[ByeShea]

the poor need the rich

No one doubts you're expertise on poverty, Mayan.

[KingJD31]

mayan youre poor for a reason, if everyone here was just a bunch of no skilled mayans we would be zimbabwe

the poor need the rich

You're in a fukking bubble

[King Mayan]

I probably make more money than both of you backward hicks combined..

[k13]

Why would the poor need the rich?
Its the other way around.

No rich people without poor.

Jews would never get anything done without their American slaves. They'd never worked in there life.
Nothing would actually be "produced."

A leach needs a host.

[newguy]

really u don't know they get billions in handouts aka subsidy's. Really?

Really? They get billions and you can't name one?? Really?? Farm subsidies is one that both parties like. What else? Don't just spout talking points. Let's look into them. Be smarter. Everyone just spouts talking points. It's so ficking stupid. Let's use facts to back it up.

[stevenash]

Oh really Nash u shut me down lol. First time i read this post. Lets start with Gore. Gores big problem is that he is the messenger for climate change.

So it's climate change now, and not global warming?
Which is it?
The Al Gore alarmists don't call it global warming anymore is, because, it't not warming, and they know it.

Al Gore? You want to go to war with Al Gore? He's a kook. He's such a kook after year six, even Bill Clinton couldn't stand him anymore.
Clinton refused to even endorse Gore, or campaign for him.
This is a direct quote from Bill Clinton "Al Gore is in neverland"
Clinton said that. Not Fox News, not Rush, Clinton.

Thor? Do you know who Phil Jones is?
Thor? Are you familiar with Climategate?

Do you know 31,000 (that's thirtyone thousand!) sciencetist say there is no global warming proof.
Here
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...ncing-evidence



Thor, why do you continue to get schooled by me.
Do you like forum embarrassment?


The recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration claims that surface temperatures have increased in the past decade. In fact, the NOAA report, “State of the Climate in 2009,” says 2000-2009 was 0.2° Celsius [1] warmer than the decade previous. However, the report’s summary, as shown in Figure 1 below, shows a decadal increase of only .2° Fahrenheit (.11°C) based on 20th century temperatures.
The press release was so splashy it made the front page of Toronto’s Globe and Mail with the headline: “Signs of warming earth ‘unmistakable’.”
Of course, given that the planet is in an interglacial period, we would expect “unmistakable” signs of warming, including melting glaciers and Arctic ice, rising temperatures, and rising sea levels. That’s what the planet does during an interglacial.
Furthermore, we’re nowhere near the peak reached by the interglacial of 125,000 years ago, when temperatures were 1-3°C higher than today and sea levels up to 20 feet higher, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself. In other words, the Globe might as well have had a headline reading “Signs of changing weather ‘unmistakable’.”
Similarly, the NOAA report laments: “People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created – one that’s warmer and more extreme.” The implication is that we can somehow freeze-dry the climate we’ve got to last forever, which is absurd.
Sea levels have risen 400 feet in the past 15,000 years, causing all kinds of inconvenience for humanity in the process-and all quite naturally. As the interglacial continues, sea levels will rise and temperatures will increase-until the interglacial reaches its peak, at which point the planet will again move toward glacial conditions. To think that we can somehow stop this process is insane.
Even die-hard alarmists admitted 2000-2009 cooling

But what about the NOAA claim that the surface temperature increased .2°C during 2000-2009? Although they did everything possible to hide this information from the public, media, politicians, and even fellow scientists, by the late 2000s even die-hard alarmists were eventually forced to accept that the surface temperature record showed no warming as of the late 1990s, and some cooling as of about 2002. In other words, overall, for the first decade of the 21^st century, there was no warming and even some cooling.
One of the consistent themes in the Climategate emails was consternation that the planet wasn’t warming as expected by the models (that is, as Figure 1 shows, about half of the .2°C per decade expected by the climate models). For example, as early as 2005 the then-head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, wrote in an email: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
Fellow Climategate emailer and IPCC contributor Kevin Trenberth wrote to hockey-stick creator Michael Mann in 2009: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” [italics added] Note the date: 2009, the last year of the decade. As far as Trenberth knew-and he should have known as a leading IPCC author-the planet hadn’t warmed for several years up to that time.
Even Tim Flannery, author of the arch-alarmist The Weather Makers, acknowledged in November 2009: “In the last few years, where there hasn’t been a continuation of that warming trend, we don’t understand all of the factors that creates Earth’s climate, so there are some things we don’t understand, that’s what the scientists were emailing about. … These people [the scientists] work with models, computer modeling. When the computer modeling and the real world data disagree you have a problem.”[3] [italics added]
Jones tries for climate honesty

Yes, you do have a problem, to the point where, in February 2010, after he’d been suspended as head of the CRU following the Climategate scandal, and in an attempt to restore his reputation as an honest scientist, Jones came a bit clean in an interview with the BBC. For example, Jones agreed with the BBC interviewer that there had been “no statistically significant warming” since 1995 (although he asserted that the warming was close to significant), whereas in his 2005 email he was at pains to hide the lack of warming from the public and even fellow researchers. The next figure shows the Hadley temperatures from 2000-2009, with the trend line (virtually flat) shown in green.




Jones admitted that from 2002-2009 the planet had been cooling slightly (-0.12ºC per decade), although he contended that “this trend is not statistically significant.” In short, as far as Jones knew in February 2010-and as the keeper of the Hadley-CRU surface temperature record he was surely in a very good position to know-the planet hadn’t warmed on average over the decade.
In the BBC interview, Jones calculated the overall surface temperature trend for 1975 to 2009 to be +0.16°C per decade. Since that includes the warming years 1975-1998, it seems incredible that NOAA could manufacture a warming of 0.2°C for 2000-2009, especially given this graph from the 2009 NOAAreport summary, which shows a 21st century warming of only .2° Fahrenheit (1.1°C):


To show this level of warming, NOAA must have included lead-up to the January-March 2010 El Nino. A surge in warming at the end of the decade would tend to pull the 2000-2009 average up, but this doesn’t negate the fact that for almost all of the last decade, the planet did not warm.


NOAA’s U.S. temperatures contradict 2009 report

Curiously, another part of the NOAA website directly contradicts the NOAA report. On its site, NOAA offers a gadget that lets browsers check the temperature trend in the continental United States for any two years between 1895 and 2010. Here’s what the graph shows for the years 2000-2009 in the United States:



This graph shows a temperature decline of 0.73°Fahrenheit (-0.4°C) for 2000-2009 in the U.S. To get a perspective on how large a decline this is: the IPCC estimates that the temperature increase for the whole of the 20^th century was 1.1°F, or 0.6°C. In other words, at least in the United States, the past decade’s cooling wiped out two-thirds of the temperature gain of the last century.While the U.S. isn’t, of course, the whole world, it has the world’s best temperature records, and a review of the NOAA data since 1895 shows that in the 20^th century the U.S. temperature trends mirrored, quite closely, the global temperature trends. So, for example, between 1940-1975, a global cooling period, the NOAA chart showed a temperature decline of 0.14°F (-0.07°C).
In other words, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that the global temperature trend from 2000-2009 could be a full 0.6°C—more than half a degree Celsius—higher than the temperature trend for the United States (that is, -.4C + .2C).
Until NOAA issues a correction (which isn’t likely), the cooling of the past decade—which has been such an embarrassment to the hypothesis that human-caused carbon emissions will cause runaway warming—is gone, conjured away by a wave of the NOAA climate fairy’s magic wand.
Notes
[1] In the full report, page S19, NOAA claims warming of .2°C for the last decade over 1990-1999. In page 5 of the report summary, as shown in the figure, the increase per decade based on the 20th century average is shown as .2° Fahrenheit, or .11°C. However, even the latter figure seems high based on the lack of warming for most of 2000-2009.

[stevenash]

How about stop bringing up Obama or any other politician for this problem and deal with the problem

What's the problem?
I see no problem.

[NardVa]

Minimum wage needs to go up. Minimum wage was around 4.25 in 1996. Almost 20 years later and it's only increased to 7.25. The cost of living has incressed at a higher rate. A minimum wage job should provide you with a basic life style where you can meet basic needs. Give the lower paying jobs higher wages and people want need government hand outs as much. Pay people more money and more money is put back into the economy because people have more money to spend .

[stevenash]

I probably make more money than both of you backward hicks combined..

How much you make?

[stevenash]

oh really slick. It is all i am offered. Comcast or nothing douchey

Really slick.
There are a lot of options to watch cable tv without paying for cable.
You need an internet connection, so you have to pay for that, but dropping cable and just pay Comcast for internet cuts the cost by more than half.
You aren't serious are you? You didn't know there are ways to watch cable without the cost.
God, I can't believe you, you are beyond naive.

[Thor4140]

Really slick.
There are a lot of options to watch cable tv without paying for cable.
You need an internet connection, so you have to pay for that, but dropping cable and just pay Comcast for internet cuts the cost by more than half.
You aren't serious are you? You didn't know there are ways to watch cable without the cost.
God, I can't believe you, you are beyond naive.

Sounds like stealing to me. Typical republican. u are so worried about companies bottom lines but out of the other side of ur mouth u are stealing from them. Priceless. Im starting to figure it all out now. As for schooling? You are to stupid to school anyone. You are a Fox Newstalking point to the highest of levels. The same Fox news who was voted the most misleading news station with the most uniformed watchers.

[Thor4140]

Really? They get billions and you can't name one?? Really?? Farm subsidies is one that both parties like. What else? Don't just spout talking points. Let's look into them. Be smarter. Everyone just spouts talking points. It's so ficking stupid. Let's use facts to back it up.

i just gave u one dickhead. I have been saying this for years. I would give u ten more but unfortunately im headed to work unlike ur buddy Nash who post 24-7

[stevenash]

Sounds like stealing to me. Typical republican. u are so worried about companies bottom lines but out of the other side of ur mouth u are stealing from them. Priceless. Im starting to figure it all out now. As for schooling? You are to stupid to school anyone. You are a Fox Newstalking point to the highest of levels. The same Fox news who was voted the most misleading news station with the most uniformed watchers.

Not stealing, you get the content from Hulu, or Netflicks, etc. etc. etc
Totally legal. Such an idiot you are.

[Thor4140]

1. State and local subsidies to corporations: An excellent New York Times study by Louise Story calculated that state and local government provide at least $80 billion in subsidies to corporations. Over 48 big corporations received over $100 million each. GM was the biggest, at a total of $1.7 billion extracted from 16 different states, but Shell, Ford and Chrysler all received over $1 billion each. Amazon, Microsoft, Prudential, Boeing and casino companies in Colorado and New Jersey received well over $200 million each.
2. Direct federal subsidies to corporations: The Cato Institute estimates that federal subsidies to corporations cost taxpayers almost $100 billion every year.
3. Federal tax breaks for corporations: The tax code gives corporations special tax breaks that have reduced what is supposed to be a 35-percent tax rate to an actual tax rate of 13 percent, saving these corporations an additional $200 billion annually, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
4. Federal tax breaks for wealthy hedge fund managers: Special tax breaks for hedge fund managers allow them to pay only a 15-percent rate while the people they earned the money for usually pay a 35-percent rate. This is the break where the multimillionaire manager pays less of a percentage in taxes than her secretary. The National Priorities Project estimates this costs taxpayers $83 billion annually, and 68 percent of those who receive this special tax break earn more than $462,500 per year (the top 1 percent of earners).
5. Subsidies to the fast food industry: Research by the University of Illinois and UC Berkeley documents that taxpayers pay about $243 billion each year in indirect subsidies to the fast food industry because they pay wages so low that taxpayers must put up $243 billion to pay for public benefits for their workers.
6. Mortgage deduction: The home mortgage deduction, which costs taxpayers $70 billion per year, is a huge subsidy to the real estate, banking and construction industries. The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that 77 percent of the benefit goes to homeowners with incomes over $100,000 per year.
7. The billions above do not even count the government bailout of Wall Street, while all parties have done their utmost to tell the public that they did not need it, that they paid it back, or that it was a great investment. The Atlantic Monthly estimates that $7.6 trillion was made available by the Federal Reserve to banks, financial firms and investors. The Cato Institute estimates (using government figures) the final costs at $32 to $68 billion, not including the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which alone cost more than $180 billion.
8. Each major piece of legislation contains new welfare for the rich and corporations. The Boston Globe analyzed the emergency tax legislation passed by Congress in early 2013 and found it contained 43 business and energy tax breaks, together worth $67 billion.
9. Huge corporations that engage in criminal or other wrongful activities protect their leaders from being prosecuted by paying huge fees or fines to the government. You and I would be prosecuted. These corporations protect their bosses by paying off the government. For example, Reuters reported that JPMorgan Chase, which made a preliminary $13-billion mortgage settlement with the U.S. government, is allowed to write off a majority of the deal as tax deductible, saving the corporation $4 billion.
10. There are thousands of smaller special breaks for corporations and businesses out there. There is a special subsidy for corporate jets, which cost taxpayers $3 billion a year. The tax deduction for second homes costs $8 billion a year. Fifty billionaires received taxpayer-funded farm subsidies in the past 20 years.
If you want to look at the welfare for the rich and corporations, start with the federal Internal Revenue Code. That is the King James Bible of welfare for the rich and corporations. Special breaks in the tax code are the reason that there are thousands of lobbyists in the halls of Congress, hundreds of lobbyists around each state legislature and tens of thousands of tax lawyers all over the co

[stevenash]

The same Fox news who was voted the most misleading news station with the most uniformed watchers.

Let me know when you are getting tired of getting buried by me.
I can do this all night.


Fox News is the most trusted news source in television, with 35 percent of Americans saying they have more confidence in the cable news channel than any other TV news channel, according to the latest poll.

This marks the fifth year in a row since PPP began its annual survey on the most trusted TV news source that Fox News has taken the top spot. The survey of 845 registered voters was taken Jan. 23-26 and has a 3.4 percent margin of error.

When it came to other news outlets, PBS and ABC News earned 14 percent each, with CNN getting 10 percent, CBS News nine percent, Comedy Central and MSNBC getting six percent each and NBC News in last place with three percent.

However, the same poll found that Fox News is also the least trusted news outlet, with 33 percent of Americans saying they do not trust the cable news channel, MSNBC took second place with 19 percent, Comedy Central came in next with 14 percent and CNN had 11 percent of voters saying that they trusted the channel the least. ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and PBS all had fewer than five percent of Americans saying they trusted them the least.

Party affiliation made a huge difference in how voters view the different news outlets. Seventy-five percent of those in the GOP said they trusted Fox News compared to only 20 percent of Democrats who said the same. When asked about the other seven news outlets, 60 to 70 percent of Democrats said they trusted them, while only about 20 percent of Republicans were in agreement.

When the different news outlets were asked about individually, PBS clearly came out on top with 57 percent saying they trusted the federally funded TV news source verses 24 percent who said they didn't.

The other TV news outlets were evenly split. Forty-four percent said they trusted Fox News and 42 percent said they didn't; 39 percent of voters said they trusted CBS News with 37 percent saying they didn't; 40 percent of Americans both said that they did and did not trust CNN; NBC News was similar with 39 percent each saying they did and didn't trust the network news channel; and ABC News was split with 37 percent saying they trusted it, while 38 percent said they did not.

[Optional]

Minimum wage needs to go up. Minimum wage was around 4.25 in 1996. Almost 20 years later and it's only increased to 7.25. The cost of living has incressed at a higher rate. A minimum wage job should provide you with a basic life style where you can meet basic needs. Give the lower paying jobs higher wages and people want need government hand outs as much. Pay people more money and more money is put back into the economy because people have more money to spend .

Don't be talking sense in plain language. You don't appear clever enough that way!

Please include lots of copy/pasted propaganda with supporting diagrams in future.

[stevenash]

Don't be talking sense in plain language. You don't appear clever enough that way!

Please include lots of copy/pasted propaganda with supporting diagrams in future.

The nerve of some people.
I would never use charts and graphs to support my argument.

[Optional]

The nerve of some people.
I would never use charts and graphs to support my argument.

LOL. sorry ;-)

[stevenash]

LOL. sorry ;-)

All good, you provided a nice chuckle.
So.... who's the 3 year old pony to keep an eye on?

[rkelly110]

1. State and local subsidies to corporations: An excellent New York Times study by Louise Story calculated that state and local government provide at least $80 billion in subsidies to corporations. Over 48 big corporations received over $100 million each. GM was the biggest, at a total of $1.7 billion extracted from 16 different states, but Shell, Ford and Chrysler all received over $1 billion each. Amazon, Microsoft, Prudential, Boeing and casino companies in Colorado and New Jersey received well over $200 million each.
2. Direct federal subsidies to corporations: The Cato Institute estimates that federal subsidies to corporations cost taxpayers almost $100 billion every year.
3. Federal tax breaks for corporations: The tax code gives corporations special tax breaks that have reduced what is supposed to be a 35-percent tax rate to an actual tax rate of 13 percent, saving these corporations an additional $200 billion annually, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
4. Federal tax breaks for wealthy hedge fund managers: Special tax breaks for hedge fund managers allow them to pay only a 15-percent rate while the people they earned the money for usually pay a 35-percent rate. This is the break where the multimillionaire manager pays less of a percentage in taxes than her secretary. The National Priorities Project estimates this costs taxpayers $83 billion annually, and 68 percent of those who receive this special tax break earn more than $462,500 per year (the top 1 percent of earners).
5. Subsidies to the fast food industry: Research by the University of Illinois and UC Berkeley documents that taxpayers pay about $243 billion each year in indirect subsidies to the fast food industry because they pay wages so low that taxpayers must put up $243 billion to pay for public benefits for their workers.
6. Mortgage deduction: The home mortgage deduction, which costs taxpayers $70 billion per year, is a huge subsidy to the real estate, banking and construction industries. The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that 77 percent of the benefit goes to homeowners with incomes over $100,000 per year.
7. The billions above do not even count the government bailout of Wall Street, while all parties have done their utmost to tell the public that they did not need it, that they paid it back, or that it was a great investment. The Atlantic Monthly estimates that $7.6 trillion was made available by the Federal Reserve to banks, financial firms and investors. The Cato Institute estimates (using government figures) the final costs at $32 to $68 billion, not including the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which alone cost more than $180 billion.
8. Each major piece of legislation contains new welfare for the rich and corporations. The Boston Globe analyzed the emergency tax legislation passed by Congress in early 2013 and found it contained 43 business and energy tax breaks, together worth $67 billion.
9. Huge corporations that engage in criminal or other wrongful activities protect their leaders from being prosecuted by paying huge fees or fines to the government. You and I would be prosecuted. These corporations protect their bosses by paying off the government. For example, Reuters reported that JPMorgan Chase, which made a preliminary $13-billion mortgage settlement with the U.S. government, is allowed to write off a majority of the deal as tax deductible, saving the corporation $4 billion.
10. There are thousands of smaller special breaks for corporations and businesses out there. There is a special subsidy for corporate jets, which cost taxpayers $3 billion a year. The tax deduction for second homes costs $8 billion a year. Fifty billionaires received taxpayer-funded farm subsidies in the past 20 years.
If you want to look at the welfare for the rich and corporations, start with the federal Internal Revenue Code. That is the King James Bible of welfare for the rich and corporations. Special breaks in the tax code are the reason that there are thousands of lobbyists in the halls of Congress, hundreds of lobbyists around each state legislature and tens of thousands of tax lawyers all over the co

You won't see all that in a govt supplied pie chart. Let's not forget our almighty defense budget where they can
go over budget on projects w/o penalty.

Love how our boys on the hill will cut food stamps, fail to extend unemployment and give McConnell 3 billion to help with
his campaign fund. With subsidies like above, we see who is paying the Repubs to oppose Obama. Trouble is, they are
being paid with our money, not just salary.

[pavyracer]

You won't see all that in a govt supplied pie chart. Let's not forget our almighty defense budget where they can
go over budget on projects w/o penalty.

Love how our boys on the hill will cut food stamps, fail to extend unemployment and give McConnell 3 billion to help with
his campaign fund. With subsidies like above, we see who is paying the Repubs to oppose Obama. Trouble is, they are
being paid with our money, not just salary.

This is what bothers me. The same people who vehemently oppose a small increase in minimum wage or food stamps to help the needy have no problem if a war goes over the budget by 100 billion or a new fighter jet project is over by 200 billion.

[King Mayan]

How much you make?

enough

[pavyracer]

enough to buy chicken breasts

fixed it

[Optional]

All good, you provided a nice chuckle.
So.... who's the 3 year old pony to keep an eye on?

We talking about Caulfield this weekend?

[ByeShea]

enough

Part time security guard + mooch off mom's welfare = enough

[stevenash]

Part time landscaper + mooch off mom's welfare = enough

fixed

[brooks85]

This is what bothers me. The same people who vehemently oppose a small increase in minimum wage or food stamps to help the needy have no problem if a war goes over the budget by 100 billion or a new fighter jet project is over by 200 billion.

It's a testament to your stupidity that you still can't grasp what happens when you increase wages, take a look what is happening in ND. They have a city with the highest rent in the country, higher than any city in LA or NYC. Now why do you think that is?

[King Mayan]

fixed

I'm pretty sure a landscaper makes more than your ass too nashy.. How much you make working in a cubicle these days?? 13.50?

[King Mayan]

Part time security guard + mooch off mom's welfare = enough

C'mon Shea you know I ain't white..

[k13]

It's a testament to your stupidity that you still can't grasp what happens when you increase wages, take a look what is happening in ND. They have a city with the highest rent in the country, higher than any city in LA or NYC. Now why do you think that is?

Ontario has a higher population and not much has really changed since all the minimum wage increases. Going up again this.

Rent has nothing to do with minimum wage.

Chicago has a higher than average min. wage yet their real estate and rent is cheap for a big city.

Not sure where you guys get all this "sky is falling" because of some small increases. Government will waste more money on other useless things anyway.

Raise wage to $20 whatever, life goes on.

Economy adjusts.

[newguy]

It's a testament to your stupidity that you still can't grasp what happens when you increase wages, take a look what is happening in ND. They have a city with the highest rent in the country, higher than any city in LA or NYC. Now why do you think that is?

Come on Brooks - saw same news story yesterday too. It's high only because they found some oil there and there are tons of jobs available and no housing - as the housing catches up (they are building now), rent will drop as well. I am all for using sound logic to support theories - as there is plenty out there - but this one doesn't have anything to do with min wage or anything else. Pure supply and demand.

[newguy]

1. State and local subsidies to corporations: An excellent New York Times study by Louise Story calculated that state and local government provide at least $80 billion in subsidies to corporations. Over 48 big corporations received over $100 million each. GM was the biggest, at a total of $1.7 billion extracted from 16 different states, but Shell, Ford and Chrysler all received over $1 billion each. Amazon, Microsoft, Prudential, Boeing and casino companies in Colorado and New Jersey received well over $200 million each.
2. Direct federal subsidies to corporations: The Cato Institute estimates that federal subsidies to corporations cost taxpayers almost $100 billion every year.
3. Federal tax breaks for corporations: The tax code gives corporations special tax breaks that have reduced what is supposed to be a 35-percent tax rate to an actual tax rate of 13 percent, saving these corporations an additional $200 billion annually, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
4. Federal tax breaks for wealthy hedge fund managers: Special tax breaks for hedge fund managers allow them to pay only a 15-percent rate while the people they earned the money for usually pay a 35-percent rate. This is the break where the multimillionaire manager pays less of a percentage in taxes than her secretary. The National Priorities Project estimates this costs taxpayers $83 billion annually, and 68 percent of those who receive this special tax break earn more than $462,500 per year (the top 1 percent of earners).
5. Subsidies to the fast food industry: Research by the University of Illinois and UC Berkeley documents that taxpayers pay about $243 billion each year in indirect subsidies to the fast food industry because they pay wages so low that taxpayers must put up $243 billion to pay for public benefits for their workers.
6. Mortgage deduction: The home mortgage deduction, which costs taxpayers $70 billion per year, is a huge subsidy to the real estate, banking and construction industries. The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that 77 percent of the benefit goes to homeowners with incomes over $100,000 per year.
7. The billions above do not even count the government bailout of Wall Street, while all parties have done their utmost to tell the public that they did not need it, that they paid it back, or that it was a great investment. The Atlantic Monthly estimates that $7.6 trillion was made available by the Federal Reserve to banks, financial firms and investors. The Cato Institute estimates (using government figures) the final costs at $32 to $68 billion, not including the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which alone cost more than $180 billion.
8. Each major piece of legislation contains new welfare for the rich and corporations. The Boston Globe analyzed the emergency tax legislation passed by Congress in early 2013 and found it contained 43 business and energy tax breaks, together worth $67 billion.
9. Huge corporations that engage in criminal or other wrongful activities protect their leaders from being prosecuted by paying huge fees or fines to the government. You and I would be prosecuted. These corporations protect their bosses by paying off the government. For example, Reuters reported that JPMorgan Chase, which made a preliminary $13-billion mortgage settlement with the U.S. government, is allowed to write off a majority of the deal as tax deductible, saving the corporation $4 billion.
10. There are thousands of smaller special breaks for corporations and businesses out there. There is a special subsidy for corporate jets, which cost taxpayers $3 billion a year. The tax deduction for second homes costs $8 billion a year. Fifty billionaires received taxpayer-funded farm subsidies in the past 20 years.
If you want to look at the welfare for the rich and corporations, start with the federal Internal Revenue Code. That is the King James Bible of welfare for the rich and corporations. Special breaks in the tax code are the reason that there are thousands of lobbyists in the halls of Congress, hundreds of lobbyists around each state legislature and tens of thousands of tax lawyers all over the co

If you gave me one before - I missed it. #1 - its a state and local thing - they are trying to attract the company to put up a factory or building in their city. That is simple supply and demand - the cities/states do the math and say if company X comes and creates 100 jobs it will bring $1,000 (numbers all made up here for example purposes) in other tax revenues to the city by way of increase housing demand and therefore prices and property taxes, help out all the other businesses there as those jobs will have people eating at the restaurants, buying cars, etc. All that comes back to the government in the taxes they collect on those things.

Here in the suburbs of Illinois there was a empty plant that the local community offered some large tax breaks for Navistar Truck to move their HQ here. Lots of uproar, but remember, that plant was empty - not only was the city not collecting any tax revenue on it, it was actually paying to maintain the property. Now Navistar brought over a bunch of executives and plant people alike (so white and blue collar jobs) to their city - all of whom bought or rented property, buy groceries, need day care, all the stuff that makes a community thrive. You have to look at the whole picture when looking at this stuff.

[stevenash]

Here in the suburbs of Illinois there was a empty plant that the local community offered some large tax breaks for Navistar Truck to move their HQ here. Lots of uproar, but remember, that plant was empty - not only was the city not collecting any tax revenue on it, it was actually paying to maintain the property. Now Navistar brought over a bunch of executives and plant people alike (so white and blue collar jobs) to their city - all of whom bought or rented property, buy groceries, need day care, all the stuff that makes a community thrive. You have to look at the whole picture when looking at this stuff.

Here's a guy who 'gets it'

[brooks85]

Ontario has a higher population and not much has really changed since all the minimum wage increases. Going up again this.

Rent has nothing to do with minimum wage.

Chicago has a higher than average min. wage yet their real estate and rent is cheap for a big city.

Not sure where you guys get all this "sky is falling" because of some small increases. Government will waste more money on other useless things anyway.

Raise wage to $20 whatever, life goes on.

Economy adjusts.

well, you said something correct. The economy does adjust, when you have fast food workers getting paid $15/hour you can sure as hell bet the economy will adjust and it did, which is why everything cost more there including rent and food.

It has nothing to do with "sky is falling," it's simple economics truly. Anyone who thinks raising minimum wage is going to help the lower class is a fool. If you want to further increase the income gap like Obama has done, then yes, it's a fantastic idea.

[brooks85]

Come on Brooks - saw same news story yesterday too. It's high only because they found some oil there and there are tons of jobs available and no housing - as the housing catches up (they are building now), rent will drop as well. I am all for using sound logic to support theories - as there is plenty out there - but this one doesn't have anything to do with min wage or anything else. Pure supply and demand.

So if you truly understand the laws of supply and demand, then let's look at it that way and see if we can get you on the right track.

If everyone in this country is supplied a higher minimum wage, what does that do to demand of companies paying those wages?

You can find a hint by looking at Australia.