Left or Right, which way do you lean ?

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

to me saying right on economics is a general way of saying by conservative spender. the democrats in manitoba spent spent spent and put our province in a nearly infinite hole. they got trounced in the election for a reason. and now government and crown corporation employees are feeling the pinch because of their gross fiscal mismanagement. 

Look up US budget deficits by the party in power.

Look up US jobs created by party in power.

How the American right has convinced the world they are better with the economy and deficit is one of the greatest  heists in our history.

No offence, as you're just citing the MSM.

Halifax2TheMax

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

to me saying right on economics is a general way of saying by conservative spender. the democrats in manitoba spent spent spent and put our province in a nearly infinite hole. they got trounced in the election for a reason. and now government and crown corporation employees are feeling the pinch because of their gross fiscal mismanagement. 

Look up US budget deficits by the party in power.

Look up US jobs created by party in power.

How the American right has convinced the world they are better with the economy and deficit is one of the greatest  heists in our history.

No offence, as you're just citing the MSM.

I think you meant "lame stream media" or Faux News.

cincybearcat

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

to me saying right on economics is a general way of saying by conservative spender. the democrats in manitoba spent spent spent and put our province in a nearly infinite hole. they got trounced in the election for a reason. and now government and crown corporation employees are feeling the pinch because of their gross fiscal mismanagement. 

Look up US budget deficits by the party in power.

Look up US jobs created by party in power.

How the American right has convinced the world they are better with the economy and deficit is one of the greatest  heists in our history.

No offence, as you're just citing the MSM.

By party in power what do you mean?

Cause the last time the budget was balanced there was a republican congress and a democratic president.  Seems to me we can't call either party fiscally conservative when they have all the power.  

I see your point though, each party has their topics where they currently own the narrative of being the party of this or that but in reality they fall way short.

HughFreakingDillon

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

to me saying right on economics is a general way of saying by conservative spender. the democrats in manitoba spent spent spent and put our province in a nearly infinite hole. they got trounced in the election for a reason. and now government and crown corporation employees are feeling the pinch because of their gross fiscal mismanagement. 

Look up US budget deficits by the party in power.

Look up US jobs created by party in power.

How the American right has convinced the world they are better with the economy and deficit is one of the greatest  heists in our history.

No offence, as you're just citing the MSM.

I am not citing the MSM. I'm talking facts about the current economy of my province. I voted for the NDP, I almost never vote conservative, , depending on platform and party performance, and they sucked the well dry. They, at least in canada, generally always do. all 3 parties in manitoba are garbage, but the NDP shit the bed on the economy BIG TIME. 

I said "conservative spending", I didn't say "republican spending", conservative. as in "don't fucking spend money you/we don't have". 

Halifax2TheMax

Well, south of your border, our "conservatives" just approved $1.1 trillion of spending for the next 5 months. Think Trump will veto it and shut the government down?

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

Well, south of your border, our "conservatives" just approved $1.1 trillion of spending for the next 5 months. Think Trump will veto it and shut the government down?

yes, I should have qualified my statement by saying "lean to the right economically in CANADA". the republican government sees fit to spend exorbitant amounts of money and convince the populace they need to to keep everyone safe from the boogeyman.

the republicans spend it on military, the left spends it on the people.  

PJPOWER

unsung said:

You couldn't pay me to live in a large city, I need some land and space.

I do not live in a very large city, but I definitely miss certain things about country living.  The first thing I always notice is how many stars you can actually see vs what you can see through the city light pollution.  The second is probably the air quality/lack of car exhaust.  The third is just nature itself/seeing wild animals outside of a zoo on a regular basis.  
I do like the easy access amenities that the city brings, but am starting to favor the country the older I get.  It's meditative these days for me to go out to my family's ranch and sit out in the middle of nowhere listening to nothing with the nearest person being miles away.

PJ_Soul

Whoops

mace1229

I stayed away from this thread, but couldn't resist. Wanted to make a few observations as I skimmed through.
I 100% disagree with the original post. But it shouldn't surprise anyone. Although it does seem more liberals participate in rallies (and nothing wrong with that) or at the least are more public with it, if and when they turn violent there are plenty of liberals who speak out against the violence. The Bundy protest (which was a pretty lame one by the way) is the only rally/protest on a national level that comes to mind where it was lead by conservatives, and I can think of several that were lead by liberals. So I don't think it is unfair to associate rallies/protests more with liberals. But it would in inaccurate to say they are violent on uncivil. The ones that turn violent seem to be more racially motivated than political, and never seem to represent the majority.
It shouldnt be a surprise however because as some view liberals as violent on uncivil, and equal number view conservatives as rednecks and racists. I would equate those two points of view, and are equally inaccurate.
I saw the post about liberals having a higher IQ. I tried to google that, and had some issues with the results. Just a first search had completely mixed reviews, with maybe about 40% of them claiming conservatives were smarter, and 60% for liberals. Skimming through a few of each, each had their own sources.  One source that I read more carefully used the same image used earlier (but so did several), defined liberalism as the willingness to help others. They didn't define conservatives, but I'm guessing its unwilling to help?  And then link conservatives to racism. They used racism as an example trait of conservatives and how racists typically have a lower IQ. Well, I dont need a study to tell me if you believe you are better based on the color of your skin, then you're just an idiot. Even argued that while conservatives give more to charities, it is actually motivated by discrimination since they can chose who the do and don't help by donating to one group and not another.
I hate how racists relate to conservatives, I wish they'd find their own thing. But they represent such a truly small portion it is irrelevant to bring that group up in a conservative vs liberal argument. I just thought the whole thing was rather ridiculous. In the end I doubt IQ plays a very big role in political sides. Maybe idea of specifics, but to generalize an entire group I just didn't see anything very convincing one side or another. But that goes to show how the statements in the original post begin. If you can believe you're smarter because of your political view, that seems to go along with the same logic that this thread started with.

PJ_Soul

I think Conservatives have the attitude of "every man for himself" while Liberals tend to lean more towards "It takes a village". The individual vs the group. Pretty simple distinction that is glaringly obvious IMHO. Capitalists and socialists have the same distinction, although somewhat more black and white. And, as I mentioned earlier, another big distinction is the belief in trickle down economics vs a complete disbelief in trickle down economics.

Go Beavers

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

cincybearcat said:

mcgruff10 said:

Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment. 

Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right.  Right on economics mostly.  Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right.  Far left on 2nd amendment.

Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending. 

to me  it's lower taxes and less government.  waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.

hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.

the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty.  
but yeah i'm right in the middle.  

Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

I stayed away from this thread, but couldn't resist. Wanted to make a few observations as I skimmed through.
I 100% disagree with the original post. But it shouldn't surprise anyone. Although it does seem more liberals participate in rallies (and nothing wrong with that) or at the least are more public with it, if and when they turn violent there are plenty of liberals who speak out against the violence. The Bundy protest (which was a pretty lame one by the way) is the only rally/protest on a national level that comes to mind where it was lead by conservatives, and I can think of several that were lead by liberals. So I don't think it is unfair to associate rallies/protests more with liberals. But it would in inaccurate to say they are violent on uncivil. The ones that turn violent seem to be more racially motivated than political, and never seem to represent the majority.
It shouldnt be a surprise however because as some view liberals as violent on uncivil, and equal number view conservatives as rednecks and racists. I would equate those two points of view, and are equally inaccurate.
I saw the post about liberals having a higher IQ. I tried to google that, and had some issues with the results. Just a first search had completely mixed reviews, with maybe about 40% of them claiming conservatives were smarter, and 60% for liberals. Skimming through a few of each, each had their own sources.  One source that I read more carefully used the same image used earlier (but so did several), defined liberalism as the willingness to help others. They didn't define conservatives, but I'm guessing its unwilling to help?  And then link conservatives to racism. They used racism as an example trait of conservatives and how racists typically have a lower IQ. Well, I dont need a study to tell me if you believe you are better based on the color of your skin, then you're just an idiot. Even argued that while conservatives give more to charities, it is actually motivated by discrimination since they can chose who the do and don't help by donating to one group and not another.
I hate how racists relate to conservatives, I wish they'd find their own thing. But they represent such a truly small portion it is irrelevant to bring that group up in a conservative vs liberal argument. I just thought the whole thing was rather ridiculous. In the end I doubt IQ plays a very big role in political sides. Maybe idea of specifics, but to generalize an entire group I just didn't see anything very convincing one side or another. But that goes to show how the statements in the original post begin. If you can believe you're smarter because of your political view, that seems to go along with the same logic that this thread started with.

I agree. I will never buy into the idea that liberals are smarter than conservatives. I know plenty of brilliant of each,and plenty of morons of each. being socially progressive doesn't mean you are more intelligent, it just means you have a different set of priorities. it's not as black and white as how you lean politically; it is how you were raised, where you were raised, your experiences in life, etc, that shape our political ideals. not just intelligence. 

a lot is being made of how unqualified trump's cabinet choices are, and people are running with that and equating that with all republicans being idiots. not true. he just chose them based on how much money they gave him, and what he knows they will do in their respective posts. many of them are coming off as moronic and woefully unqualified, but in government, that is not special to republicans. 

as @PJ_Soul stated, the most glaring difference is that liberals want to be a collective, and conservatives want everyone to get what "they deserve", which honestly, is partly what the country was founded on. work hard on your own, and you will be rewarded. but economics and times have changed. it doesn't work like that anymore for the majority of the population. especially with such radical wealth disparity that has been growing for decades. 

what I find most ironic about so many trump voters, is they lament the idea of socialized healthcare as "why should I pay for your medical bills?", yet they sit there with their hands out for the government to save their dying industry from technological progress. and they think that is somehow justified, and the affordable health care of others is not. 

benjs

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

I stayed away from this thread, but couldn't resist. Wanted to make a few observations as I skimmed through.
I 100% disagree with the original post. But it shouldn't surprise anyone. Although it does seem more liberals participate in rallies (and nothing wrong with that) or at the least are more public with it, if and when they turn violent there are plenty of liberals who speak out against the violence. The Bundy protest (which was a pretty lame one by the way) is the only rally/protest on a national level that comes to mind where it was lead by conservatives, and I can think of several that were lead by liberals. So I don't think it is unfair to associate rallies/protests more with liberals. But it would in inaccurate to say they are violent on uncivil. The ones that turn violent seem to be more racially motivated than political, and never seem to represent the majority.
It shouldnt be a surprise however because as some view liberals as violent on uncivil, and equal number view conservatives as rednecks and racists. I would equate those two points of view, and are equally inaccurate.
I saw the post about liberals having a higher IQ. I tried to google that, and had some issues with the results. Just a first search had completely mixed reviews, with maybe about 40% of them claiming conservatives were smarter, and 60% for liberals. Skimming through a few of each, each had their own sources.  One source that I read more carefully used the same image used earlier (but so did several), defined liberalism as the willingness to help others. They didn't define conservatives, but I'm guessing its unwilling to help?  And then link conservatives to racism. They used racism as an example trait of conservatives and how racists typically have a lower IQ. Well, I dont need a study to tell me if you believe you are better based on the color of your skin, then you're just an idiot. Even argued that while conservatives give more to charities, it is actually motivated by discrimination since they can chose who the do and don't help by donating to one group and not another.
I hate how racists relate to conservatives, I wish they'd find their own thing. But they represent such a truly small portion it is irrelevant to bring that group up in a conservative vs liberal argument. I just thought the whole thing was rather ridiculous. In the end I doubt IQ plays a very big role in political sides. Maybe idea of specifics, but to generalize an entire group I just didn't see anything very convincing one side or another. But that goes to show how the statements in the original post begin. If you can believe you're smarter because of your political view, that seems to go along with the same logic that this thread started with.

I agree. I will never buy into the idea that liberals are smarter than conservatives. I know plenty of brilliant of each,and plenty of morons of each. being socially progressive doesn't mean you are more intelligent, it just means you have a different set of priorities. it's not as black and white as how you lean politically; it is how you were raised, where you were raised, your experiences in life, etc, that shape our political ideals. not just intelligence. 

a lot is being made of how unqualified trump's cabinet choices are, and people are running with that and equating that with all republicans being idiots. not true. he just chose them based on how much money they gave him, and what he knows they will do in their respective posts. many of them are coming off as moronic and woefully unqualified, but in government, that is not special to republicans. 

as @PJ_Soul stated, the most glaring difference is that liberals want to be a collective, and conservatives want everyone to get what "they deserve", which honestly, is partly what the country was founded on. work hard on your own, and you will be rewarded. but economics and times have changed. it doesn't work like that anymore for the majority of the population. especially with such radical wealth disparity that has been growing for decades. 

what I find most ironic about so many trump voters, is they lament the idea of socialized healthcare as "why should I pay for your medical bills?", yet they sit there with their hands out for the government to save their dying industry from technological progress. and they think that is somehow justified, and the affordable health care of others is not. 

People should be able to reap the benefits of what they earn, with the caveat that opportunity be democratized. Seems to me that wealth inequality is a direct byproduct of the opportunity inequality seen today. If this can be resolved and fair opportunity can truly be granted to all (access to education, assistance with inherited undue burdens, etc.), I have little issue with "sink or swim" without additional government/social life preserver. 

HughFreakingDillon

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

I stayed away from this thread, but couldn't resist. Wanted to make a few observations as I skimmed through.
I 100% disagree with the original post. But it shouldn't surprise anyone. Although it does seem more liberals participate in rallies (and nothing wrong with that) or at the least are more public with it, if and when they turn violent there are plenty of liberals who speak out against the violence. The Bundy protest (which was a pretty lame one by the way) is the only rally/protest on a national level that comes to mind where it was lead by conservatives, and I can think of several that were lead by liberals. So I don't think it is unfair to associate rallies/protests more with liberals. But it would in inaccurate to say they are violent on uncivil. The ones that turn violent seem to be more racially motivated than political, and never seem to represent the majority.
It shouldnt be a surprise however because as some view liberals as violent on uncivil, and equal number view conservatives as rednecks and racists. I would equate those two points of view, and are equally inaccurate.
I saw the post about liberals having a higher IQ. I tried to google that, and had some issues with the results. Just a first search had completely mixed reviews, with maybe about 40% of them claiming conservatives were smarter, and 60% for liberals. Skimming through a few of each, each had their own sources.  One source that I read more carefully used the same image used earlier (but so did several), defined liberalism as the willingness to help others. They didn't define conservatives, but I'm guessing its unwilling to help?  And then link conservatives to racism. They used racism as an example trait of conservatives and how racists typically have a lower IQ. Well, I dont need a study to tell me if you believe you are better based on the color of your skin, then you're just an idiot. Even argued that while conservatives give more to charities, it is actually motivated by discrimination since they can chose who the do and don't help by donating to one group and not another.
I hate how racists relate to conservatives, I wish they'd find their own thing. But they represent such a truly small portion it is irrelevant to bring that group up in a conservative vs liberal argument. I just thought the whole thing was rather ridiculous. In the end I doubt IQ plays a very big role in political sides. Maybe idea of specifics, but to generalize an entire group I just didn't see anything very convincing one side or another. But that goes to show how the statements in the original post begin. If you can believe you're smarter because of your political view, that seems to go along with the same logic that this thread started with.

I agree. I will never buy into the idea that liberals are smarter than conservatives. I know plenty of brilliant of each,and plenty of morons of each. being socially progressive doesn't mean you are more intelligent, it just means you have a different set of priorities. it's not as black and white as how you lean politically; it is how you were raised, where you were raised, your experiences in life, etc, that shape our political ideals. not just intelligence. 

a lot is being made of how unqualified trump's cabinet choices are, and people are running with that and equating that with all republicans being idiots. not true. he just chose them based on how much money they gave him, and what he knows they will do in their respective posts. many of them are coming off as moronic and woefully unqualified, but in government, that is not special to republicans. 

as @PJ_Soul stated, the most glaring difference is that liberals want to be a collective, and conservatives want everyone to get what "they deserve", which honestly, is partly what the country was founded on. work hard on your own, and you will be rewarded. but economics and times have changed. it doesn't work like that anymore for the majority of the population. especially with such radical wealth disparity that has been growing for decades. 

what I find most ironic about so many trump voters, is they lament the idea of socialized healthcare as "why should I pay for your medical bills?", yet they sit there with their hands out for the government to save their dying industry from technological progress. and they think that is somehow justified, and the affordable health care of others is not. 

People should be able to reap the benefits of what they earn, with the caveat that opportunity be democratized. Seems to me that wealth inequality is a direct byproduct of the opportunity inequality seen today. If this can be resolved and fair opportunity can truly be granted to all (access to education, assistance with inherited undue burdens, etc.), I have little issue with "sink or swim" without additional government/social life preserver. 

totally agree. but I don't see that ever happening. 

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

I think Conservatives have the attitude of "every man for himself" while Liberals tend to lean more towards "It takes a village". The individual vs the group. Pretty simple distinction that is glaringly obvious IMHO. Capitalists and socialists have the same distinction, although somewhat more black and white. And, as I mentioned earlier, another big distinction is the belief in trickle down economics vs a complete disbelief in trickle down economics.

I can see how it comes across that way. But I think it is more along the lines of believing that if the village is too focused on a few, then everyone will suffer and that benefits no one. It isnt that conservatives dont want to help others just as much. There definitely is an attitude of reap the benefits of your labor, but it is rooted in what benefits everyone.
Minimum wage for example. It would be great if everyone made 6 figure salaries. But we have a different long-term prediction on the outcome that will have.  It isnt that we don't want to help single moms make a livable wage, but we see a $20 minimum wage having drastic consequences, and by doing so for every 10 people who benefit from it, there will be 20 who are worse off.
And so it comes down to what is best for the country is best for everyone, and often times that comes across as "reap what you sow."

benjs

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

I stayed away from this thread, but couldn't resist. Wanted to make a few observations as I skimmed through.
I 100% disagree with the original post. But it shouldn't surprise anyone. Although it does seem more liberals participate in rallies (and nothing wrong with that) or at the least are more public with it, if and when they turn violent there are plenty of liberals who speak out against the violence. The Bundy protest (which was a pretty lame one by the way) is the only rally/protest on a national level that comes to mind where it was lead by conservatives, and I can think of several that were lead by liberals. So I don't think it is unfair to associate rallies/protests more with liberals. But it would in inaccurate to say they are violent on uncivil. The ones that turn violent seem to be more racially motivated than political, and never seem to represent the majority.
It shouldnt be a surprise however because as some view liberals as violent on uncivil, and equal number view conservatives as rednecks and racists. I would equate those two points of view, and are equally inaccurate.
I saw the post about liberals having a higher IQ. I tried to google that, and had some issues with the results. Just a first search had completely mixed reviews, with maybe about 40% of them claiming conservatives were smarter, and 60% for liberals. Skimming through a few of each, each had their own sources.  One source that I read more carefully used the same image used earlier (but so did several), defined liberalism as the willingness to help others. They didn't define conservatives, but I'm guessing its unwilling to help?  And then link conservatives to racism. They used racism as an example trait of conservatives and how racists typically have a lower IQ. Well, I dont need a study to tell me if you believe you are better based on the color of your skin, then you're just an idiot. Even argued that while conservatives give more to charities, it is actually motivated by discrimination since they can chose who the do and don't help by donating to one group and not another.
I hate how racists relate to conservatives, I wish they'd find their own thing. But they represent such a truly small portion it is irrelevant to bring that group up in a conservative vs liberal argument. I just thought the whole thing was rather ridiculous. In the end I doubt IQ plays a very big role in political sides. Maybe idea of specifics, but to generalize an entire group I just didn't see anything very convincing one side or another. But that goes to show how the statements in the original post begin. If you can believe you're smarter because of your political view, that seems to go along with the same logic that this thread started with.

I agree. I will never buy into the idea that liberals are smarter than conservatives. I know plenty of brilliant of each,and plenty of morons of each. being socially progressive doesn't mean you are more intelligent, it just means you have a different set of priorities. it's not as black and white as how you lean politically; it is how you were raised, where you were raised, your experiences in life, etc, that shape our political ideals. not just intelligence. 

a lot is being made of how unqualified trump's cabinet choices are, and people are running with that and equating that with all republicans being idiots. not true. he just chose them based on how much money they gave him, and what he knows they will do in their respective posts. many of them are coming off as moronic and woefully unqualified, but in government, that is not special to republicans. 

as @PJ_Soul stated, the most glaring difference is that liberals want to be a collective, and conservatives want everyone to get what "they deserve", which honestly, is partly what the country was founded on. work hard on your own, and you will be rewarded. but economics and times have changed. it doesn't work like that anymore for the majority of the population. especially with such radical wealth disparity that has been growing for decades. 

what I find most ironic about so many trump voters, is they lament the idea of socialized healthcare as "why should I pay for your medical bills?", yet they sit there with their hands out for the government to save their dying industry from technological progress. and they think that is somehow justified, and the affordable health care of others is not. 

People should be able to reap the benefits of what they earn, with the caveat that opportunity be democratized. Seems to me that wealth inequality is a direct byproduct of the opportunity inequality seen today. If this can be resolved and fair opportunity can truly be granted to all (access to education, assistance with inherited undue burdens, etc.), I have little issue with "sink or swim" without additional government/social life preserver. 

totally agree. but I don't see that ever happening. 

Sadly, at this point I agree with you. Which is a tragedy - that reality goes against everything America stands for - a land where opportunity is granted to all. Democratized opportunity is also great for the economy, so there's a major opportunity cost there. 

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I think Conservatives have the attitude of "every man for himself" while Liberals tend to lean more towards "It takes a village". The individual vs the group. Pretty simple distinction that is glaringly obvious IMHO. Capitalists and socialists have the same distinction, although somewhat more black and white. And, as I mentioned earlier, another big distinction is the belief in trickle down economics vs a complete disbelief in trickle down economics.

I can see how it comes across that way. But I think it is more along the lines of believing that if the village is too focused on a few, then everyone will suffer and that benefits no one. It isnt that conservatives dont want to help others just as much. There definitely is an attitude of reap the benefits of your labor, but it is rooted in what benefits everyone.
Minimum wage for example. It would be great if everyone made 6 figure salaries. But we have a different long-term prediction on the outcome that will have.  It isnt that we don't want to help single moms make a livable wage, but we see a $20 minimum wage having drastic consequences, and by doing so for every 10 people who benefit from it, there will be 20 who are worse off.
And so it comes down to what is best for the country is best for everyone, and often times that comes across as "reap what you sow."

Where is minimum wage $20 an hour and what are the drastic consequences of which you speak?

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I think Conservatives have the attitude of "every man for himself" while Liberals tend to lean more towards "It takes a village". The individual vs the group. Pretty simple distinction that is glaringly obvious IMHO. Capitalists and socialists have the same distinction, although somewhat more black and white. And, as I mentioned earlier, another big distinction is the belief in trickle down economics vs a complete disbelief in trickle down economics.

I can see how it comes across that way. But I think it is more along the lines of believing that if the village is too focused on a few, then everyone will suffer and that benefits no one. It isnt that conservatives dont want to help others just as much. There definitely is an attitude of reap the benefits of your labor, but it is rooted in what benefits everyone.
Minimum wage for example. It would be great if everyone made 6 figure salaries. But we have a different long-term prediction on the outcome that will have.  It isnt that we don't want to help single moms make a livable wage, but we see a $20 minimum wage having drastic consequences, and by doing so for every 10 people who benefit from it, there will be 20 who are worse off.
And so it comes down to what is best for the country is best for everyone, and often times that comes across as "reap what you sow."

Where is minimum wage $20 an hour and what are the drastic consequences of which you speak?

That was an example, since there is a push to raise minimum wage to the living wage of $20.
Examples would be the small family shop I worked for in college of about 6 employees would close, since they cant afford $20/hr for each employee. Essentially every small family business making under 100k a year would suffer.
Many fast food store have said they would fire employees and hire more automated systems.
People already making $20 are going to want $30-$35, since they want want to make minimum wage with skills and experience. Which will create essentially a chain reaction where everyone just gets paid more, and not solve anything.

PJ_Soul

I have heard about a $15 minimum wage, never $20.
I think minimum wage should be based on the economics of the region - it should allow people to support themselves wherever they happen to live. In some places, that is at least $15 an hour. In other places, $9 an hour will do it. The issue of minimum wage should never be a federal issue.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I think Conservatives have the attitude of "every man for himself" while Liberals tend to lean more towards "It takes a village". The individual vs the group. Pretty simple distinction that is glaringly obvious IMHO. Capitalists and socialists have the same distinction, although somewhat more black and white. And, as I mentioned earlier, another big distinction is the belief in trickle down economics vs a complete disbelief in trickle down economics.

I can see how it comes across that way. But I think it is more along the lines of believing that if the village is too focused on a few, then everyone will suffer and that benefits no one. It isnt that conservatives dont want to help others just as much. There definitely is an attitude of reap the benefits of your labor, but it is rooted in what benefits everyone.
Minimum wage for example. It would be great if everyone made 6 figure salaries. But we have a different long-term prediction on the outcome that will have.  It isnt that we don't want to help single moms make a livable wage, but we see a $20 minimum wage having drastic consequences, and by doing so for every 10 people who benefit from it, there will be 20 who are worse off.
And so it comes down to what is best for the country is best for everyone, and often times that comes across as "reap what you sow."

Where is minimum wage $20 an hour and what are the drastic consequences of which you speak?

That was an example, since there is a push to raise minimum wage to the living wage of $20.
Examples would be the small family shop I worked for in college of about 6 employees would close, since they cant afford $20/hr for each employee. Essentially every small family business making under 100k a year would suffer.
Many fast food store have said they would fire employees and hire more automated systems.
People already making $20 are going to want $30-$35, since they want want to make minimum wage with skills and experience. Which will create essentially a chain reaction where everyone just gets paid more, and not solve anything.

All supposition. Where are the facts of what you posit?