I was making 5.65 an hour working at my college's food court while I was saving enough money to buy my wife's wedding ring- which was of course a luxury (though one she was grateful for!). It took a very long time as you might imagine. I was provided for by my parents during that time so I wasn't trying to live on my meager wages thankfully, but it made me reflect on the fact that not everyone is as fortunate as I was. Some of the people working at the food court were trying to live, pay rent, and even raise families on the 5.65 an hour we were earning. I can't imagine how hard that would have been.

[Tfbandie]

Ergo... never raise the minimum wage until $5.15 won't buy a stick of gum? :poke:



Primarily inner city and low-income rural environments.



Raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation as Pat has suggested (note: NOT the $7.00 an hour Kerry would like to see) is a very real, very viable solution to a lot of people's problems. Only two years ago I was making 5.65 an hour working at my college's food court while I was saving enough money to buy my wife's wedding ring- which was of course a luxury (though one she was grateful for!). It took a very long time as you might imagine. I was provided for by my parents during that time so I wasn't trying to live on my meager wages thankfully, but it made me reflect on the fact that not everyone is as fortunate as I was. Some of the people working at the food court were trying to live, pay rent, and even raise families on the 5.65 an hour we were earning. I can't imagine how hard that would have been.



Here in lies a major problem in my view. Your scenario lays it out plainly, you were there working for extra spending money (though with a target object) while being sustained by our parents while others were making the exact same amount and trying to live off it. But there's no way to really change that. You didn't "need" to make more money where some of your coworkers probably did.

It would be better if there were two minimum wages (maybe one for dependents and one for independents according to taxes). But then businesses would only higher dependents. Thus making situation even worse

[Amazing Rando]

Here in lies a major problem in my view. Your scenario lays it out plainly, you were there working for extra spending money (though with a target object) while being sustained by our parents while others were making the exact same amount and trying to live off it. But there's no way to really change that. You didn't "need" to make more money where some of your coworkers probably did.

It would be better if there were two minimum wages (maybe one for dependents and one for independents according to taxes). But then businesses would only higher dependents. Thus making situation even worse

A good thought! :yes:

[Ben Franklin]

Raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation as Pat has suggested (note: NOT the $7.00 an hour Kerry would like to see) is a very real, very viable solution to a lot of people's problems.



If minimum wage is to be indexed with consumer prices, then where to start? Since this system must assume an initial minimum wage figure, how to set it? If a relationship shall exist between wages and prices, then why not use a formula to recalculate minimum wage periodically, rather than indexing? Using such a formula, all wages could be computed, not just minimum wages, gving economists a simple system for comparing total wages with total production. If a relationship between consumer prices and wages doesn't exist, why peg wages to inflation? What then is the initial minimum wage figure based upon?

[Patroclus]

Rando, you are missing my point that a minimum wage can never be sustainable. However, that does not mean that inflation must pass minimum wage to such an extant that a pack of gum is etc. It is reasonable to index a minimum wage if for no other reason than to keep people somewhat content.

Ben, I suggest that we increase minimum wage nominally, thereby making a few more people happy, and then indexing it.

I think that a minimum wage should account for the benchmark of a taxpayer income. A person working full time at minimum wage should pay an annual income tax.