Elections Why does Huckabee have a following?

[Jack V Savage]

JVS, I like to give you a hard time for you liberal trolling, but all goofing aside; the fact of the matter is that in this situation it is impossible to pay more in taxes in TX with a sales tax and no income tax than it is in Cali with income tax and sales tax if you're starting with the same amount of money - as UCUNC already pointed out to you.

I don't care what site you read it on or who made the graph, it just isn't possible.

So, yeah, that's a perfect example of what I mean. The facts don't fit your hackish worldview so you deny them. It's no different from CPI or climate denialists.

If you want more detail, here: http://www.itep.org/whopays/

What I'm interested in is whether seeing that the data that you were denying are correct will cause you to change your mind about anything. I'm betting that it will not, which is sad.

what fact am i covering up? That 100% employment is great for the economy and the middle class? I don't think I ever made a claim to the contrary... In fact, I'm not even sure why you brought up 100% employment, which is obviously a good thing.

You're covering up the fact that the GOP is not pushing for lower taxes for the middle class (their crusade is entirely on behalf of the rich), and you're avoiding the general point that the party has nothing to offer the non-rich, while Democrats do. You can disagree with the point, but then you should probably offer some reason for doing so. But that's hard (impossible, IMO, but maybe I'm wrong) so you instead choose to duck it (since, of course, actually changing your mind is unthinkable).

 

[ucunc156]

i offered you simple math that proves how republican ideas (low taxes) is beneficial. I did the exact math for you. I included all major types of taxes. I offered you rebuttal by telling me what taxes are available that I missed out on. I admitted to the fact that property taxes in relation to property value is fantastic in cali, but what really matters is what % of one's income is GOING TO property taxes, which is the same, giving the edge of extra money to texans not californians.

As for democrats offering things to the non rich, I fully agreed to the fact that they greatly benefit the poor. However my point was that helping the poor hurts the lower middle as it lessens the amount of buying power someone in the lower middle class has over the poor class. So by de facto, not helping the poor, hurts the middle class less in the republican way.

 

[ucunc156]

Let me ask you this: A state has a minimum wage of $7. An employee currently makes $10. Then the state minimum wage is raised to $9.50. Does the employee who made $10 an hour get a comparable bump? No of course not. So who is hurt in this situation? The guy who was in the lower middle class, who is now relegated to basically a minimum wage worker. Its this exact logic that I am talking about here, and the exact reason why I am not for raising the minimum wage. Few must suffer for the greater good.

 

[Jukai]

Let me ask you this: A state has a minimum wage of $7. An employee currently makes $10. Then the state minimum wage is raised to $9.50. Does the employee who made $10 an hour get a comparable bump? No of course not. So who is hurt in this situation? The guy who was in the lower middle class, who is now relegated to basically a minimum wage worker. Its this exact logic that I am talking about here, and the exact reason why I am not for raising the minimum wage. Few must suffer for the greater good.

I know this was posed to Jack V Savage, but I have to comment because, jesus, a person who makes 10 an hour is NOT low middle class.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Let me ask you this: A state has a minimum wage of $7. An employee currently makes $10. Then the state minimum wage is raised to $9.50. Does the employee who made $10 an hour get a comparable bump? No of course not. So who is hurt in this situation? The guy who was in the lower middle class, who is now relegated to basically a minimum wage worker. Its this exact logic that I am talking about here, and the exact reason why I am not for raising the minimum wage. Few must suffer for the greater good.

LOL @ this post. You are against minimum wage rises because it may put someone in the wrong class? Sound logic right there. Don't pay people more because other people might get butthurt about it.

Explain to me exactly how the $10 an hour worker was hurt? I wasn't aware people's wage rises hurt others.

 

[Jukai]

LOL @ this post. You are against minimum wage rises because it may put someone in the wrong class? Sound logic right there. Don't pay people more because other people might get butthurt about it.

Explain to me exactly how the $10 an hour worker was hurt? I wasn't aware people's wage rises hurt others.

Well, actually the 10 dollar an hour worker will get hurt because low end consumer product prices will most likely rise. Someone is gonna get hurt no matter what policy you push, that is how the world works.
I doubt the actual middle class (25,000 and $100,000) gets hurt that much if at all, as long as the minimum wage hike goes along with inflation.

The other thing is, when minimum wage goes up, the current 10 dollar an hour worker is screwed but new positions need to adjust accordingly, and that 10-dollar an hour worker can find a new job that meets his or her criteria. Almost the exact same thing happened to a friend of mine. College didn't work out so she became a manager at Victoria's Secret. When minimum wage went up to the point where it almost overtook her salary, salary for her general position went up simply because it had to be higher than the other workers--- they never gave her a raise, but she got a similar position in another store. Adjustments happen.

 

[ucunc156]

its pretty close as per 2/3 models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class

Thompson and Hickey have it as a household income of 35-75k (two people making 10 an hour would have over 40k) and Beeghley has it as a woman making 26k.

It equates to 1.7k per month, which you can easily get by on (if you don't have many children) in ohio. you can rent in a good area for 600-800 a month. assuming you don't have college loans if your making $10 an hour unless your an idiot for doing a dumb major. car loan of 200 a month. that leaves 700 left over for food and whatever. its not much but you can get buy without government help, which is what I define lower middle class as.

 

[ucunc156]

Well, actually the 10 dollar an hour worker will get hurt because low end consumer product prices will most likely rise. Someone is gonna get hurt no matter what policy you push, that is how the world works.
I doubt the actual middle class (25,000 and $100,000) gets hurt that much if at all, as long as the minimum wage hike goes along with inflation.

The other thing is, when minimum wage goes up, the current 10 dollar an hour worker is screwed but new positions need to adjust accordingly, and that 10-dollar an hour worker can find a new job that meets his or her criteria. Almost the exact same thing happened to a friend of mine. College didn't work out so she became a manager at Victoria's Secret. When minimum wage went up to the point where it almost overtook her salary, salary for her general position went up simply because it had to be higher than the other workers--- they never gave her a raise, but she got a similar position in another store. Adjustments happen.

this exactly. add to the fact that the poor really aren't helped by this as the low end consumer products rise anyways. the poor remain poor, and what was previously lower middle are now also poor. when you take away buying power from one class and don't add extra buying power to another class, then your just making more people poor. the poor will always dictate the baseline costs for the necessities, and there must always be a poor class.

 

[Jukai]

its pretty close as per 2/3 models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class

Thompson and Hickey have it as a household income of 35-75k (two people making 10 an hour would have over 40k) and Beeghley has it as a woman making 26k.

It equates to 1.7k per month, which you can easily get by on (if you don't have many children) in ohio. you can rent in a good area for 600-800 a month. assuming you don't have college loans if your making $10 an hour unless your an idiot for doing a dumb major. car loan of 200 a month. that leaves 700 left over for food and whatever. its not much but you can get buy without government help, which is what I define lower middle class as.

Everything in that page suggests lower middle class is 25k to 40k. 10 an hour is just over 20. That is lower class.

A minimum wage height is not really going to affect the middle class, it MAY affect those who are trying to move up from their own class. There is legitimate criticism with raising the minimum wage but your gripe is totally off.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Well, actually the 10 dollar an hour worker will get hurt because low end consumer product prices will most likely rise. Someone is gonna get hurt no matter what policy you push, that is how the world works.
I doubt the actual middle class (25,000 and $100,000) gets hurt that much if at all, as long as the minimum wage hike goes along with inflation.

The other thing is, when minimum wage goes up, the current 10 dollar an hour worker is screwed but new positions need to adjust accordingly, and that 10-dollar an hour worker can find a new job that meets his or her criteria. Almost the exact same thing happened to a friend of mine. College didn't work out so she became a manager at Victoria's Secret. When minimum wage went up to the point where it almost overtook her salary, salary for her general position went up simply because it had to be higher than the other workers--- they never gave her a raise, but she got a similar position in another store. Adjustments happen.

There is no proven correlation between minimum wage rise and increases in the rate of inflation and most minimum wage jobs are in the service sector anyway.

The $10 an hour worker isn't screwed imo. The only time the $10 an hour workers gets screwed is if his wages stagnate and inflation occurs. But if the minimum wage workers wage is also not indexed in line with inflation, they suffer more because they have less purchasing power than the $10 an hour person to cope with the rise in prices (assuming this even occurs)

 

[ucunc156]

okay i guess then I should have said the upper lower class, I stand corrected. But the point still holds true. If someone was close to moving up to middle class, they are dragged back down by the restructuring of the poor class. to me the poor class needs welfare to get by. in ohio, you can get by on 20k. anything above that starts the middle class.

 

[ucunc156]

There is no proven correlation between minimum wage rise and increases in the rate of inflation and most minimum wage jobs are in the service sector anyway.

The $10 an hour worker isn't screwed imo. The only time the $10 an hour workers gets screwed is if his wages stagnate and inflation occurs. But if the minimum wage workers wage is also not indexed in line with inflation, they suffer more because they have less purchasing power than the $10 an hour person to cope with the rise in prices (assuming this even occurs)

do you think that in a capitalist system, that there will always have to be a poor class? If so, doesn't that stand to reason that anyone just barely above the poor will be hurt when the poor moves up to their level unless they are accordingly bumped up as well? If the answer to my first question is no, then you dont understand how capitalism works (or is abused, depending on your ideology).

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

There is no proven correlation between minimum wage rise and increases in the rate of inflation and most minimum wage jobs are in the service sector anyway.

The $10 an hour worker isn't screwed imo. The only time the $10 an hour workers gets screwed is if his wages stagnate and inflation occurs. But if the minimum wage workers wage is also not indexed in line with inflation, they suffer more because they have less purchasing power than the $10 an hour person to cope with the rise in prices (assuming this even occurs)

Thats because the percentage of people earning minimum wage has always been decently low -after all, 25 cents over the minimum is no longer the minimum.

You keep raising that, while closing the gap between people that have worked their way up through the system and earn a bit more (I'm talking a few dollars more at least here) you will continuously raise the amount of people now making the minimum.

At some point, those results you claim there is no proof of, will start showing proof (my opinion anyways). And it becomes very possible that quality of life (depending on how you define that) will dip for larger amounts of people, and so on.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

So, yeah, that's a perfect example of what I mean. The facts don't fit your hackish worldview so you deny them. It's no different from CPI or climate denialists.

If you want more detail, here: http://www.itep.org/whopays/

What I'm interested in is whether seeing that the data that you were denying are correct will cause you to change your mind about anything. I'm betting that it will not, which is sad.

LULZ.


While it's true that sales tax is a larger % of a poor persons income; how is anyone supposed to make heads or tails of data that includes excise tax? It also claims property tax rate.

Sales tax in TX is 6.25%, some localities add another 2% for a max of 8.5%
Sales tax in CA is 7.5%, some localities add another tax that maxes out at 10%

I'm against the flat tax, but they're making assumption that can't be proven - not all poor people are buying beer and smokes and it isn't just rich people paying 10% sales tax in Cali.

 

[Jack V Savage]

i offered you simple math that proves how republican ideas (low taxes) is beneficial.

And I pointed out that the GOP isn't pushing for lower taxes for most Americans--just for the rich. I then provided an example of a state that has enacted policies the GOP favors that has low taxes on average, but only because the rich pay a lot less, offsetting the fact that the poor and middle class pay more. You have simply refused to accept facts that contradict your prejudices.

As for democrats offering things to the non rich, I fully agreed to the fact that they greatly benefit the poor. However my point was that helping the poor hurts the lower middle as it lessens the amount of buying power someone in the lower middle class has over the poor class. So by de facto, not helping the poor, hurts the middle class less in the republican way.

I'm talking about all of the non-rich. Things like environmental protections, the ACA, more-progressive taxation, educational support, etc. benefit both the poor and the middle class.

Let me ask you this: A state has a minimum wage of $7. An employee currently makes $10. Then the state minimum wage is raised to $9.50. Does the employee who made $10 an hour get a comparable bump? No of course not. So who is hurt in this situation? The guy who was in the lower middle class, who is now relegated to basically a minimum wage worker. Its this exact logic that I am talking about here, and the exact reason why I am not for raising the minimum wage. Few must suffer for the greater good.

First, you're talking about two groups of poor people. Second, you're saying that the feelings of some poor people should override the material needs of others. WTF?

LULZ.

While it's true that sales tax is a larger % of a poor persons income; how is anyone supposed to make heads or tails of data that includes excise tax? It also claims property tax rate.

Sales tax in TX is 6.25%, some localities add another 2% for a max of 8.5%
Sales tax in CA is 7.5%, some localities add another tax that maxes out at 10%

I'm against the flat tax, but they're making assumption that can't be proven - not all poor people are buying beer and smokes and it isn't just rich people paying 10% sales tax in Cali.

No assumptions--it's data. You don't like it so you're making the typical hackish move of simply denying it.

 

[kpt018]

Let me ask you this: A state has a minimum wage of $7. An employee currently makes $10. Then the state minimum wage is raised to $9.50. Does the employee who made $10 an hour get a comparable bump? No of course not. So who is hurt in this situation? The guy who was in the lower middle class, who is now relegated to basically a minimum wage worker. Its this exact logic that I am talking about here, and the exact reason why I am not for raising the minimum wage. Few must suffer for the greater good.

Do you think the guy making $9.50 an hour was going to get a bigger bump but the MW worker "stole it"?

I can't seem to understand why someone getting a 5% increase is worse off because someone else got a bigger raise (which is now equal to his wage). Is it about dick measuring?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

No assumptions--it's data. You don't like it so you're making the typical hackish move of simply denying it.

According to this one, TX is avg 8.15 while CA is avg 8.41. Plus we know that TX doesn't have income tax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/18/sales-taxes-highest-in-st_n_4988216.html


So, I'm not hackishly denying it; I'm genuinely questioning the validity of it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

According to this one, TX is avg 8.15 while CA is avg 8.41. Plus we know that TX doesn't have income tax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/18/sales-taxes-highest-in-st_n_4988216.html

So, I'm not hackishly denying it; I'm genuinely questioning the validity of it.

Um, apparently you totally missed the point. Texas has a lower average tax burden, but that's mostly because the rich pay so much less. The poor and middle class generally pay more. That was just illustrating the general point that the GOP isn't about low taxes generally; they just want lower taxes on the rich or near-rich. Please understand that I'm not talking about average tax burden for everyone or any particular subset of the data. That's all of the many taxes put together, and isolated by income.

 

[Poatan Power]

Mike Huckabee, despite being a creationist, and backwards in all things science comes off as a genuine individual. He has that southern charm and is very likable...

I would take him over any (with the exception of Ron Paul) GOP candidate who ran in 2012.

This.

He may be off base on a lot of issues with me, but he is a genuine guy and likable person. He doesn't give off the same vibe as other politicians.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

This.

He may be off base on a lot of issues with me, but he is a genuine guy and likable person. He doesn't give off the same vibe as other politicians.

I honestly think he means well...

Again, I disagree with him on all things Evolution, Gay marriage, Stem Cell research, Sex education...

but he comes off as genuine.