See last post, minimum wage

look at this here. source: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2010/09/30/another-useless-republican

Should the minimum wage truly be raised?

~Minimum wage, hurts the economy through employment1~

A high minimum wage makes it harder for them to get a job.[1] Raising the minimum wage is followed by teenage unemployment. [2] Most economists agree the minimum wage hurts the economy. [3, 4] A liberal argument is: It helps the poor. This too is false. Raising the minimum wage doesn't help reduce poverty. [5] the reason it does not lower poverty is because the majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers and secondary earners that do not effect their whole households income to any extreme. [6] Almost none of the workers under the minimum wage actually use the minimum wage to supply their living. [6] Therefore the teenagers are actually just out there. The minimum wage has actually added the amount of people who cannot find jobs. [7] Seriously guys, its bad for the economy and doesn't help the poor people. So lets now lets see how it increases dropout rates.

~Effects on schools: Dropouts~

A raise in the minimum wage not only raises unemployment, but forces high school dropouts.[8] Any increase in the minimum wage increases high school dropouts. [9] Would you rather leave school when you get a wage of 10$ or 5$? 10. But as I stated this actually doesn't mean the get a job, and they likely do not get a job. They dropout, with sadening results. The statistics are on my side: Minimum wage raises = more dropouts. [10] The hikes in the minimum wage may actually decrease enrollment in schools. [11, 10] And for the last time: It still doesn't reduce poverty. [12, 10]


Seriously, do not raise the minimum wage.

Also I am the same person found in this debate, I copied and pasted my own words.
http://www.debate.org/debates/We-should-raise-the-minmum-wage/1/




[1] http://epionline.org/teen.cfm
[2]  http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2010/10/12/minimum-wage-increase-increases-teen-unemployment/
[3] http://www.balancedpolitics.org/minimum_wage.htm
[4] http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2004/07/the_sin_of_wages.html
[5] http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/16/opinion/saltsman-minimum-wage/index.html
[6] http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/23/raising-minimum-wage-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
[7] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/did-the-minimum-wage-increase-destroy-jobs/
[8] http://www.nationalcenter.org/MinWage.html
[9] Neumark, David and William Wascher, The Effects of Minimum Wages on Teenage Employment and Enrollment: Evidence from Matched CPS Surveys. National Bureau for Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, 1995.
[10]  http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/07/raising-the-minimum-wage-hurts-vulnerable-workers-job-prospects-without-reducing-poverty
[11] David Neumark and William Wascher, "Minimum Wages and Skill Acquisition: Another Look at Schooling Effects,"Economics of Education Review 22:1-10.
[12]  David Neumark and William Wascher, "Do Minimum Wages Fight Poverty?," Economic Inquiry, 2002, v40(3,Jul), pp. 315-333.

Gas prices: Impact in 2012

              http://zfacts.com/p/35.  

The graph can be found here. Now, will this effect 2012? The answer is most likely. The trends show gases on a sharp incline and will likely effect the economy negatively.   More money spent on the car is less money spent on food, and other commerce. It will maybe help one industry, and hurt the others. The goevrment actually gets more profit then the actual company, they get about 40 cents per gallon from exons profits, the company itself gets about 2 cents. [1] So if anything the rising gas 1) Pisses people off, 2) is bad for the economy, 3) doesn't even help the oil business much. So this will hurt Obama presidential bid.

 [1] http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxes-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/                      

Should Gingrich drop out?

In my opinion, yes he should. In this GOP race, there is a search other then a moderate. Santorum is a true conservative with great economic, social, and immigration plans. [1] Gingrich in my opinion is impeding a victory against Romney. Gingrich's funding seems to be slowing and he is doing poorly in performance, 3rd in delegates out of 4. [2] These two people make it hard to get Romney on a 1 vs 1. The majority of the republican party prefers another candidate over Romney, and doesn't generate enough enthusiasm and will be the better of the two evils candidate in 2012. Gingrich impedes Santorums conservative triumph, and sorry newt you are liberal yourself. [3] Now, people here might claim "Newt stay, we need a moderate candidate".  Well the problem is moderate candidates often fail. Moderates many times lose: George H. W bush second term, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Gerald Ford, all lost. Ronald Reagan, a conservative, won.

“We want a conservative nominee because that’s our best chance of winning. Look at the races in the last 30 years, we nominated a moderate: [John] McCain, [Bob] Dole, Gerald Ford. When George [H.W.] Bush ran for re-election back in 1992, after raising taxes and increasing spending. They all ran as moderates. We all lost.  Every time we’ve run as a conservative, we’ve won, Why? Because Americans want a choice. If it’s a difference between somebody, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you know what, this country is going to probably going to stick with the person they know. We need to have a sharp contrast. Someone who paints a very different vision for America.” ~ Rick Santorum




[1] http://www.ricksantorum.com/
[2] http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates
[3] http://www.debate.org/debates/Newt-Gingrich-vs.-Rick-Santorum/1/

GOP race

The GOP race is going at an interesting pace. Santorum, sadly not the frontrunner, is still the conservative alternative to Romney. But before I talk about them, lets look at the unbiased opinionated facts.

On the date march 7th 2012, the delegate count for each candidate looks like this:

Mitt Romney: 415
Rick Santorum: 176
Newt Gingrich: 105
Ron Paul: 47 [1]

=end unbiased=

 What worries me is... I really do not want to mess up in 2012. Rick polls well in states needed for the GOP to win (OH and PA). Mitt is essentially Obama in healthcare reform, and as most Americans are against the reform [2] this is an issue that cannot be lost. Newt gingrich is well the most unelectable according to polls and has way to many personal issues to gain full support of many people he needs to get energized. Paul on the other hand actually polls quite awful vs obama. [3] Many people view him as an extremist as they disagree with his totally deregulatory stance or drug policy etc.  The point is I think Rick or mitt is the way to go, and a Rick/Mitt ticket would be great for the GOP party in 2012. As you can see, I like Rick. More info on the best candidate in 2012: http://www.ricksantorum.com/




[1] http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates
[2] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
[3] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

In defense of Traditional marriage

 Why the goverment "deprives" Homosexuals from marriage.


Heterosexual marriage laws the ground work for a relationship that creates and raises children. (sperm + egg). Now, the goverment gives many benefits economically, tax wise, etc to married couples. [1] The reason they only give them to traditional couples is because of their ability to procreate. Having children is the only way to continue society and advance our culture and race. As the heterosexual couples are the only people who can advance society in this way, and well pay back the benefits they get through marriage, then they deserve a state recognition. The goverment makes laws based of of interests, and their interest in this case is procreation. Therefore allowing gay marriage would be unjust as it debars the special recognition the heterosexual couples deserve.

 People who are pro gay marriage usually have the claims that marriage is about love, but this is far from true. If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved? They are involved due to some sort of interest. If the goverment cared about love, then they would attempt to regulate and control friendships or non marital relationships.

The reason they regulate marriage over these other relationships is because marriage is where you are meant to produce a larger workforce. The reason they do not regulate other relationships is because they have no good reason to do so, at all.

The goverment in marriage needs two things: 1) legal commitment, 2) procreation and the ability to raise a child. A boyfriend girlfriend relationship may produce offspring in the process, but as they are not legally binding situation it is easier for them to break apart, and they will not be able to raise the child. A homosexual relationship will be lacking the legal bind, and the ability to produce offspring. Even if we did give them a legal bind, they would not be able to create children therefore not fulfilling the states interest fully.


One argument used against the procreation argument is the infertile argument. This objection is a misunderstood rebuttal, they do not understand the debate at point. The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off. It is not an argument fully based of of the argument they can make kids, but also an argument based of of the ability to have the similar effect, a procreative type union.

 Any society, goverment, or institution that distinguishes marriage in a certain way will prohibit some types of marriage. A prohibition of SSM does not violate the equal protection clause as we must first have a definition of what marriage is. You cannot confirm that a SSM ban is unconstitutional unless we determine exactly what marriage is, and what it is for. [2]

It is only unconstitutional if they are unjustly debarred the right. Ex: Is it unconstitutional if we debar a murderer from a gun? No. That is a just cause, and with my secular case against gay marriage I have proven they are justly debarred the right. By saying it is unconstitutional you are saying it discriminates without just cause, and that this group deserves the right. As murderers do not deserve a right to a gun, then it is constitutional. In the states eyes homosexual couples cannot produce offspring therefore do not fulfill states interest, and do not deserve the right.


Just because something may have inherent good effects does not mean they deserve the legal benefits. The challenge to my opponent, and the argument he needs to press is: What are the states interest in giving these couples rights? If the State has no reason to give you benefits then why should they? Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits.

---> End words on procreation

 Marriages goal is to create an climate for the continuation for society, aka procreation. This is why the state gives benefits to heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. Homosexual couples will never be able to create or have a relationship type relating to procreation. Procreation and child rearing are essential to making society move on, and if one of those is missing there is a problem. Only can a man and a woman create children, and or have a procreative type relationship. [3]

The anatomy of a homosexual relationship doesn't come close to this. They can neither produce children nor have a relationship of this type. As the heterosexual couples have the ability to further society the state ought to give them recognition over homosexual ones. Couples that do not revolve around a procreation type core, in the states eyes, is useless as they cannot advance society in the way the goverment wants them too. As the state only recognizes you if you have this type of relationship they will define marriage as in a man and a woman.

These where my former arguments I used in debates on the topic:
 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-State-the-goverment-has-no-compellig-reason-to-legalize-SSM./1/ (I am pro) (there was a different resolution hence me being pro)
http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-marriage/97/
(I was con)






[1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
[2] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" (PDF)
[3]  William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF)

Can states secede?

Yes. The constitution states that all in-numerated powers in the constitution, are left to the states.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th amendment


This right here is enough evidence to have the right to secede. Also there is no historical evidence saying you cannot secede! [1] Actually is used to be legal! [1] The right to secession lasted 40 years until the perpetual union argument arose. [1]


 Debunking of the perpetual union clause:

Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about a perpetual union. [2]

"It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." [2] [3]

So, let's reverse back to the 10th amendment, then talk about what I claimed above. The 10th amendment, as quoted above, says all not mentioned power is left up the the states or the people. Now as the constitution doesn't mention a perpetual union then each state ought to decide. So this perpetual union is an utterly false claim. As it is not mentioned by the constitution, the states or the people should decide. Here's what I mean:

60% of America says we should have a perpetual union clause, then we have is as the tenth amendment says to the people or the states.

or.

60% of America want's to have the right to secession, then we have a right to secession as the tenth amendment says if it isn't there, the people or the states choose.

Let's say the states choose:

2/3's say no perpetual union, then we are allowed to secede.

etc.

Quite simple. Now my claim above about the founding fathers. This is just an extra argument, showing the constitution would not have an anti secession clause written into it (at least at the time it was written). If all of them where pro-secession then the constitution woudl NOT BE ANTI SECESSION.


"Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it." [4]

Now, as the federalist papers, a document for the constitutions ratification may I add, was pro-secession. If this was the case then logically it should be allowed.

I have proven my point, allow states to secede if the majority of their populous says so, or the state government so chooses. It's their right.




 sources:



http://www.bonniebluepublishing.com/The%20Right%20of%20Secession.htm [1]
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/890304.html [2]
Life of Webster By: Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge [3]
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/990930.shtml [4]