Serious question: How on earth could anyone oppose a policy that would effectively give low-skilled workers (workers who barely make enough money to feed themselves, let alone a family), higher wages? After all, we live in difficult economic times, and it doesn’t seem wholly unreasonable that individuals working in low-skilled jobs should be entitled to a minimum, universally agreed upon standard of living. And indeed, as you might expect, this isn’t by any means an unpopular idea: According to a recent Gallup poll, almost all the Democrats -- and precisely half the Republicans -- surveyed would vote “for” a proposal...
Nawlins:***Cut the sh!t with your "moral equivalence" drivel. This type of ad hominem garbage when you're confronted with dissenting opinion is tiring. You've yet to address any questions posed to you.*** There is no moral equivalence with me. Liberalism has a very high degree of moral differentiation. It is just that with monetarism, public choice, supply side, Ayn Rand, rational expectations, Austrian school, or whatever, the fundamental assumption is that fiscal policy has no constructive role to play in the life of an economy, and that is wrong. I answer any and all questions posed to me. Boo hoo to someone else about being insulted.
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 3 hours ago
- EPA exonerates Christie administration in obscure bridge-related offense someone made up Mary Katharine Ham 4 hours ago
- California energy companies are getting the heck outta’ dodge and moving to Texas Erika Johnsen 5 hours ago
- CNN poll: 58% oppose abortion in most or all cases Ed Morrissey 5 hours ago
- Video: Rand Paul’s very libertarian speech at CPAC Allahpundit 6 hours ago
- RNC Chairman talks tactics, the GOP’s technological gap, and how the March for Life “was a little bit of a wake-up call” Dustin Siggins 7 hours ago