RoyalOrleans

Pretty soon a Big Mac Value Meal without an apple fukken pie will be $8-10 each! Ohhh... you want pie with that? Sorry no pie for you! Come back, two year! [attach=full]2448[/attach]

The biggest issue with minimum wage is the fact that it INCREASES the number of poor people while driving up the costs of goods. Let me explain - Let's say that you have 3 classes of workers, and they make $5, $7.50, and $10 per hour. Let's say that the minimum wage is $5. So, providing for an even distribution 1/3 of the population makes minimum wage, 1/3 makes within $2.50 of minwage and 1/3 makes 2x minimum wage. If poverty is defined as anybody making minimum wage then you have 1/3 of the population in poverty. Now, here comes the genius' in congress. Let's raise the minimum wage by $2.50! Then we won't have anybody in poverty any more! We're here for the little cokksuckers who toil so hard and have little to show for it! We'll be re-elected for sure! However, if poverty is still defined as the number of people making minimum wage - you now have the 1/3 of people that made $5 to begin with and andother 1/3 that made $7.50 before - all making $7.50 now. So now, you have 2/3 of the population making minwage and living in poverty! This is the brilliant math of a career politician at work. Let's also talk about costs. I actually had a professor (who didn't teach economics - thank God) who once said that raising the minimum wage does not cause inflation! That's insane too! Wages are a cost of doing business, just like a raw material. If the cost of anything goes up (buns, lettuce, wages, burgers, special sauce - whatever) McDonalds has to raise the price of the Big Mac to make a profit. That is a base, rudimentary explantion of inflation.

There is an idea that if the government were run like a business, we'd be much better off. This is impossible for two reasons: governments don't have a profit motive (i.e., they don't have to compete for their income -- they can simply take it), and they aren't spending their own money, so there is no incentive to run efficiently.

Some people breed because... well... they can! Sensible, rational, and reasonable people breed to proliferate the species and to raise future citizens.

All the while thinking to herself, "God bless those ignorant cokksuckers in Alaska.".

Too late to charm her, Snaffy. She's gone the way of the McRib.

Keith Urban is a lot prettier. A unique kangaroo.

I was going to say breakdancing.

I can't remember what the minimum wage was back in 1985, but I do remember being close to a ladies only gym. Hot bodied women would come and go, in their little "go to the gym" clothes. It was more than a fifteen year old boy could handle. I would've worked for free.

And these blacks go on to become community organizers. Hmmm... Kidding(?). I thought affirmitive action would come to an end with the election of Obama.

Friday, the federal minimum wage was set to increase to $7.25. Just what our economy needs to get things moving again, right? Wrong. Even people educated in government schools can figure out how this one is going to turn out. Wages increase. Employers have to figure out ways to get the extra funds. The first way would be to increase the amount of cash coming in. That's easier said than done .. especially considering this economy. Another way could be to scale back employee hours. Suddenly that increase doesn't seem to matter much, because your employer needs you less --- or you could simply fire people! Get rid of them! Less employees in the work force means longer lines at the unemployed office. I'm not just blowing smoke here. When I was in high school I got a job bagging groceries at the Winn Dixie on Washington Ave. in Gainesville, Georgia. I was being paid the minimum wage. After a few months on the job the minimum wage went up by 25 cents. The manager of the store fired me. He said that the increase in the minimum wage increased his bag boy budget over the limit, and since I was the last hired I would be the one who had to go. My first real brush with the idiocy of government intervention in the marketplace. I was willing to work for the hourly rate I was getting, and the manager was willing to pay me that rate ... but the government said no. Back then I just couldn't understand what role the government had in the wage negotiations between me and my employer. I thought that the government's responsibility would be to provide the means of forcing compliance with whatever agreement we made .... But did I ever have a lot to learn. Basically what you can expect is for this to prolong the economic recovery. But it could get even worse. Did you know that one of Barack Obama's campaign promises was to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011? Yeah, that'll really work wonders for our economy. But advocates for the minimum wage increases love to use this phrase "the working poor." I'm sorry, folks but nobody in their right mind should expect for you to raise a family earning minimum wage. If you do, you are a low-life. You are a failure. "The working poor" is just a fancy way of masking that reality. But with this minimum wage increase, it looks like we are going to have less "working poor" people to worry about and more plain 'po people. Probably good news for the Democrats.

What I don't understand, Gates walks with a cane. Yet he was forcing the door open with his shoulder. Perhaps Gates carries the cane as a fashion accessory of sorts?

Why is it the state's responsibility to educate the youth of America?

And just who was prejudiced? Was it the cop who responded to a call about a black man breaking and entering? How could he act any better than he did given the information he had and the belligerent attitude of Prof. Gates? It would be more accurate to say that Gates reacted with prejudice to the white cop who dared to question him and ask for his identity without knowing or caring why Crowley was even asking. It might also be fair to say that the woman who first made the call to the police reacted with prejudice when she saw a black man trying to 'break' into his own house. Why doesn't Gates spew his venom about that? Perhaps the prejudice was from the highest executive officer in the country when he ignorantly decided that police in Cambridge acted stupidly, a decision he came to only seconds after stating that he did not have all the facts. Officer Crowley had a duty to investigate the break-in call (one that specifically mentioned the race of the alleged perpetrator), and from what I can tell, he did it professionally in the face of stupidity and race-baiting. You know, people used to say "Only in America" as if to say: only in a country like the USA could someone rise from poverty and obscurity to the heights of success and fame. Or only in America could we have such freedoms. Nowadays, however, it seems to mean that only in America could something this asinine make national headlines.

Maybe TJ is a holocaust denier?

And the other half would be on pins and needles with concern over their cycles.

That is, to further wez' definiition of speak.

Dear God, man! That's a character I have repressed over the years! My exwife loved, I mean, absolutely loved ABC's TGIF lineup! She would forgo all other activities to watch Family Matters, Full House, Step by Step, et. al. Now.... I can't get Urkel's nasally voice out of my head. Thanks.

Did you read my posts at all, dipsh!t?

When you type your little response, it is called typing, but, when you click on "SUBMIT REPLY", in this forum, it becomes a conversation. Never opine short of certainty.

Hey... I'm not the one who used a "Q" instead of a "G". I mean, Jesus H Christ, man, how far are the letters from each other on the keyboard?

Blah blah blah blah.... You sound like a c nt... that is if you and I were having this conversation in person over a nice cup of coffee. Since we are exchanging in conversation over the ding dang Internet, I can say that you probably sound like a c nt.

So....... by that rationale you're just a blathering, rambling jackass? You just talk to hear yourself speak? You don't think before you speak?

If we were having this conversation over, let's say a cup of coffee, would you pronounce "guilt" as "quilt"?

I just love how the AP describes it: "President Barack Obama sought Wednesday to cast the intensifying health care debate in terms that matter to ordinary people, promising to offer more savings, security and treatment to millions." Oh there you go ... using the word "security." We'll give Obama credit for that. He knows that the word "security" is much more important to the majority of Americans than the word "freedom." That would be why Hillary's attempted takeover of health care in 1993 was called the "Health Security Act." Much of governance today revolves around finding the right trigger word that resonates with the government-educated dumb masses. Get the right trigger word; like "change" for instance, and you can sell horsesh!t in a bag to most people. If you're a bit more advanced in your ability to engage in rational thought - a disappearing trait - you will understand that Obama really gives a flying dogfukk about the healthcare of "ordinary people." What Barack Obama wants to do is promise people "security" so that they will buy his takeover of almost 20% of our econmy and, thereby, become even more dependent on government. That's what this debate is about .. not about healthcare! But back to the prepared remarks .. Obama wanted to remind Americans that "This debate is not a game." Pretty clever. He says, "This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer .. They are looking to us for leadership. And we must not let them down." Looks like PrezBO is consulting his team of behavioral scientists again. Obama is trying to paint a picture that he and the Democrats are the only ones who are taking things seriously in Washington. His opponents aren't really serious, they're just playing games. They're just screwing with him because they lost, and the people need to realize this or our country is doomed. For months now Barack Obama has made a point of telling the government-educated dumb-masses that the fate of our economic future is tied to healthcare reform. Not a bad tactic, actually. He knows that not many people are really feeling the pain of a broken system of health care, but the pain of our economic downtown has been spread pretty widely. So .... It's simple! Tie his takeover of health care to the economy, and the people will get on board! Barack Obama and the Democrats keep reminding us that the healthcare industry comprises about 16% to 18% of our economy. Question .. is this necessarily a bad thing? David Gratzer, a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says that regulation is in fact our biggest problem with healthcare. Here's a peak: So.... Just thinking out loud here ... but what if the people who live in New York were allowed to buy their health insurance from a company in Wisconsin? Do you think the competitive pressures from the Wisconsin insurers just might drive the cost of insurance in New York down? Now that's a free market solution .. and if there's anything missing from the Democrat side of this health care debate, it's free market solutions. By now you should know why. This isn't about delivering health care. This isn't about making health insurance more affordable. This is about making people dependent on government for their health care. You don't do that by making it easier for them to buy their health insurance in the free marketplace.