On all the great social issues of our time, "The Left" has already won.

[Carl]

I'll pass on that one, but feel free to educate me on what you see as the likely results of an increase in the minimum wage.  I promise to read what you have to say.

-Laelth

Why pass,it is a simple equation...force businesses to pay more without an increase in value and they raise the price of goods/services to cover it.
Those employees that do have an intrinsic value will receive more but with the increase in prices have no greater buying power.
Suddenly the lower end,your 15/hr entry level workers become the new poverty class which instead of being 12,000 for a single suddenly becomes 20,000 or similar.
Then you leftys will insist they get assistance so nothing changes,you just rejigger the numbers.

You really are ignorant aren`t you?

[Eupher]

I'll pass on that one, but feel free to educate me on what you see as the likely results of an increase in the minimum wage.  I promise to read what you have to say.

-Laelth

You do an awful lot of "passing" and "dropping."

Does that mean you're going to "pass" and "drop" yourself right on out of here?

The door is -------------------------> that way.

And don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

Face it, Laelth. You're not adding anything to the discussion. You repeatedly have your ass handed to you in arguments that you're woefully inadequate to address. On all manner of subjects, economics, social policy, racial bigotry, abortion, you get this lofty idea in that pea brain of yours and then decide to wander in here and gloat about how the left has "won."

And then you're shown in clear, unambiguous language, just how wrong you are.

Aren't you embarrassed for yourself? Do you like to show your ass like you do? Have it handed to you?

Are you a masochist of some kind?   

[Splashdown]

I didn't say it was a "good" thing.  I couldn't think of a better, value-neutral way to frame the question.  The question is, will we see abortion banned in the next 20-40 years?  I don't think so.  I am wondering whether I am missing something.

That said, I do appreciate your kind reply.

-Laelth

I'm going to be civil, I've decided.  

I think you have conservatives all wrong. We're not about "banning" or making these sweeping national laws. At least I'm not. By definition, conservatives believe the fewer laws, the better. Every law we make, no matter how "necessary," limits our freedom a littlel bit.

I'm pro-life. I believe that abortion is the killing of a human life. I want Roe V. Wade overturned. It's bad law, and it's long obsolete. I think states should make their own laws when it comes to abortion. I don't know if you could ever ban it, because--although my personal beliefs may differ--you have to take the life of the mother or rape victims, etc., into consideration.

But should a 12 year old, who can't get Motrin without parental permission, be allowed unfettered access? No. Should third-trimester abortions be completely outlawed? Yes.

Protections for the life of the unborn have to be put back into place.

So, the way the country is moving, I see conservatives "winning" this debate.

[Laelth]

Why? What do you hope to gain? Do you actually think that you and your ilk are going to "convert" any of us here? Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, of course, but to me, it's arrogance personified for a Proglodyte to occasionally drop in (sorta like a steaming turd) into a decidedly different community and "gloat" the way you did in your OP.

Call it gloating, if you like, but I am truly interested in what conservatives have to say about the fact that the Republican Party (on the national level) appears to have surrendered on a number of key issues that matter a great deal to the right-wing base.  Those of us on the left assume the Democratic Party isn't listening to us, and much of the rancor you see on DU is a result of that disconnect between the Democratic Party and its base.

What's different, now, is that the Republican Party appears to be listening to its base (and fighting hard for its base's ideology, at least in regards to the ACA and the national debt).  This is a departure from what we have seen in the recent past, and it's interesting.  I am not expecting to "convert" any of you, but, I will continue to assume that you are American patriots who care enough about this country to think about it, talk about it, and write about it in a public forum.   If you refuse to extend to me the same courtesy, so be it.

You and your ilk aren't interested in exchanging ideas. You just want to spread your filth around.

As far as I'm concerned, when you Proglodytes and Fascists (yes, if you're following the teachings of Brother Barry, you're most definitely a Fascist), celebrate the killing of the unborn, you've already lost. We don't even need to discuss the other talking points in your screed.

Gotcha.  I'll expect to see no more responses from you.  Obviously, I'm not worth talking to.

 

-Laelth

[Eupher]

Call it gloating, if you like, but I am truly interested in what conservatives have to say about the fact that the Republican Party (on the national level) appears to have surrendered on a number of key issues that matter a great deal to the right-wing base.  Those of us on the left assume the Democratic Party isn't listening to us, and much of the rancor you see on DU is a result of that disconnect between the Democratic Party and its base.

Another miscalculation. Damn, you don't get ANYTHING right, do you?

First of all, the Republican party hasn't surrendered anything. Did you see a white flag anywhere on the RNC web site? Secondly, the Republican party doesn't speak for all of the "right-wing base" as you call it. There are a disturbingly large number of CONSERVATIVES (and you'll note that REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES are not the same thing) who are enormously disgusted with the Republican party. Why? Just read what's already been prodigiously written here on CC. You'll get an earful.

So instead of your own little forum where you're asking a series of DUmbass questions in the guise of being "civil", you might actually have to shut up and do some reading on your own. Does that sound like a good idea, or what?

What's different, now, is that the Republican Party appears to be listening to its base (and fighting hard for its base's ideology, at least in regards to the ACA and the national debt).  This is a departure from what we have seen in the recent past, and it's interesting.  I am not expecting to "convert" any of you, but, I will continue to assume that you are American patriots who cares enough about this country to think about it, talk about it, and write about it in a public forum.   If you refuse to extend to me the same courtesy, so be it.

The Republican party can't get its head out of its ass. It's controlled by the east coast elitists. Tea Partiers do not have a clear, ringing voice yet within the party. That will hopefully change in 2014.

Gotcha.  I'll expect to see no more responses from you.  Obviously, I'm not worth talking to.

Yet another miscalculation. When you get up out of bed in the morning, do you forget to stand on your legs and thereby fall to the floor? That's been your performance level in this thread so far.

It's actually comical. Funny ha-ha. And funny sad, too, because no man should look as stupid as you do.

[Laelth]

So you define "victory" as a lack of legislation banning abortion?  Interesting...

Education and advances in medical science are doing far more to get rid of willful killing of the unborn than legislation ever could.

I admit that I spent some time thinking about how to phrase the question in the OP.  I used the word "won" to avoid any value judgment on it so I could get some responses.  Evidently, I failed.

I hope you are right about education and advances in medical science.  Even the strongest supporters of privacy (keeping the government out of a woman's uterus) agree that the procedure is gruesome and bad.  If abortions can be prevented through education and scientific advances, that will be good for everyone.

That's nice.  Now, answer my question, please.

I have looked back, and I can't find a question that you asked on this issue (gay marriage).  If you'd like to refresh my memory, I'll try to respond, but my opinion on this subject is that gays deserve (and will have, within then next 20 years or so) the right to marry in all states (except Utah which I expect to hold out on that issue for much longer).  The question I pose is whether the Republican Party has any will to continue to fight on this issue.  It appears to me that the left has already won, and that it is only a matter of time before we see the nation's laws start to reflect the national consensus on this issue.  If I am wrong about this, and I am asking you directly, I'd like to know.  

Again, no real basis other than your opinion.  I am using the Amsterdam model of changing policy where marijuana bars are required to be private clubs.  Which, it would seem, is a rather large reversal of the previous laws.

No, indeed.  My opinion here is irrelevant.  I wanted to know what you had to say.  You're absolutely right to note that the Dutch are restricting this right.  That said, a number of countries are liberalizing on this issue (as I saw in a recent edition of Time).  So, what's your prediction for us here in the States?

Regardless of who deserves credit?  After claiming it as a leftist victory?  You don't say....  

It is, however, a very large metric in the overall indicator of how "liberal" the country truly is.  Do you deny that?

Gun control?  A metric of how liberal the United States is?  Well, I can safely say (from my own experience) that people in many places in the world consider our attitude towards guns to be backwards and frightening.  To that, I respond that we are a different country with a different history, and that the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, and that it's not changing any time soon.  They respond to me with puzzled looks and mild disdain.  I can live with that.

Thank you for your response.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

Why pass,it is a simple equation...force businesses to pay more without an increase in value and they raise the price of goods/services to cover it.
Those employees that do have an intrinsic value will receive more but with the increase in prices have no greater buying power.
Suddenly the lower end,your 15/hr entry level workers become the new poverty class which instead of being 12,000 for a single suddenly becomes 20,000 or similar.
Then you leftys will insist they get assistance so nothing changes,you just rejigger the numbers.

You really are ignorant aren`t you?

Here's what I can safely say.  If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now.  History proves me right on this point.

And I will continue to maintain that we are all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.

-Laelth

[Carl]

Here's what I can safely say.  If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now.  History proves me right on this point.

And I will continue to maintain that we are all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.

-Laelth

You didn`t just try to compare the overall economic atmosphere of 1962 with 2013...oh wait,yes you did.
Don`t you get tired of looking like an idiot?

[Carl]

Here's what I can safely say.  If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now.  History proves me right on this point.

And I will continue to maintain that we are all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.

-Laelth

You can believe in the tooth fairy too but tell me by what facts do you hold this theory?

[Freeper]

Here's what I can safely say.  If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now.  History proves me right on this point.

And I will continue to maintain that we are all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.

-Laelth

The minimum wage is just like tax rates. You leftists constantly demand just a little bit more then when you get it you demand just a little more. Rinse and repeat. There is no minimum wage that will ever satisfy you, there is no tax rate that will ever satisfy you either. We could tax the rich at 100% over a certain amount and it wouldn't be long before you wanted 105%. Minimum wage could be $1000/hr and you would still want it raised.

[Laelth]

You do an awful lot of "passing" and "dropping."

Does that mean you're going to "pass" and "drop" yourself right on out of here?

The door is -------------------------> that way.

And don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

Face it, Laelth. You're not adding anything to the discussion. You repeatedly have your ass handed to you in arguments that you're woefully inadequate to address. On all manner of subjects, economics, social policy, racial bigotry, abortion, you get this lofty idea in that pea brain of yours and then decide to wander in here and gloat about how the left has "won."

And then you're shown in clear, unambiguous language, just how wrong you are.

Aren't you embarrassed for yourself? Do you like to show your ass like you do? Have it handed to you?

Are you a masochist of some kind?   

I am a visitor here, and I am aware that I disagree with you on a number of issues.  Are you interested in discussing these issues with me, or not?  If not, then quit responding.  It's that easy.

That said, I am curious to know what you think.  Astounding, isn't it?

-Laelth

[Laelth]

You didn`t just try to compare the overall economic atmosphere of 1962 with 2013...oh wait,yes you did.
Don`t you get tired of looking like an idiot?

Excellent.  Please explain to me how our economy is so different now that we can't sustain a $15/hr. minimum wage while you concede that our economy could sustain that inflation-adjusted minimum wage in 1962.  Genuinely curious.

-Laelth

[Carl]

Excellent.  Please explain to me how our economy is so different now that we can't sustain a $15/hr. minimum wage while you concede that our economy could sustain that inflation-adjusted minimum wage in 1962.  Genuinely curious.

-Laelth

What was the cost of an auto,utilities,energy,schools,insurance etc in 1962 before your leftist driven,business hating unions and politicians drove those prices through the roof?

[Laelth]

The minimum wage is just like tax rates. You leftists constantly demand just a little bit more then when you get it you demand just a little more. Rinse and repeat. There is no minimum wage that will ever satisfy you, there is no tax rate that will ever satisfy you either. We could tax the rich at 100% over a certain amount and it wouldn't be long before you wanted 105%. Minimum wage could be $1000/hr and you would still want it raised.

To be honest, I understand why you feel this way.  That said, I have no interest in crashing the American economy.  We operated quite well in the 1950s when the marginal income tax rate was 90% (or more) http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html.  What's wrong with asking those who derive the greatest benefit from this society to pay the most for its upkeep?



-Laelth

[Laelth]

What was the cost of an auto,utilities,energy,schools,insurance etc in 1962 before your leftist driven,business hating unions and politicians drove those prices through the roof?

Um ... I have no idea, but I am interested in your insight on this subject.



-Laelth

[Carl]

Um ... I have no idea, but I am interested in your insight on this subject.



-Laelth

You are just going to play the obtuse game again.

[NHSparky]

Here's what I can safely say.  If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now.  History proves me right on this point.

And I will continue to maintain that we are all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.

-Laelth

The minimum wage in 1962 was $1.15/hour.  If that is tied to the CPS, the minimum wage today should be about $8.75/hour, not $15.

Try again.

[NHSparky]

To be honest, I understand why you feel this way.  That said, I have no interest in crashing the American economy.  We operated quite well in the 1950s when the marginal income tax rate was 90% (or more) http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html.  What's wrong with asking those who derive the greatest benefit from this society to pay the most for its upkeep?



-Laelth

Okay, I'll bite--that marginal tax rate was equivalent to what income level today?  How many people back then made that kind of money?

And in other news, the AMT was created to nab a few hundred "uber rich" folks back in the 1960's/70's.  Today, almost 40 MILLION fall under AMT rules.

Fairness?

[Dori]

To be honest, I understand why you feel this way.  That said, I have no interest in crashing the American economy.  We operated quite well in the 1950s when the marginal income tax rate was 90% (or more) http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html.  What's wrong with asking those who derive the greatest benefit from this society to pay the most for its upkeep?

Do you seriously think anyone being taxed at that rate would stay here or keep their money in this country?

We've already lost enough business and jobs to other countries because of the BS businesses have to deal with here. 

California is a good example of how high taxes and regulations run businesses and good paying jobs out of the state.

[JohnnyReb]

Do you seriously think anyone being taxed at that rate would stay here or keep their money in this country?

We've already lost enough business and jobs to other countries because of the BS businesses have to deal with here.  

California is a good example of how high taxes and regulations run businesses and good paying jobs out of the state.

Hey, that's exactly what people like Laelth wants. They want people out of work, starving, dying in the streets. That will give Bill Ayers and company the excuse to kill off their 50,000,000 (adjusted for population inflation) and bring on their wonderful socialist utopia.

Now take his name and we'll kick his ass later.

[Laelth]

I'm going to be civil, I've decided.  

I think you have conservatives all wrong. We're not about "banning" or making these sweeping national laws. At least I'm not. By definition, conservatives believe the fewer laws, the better. Every law we make, no matter how "necessary," limits our freedom a littlel bit.

I'm pro-life. I believe that abortion is the killing of a human life. I want Roe V. Wade overturned. It's bad law, and it's long obsolete. I think states should make their own laws when it comes to abortion. I don't know if you could ever ban it, because--although my personal beliefs may differ--you have to take the life of the mother or rape victims, etc., into consideration.

But should a 12 year old, who can't get Motrin without parental permission, be allowed unfettered access? No. Should third-trimester abortions be completely outlawed? Yes.

Protections for the life of the unborn have to be put back into place.

So, the way the country is moving, I see conservatives "winning" this debate.

Thank you.  That's precisely the kind of response I was looking for (but not necessarily expecting).  I do appreciate your insight.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

Do you seriously think anyone being taxed at that rate would stay here or keep their money in this country?

We've already lost enough business and jobs to other countries because of the BS businesses have to deal with here. 

California is a good example of how high taxes and regulations run businesses and good paying jobs out of the state.

Personally, I'd be happy to return the marginal rate to what it was under Clinton, 39.6%.  That would wipe out the national defecit.

I appreciate your response.

-Laelth

[Bad Dog]

Personally, I'd be happy to return the marginal rate to what it was under Clinton, 39.6%.  That would wipe out the national defecit.

I appreciate your response.

-Laelth

Of course it would sparky.  You speak like a man with a paper a**hole.

[Laelth]

Hey, that's exactly what people like Laelth wants. They want people out of work, starving, dying in the streets. That will give Bill Ayers and company the excuse to kill off their 50,000,000 (adjusted for population inflation) and bring on their wonderful socialist utopia.

Now take his name and we'll kick his ass later.

Why would you think I want that?  Seriously.  Despite the fact that we disagree on a number of issues, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt--that you are an American citizen, as much a citizen of this nation as I am, and that both of us care enough about our country to think about it and write about it in a public forum.  Is this not so?

In addition, I would add that liberals are capitalists.  Our goal is to prevent socialism by curbing capitalism's excesses.  I want a capitalist country (the United States) that spreads the benefits of capitalism in a just way throughout our society.  I do not favor state ownership of all property, i.e. socialism.

So, I'm not sure what straw-man you're setting fire to, but it ain't me if you think I am a socialist.

-Laelth

[Dori]

In addition, I would add that liberals are capitalists.  Our goal is to prevent socialism by curbing capitalism's excesses.  I want a capitalist country (the United States) that spreads the benefits of capitalism in a just way throughout our society.  I do not favor state ownership of all property, i.e. socialism.

I think you have capitalism and crony-capitalism mixed together.

No one here likes how businesses and special interests get in bed with politicians.  And especially how the Unions and lawyers act as the strong arm thugs of the Democrat party.

I've never seen it as bad as it is with this Administration either.