It’s been explained to you. You’re evading it.
If you really hate lying all that much, what are you doing in the Elections forum anyway?
One doesn’t actually have to lie to be successful in politics. Joe Biden made it all the way to VP. Plus there are liars and then there are liars. Someone whose very image is a lie is not someone to be trusted. If someone claims to be a Christian, I expect a Christian. I’m fine with voting for an atheist or agnostic. But I won’t vote for one masquerading as a Christian.
Then Election Day must be awfully lonely for you.
Now tell us more about lying. Is even the slightest lie worse to you than any other crime?
No. There are degrees of lying. And of course lying isn’t worse than murder or rape. But on the list of things politicians do to disqualify themselves, habitual lying is one of them. And I think we all know it, because whenever a politician seems to have lied, it’s shouted from the rooftops. It’s a lethal political accusation. As it should be.
and again, there are degrees. A politician making up an anecdote is dishonest, but it’s a pretty harmless dishonesty. He was trying to make a point and so he made up a story to illustrate the point. Saying you are something that you are not, that’s a big lie. Probably the biggest. A candidate who will lie about his faith will lie about anything.
nm
It’s not the only reason. There is a wage below which no one would ever work – no one in America (who needed an income from work) would choose to work for 1 penny per year, for example. Raising a minimum wage from zero to 1 penny per year would cost zero jobs.
Depends on the wage discussed. And minimum wage increases don’t necessarily raise the real price of labor.
Except that minimum wage doesn’t necessarily raise the real price of labor – it just raises the minimum price of labor. If the minimum wage is below what the market would normally bear, and/or companies are engaged in some sort of collusion/agreement to suppress wages, raising the minimum wage might not cost any jobs.
Basically, the real world doesn’t function exactly like an economics textbook. There are always exceptions.
Not exceptions, per se, but factors that make it less applicable to a situation. What goes up, must come down, but flight is still possible. But no one starts out from, “gravity just isn’t a factor”. The principle that there is no free lunch is pretty much a given, yet Democrats choose to deny up and down that there are any tradeoffs to their policies. Maybe they know better but just lie. Like I said, if you’re willing to pretend to be a person of faith when you’re an atheist, then lying about the effects of your proposed policies is small potatoes by comparison.
Here’s how it is, addy. We have, for good or ill, a consumer economy. If the consumers have no money, there is no economy.
Consumers lack money? I didn’t realize this was a problem. If anything, I keep hearing from some quarters about how crass consumerism has gotten out of control. We shop, shop, shop.
I get the argument you’re trying to make, but in 2015, minimum wage legislation is not designed to create more consumer spending. Wage growth throughout the economy is how we create more consumer spending. And wage growth only comes through tight labor markets. And that gets us to the other supply/demand aspect that liberals love to deny: importing cheap labor guarantees that average wages will never rise. When you increase labor supply, the price of labor drops.
To get back to the evolution point, evolution is a matter of faith in politics. There is no policy question a President is going to have to contemplate where evolution is going to be part of his deliberations. Supply and demand, that’s gonna be kinda important.
Am i concerned about a President who denies accepted science? Sure. It’s a strike against them. All things being equal I want a President who doesn’t believe in hooey. But since all Presidents proclaim to believe in hooey, those who lie about it get bigger strikes against them in my book.
So, basically, you’re entirely walking back your assertion about the minimum wage. Which is a good thing, by the way, since you were making an absolute assertion when there are no such absolutes in real world wage economics.
I only ever asserted that increasing the price of labor reduces the demand for labor. Find an economist that will disagree with that statement.
You asserted more than that.
So, you are saying that the department of Education is in no way under the president’s purview?
I am not sure that that is correctly stated. For an essential, increased prices may suppress demand, but they do not reduce demand, in the sense of making it go away.
Have any Presidents that didn’t believe in evolution ever talked about making local schools not teach it?
That’s the nice thing about Presidents who believe in intelligent design. They also believe in local control of schools.
Reduction by definition is “not going away”. And labor is not essential in every case.
Am I on your ignore list, or did you just miss this? I’d be interested to hear what you have to say in response.
Actually, I’ve said many times that Carson is not qualified to be President. My positive statements about him are meant to:
a) defend him from criticism that he’s somehow stupid or crazy. The guy’s a national hero and one of the most accomplished members of one of the toughest professions. There’s a reason that people say about tasks, “It’s not brain surgery” or “It’s not rocket science”. Because brain surgeons and rocket scientists are really amazing people!
b) glee that he’s doing well despite saying what he actually thinks. Catch politicians in unguarded moments and they say crazy things to. What you see in a politician is 70% professional handling, 30% the real guy. Sometimes less. I don’t want him to be President all that much, but I do want politicians to see that they don’t need professionals to tell them what to say and not say.
Do you think that any/all of his utterly ridiculous/incendiary statements will catch up to him? I know he won’t win. But doesn’t a Carson campaign potentially prove exactly how much politicians DO need professionals to rein in the candidate, so he doesn’t say something totally stupid and asinine, like “prisons prove homosexuality is a choice?”
He’ll need it once the race really gets started. Which would prove the absurdity of the whole concept, if he managed to become Awesome Polished Candidate That Says Everything Everyone Wants to Hear by fall. Who knows, maybe he’s punking us.
The reason candidates try to avoid gaffes is because they hurt, because not all candidates have serious gaffes. If all candidates had to speak for themselves, rather than having a Karl Rove/David Axelrod with their hand up their shirt, they’d all have serious gaffes on a regular basis and we wouldn’t pick candidates based on how well they accept handling.