|
|
|
|
|
|
by wfo
3673 days ago
|
|
|
Removing the minimum wage is so extreme it's barely even under consideration anywhere outside libertarian-only econ conferences. And it always has been. Your positions (the few that have not already been enacted, because of how far right our system has shifted) are hyper extreme, they have always been hyper extreme, they always will be hyper extreme, even in conservative circles because the vast majority of people simply do not want them to happen and have never wanted them to happen because they would be awful for almost everyone. The only items on your list you have NOT gotten because of our extreme rightward shift in the last 60 years have been the points about removing pieces of the government wholesale (and removing government-recognized marriage, which near zero percent of the population has ever wanted, which isn't even a conservative position). Because government agencies were created for a reason, to meet a need and those needs have not ceased to exist. Gun and religious laws have not really changed much. Deregulation has happened massively and destroyed huge sectors of the economy. The only point there that withstands even casual scrutiny is judicial activism. You could have just replied "Yes". |
|
|
Then you disagree with Eleanor Roosevelt on history, who, speaking of the Republican party's desire to end the minimum wage in 1959 gave the congressional testimony: "The arguments raised against establishing any legal minimum wage were the same as those which have been used by employers over the past 50 years."
And liberal think-tank The National Employment Law Project, who writes: "The criticisms raised by minimum wage opponents display a remarkable consistency over the past 100 years" Source: "100 Years of Broken-Record Opposition to the Minimum Wage"
You can disagree with these positions, but at least have your facts right about basic points of history. Points of history that your party doesn't even disagree with.