Media Matters: Busting a cap and trade in their ... spin
As the House vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act approached this week, prominent media conservatives once again took to the airwaves and displayed their true colors. Criticism of the bill from the right -- especially its cap-and-trade provisions -- has not been the product of principle, but of misinformation and, at times, willful denial.
On Friday, radio host Rush Limbaugh once again flagrantly denied that global warming exists and continued to advance the shockingly erroneous, comically false argument that under the legislation, "we could be taxed because of the carbon dioxide we exhale." Thanks, Professor Limbaugh, for another science lesson!
"This bill is about raising taxes and taking away people's freedom," Limbaugh continued, before comparing it to a "Soviet-style five-year plan" that is "all based on hoaxes," a crooked scheme worthy of Bernie Madoff.
The fearmongering continued as Fox News' Glenn Beck agreed with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) when she argued of the bill, "You're either for freedom or you're not."
Indeed, portraying the legislation as a massive financial penalty for ordinary Americans is a major line of attack for media conservatives. Thursday's Fox & Friends claimed that the average family would have to pay an extra $3,100 a year in energy costs if it passed. But that number is based on a distortion of a 2007 MIT study -- a distortion that has since been discredited by one of the study's authors. Fox's Sean Hannity also pushed a similar myth, claiming that the bill would cost families $2,000 a year.
Entirely absent from these critiques is the result of a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis that found that the bill's net impact to households would eventually range between a benefit of $40 per year and a cost of $340 per year, with an average cost of $175 per year. Hannity isn't the only one ignoring this crucial study while claiming the bill will lead to far higher costs; CNN's The Situation Room and Lou Dobbs Tonight and Fox News' Special Report and On the Record with Greta van Susteren have also repeated the misinformation or failed to challenge guests who advanced it. Unfortunately, as of June 23, none of them had reported on the new CBO study.
Other major stories this week:
Sanford: An affair to remember; others, they forget
As everyone knows by now, the case of the missing South Carolina governor has been solved. Those who watched Mark Sanford's press conference on Fox News, however, may be a bit confused, since the conservative network briefly identified the Republican politician as a Democrat before correcting the error. While Fox apologized the next day, the "mistake" was nothing new. The news channel seems to have a habit of identifying unpopular or scandal-ridden Republicans as Democrats.
It's especially hard to take the apology seriously when you consider that in two segments over the course of four hours on June 25, Fox's James Rosen highlighted only scandals involving Democrats during reports that purported to examine earlier political sex scandals in an effort to assess Sanford's situation. Neither segment mentioned any of the numerous sex scandals that involved Republican politicians such as Sen. John Ensign (NV), Sen. David Vitter (LA), and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, among others.
Fox News was hardly alone in its selective memory. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski claimed there is a "double standard" when it comes to the sex scandals of Republican and Democratic politicians -- that Democrats like Bill Clinton have "completely survived" their scandals. I wonder if she's told survivors Vitter, Ensign, Gingrich, and Rudy Giuliani of this "double standard" that apparently doesn't apply to them. Mort Kondracke could benefit from the same reminder of these survivors. Roll Call's executive editor, without a hint of irony, took to Fox News to say that "the Democratic Party is a lot more tolerant of licentiousness than the Republican Party is." Oh, brother.
So who is to blame for Sanford's downfall? Well, if you're Limbaugh or fellow conservative radio host Michael Savage, placing blame is pretty easy. They blame -- wait for it, wait for it ... President Obama. Seriously. Limbaugh suggested the president may have been a catalyst for Sanford's affair -- because the governor was sooo stressed out trying to reject stimulus funds -- while Savage, citing the affairs of Sanford and Ensign, said that "Obama's team is taking out potential rivals one after another."
If you really want to see the hypocrisy of these media conservatives, I suggest you watch this video of democratic strategist Bob Beckel trying to pin Hannity down on his opinion of Ensign's affair. You'll have to fight the giggles; Hannity's consistency is quite laughable.
Nico Pitney is no Jeff Gannon
Remember Jeff Gannon? He's the former Talon News "Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent" who lobbed softballs at President Bush and his former press secretary Scott McClellan in the White House press briefing room and lifted big chunks of language verbatim from GOP documents for his "news reports." Gannon wasn't a credentialed reporter -- not by the House or Senate press galleries, not by the White House Correspondents' Association, not by the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association. Nope, for quite some time, Gannon was granted a day-to-day pass to White House press briefings by ... the White House.
Oh, yeah, one other thing: As The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz noted at the time, "naked pictures [of Gannon] have appeared on a number of gay escort sites." More on that here.
Jeff Gannon is no Nico Pitney. I'd just hate for Gannon to think that his integrity, journalistic or otherwise, even remotely matches that of The Huffington Post's national editor.
Beltway establishment journos and conservative media figures were apoplectic after Obama selected Pitney to ask a question concerning Iran at his press conference this week.
Leading the Beltway charge, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank ridiculed Obama for taking "a preplanned question" by "a planted questioner." Of course, Milbank omitted the substance of Pitney's question. Limbaugh directly compared the media response to Pitney's question with "the outcry over Jeff Gannon."
For the record, since so many have failed to, I present you Pitney's question to Obama, which was offered up on behalf of an Iranian:
Under which conditions would you accept the election of [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of the -- of what the demonstrators there are working towards?
What about Gannon? Here's what he asked Bush in a 2005 presser:
Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?
As the song goes, "one of these things is not like the other." Far from Gannon's softball, Pitney's question was described as "tough" by Michael Tomasky and Glenn Greenwald. ABC News' Jake Tapper described it as "one of the tougher" questions.
So it can't be the substance of Pitney's question that has the right and Beltway insiders in such a huff. In fact, most conservatives skipped past the question entirely, attempting to paint a picture of a White House picking a liberal out of the blue to come into the presser and ask a prearranged question. Those assertions are both unfair and untrue. But it didn't stop Hannity from falsely claiming that Pitney himself had "explained" that the White House chose his question. In fact, both Pitney and the White House deny that Obama had prior knowledge of the question. Hannity's Fox News colleague Bret Baier accused The Huffington Post of "coordinat[ing]" with Obama to ask the question. The Fox Nation website took things a step further, equating The Huffington Post question to "state-run media."
For what it's worth, the whole episode smacks of journalistic jealousy. Anyone who has been following Pitney's live coverage of the ongoing crisis in Iran knows that his work has been nothing but top-notch and worthy of praise, not derision. If you haven't been reading Pitney, I strongly suggest that you start ... today.
Perhaps a CNN caption during an interview with Pitney best summed up the controversy: "A blogger gets press room Q&A. So what?"
ABC: Now it's premeditated liberal media bias?
Right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin may not believe it, but ABC's health care town hall with Obama this week was a ratings success for the network. The strong showing came after days of relentless (and nonsensical) conservative attacks attempting to paint the special as an "infomercial" and a left-wing propaganda coup. Fox News' Mike Huckabee and Chris Wallace, apparently struck by the lunacy of the right-wing charges, defended ABC, essentially saying that anyone would jump at the chance to host such an event. Perhaps they could have discussed the issue with other Fox News personalities around the fair and balanced water cooler.
While some media critics like Kurtz correctly identified the conservative efforts as a classic example of "working the refs," they kept largely mum. Kurtz himself said he was "amazed" by the attacks, but has yet to say more.
As usual, the content of the program proved that charges of pro-Obama favoritism just wouldn't fly. Hosting, ABC's Charles Gibson claimed that "a lot of people are very uncomfortable" with the "idea" of "government insurance," even though a recent New York Times poll pegged support for such a plan at a whopping 72 percent. Gibson was also schooled over his interpretation of a Lewin Group report concerning future health care coverage of Americans by ... the Lewin Group's president and Obama.
Funny enough, ABC's Diane Sawyer, who co-hosted the town hall, noted this week that Bush had turned down the opportunity to participate in a similar program during his time in office.
It really was a case of imagined premeditated liberal media bias on the part of media conservatives.
The crazy world of Michael Savage
This week, Examiner.com's Ron Moore reported that Savage (née Weiner), the nation's third-most-listened-to talk radio host, vowed to "retaliate" against Media Matters for America by posting photos and "pertinent information" about staff on his website. Seriously. You can listen to Savage's disturbing words for yourself.
The comments led Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC's The Ed Show, to discuss the right-wing fringe talker's attacks in his appropriately titled "Psycho Talk" segment. Schultz declared Savage "is pinning a 'Wanted' sign on employees at Media Matters."
As Huffington Post political reporter Jason Linkins put it, "What's strange about this is that Media Matters has been making the case for some time now that right-wing voices have been ramping up rhetoric that specifically urges violent acts and intimidation. So now, Savage is talking about a running a web-stalking campaign against them? Hmmm. I wonder what sort of conclusions a person might draw from that?"
Media Matters responded to Savage, posting a video on YouTube that juxtaposes the seemingly rational face the host put on a during recent CNN interview with screeching audio clips from his own nationally syndicated radio program, including his threats against Media Matters' staff. The video concludes with on-screen text stating "We're Still Listening."
That night on his show, Savage dug in deeper, telling listeners that he's getting "tax returns for Media Matters." Of Media Matters' staff, Savage also repeated his vow to "expose not only their names and their pictures, but also how much money they make for being the good Stalinists that they are."
This week's media columns
This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Jamison Foser looks at Mika Brzezinski's double standard, and Karl Frisch says the media could use a Stonewall uprising of their own.
Buy the book
Don't forget to order your autographed copy of Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert's compelling new book, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press (Free Press, May 2009).
Do you Facebook or Twitter?
If you use the social networking site Facebook, be sure to join the official Media Matters page and those of our senior fellows Eric Boehlert, Jamison Foser, and Karl Frisch as well. You can also follow Media Matters, Boehlert, Foser, and Frisch on Twitter.
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary.
Come on. FNC is no more biased than ABC or NBC. Yes, its another view. We have established that. Next?
And you cannot provide many examples at all of some media group who you claim shows left-leaning bias continuing to lie to their views as FoxNews, Limbaugh, and others do on the right.
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
So, I have provided proof. You have provided nothing.
As for examples of left leaning bias...Let's start with anything on MSNBC. That is CRAZY left wing, with Olbermann, Mathews, Maddow, and Schultz. All news anchors of CBS, ABC, and NBC are confirmed left wing, self-admitted.
Blog on Mike Kinsley and DS Memo
HItchen's blows this one out of the water
The media ignored this memo because they knew it was junk.
On the other hand, they did run with and try and affect an election with the bogus National Guard memo that cost the left one of its lions in Dan Rather and five other lower flunkies.
Call it what you wish.
The fact remains the Downing Street memo was bunk. If you have any links to prove otherwise, we're all ears.
"And you cannot provide many examples at all of some media group who you claim shows left-leaning bias continuing to lie to their views as FoxNews, Limbaugh, and others do on the right."
The challenge is not to allege bias. The challenge is to show that you can find more than one or two examples of those who you claim are left-leaning continuing to lie to their viewers.
That's what FoxNews, Rush, and others on the right undeniably do. In order for your claim of equivalency to stand up, you'd need to provide evidence of that.
Not only has your study been proven to be done poorly and not to prove what it set out to prove (it's always a bad study that sets out with a preconceived notion anyway), but it doesn't relate at all to the challenge I presented to you. You said that there was an equivalency between FoxNews, which lies on a regular basis and sources on the left. Prove it.
That said...let me get this straight...Things are not true if I say them, but are true if only you say them?
And...I must be receiving all my info from a "screechmonkey", but you are a scholar of some sort?
You are childish, ignorant of how government works, and pitiful.
That UCLA study uses ADA scores. Those scores have John Kerry more conservative than John McCain. They give the ACLU a fairly low score because they were cited so often about McCain Fiengold. They very idea that media bias can be shown by who they cite without even an ATTEMPT to say whether the reporting is accurate is just plain dumb. So YOU were taken in. Thats fine. Those of us with functioning cerebral cortexes werent. You didnt prove anything except how gullible you are
Cap and Tax is a scam for taxing the poor. The rich don't care; the poor should but are being mislead by their "progressive" leaders. Admittedly, the house almost neutered the bill, but motivation behind it is either ignornance (junk science believed by politicians) or a scheme to raise taxes. In either case, our legislators are not serving the public with integrity -- some, indeed, are trying to "sell" global warming -- a subject none of them can talk about intelligently. Ask President Obama which climate model he likes.
Cap and Tax will be fully repealed when the wind changes directions. I suspect all the "credits" that would be purchased in the meantime, would become worthless the morning after the election returns are finalized. Talk about a bubble.
That will be funny to watch.
According to the CBO report itself (should you actually read it), the analysis is based on a one-year snapshot, with ZERO adjustments. But, the bill was adjusted to reduce impact before 2020, then severly increase penalties after. The CBO analysis is based on a one-time view prior to the increase in 2020.
Additionally, the CBO admits in a footnote that resource costs do NOT include the "potential decrease in GDP". So, running up the price of electricity would impact all businesses. As Obama himself admitted, "under my plan, electricity costs will NECESSARILY SKYROCKET".
What the heck do you think is going to happen with this? Only an IDIOT would believe that with rising energy costs, an economy based on consuming (70% consumer economy) would survive. When consumers stop spending, producers reduce producing, and lay off workers, which causes unemployment...
How can you progressives explain this? The only thing I've ever heard from a crazy liberal congressmen was how we should be "good stewards of the world".
That's crap. China is not reducing carbon. India...Brazil...How do you think this will help.
Stop hiding behind your typical "Rush said so...", and respond like a man.
I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh in my life. Now what?
You are intellectually dishonest, and corrupt, if you believe raising the cost of energy will do anything BUT lower the GDP. Tell me, oh great progressive mind, how on earth do you see this benefitting anyone?
Use your GOD GIVEN brain, fool. It is not the conservatives saying screw the world, IDIOT. Its the OTHER COUNTRIES. We cannot lead from a position OTHER THAN THE FRONT. If our country is crippled economically, who will follow?
If you would get your head out of Rachel Maddows arse, you would know that conservatives are not saying money, money, money. They are saying country, country, country. Its the progressives like yourself that want to see the destruction of our economy to satisfy some bitter self-hatred you have.
I am seriously beginning to wonder if you are some 19 year old dope-smoking atheist living on mommies dime in the dorm room of some crazy liberal college...in another country.
Personally think the cost of the cap and trade will be well beyond the $175/family/year that is so highly touted by the left, but it may not get as high as $3000 for about 30 years. It will have an impact on the economy, probably adverse at first, but we are a resilient nation. The big kicker is finding out if China, India, Brazil (among others) buy into similar scenarios also. I'm not a big proponent of this bill, but at the same time, I realize we need to be good stewards of what we have.
How is that logical? We hurt our country first...then hope all the other countries that are now taking our factories will voluntarily cripple their own.
Answer this: If our country is no longer an economical power, what are we going to sanction? What threat will we have? That we'll stop borrowing from them? Oooh...
Dude, just use common sense!
Conservatives all agree that individuals should NOT harm the environment. But, not at the cost of the very thing that makes us a great nation.
My idea of cap and trade would be to cap the amount of electricity we generate using Coal and trade to Nuclear instead. I don't see the US planting enough wind turbines or solar panels to make a big difference. Wind sounds good, but if we coat the Midwest with turbines, what will that do to migratory bird flight patterns (or mortality)? I live within 10-30 miles of hundreds of turbines and the amount of time that I see them (one or most) idle is astounding. I think there are days when they don't even produce enough energy to power the warning strobes on the top. But they are a great deal for the land owners, in that you and I (and other taxpayers) are subsidizing payments to them. For wind or solar to be economically feasible will require huge power rate increases to cover installation, maintenance, and infrastructure (power lines, roads, etc). Nuclear presents some problems but there are programs being worked on to process the waste into relatively harmless material.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
True. Here was the thinking on that. The industrial countries used the cheap dirty energy to build up their economies to what they are and it wouldnt be fair to tell emerging countries that they cant do the same. I find it a weak argument since we are all facing the same catastrophe but THAT was the rationale and it has SOME legitimacy.
Wind and solar both promise some good stopgap measures in the end we need to get to a hydrogen energy system. A few engineering breakthroughs and we will have the longterm clean energy we need. Nuclear will always present some problems the goal was to get to fusion and we are still a LONG ways from that. I think we can keep up with the research but the only reason nuclear was economically competitive was the huge subzidation from mining through energy production. Who will provide the insurance that pretty much no private insurance company will cough up at any sort of competitive price? There isnt any easy answer here and no matter what we do it will cost us. I think the BEST answer is a huge investment into the basic reasearch and perhaps the US can lead the world in clean energy production. We can then manufacture and export the components to the rest of the world IF we can pull that off its a win/win and THAT should be the goal
http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/4/1/36
Perhaps with gene splicing technology we can enhance their natural ability to produce the hydrogen. That is just one area. Admittedly we need those engineering breakthroughs but THAT is what we are best at. No doubt human beings are cleve. No if only we could become wise
Seriously...I would love to have a good debate with you. So, let's get past the lack of facts. I'll start:
1. The CBO has estimated that the cost per household AVERAGES $140 per year. That is the direct result of higher energy prices. Multiple sources have provided reports saying the CBO has underestimated the impact, as it indicated itself that GDP impact was NOT included (and yes, they say it will be NEGATIVELY impacted, but was not included). Please tell me how this helps our country.
2. The Iraq War. OK...we'll go there. Everyone, both sides of the aisles, agreed that Iraq had WMD. Period. Undisputable. Care to argue that? If not, then what is your point? Our president acted to protect this country. Would you not act to protect the US?
3. Minimum Wage. This is too easy. A Univ of KY study (http://www.rgs.uky.edu/odyssey/winter07/minimum_wage.html) indicates the likelihood of unemployment raises by 8.3% for uneducated workers. The Heritage Foundation has TONS of research that provides actual numbers on how workers are affected. BUT...let's just use common sense. What types of businesses pay minimum wage? Answer, restaraunts and small biz. What type of worker makes minimum wage? Answer, uneducated and teens. And here's the biggie: If a small biz is forced to increase costs for labor, what happens? A) fewer workers B) higher consumer prices C) lower profits, resulting in fewer investments into the business. Which of these would you choose? Its simple logic.
You don't have to take my word for the increase in energy costs. Obama said it himself! Its not ME!! I'm just saying use common sense. What happens to the economy when energy prices go up?
And...why do you talk of speculation, when it is YOU that is speculating on this cap and trade. You HOPE that China and India will follow. You HOPE that the energy prices won't go up too much. You HOPE that business doesn't leave the country. You HOPE for change...
2 NO everyone did NOT think Iraq had WMDs. That is what you were TOLD to believe by the screechmonkeys for instance I didnt and was saying so loud, and often. Scott Ritter didnt. France didnt and Germany told us to listen to FRANCE.
http://www.sundayherald.com/34271
The British intelligence source said the best Humint(human intelligence from agents
) on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq.
'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there --
3 The very bogus talking points I was citing. I am sure the Heritage foundation has TONS of studies showing why we can NEVER cost business anymore money or tax the rich. They are not worth my time. The thing is we DID the minimum wage increase and the massive unemployment DIDNT HAPPEN. In fact EVERYTIME we increase the minimum wage we hear the same baloney and the massive unemployment NEVER SHOWS UP. Your logic is flawed for TWO reasons. First it assumes small businesses have workers just sitting around that they dont NEED to make their money. That they are a charity that gives jobs away as a public service and yet I dont know of ANY small businesses that operate that way. So much for fewer workers. Higher consumer prices. Perhaps and more money in the pockets of at least the minimum wage consumers to make up for it. Lower profits. Tough the minimum wage is lower today than it was in 1955 in constant dollars. So either the businesses are pocketing higher profits at the expense of those workers already and need to cough up the fair wage or they are poorly run. Still the point is it is ANOTHER prediction by the right about how the sky is going to fall then it DOESNT.
Yeah. Energy prices will go up a bit. The point is we need to take Global Climate Change seriously and do something. There isnt any reason to believe this small to moderate energy price raise will cripple the economy of be anything more than a small bump on the road and if the vast majority of scientists are right we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. This is a good first step.
While you are HOPING the economy will be crippled and that the vast majority of scientists are just wrong about something they have been studying for decades. We can do more than HOPE about China, and India. They NEED a global economy once WE and the rest of the industrial world are doing something we can FORCE them on board since sanctions are a very real threat to their economies. Businessess already leave the country whenever they can if they can make a few more shekles by exploiting foriegn labor and environment. There isnt any reason to think a small increase in their costs will make that any worse.
2. The French? The freaking French? The same French that recently did a 180 during the elections, and went conservative? The same French that had Muslim race riots for weeks? What about the UNITED STATES? You supposedly live there...remember. When I said "both sides of the aisle", I was referring to conservative and progressive here. Yes, some wing-nuts like yourself never want to protect our country. Not surprising. But, the most powerful country in the WORLD believed through its own intelligence that WMD existed, as did the UK. We are not obligated to ask the French, or any other country, for permission to protect ourselves.
3. So, you skipped over the study from UK, and focused on Heritage. Nicely played. Your communist views are exposed.
2. The French? The freaking French? The same French that recently did a 180 during the elections, and went conservative? The same French that had Muslim race riots for weeks? What about the UNITED STATES? You supposedly live there...remember. When I said "both sides of the aisle", I was referring to conservative and progressive here. Yes, some wing-nuts like yourself never want to protect our country. Not surprising. But, the most powerful country in the WORLD believed through its own intelligence that WMD existed, as did the UK. We are not obligated to ask the French, or any other country, for permission to protect ourselves.
3. So, you skipped over the study from UK, and focused on Heritage. Nicely played. Your communist views are exposed.
We understand that there may be a cost on taxpayers today to help diminish global warming and minimize the effects our descendants will feel. Lots of times there are costs that must be paid today to prevent even greater pain down the road. This is one of those times. We understand that those on the right are only tuned in to short term gains and losses and want businesses to prosper. Liberals think longer term and want Americans to prosper. One political philosophy is reasonable and compassionate. It's not yours.
As for your second paragraph...read the bill. The Cap and Trade bill does NOT diminsh global warming. It puts a penalty on users of carbon over a specified limit. Those costs will be passed on to the consumer, resulting in the estimated $140 to $3100 annual increase per household. BUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF CARBON CONTINUES!! The HOPE is that if the cost is SOOO high, that people will use less. Its a HOPE.
This is crap politics.
Answer this: Name one conservative voice that wants to harm the environment. Just one. Its a straw man that you progressives have worked up. We want to help the world as much as anyone, but without crippling our country.
Either way, this bill will never make it through the senate. Its bad politics. Its bad for our country. It does NOT help the environment. If you had actually read it, you would know that.
2 The French are the ones that still have human intelligence on the ground in the region because they didnt fall in love with satelite technology to do their spywork like we did. You dont really think just because they are French and you are so brainwahsed by the screechmonkey so programmed it would embarass one of Pavlovs dogs to hate the French that invalidates their intelligence which Germany took seriously do you? Also try to remember THEY WERE RIGHT. Yeah the went conservative by THEIR spectrum if Sarkozy ran in the US he would be a Democrat. Do you think he will try to change the French national healthecare plan? Did he try to get out of THEIR Kyoto commitment? Will he be messing with their national pension plan? A conservative in Europe would be EMBARASSED by you.
3 The one that talks about the LIKLIHOOD of the kind of unemployment THAT DIDNT HAPPEN? Why would I bother? The minimum wage WAS raised in 2007. We didnt SEE the massive unemployment you cons predicted. We didnt see bad unemployment until the economic meltdown and THAT wasnt focused in the minimum wage sector. So why bother to refute a study that REALITY ITSELF REFUTED? Your stupidity is exposed
2. How stupid can you possibly be. Do you think the US does not have intelligence on the ground? Are you possibly that stupid? Of course we have people on the ground. Hell, they talk about it on the news for Gods sake. And, yes...we did not find WMD 8 months after announcing we were coming. Big surprise.
3. For those progressives like yourself who are absolutely intellectually corrupt...I will repeat myself. Minimum wage increases do not ALWAYS result in loss of jobs. They can result in either loss of jobs, or INCREASE IN PRICE. Either way, it does NOT benefit the intended worker.
Now...since you and your progressive friends are incapable of reading the reports yourselves...I'll help you. YES, YES, YES!!! The reports show that an 11% increase in minimum wage will result in an additional 300,000 teen and young aldult jobs being loss of the 13 million people earning minimum wage. Woo Hoo...that's good politics.
But, I want you to directly answer this question: If a small business owner is forced to pay teenagers 30% more over two years for the same level of work, what will happen?
1 It is the figure being used and you have no evidence its wrong. It goes to reduce the amount of carbon we put into the air and lessen the effects of Global Climate Change. DUH. Try to keep up.
2. Not half as stupid as YOU that is certain. FRECH INTELLIGENCE GOT IT RIGHT MORON. We didnt. Then we checked and both Duelfer and Kay said the same thing. NOT that Iraq had gotten rid of their WMDs but that they DIDNT HAVE ANY SINCE THE MID NINETIES. Anyone marginally informed on this issue already knows this. I guess Rush didnt bother to tell you to think that so you missed it.
3 So you flatly state that an increase in wages doesnt help the worker. How delusional are you and why do you think if you just SAY these things they become true. Glad you admitted that a raise in the minimum wage doesnt always end up costing jobs and yet every time we try to raise the minimum wage I have to listen to rightwingers telling us massive unemployment will result despite the FACT it hasnt in the past.
So since we DID raise the minimum wage stop telling me about what your report says WILL happen and cough up the evidence that those 13 million people DID lose their jobs or you are still being an idiot. WE RAISED THE MINIUM WAGE. Show me the job loss attributed to it or stop wasting my time.
What we are talking about is about two dollars an hour 80 dollars extra a week. A very MINIMAL raise in his price will absorb that pretty quickly we are only talking about16 dollars a day per worker over that two years. If his business is running on that kind of shoestring he cant absorb that he doesnt have much of a business.
Apparently you sdon't mind if the planet starts to look and smell like Uranus.