Giving people more of their earned money back does give them more money, but it's different than increasing the wage. Workers get more money, but it isn't coming from the employer, its just being taxed less. The employer isn't saddled with paying more to their workers, so prices don't need to go up.

------------------
Intelligence, Integrity, Responsibility.
Vote Bush/Cheney 2000

You're falling prey to another liberal falacy: that which states that the best solution to any problem is to throw money at it. In New Jersey, they're spending $9,000 per student, per year. Lack of money is not the problem. Therefore, taking money away will not increase the problems, to a certain extent. Not that we're suggesting actually cutting budgets in the first place...

And when our soldiers have to subsist on food stamps, we certainly don't need to cut the military budget.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

quote:

---

'The last thing we need right now is a big tax cut' because it will overheat the economy, declared Steven A. Roach, chief economist of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., the big New York investment house.

---

Los Angeles Times, A1, 26 August 2000.

Danm, I hate those liberal media guys reporting on what those money guys on Wall Street are saying.

Omega:

You can ignore it all you want to, but your trickle down theory FAILED. Oh my how it failed. Fantastically failed to not only prevent the Great Depression and to stop the Great Depression once it got started.

I'll point this out too (even though making points to you is like entering a Sloth in a marathon and hoping for victory)...

There are two main arguments running through the anti-living wage folks here:

• jobs will be lost because of the minimum wage
  
• the minimum wage should not be raised because it is inflationary

These are contradictory. Any policy that will cause jobs to be lost, as you assure me they will, is by its very nature deflationary.

quote:

---

I'll agree that raising the standard of living for the poor reduces crime, etc. What's your point? I've shown that increasing the minimum wage does NOT increase the standard of living for anyone.

---

I see stay at home school district still teaches the class on double speak.

"I've shown..." blah blah blah.

First of all you've proven nothing of the kind. Not in this thread or in anyother thread.

Now as to crime and the standard of living. You can't honestly be telling me that you believe that by putting money into the hands of the working poor will not trend down crime? And as crime goes down (I think we can all agree that it is a major social ill that darned crime rate) then society can reduce such social spending on police and and a whole litany of other things.

The standard of living does go up cause, now check this out now, now that crime is down business can move into the community with jobs. Not crud jobs like flipping big macs, but good jobs.

And since society ceases paying to placate social ills and has actually done something to fix them, oh my, taxes come down!

------------------
Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much.....
~C. Montgomery Burns

Listen I have years and years of built up rage from taking shit from idiots like you. What are you, like 12? Go play with your crack-whore mom.

------------------
Creator of Project Phoenix
[email protected]

Amadeus, cut the petty shit or I'll have you banned. Have a nice day.

And since the economy of the 1980-90's, the longest period of sustained economic growth in US history, was largely driven by Reaganomics (ick, I didn't even LIKE Reagan) I'd say that MODERN trickle-down worked fairly well, whereas the 1993 Democratic Congress's largest tax hike in history is what threatened to bog it down.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

I'm always curious at why liberals breathe a sigh of relief when the economy slows down. I'm also curious why liberals seem to think that the economy can't take care of itself. See below about the Fed trying to slow down the economy and causing the Depression.

"There are two main arguments running through the anti-living wage folks here:

jobs will be lost because of the minimum wage

the minimum wage should not be raised because it is inflationary

These are contradictory. Any policy that will cause jobs to be lost, as you assure me they will, is by its very nature deflationary."

Old-style economics. What was that, the Keynsian curve, or something? Whatever it was, it said that unemployment and inflation are mutually exclusive. It was wrong. Nixon imposed direct wage controls in the 70s. That's how we got that huge recession. We had high unemployment AND inflation. That's why no one fixed it until Regan came along. All they economics guys knew was that raising taxes caused one of the two, and that lowering taxes caused the other. They had no idea how to deal with both at the same time, since it wasn't supposed to be possible. Then along came that HUGE upper-class tax cut (thanks, Ronnie!), and the last couple decades of economic growth.

"You can ignore it all you want to, but your trickle down theory FAILED. Oh my how it failed. Fantastically failed to not only prevent the Great Depression and to stop the Great Depression once it got started."

Funny, I thought the GD was due to stupidity on the part of the banks, but mainly the Federal Reserve. It's generally not a good idea to inflate the money supply by 60% in ten years. It also tried to stop the stock market growth by raising intrest rates, which caused the crash in '29, thus leading to the depression. Funny thing, how the market was slowing down anyway...

"First of all you've proven nothing of the kind. Not in this thread or in anyother thread."

I've given a model that you have not refuted, nor can you refute, for it works. Tell me where the owner can get the money without harming the store, THEN you might have a point.

"You can't honestly be telling me that you believe that by putting money into the hands of the working poor will not trend down crime?"

Sure I can. If the money is worth less, then the extra money will do no good. You're also making the assumption that crime is a DIRECT result of poverty. An assumption that I do no agree with. That whole "Poor people commit crime to survive" thing, it... it just makes no sense.

Since the rest of your argument is based on that flawed premise, it is not valid.

Besides, when was the last time liberals lowered taxes, just because the government didn't need the money? We've got that huge surplus, meaning money that the government DOES NOT NEED, and they claim that they do. The money would just get spent on something else.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

------------------
Creator of Project Phoenix
[email protected]

What do you mean i should shut up. Of course people like civility. No i think you should shut up. That's right you heard me. i'll pretend i didn't hear that. What are you doing now. Take your hands off of me. STAY AWAY FROM ME!! You can't do that, I HAVE RIGHTS YOU KNOW, leave me alone. Ouch, that hurt. What do you mean i'm a cry baby? Ouch, stop that. That's not funny. Hey, quit it. This is getting needlessly mess, OW. Hey cattle prods aren't toys. No, i am not doped up on painkillers.

------------------
"Life sucks, then you die"

Whoa, man, I'm sorry, I didn't know 'moron' meant "harry assed cum sucking pig fucker" in your language. Because it's not raally a big insult in mine.

I just responded in kind to your generalization of 'the morons' that inhabit the world.

Perhaps you should seek counselling if someone you'll never meet, who has absolutely no importance in your life, with a handle from a 1980's children cartoon about giant robots can upset you.