|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump would make a great couple. Nothing like a union forged in populist politics!
|
On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3 This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours.
Thats not really how the sequester works. If they were told to just find 1.2 trillion to cut and do it then it would probably be a fairly painless bill.
|
On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3 This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours.
I can't imagine white house tours cost that much.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 12 2013 03:43 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. Thats not really how the sequester works. If they were told to just find 1.2 trillion to cut and do it then it would probably be a fairly painless bill.
The sequester is evenly split between domestic and defense spending, with across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending. The administration did have the authority to not cut White House tours. For obvious reasons, they decided to cut them.
On March 12 2013 03:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. I can't imagine white house tours cost that much.
Yeah? So where else would you like to take money from? Education? Health? Border patrol? Prisons? Military? Point is, White House tours should not be a contentious issue at all.
I suppose if the money came from the salaries of those on the Hill/the President, that would be a justifiable exchange. Too bad that's not gonna happen.
|
On March 12 2013 03:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:43 Adreme wrote:On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. Thats not really how the sequester works. If they were told to just find 1.2 trillion to cut and do it then it would probably be a fairly painless bill. The sequester is evenly split between domestic and defense spending, with across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending. The administration did have the authority to not cut White House tours. For obvious reasons, they decided to cut them. Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. I can't imagine white house tours cost that much. Yeah? So where else would you like to take money from? Education? Health? Border patrol? Prisons? Military? Point is, White House tours should not be a contentious issue at all.
Given that each department has to find 10% to cut, you can't even take money from education to pay for the tours.
The secret service has 2 missions. The first is the protection of the president and foreign leaders, the second is protection of the financial system by doing things like fighting counterfeiting. Giving White House tours, while popular, is not part of the core function of the department and in any impartial analysis would be considered wasteful if it was not so popular.
|
On March 12 2013 03:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:43 Adreme wrote:On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. Thats not really how the sequester works. If they were told to just find 1.2 trillion to cut and do it then it would probably be a fairly painless bill. The sequester is evenly split between domestic and defense spending, with across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending. The administration did have the authority to not cut White House tours. For obvious reasons, they decided to cut them. Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. I can't imagine white house tours cost that much. Yeah? So where else would you like to take money from? Education? Health? Border patrol? Prisons? Military? Point is, White House tours should not be a contentious issue at all. I suppose if the money came from the salaries of those on the Hill/the President, that would be a justifiable exchange. Too bad that's not gonna happen.
IDK, I kinda view something like WH tours as education - like a museum tour or a tour of some other historical building.
Edit: So yes, cut the military / DHS if you need to.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 12 2013 04:13 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:57 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 03:43 Adreme wrote:On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. Thats not really how the sequester works. If they were told to just find 1.2 trillion to cut and do it then it would probably be a fairly painless bill. The sequester is evenly split between domestic and defense spending, with across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending. The administration did have the authority to not cut White House tours. For obvious reasons, they decided to cut them. On March 12 2013 03:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. I can't imagine white house tours cost that much. Yeah? So where else would you like to take money from? Education? Health? Border patrol? Prisons? Military? Point is, White House tours should not be a contentious issue at all. Given that each department has to find 10% to cut, you can't even take money from education to pay for the tours.
Yeah, true. It was more of a rhetorical question in that regard.
On March 12 2013 04:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:57 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 03:43 Adreme wrote:On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. Thats not really how the sequester works. If they were told to just find 1.2 trillion to cut and do it then it would probably be a fairly painless bill. The sequester is evenly split between domestic and defense spending, with across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending. The administration did have the authority to not cut White House tours. For obvious reasons, they decided to cut them. On March 12 2013 03:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 03:30 Souma wrote:Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense? I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours. I can't imagine white house tours cost that much. Yeah? So where else would you like to take money from? Education? Health? Border patrol? Prisons? Military? Point is, White House tours should not be a contentious issue at all. I suppose if the money came from the salaries of those on the Hill/the President, that would be a justifiable exchange. Too bad that's not gonna happen. IDK, I kinda view something like WH tours as education - like a museum tour or a tour of some other historical building. Edit: So yes, cut the military / DHS if you need to.
You can certainly view it as education. I just don't think it's as important as everything else that's already being cut.
|
Agree that cancelling the WHT are to make a point and to make people notice the effects of cuts by eliminating a thing nearly all americans can enjoy.
It cant cost much to hold those tours annyway? and instead of cancelling they could just charge everyone who takes the tour 5 or 10 bugs to cover the costs.
The pr value of thoose tours is enormous.
|
Dream 2016 ticket: Hillary Clinton/Elizabeth Warren
|
This is the problem with government cuts and public perception. People look at the budget of the government and think, "Certainly, there's waste and fraud in there! If we slash the budget, they'll get rid of the waste and fraud first!" In reality, you start cutting the budget and things people like are going to go. Sure, they can shift stuff around so the headline shifts away from White House tours, but it's just replaced with another headline about Yosemite being shut down for a week, or decreased security for diplomats.
I'd expect regulars to understand this, but I guess you guys would rather jerk off to the idea of the biggest jerk off being asked to fund White House tours instead.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Haha that's not gonna happen. Warren's too left and I'm sure Democrats have Massachusetts locked up anyway. Politically speaking it might be wise to go for a Hispanic, perhaps Castro to try to contend Texas or something.
|
On March 12 2013 06:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Dream 2016 ticket: Hillary Clinton/Elizabeth Warren
I'd vote for that. Hell, I'd vote Libertarian if Warren was on the ticket.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
So about the federal minimum wage... Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state? Not sure why California and Missouri need the same minimum wage.
|
On March 12 2013 06:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Dream 2016 ticket: Hillary Clinton/Elizabeth Warren
I would like a Warren/Booker ticket. When it comes to "mainstream" politicians you really can't get two better people.
|
On March 12 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
So about the federal minimum wage... Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state? Not sure why California and Missouri need the same minimum wage.
Then you'd have states like Texas or Florida cooking the numbers to force a minimum wage as low as possible. Just determine an absolute minimum and force it nationwide, and states can raise it beyond that if they want.
|
On March 12 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
So about the federal minimum wage... Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state? Not sure why California and Missouri need the same minimum wage.
We already have this. The federal minimum wage is the minimum minimum wage. States can (and do) set their own that that can be higher, but you can't go lower than the federal min wage.
Federal minimum wage is 7.25
Cali min wage is 8.00
Missouri min wage is 7.35
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 12 2013 06:56 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
So about the federal minimum wage... Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state? Not sure why California and Missouri need the same minimum wage. We already have this. The federal minimum wage is the minimum minimum wage. States can (and do) set their own that that can be higher, but you can't go lower than the federal min wage. Federal minimum wage is 7.25 Cali min wage is 8.00 Missouri min wage is 7.35
On March 12 2013 06:51 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
So about the federal minimum wage... Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state? Not sure why California and Missouri need the same minimum wage. Then you'd have states like Texas or Florida cooking the numbers to force a minimum wage as low as possible. Just determine an absolute minimum and force it nationwide, and states can raise it beyond that if they want.
Nah, those numbers could just be calculated by some entity that is not the state. Problem solved. It wouldn't change the status quo much aside from not forcing some states to have a minimum wage higher than what is needed in their particular state and it may make some states raise their minimum wage (of course, states would still be able to raise their minimum wage beyond what is determined). I only bring this up because there's a debate circulating around about raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, and I'm thinking that feels a bit too arbitrary for some areas.
In any case, seems we'd be better off calculating it on a state-by-state basis.
|
United States24785 Posts
On March 12 2013 07:50 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 06:56 DeltaX wrote:On March 12 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
So about the federal minimum wage... Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state? Not sure why California and Missouri need the same minimum wage. We already have this. The federal minimum wage is the minimum minimum wage. States can (and do) set their own that that can be higher, but you can't go lower than the federal min wage. Federal minimum wage is 7.25 Cali min wage is 8.00 Missouri min wage is 7.35 Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 06:51 aksfjh wrote:On March 12 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
So about the federal minimum wage... Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state? Not sure why California and Missouri need the same minimum wage. Then you'd have states like Texas or Florida cooking the numbers to force a minimum wage as low as possible. Just determine an absolute minimum and force it nationwide, and states can raise it beyond that if they want. Nah, those numbers could just be calculated by some entity that is not the state. Problem solved.
What numbers would be used? The state could try to manipulate whatever creates the data the external entity uses.
Also, it's not so easy to adjust for the different standard of living from state to state in a fair way that is viable for a federal minimum wage.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
living expense can be severely different within states too.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 12 2013 07:52 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 07:50 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 06:56 DeltaX wrote:On March 12 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
So about the federal minimum wage... Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state? Not sure why California and Missouri need the same minimum wage. We already have this. The federal minimum wage is the minimum minimum wage. States can (and do) set their own that that can be higher, but you can't go lower than the federal min wage. Federal minimum wage is 7.25 Cali min wage is 8.00 Missouri min wage is 7.35 On March 12 2013 06:51 aksfjh wrote:On March 12 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
So about the federal minimum wage... Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state? Not sure why California and Missouri need the same minimum wage. Then you'd have states like Texas or Florida cooking the numbers to force a minimum wage as low as possible. Just determine an absolute minimum and force it nationwide, and states can raise it beyond that if they want. Nah, those numbers could just be calculated by some entity that is not the state. Problem solved. What numbers would be used? The state could try to manipulate whatever creates the data the external entity uses. Also, it's not so easy to adjust for the different standard of living from state to state in a fair way that is viable for a federal minimum wage.
Census? Or have the entity run their own numbers? So many ways that this can be done. I don't accept the mentality that it can't be done.
You may have to elaborate on the second point. Whether it's easy or not is not really an argument though; it's more whether it's viable/plausible/can and will be done.
On March 12 2013 07:55 oneofthem wrote:
living expense can be severely different within states too.
I'm aware, but we can at least address some of the discrepancy, even if we can't address all of it, can't we? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
