Sunday, December 27, 2015

BATTLE MODE - Defending the Faith



Rayshaun Justice



Rayshaun Justice - Islam origins

Muhammad Rasheed - lol The origins of the religion of Islam are Muhammad and his relationship with his Lord. The worship of the One God predates all paganism. There may very well be certain specific rituals in the three new Abrahamic faiths that can be traced back to older cultural systems, but the worship of the One God is how mankind began.

Paganism is the taint that infected the species afterwards.

Charlotte Mouaga - Alloat, muzza and manaot are deities mentioned in Sura 53:19–20

Muhammad Rasheed - Are you aware that in verse 23 of the same chapter, God condemns these same three "deities" as mere names that the pagans and their fathers invented? 

The monotheism of Islam is the continuation of the original monotheism that the very first human knew. All paganism is after the fact inventions by weak minds.

Charlotte Mouaga - islam came 6 centuries after christianity.....

Muhammad Rasheed - Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the last in a long line of prophet-messengers that preached the monotheism of the Supreme Creator since the creation of Adam the patriarch. The message of God preached by all the Hebrew prophets, and the Arab prophet, were one message: Believe in God, reject evil, do good, repent when you fall.

Charlotte Mouaga - doesn't say that in sura 9

Muhammad Rasheed - It says it throughout the entire Qur'an... that they were all of one brotherhood, who preached the same message, were anointed to the same mission. That's why the believers are commanded to treat them all the same, and hold none of them up higher than any other.

Charlotte Mouaga - The Ka‘aba contains pagan images of these moon gods

Muhammad Rasheed - Ka'aba was cleansed of pagan foolishness when the believers returned triumphant to Mecca to put the pagans in their proper place in the anointed holy city. Since then it's been rebuilt several times. There are no longer any pagan images within the House of Allah. Glory be to He!

Charlotte Mouaga - that doesnt matter the origins are still pagan

Muhammad Rasheed - The origins of the Ka'aba are that it was built by Abraham and his oldest son Ishmael (some legends say it was built by Adam, but I don't give that any weight other than as a curio). The Arabs hadn't had a prophet-messenger to instruct them in scripture & wisdom since Ishmael, so over the thousands of years, the holy shrine became coated and filled with pagan nonsense. The final messenger of the One God, the 'comforter' and unlettered prophet himself ordered the holy house cleansed and re-dedicated back to the Lord of all the worlds... a state it has remained in for these 1,500 years since.

Charlotte Mouaga - uh thats idol worship....

Muhammad Rasheed - What's idol worship?

Charlotte Mouaga - worshipping the Ka'aba is idol worship

Muhammad Rasheed - No one worships the Ka'aba, Charlotte. God commands the believer to demonstrate our unity by facing in the direction of His House when we pray to Him. That's all. No one asks the Ka'aba to bestow blessings upon them. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - It is the One God of Abraham alone that we worship, His aid that we seek.

Charlotte Mouaga - thats idol worship.

Muhammad Rasheed - What does it mean to "worship" something, Charlotte?

Charlotte Mouaga - and no one is certain (well, apart from what muslims say) about the origins of the Kaba so you are lying. Only mohammed made that claim

Charlotte Mouaga - devotion??

Charlotte Mouaga - and why would Mohammed order his followers to face Jerusalem if the Kaba was the house of God??????

Muhammad Rasheed - That Abraham & Ishmael built it was a known concept even before Al-Islam came; long have the Arabs traced their linage back to the son of Abraham. This was common knowledge. Can this be definitively, scientifically proven without a shadow of a doubt? Probably not. But in absence of any reasonable alternate theory (pagan origins are not reasonable btw), this will do.

Calling me a liar for believing it and sharing it is over-the-top.

Muhammad Rasheed - The prophet didn't order the believers to face Jerusalem, God did it. In the Qur'an the reason He gave was to test them. Some of them did make a fuss about it, and God let them know -- firmly -- that it was not a righteous deed to face in one direction or another during prayer (He then listed the righteous deeds that WOULD count towards their purity for paradise), and said that if they continued to fuss about it then they only prove to love trivial traditionalism and foolishness more than Him.

Charlotte Mouaga - facing another direction- what a challenge gasp emoticon No, he hoped that Jews would receive him

Muhammad Rasheed - It was a challenge. The Jews weren't exactly their friends at the time, and they had their own traditional direction to face, which their prophet confirmed belonged to the One God.

Muhammad Rasheed - The command hurt them in their feels. lol

Charlotte Mouaga - if you say so..

Muhammad Rasheed - It's told in the Qur'an itself:

The Holy Qur'an Surah 2: 142-144
142 The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?" Say: To Allah belong both east and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight.
 
143 Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful.
 
144 We see the turning of thy face (for guidance to the heavens: now Shall We turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque: Wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction. The people of the Book know well that that is the truth from their Lord. Nor is Allah unmindful of what they do.

The context isn't difficult to correlate if you know the prophet Muhammad's biography.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's too early for hostility, Charlotte.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Charlotte Mouaga - its 11:23 pm where I am and there is no hostility. Why do you assume that?

Muhammad Rasheed - Uhhh... because you called me a liar, and all of your responses are curt.  It's 7:33am over here.

Charlotte Mouaga - cool.

Charlotte Mouaga - I know that mohammed included sabean astral worshippers in the quran   :P

Muhammad Rasheed - Hostility is NOT 'cool,' Charlotte. It's mean! lol

Charlotte Mouaga - aight lol

Muhammad Rasheed - It was God who said that as long as the Sabians believed in Him, rejected evil, and did good, they would indeed receive their reward on the Day of Judgment. It is He that knows, and we that know not.

Muhammad Rasheed - devotion - love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person activity or cause

worship - to show reverence and adoration, esp. for a deity

Muhammad Rasheed - So if you love your husband, show loyalty to him, or express enthusiasm for seeing him, are you worshiping him as an idol?  Those terms are not synonymous.  

Charlotte Mouaga - I only worship God.

Muhammad Rasheed - The same for me. Obeying Him and facing the direction He commanded I face while worshiping Him doesn't change that.

Charlotte Mouaga - You worship a pagan stone

Muhammad Rasheed - lol I don't worship the black stone either, Charlotte.

Honestly, you should just ask.

Muhammad Rasheed - hahaha

Charlotte Mouaga - lol... I dont see how that can make a person more holy. Thats just a pattern of behaviour that you conform to. It does not transform your heart

Muhammad Rasheed - Committing to obeying the Lord Most High makes you holy by default.

Charlotte Mouaga - How can it? You still fall short

Muhammad Rasheed - What do you mean? 'Holy' is consecrated or dedicated to God. If I make a conscious choice to commit to Him and His commands, it makes me holy. If I fall short, then I do what He said to do when I fall short, and regain my holy status once more.

Charlotte Mouaga - lol....what if you die and dont get the chance to do that?

Muhammad Rasheed - *Holy Status Fail*

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Hollywood Doubles-Down on Risk Aversion


Muhammad RasheedWhat ‘Star Wars’ gets wrong about blacks and women

Muhammad Rasheed"In 1980, when the handsome, deep-voiced Billy Dee Williams appeared on-screen as Lando Calrissian, he exuded sex appeal — though don’t get it twisted, there was no actual love interest available for him to attach to all that swagger. But at least he brought it to the party. Later, when he turned out to be a general in the Rebel Alliance, that seemed like a solid redirection of his powers. In subsequent movies, Mace Windu, played by Samuel L. Jackson, was a Jedi master, but was not a lead, and was one-note, hardcore." ~Lonnae O'Neal

Same ole, same ole...?

I wasn't expecting anything different from Bogle's insights with how they portrayed the Finn character, because Hollywood is Hollywood after-all; one-trick pony is their thing. But the part that actually offends me -- considering the levels of super-hype -- were what Brandon Easton pointed out regarding the usage of A New Hope as a story-plot template.

I hate that risk averse bs. I thought Brandon was being VERY generous with his 7/10 rating, because that lazy version of "writing" would never get that high a rating from ME. Is that the quality of screenplay work they pay Hollywood blockbuster writers? smh

They could have addressed the issues people had with the Prequels without repackaging A New Hope, and took the franchise to a new level of awesome. Repackaging what we already know (have memorized, actually) is not how you do that. Personally, I would have preferred making Jar Jar the dark Sith master that that one blogger theorized.

Ba Sheer A. Musawwir - I was thinking all the money they spent on pre-release toys, and amped up trailers, that, that money should have been spent on better screen writers and reshoots

Muhammad Rasheed - Considering they hired Lawrence Kasdan, one of the co-writers of the nigh universally loved Empire Strikes Back, I'm not sure "better" was necessarily the issue. The story was deliberately guided [held back] in a certain direction.

John Olchak - Agree 100%.

Doc Stern... Mr. Monster versus The Incredible HULK


That Removable Partisan Skin


Gary McCoyThis Day in History… Republicans Pass Anti-KKK Act – Outlawing Democratic Terrorist Groups

Or as Democratic senator Robert Byrd called it: 'A day that will live in infamy'.

Pat Byrnes - And don't get me started on those damned Whig partiers...

Dianne Hauser - These guys are a bunch of red necks not just in the South but can be found all over in rural parts of states. They and the skinheads hate all races except their own and scare the crap out everyone else. Another blight on our already ragged country.

David Becker - These guys and all social justice warriors should be rounded up separated from the rest of us.

Muhammad Rasheed –  "Welcome to Mississippi" (HBO)

Gary McCoy - Muhammad, is this a contest of who can post the most racist crap on facebook? Okay, I'll see yours and raise you one.

Extreme racist black panther wants to KILL white people

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "...is this a contest of who can post the most racist crap on facebook?"

lol It is NOW! hahaha I was just demonstrating that the same gene pool that the KKK recruits out of, no longer votes Democrat, since you seemed to have missed the memo on that one.

But I see your one "black panther" retard who merely WANTS to kill white people, and I raise you this:



Muhammad Rasheed - Your move.

Gary McCoy - Just to give balance, there's this...

Four Georgia men arrested for 'beating to death' former Marine who survived TWO tours of duty in Iraq

Now, we could continue counter-punching, but I think it's fair to conclude there are racists of every color. Now, I say we should all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. That is, unless that hand next to you is holding the head of a decapitated Christian.

Muhammad Rasheed - POLICE BRUTALITY: Unarmed Marine Veteran Killed by Police After Medical Alert Tag Goes Off

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "That is, unless that hand next to you is holding th head of a decapitated Christian."

I hope not, since my wife and daughter are Christians. O_O

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a Christian wife. The ruler of Egypt at the time sent her as part of a tribute package, and the prophet freed her and then married her. She was the only one of his wives to birth a son, although he passed away as an infant.

Of interest, the prophet never, ever tried to convert her to Islam. The Qur'an says the Christians are the people of God, as they claim, and as long as they believe and their good deeds outweigh their bad ones, they will receive their reward.

The Christian is not the enemy of the Muslim. Only those psychopaths who merely pretend to follow Islam declare war on the People of the Book.

Gary McCoy - So are my wife and son. So as is often the case, we've come full circle to our usual love-fest. And all is right with the world.

With Every Wind of Doctrine...


Gary McCoy – Here's the situation:

Some politicians and media pundits tell us that the Muslims in this country are all patriotic and peace-loving. But they then go on to tell us that using the term, "radical Islamic extremists", or speaking of temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country, could very well push "over the edge", those Muslims feeling disenfranchised, to where they join ISIS and commit terrorism in our country.
SO, what they're actually saying is that we have Muslims in our country at this very moment, whose temperament is so volatile, that hearing Donald's Trump plan, or other criticism of Islamic extremism, could then begin killing their fellow Americans.
Sounds like we need to immediately start retroactive profiling, and fast.

Michael Nicholson - They also want to take away "anti-choice rhetoric" for the exact same reason. They just have everyone's best interests in mind. So long as you're lefty.

Gordon Campbell - "That pesky 1st amendment has to go! Just as soon as we dismantle the 2nd!"

Marc Sova - Exactly. It's like obama telling us they are not Muslims. Then saying that invading is what they what us to do so it fulfills their Koranic prophecy.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol What "Koranic prophecy" would that be, Marc? ISIS/ISIL hasn't been interested in what the Qur'an says up to now, why would they suddenly give a shit about prophecies today? The only serious prophecy in the Qur'an of relevance is the one where God promises that the Day of Judgment is a certainty, and the evil doers will be flung head first into The Pit. ISIS is clearly unconcerned about it. Odd considering they claim allegiance to the religion of the One God.
Marc Sova - Well I don't expect you to put much stock in the ├╝ber right wing New York Times (which is sourced in this article)...

Fighting an army of the insane - Obama’s foreign policy plays into Koranic ‘prophecy’

Muhammad Rasheed - The part that stands out most is her instant willingness to quote Jean-Pierre Filiu, but no quotes of this actual "prophecy." I guess they're afraid people will Snopes it to death...?

Marc Sova - So you're saying it is totally false that there is anything in the Koran about a prophecy regarding an Armageddon like battle with "Rome" (i.e.- the west).

Muhammad Rasheed - The only mention of a battle like that was one in the prophet's lifetime between Romans vs Persians. There is no end time prophecy battle mentioned between specific armies.

Muhammad Rasheed - I wanted her to quote it so I could scrutinize it in context.

Marc Sova - Ok well what about non specific armies? Any prophetic mention of end time battle with any army?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol No. When He mentions the Day of Judgment, it's all about smashing the earth in a cataclysm, and then resurrecting us. The Qur'an is chock-full-of that. Graphically.

Muhammad Rasheed - He mentioned Gabriel blowing his horn though.

Dianne Hauser - Agree It will be a very dangerous mess if they let the illegal Muslims in before proper vetting.

Steamy Raimon - Let's start at the top.

Muhammad Rasheed - I think the situation is that you value the opinion of politicians and media pundits and base decisions on what they say.

Gary McCoy - Muhammad, I don't value anyone's opinion so much that I would kill for it.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol You value the opinion of politicians and media pundits enough to believe their word that we should continue to provoke people into war.

Gary McCoy - I don't know what people or what words to which you're referring. But I measure people carefully before I follow anything they say. What do you think about Obama provoking people into war by killing innocents with drone attacks?

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "I don't know what people or what words to which you're referring."

1.) "Some politicians and media pundits tell us..."
2.) "But they then go on to tell us..."
3.) "SO, what they're actually saying is..."
4.) "Sounds like we need to..."

That sounds like you are tossed around willy-nilly by political talking heads, instead of measuring carefully anything.

Gary McCoy wrote: "What do you think about Obama provoking people into war by killing innocents with drone attacks?"

I think your phrasing also betrays your lack of measuring anything carefully. lol The drones represent a couple of things:

1.) Both partisan groups contribute to the Industrial Military Complex, but Democrats favor small fire teams with semi-precise strikes, while the GOP prefer to enrich all of their buddies by strutting out the full $10 billion a day war machine. The people pulling the triggers on the drones hitting the wrong folk were the same people pulling the triggers on the super guns that killed the wrong targets during the previous administration. They are either trigger happy crazy, or they just need more training.

2.) There was a full blown war going on when Obama took office. He wanted to shut the whole thing down and bring all of our troops home, but the top-ranked military advisers (and their CEO handlers) convinced him otherwise. So he felt that sending assassin drones would be the lesser evil over sending out more & more waves of American youth overseas.

Gary McCoy - Really? Obama listens to his top military advisers? That's news to me. I could name a half dozen or so that no longer have their jobs because of him.

Gary McCoy - You are the one claiming I listen to the media pundits. I never claimed I do. Read more carefully.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "Really? Obama listens to his top military advisers? That's news to me."

They convinced him not to withdraw all of the troops the way he originally pushed. That was one of the things Petreaus was complaining about. I don't understand how you missed that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "You are the one claiming I listen to the media pundits. I never claimed I do. Read more carefully."

lol Are you a "birther," Gary? Do you believe Obama is a Muslim who won't admit it? Do you believe he started this war in the middle east?

Gary McCoy - I don't understand how you missed the fact that Obama was advised to leave a larger contingency force behind in Iraq, but he ignored them. And that was a disastrous decision.

Muhammad Rasheed - Disastrous how? The west's empire building is the reason for all the strife in the first place. I still agree with his original goals and say bring all American troops home, and allow the areas to work themselves out to heal from all the interference. It won't be easy, and it will get uglier before it levels off, but at least we can get tour hands out of it...

...until the war-hungry GOP take over again, of course.

David Baldinger - I believe the "Arab world" was being referenced, not Muslim Americans.

Gary McCoy - By who, David?

David Baldinger - "Some politicians and media pundits..."

Mitchell Berger - You're missing the point. If you want someone to stick their neck out - to say something when they see something - which most people of any stripe are reluctant to do - then you don't demonize their entire group.

Gary McCoy - Sorry, Mitchell, but I call bunk on your premise. And you just made my point even stronger for me. If I suspected that someone I knew was stockpiling means of killing innocent citizen, especially children, I'd stand on their front porch with a bullhorn until police arrived. There's no justification for not doing so, even if your feelings are hurt because someone said mean things about your religion. Again, if we have people who would kill over insensitive "words", or look the other way while others do, then we don't want those people walking our streets. If I were in a Muslim country, I don't care how many mean things people were saying about Christians, I would never walk into an Eid Al-Adha party and start killing innocent people.

Gordon Campbell - And, Gary, as a Christian, if you knew of someone planning on doing so, you would be committing a sin against God by not reporting it! Can Muslims say the same?

Muhammad Rasheed - Of course. Fighting in the cause of Allah is prescribed to Muslims; if they refuse to do so, it would be a sin. What is God's cause? Protecting the innocent would definitely be included. Reporting wrong-doing is the least you should do.

Bahaar Husain - @Gary McCoy… Excellent point, we must keep in mind that these are not muslims who are killing innocent people. Not every Christian is a terrorist and not every Muslim is a terrorist. And not everyone becomes a terrorist. These so called extremists are downright terrorists and criminals. They are envious of our freedom and can't stand to see anyone happy. This is a war between good and evil. In the end, good always prevails.

Mitchell Berger - @Gary McCoy… you are not typical in any manner. When confronted with troubling information most people freeze, or disbelieve what they see. You would not get the NRA to agree that possessing a couple of AR-15s and thousands of rounds of ammunition, is in and of itself a suspicious activity. There's no evidence that anyone else other than Marquez knew about the pipe bombs.

Jim Singer - Truth wins Gary. Why was BHO's decision to leave Iraq the basis of the Caliphate? Because it is a natural law that pressure will fill a vacuum. Nineteen thirty three ought to give us a hint what happens when an you give an aggressor with no qualms of killing a chance to fill space. The Sudetenland should raise a flag. Much like the Third Reich and their goal of a thousand year empire, so is ISIS and their duty to kill in the cause of Allah. Ironically, today's Muslims are more alike the 12th Century Crusaders or Jews of 4000 years ago. Which culture is the aggressor? While there are many of the Judeo/Christian culture today who believe the Bible is the exact word of God, where are they butchering non-believers. They are not, unless personally threatened in which case butchery becomes self-defense. Let's f this culture does not aggressively fight back, the "moderate Muslim" will prevail. I think not.

Mitchell Berger - The fact that Bush tied Obama's hands by failing to get the status of forces agreement Obama would need in order to keep our troops in Iraq. There is virtually nothing going on in Iraq that isn't the result of Bush's monumental bungle. What's happening now, is exactly what Bush was warned of in 2003.

Gary McCoy - My gosh, what a weak leader you just admitted we have. I'll agree completely. Your argument would make sense if the facts, and Obama's own White house didn't refute it.

No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq

Mitchell Berger - @Gary McCoy… An opinion piece from a conservative publication is proof of nothing. The idea that Iranian puppet Nouri al Maliki (a Bush pick) would ever let more than a token force of US troops remain in Iraq is laughable.

Gerry Harris - Mitchell your fat mouth isn't proof of anything either, other than you're an idiot.

Mitchell Berger - Gerry, quick, how many years did al Maliki spend in Iran? Who did he support in the Iran-Iraq war? When you look up the answers to those questions then maybe you can explain why Bush approved him to take over Iraq. History, try it.

Jim Singer - Mitchell Do you really believe BHO wanted a status of forces agreement? Abraham could have been the Iraqi leader and there would be no status of forces agreement. BMO is so arrogant he believes he can redefine human warfare where if one side goes home the other will not react. Speaking of history, when President Bush handed the keys over to Obama, Iraq was largely pacified. Obama's desire to "end the war" is the reason we will have to eventually clean up his mess. If we don't, expect more of your friends and neighbors to die in their homes and public places.

The Ole Switcheroo


Zodicus Zu'ul


Muhammad Rasheed - Then why do you think you are still under capitalism? They vilified McCarthy, remember?

Zodicus Zu'ul - because the majority of the people are brainwashed into believing that "Capitalism Is Their Friend," to bother looking at what a world we actually live in.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who told you that capitalism isn't your friend? The folk that took your home, your savings, and forced you to labor eternally for meager wages with no voice in the system?

They were the folk that vilified Senator McCarthy.

Allyson Roberts Waller - Yes, you're making his point. No one has specifically said capitalism isn't our friend.

Those that stood for capitalism are now standing for corporate/governmental greed. Thank you for making this so accessible to us.

Muhammad Rasheed - Those that stood for capitalism were chased off. Those that remain are the marxist-communists and the greedy cartels of corporatists. Pockets of capitalism are rare, with the above groups circling over them like vultures ready to stamp them out or usurp them.

Zodicus Zu'ul - Senator McCarthy wasn't standing for Capitalism. he was trying to create a literal state of panic and fear. a scared populace is easily controlled and manipulated.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who told you that? What are you basing that on?

McCarthy's team was tasked to discover evidence that the US gov was infiltrated by members of the Democratic Communist Party. He did so. The worst of those cases was the stealing the Manhattan Project secrets by communist plants/infiltrators. The threat was real, and worse than what everyone thought, and Senator McCarthy found himself all alone in the end, with his original government sponsors having abandoned him as a scapegoat.

See Also:

McCarthy's War

The Abandonment & Vilification of an Old Friend

A Sinister Long-Term Goal for America

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

TRICK QUESTION: Which Party Believes the Minimum Wage Decreases Unemployment?



Abdur Rasheed - Thomas Sowell wrote: “Minimum-wage laws are another issue where the words seem to carry great weight, leading to the fact-free assumption that such laws will cause wages to rise to the legally specified minimum. Various studies going back for decades indicate that minimum-wage laws create unemployment, especially among younger, less experienced, and less skilled workers.”

Let’s see using the ACTUAL NUMBERS…

Thomas Sowell wrote: “A discredited argument that first appeared back in 1946 recently surfaced again in a televised discussion of minimum wages. A recent survey of employers asked if they would fire workers if the minimum wage were raised. Two-thirds of the employers said that they would not. That was good enough for a minimum-wage advocate."

Discredited HOW? With a “SURVEY??”

You have got to be shitting me??

Why is it that EVERY TIME a Conservative doesn’t have the actual numbers and data on their side they quote a “SURVEY” of dumbass people and state it as a fact?

When the Owner of Papa John’s was asked how Obamacare would affect him he stated that he would be forced to raise his prices up to .14cents. Fox news ran that bullshit on a loop as an example of how Obamacare is destroying America and keeping people from getting extra cheese and shit.

Then he gave away 2 million pizzas for the Super bowl for free.

Then he sponsored a Mitt Romney fundraiser at his mansion.

Me: “Get that bullshit outta here!”

Then he raised his prices $3 and nobody batted an eye.

Papa Johns Pizza Prices... and Obamacare

Stop asking people with a political agenda what the fuck they think, Thomas! That’s why I don’t ask you shit.

Thomas Sowell wrote: “Unfortunately, the consequences of minimum-wage laws cannot be predicted on the basis of employers’ statements of their intentions. Nor can the consequences of a minimum-wage law be determined, even after the fact, by polling employers on what they did.

The problem with polls, in dealing with an empirical question like this, is that you can only poll survivors. Every surviving business in an industry might have as many employees as it had before a minimum-wage increase — and yet, if the additional labor costs led to fewer businesses’ surviving, there could still be a reduction in industry employment, despite what the poll results were from survivors."


Just so I’m getting this right… YOU JUST SIGHTED A SURVEY as proof and then you are discrediting surveys as proof??

Thomas Sowell wrote: “There are many other complications that make an empirical study of the effects of minimum wages much more difficult than it might seem.”

Yet here you are speaking out the side of your hole anyway.

DEEP.

Thomas Sowell wrote: “Since employment varies for many reasons other than a minimum-wage law, at any given time the effects of those other factors can outweigh the effects of minimum-wage laws. In that case, employment could go up after a particular minimum-wage increase — even if it goes up less than it would have without that increase.

Minimum-wage advocates can seize upon statistics collected in particular odd circumstances to declare that they have now “refuted” the “myth” that minimum wages cause unemployment.”


What are these “Odd circumstances?” Are these the circumstances that net in a result that you don’t agree with? Like, “It’s just a tiny little economic collapse of the entire financial market because I don’t like what the data says?”

If you take the unemployment rate year over year and compare those years with every time the minimum wage was raised and subtract economic recessions it will tell you definitively whether or not raising the minimum wage increases unemployment for young unskilled African Americans.

I have a 4.4% REDUCTION in African American Unemployment.

It’s not that hard if you’re honest.

Thomas Sowell wrote: “It is surely no coincidence that during the last administration in which there was no federal minimum wage — the Calvin Coolidge administration — unemployment ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent over its last four years. It is surely no coincidence that, when the federal minimum-wage law remained unchanged for twelve years while inflation rendered the law meaningless, the black teenage unemployment rate — even during the recession year of 1949 — was literally a fraction of what it has been throughout later years when the minimum-wage rate was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.”

So by THAT logic I guess it’s no coincidence that 12 years before there was a minimum wage law the unemployment rate was as high as 17.3 percent.

Cherry picking certain years of data and sighting it as a point in order to skew the data to prove your point is a little dishonest is it not?

Thomas Sowell wrote: “When words trump facts, you can believe anything. And the liberal groupthink taught in our schools and colleges is the path of least resistance.”

When cherry picked “data” comes out of an Uncle Tommy…

Muhammad Rasheed - "The economic analysis which concludes that minimum wages increase the unemployment of low-wage workers rests essentially on the belief that labor is no exception to the general rule that less is demanded at a higher price than at a lower price. Attempts to overturn this basic economic principle usually reduce to one of four assumptions or assertions: (1) there is a fixed number of workers demanded, more or less without regard to wage rates; (2) low-wage workers are victims of employer l monopoly power rather than low productivity, so that raising their wage rates will not price them beyond their value to the employer and therefore will not price them out of a job; (3) higher wage rates will cause employers to use labor more efficiently, so that workers will then become more valuable, and so will not lose their jobs; and (4) the increased "purchasing power" caused by higher minimum wages will lead to a greater demand for goods, and therefore a greater demand for labor, offsetting any tendency towards unemployment. These arguments will be examined in order." ~ Thomas Sowell, Minimum Wage Escalation

Abdur Rasheed
- So no thoughts of your own?

When did my brother turn into Kirby?

Instead of giving YOUR opinion you just quote quote somebody with an obvious political agenda? I'm surprized that you haven's started just replying with youtube clips of Alonso or Whittle.

Can YOU give me an example using say McDonalds?

Abdur Rasheed - It seems that the sole purpose of Thomas Sowell is to try and justify Conservative talking points with cherry picked data and pro corporate theories.

It's depresing to watch.

Whenever you find yourself willfully ignoring facts that are right in your face in favor of a theory it simply because you NEED to believe in the theory at all costs...it makes you look bad.

"There has been not ONE economic down turn, recession, or depression while were on the gold standard!"

Thats' not true. Here are 8 more not including "The Great Depression!"

"Well...those were minor."

or

"Minimum wages increase the unemployment of low-wage workers."

That's not true. Here are the ACTUAL numbers and it CLEARY shows that after ALL minimum wage increases from the last 40 years has led to a REDUCTION in low wage unemployment by 4.4%.

That's not ME talking out of my ass. That's what the data says.

If it said that the man was RIGHT I would say so. I don't work for a Conservative Foundation with a political agenda.

Conservatives don't pay me to justify their bullshit talking points.

Muhammad Rasheed
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "So no thoughts of your own?"

lol Ironically, I have lots of thoughts of my own, that you routinely sidestep in favor of the GOP talking point caricature Muhammad you prefer to argue with ("You can't argue BOTH sides, Muhammad!") Other debate opponents have referred to my own opinions and analysis as "MRasheed-ism," including Neil P. In fact, that was the point of my "libertarian versus Libertarian" rant that you referenced above. I spent that entire thread fleshing out my personal theory, while you INSISTED I was merely regurgitating the thoughts of a 'guru.' Suddenly you want to actually hear my opinions, eh? Forgive me if I feel a pang of skepticism.

"Well...those were minor" was not my argument. The Great Depression bubble was something very different than that represented by the "panics" that happened in the pre-Federal Reserve Act era. Of course you completely ignored my actual argument in favor of the argument you wanted to give me so you could attack that. You keep doing it so I'll assume it's just easier. You're busy after-all, so it's understandable. Unfortunately I have to be the casualty of your lazy and dismissive argument style. I can't just casually have a discussion about something of interest -- challenging a contention not you -- without you making it a personal attack from the caricature Muhammad, because you need me to be Grimskill, Flex Hectic!, & Kirby in order to use your 'one-size-fits-all' argument kit. You refuse to adjust the kit to have a spirited discussion with your brother, therefore I have to be the enemy, too. lol It's cool though. If we do it often enough, I'll get to develop a specific style for these MRasheed/A-Rah convos. It'll be fun.

Both Sowell and you pointed out that the more narrowly focused relevant data needed was missing, so arguments had to be formulated from other areas, which you both did. You decided to draw left-leaning talking point specific, narrowly detailed conclusions from the wider range of general data, while Sowell decided to draw his conclusions from mostly economic principles and sourced academic studies. Between the two, your conclusions made the least sense.

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Instead of giving YOUR opinion you just quote quote somebody"

Well, you used this status post, not to refute his Townhall column soundbite, but just to make fun of it. I thought I'd help you out by posting the original meatier paper he wrote on the topic, since you found that one to be too light & fluffy. I fail to see what my opinion had to do with it since this post is all about you versus Sowell, right?

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "Well, you used this status post, not to refute his Townhall column sound bite, but just to make fun of it."

Lol

So I would think that would sound like me just repeating what he said in a funny/sarcastic voice.

Thomas Sowell wrote a long and lengthy explanation of his theory regarding how raising the minimum wage increased unemployment among unskilled African Americans.

It sounded cool...until you pulled the actual data and compared it.

Either he was right or he was wrong.

He was wrong as fuck.

Raising the minimum wage showed a 4.4% REDUCTION in African American unemployment.

It's like he didn't even try to be honest.

Once I see that he was just lying I just lumped him into the Neil P bag and called him an UncleTom.

I ALWAYS look for the TRUTH.

As I said, "I don't get paid to justify talking points."

Either it IS or it AIN'T true.

You seem to just look for a way to prove the MAN right and you seem genuinely disinterested in the truth.

"I'm just going to believe him."

You do that.

Rah

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "It sounded cool...until you pulled the data and compared it."

Okay, but that's not what happened. You were able to pull the wide ranging data, which included all demographics over a vast timeline, without being able to isolate the specific data set needed to confirm or refute the topic's contentions. He went the route of comparing it to the basic economic principles of his forte', while you called him names and pointed and laughed.

Considering the quality of info you both provided, siding with his stance is a no-brainer to me.

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "Okay, but that's not what happened."

No??

Muhammad wrote: "You were able to pull the wide ranging data which included all demographics over a vast timeline, without being able to isolate the specific data needed to confirm or refute the topics contentions."

Who told you that??

I specifically asked you what data did you think was necessary to prove or disprove Sowell's theory. I had already pulled the data.

African American unemployment rate correlated with the years that the minimum wage was increased.

Is that NOT what we're talking about?

Where did you get that other broad scope data bullshit from?

See, you NEED him to be right at all costs.

I NEED to know the TRUTH.

Btw a "no brainer" isn't supposed to mean that you don't want to use your brain.

Muhammad Rasheed - Aren't you the one that pointed out that the demographics from that gov dept weren't split along racial lines until 1971? In Sowell's paper he also pointed out that specific data weren't available during the relevant time period, so all you can do is look at this wide 1948-2015 timeline of info dump and guess at whether the minimum wage did what you need it to have done to the people you wanted it to affect, and then proclaim that guess as a false truth.

You're bluffing. I'm not biting.

Abdur Rasheed - Uuuuum NO!

The government didn't split the data along racial lines until 1971.

Soooooo I used the data that is verified and available from 1971 until NOW because accuracy is important for what I believe.

If Sowell jumbled the data from 1948 then he is even more full of shit than I thought.

The data from 1971 that I used is a sample of 44 years worth of information and PLENTY ENOUGH to prove or disprove Sowell's theory.

From 1971 until 2015 African American Unemployment decreased every time the minimum wage was increased by a net total of 4.4%.

Look for YOURSELF and bite on that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Uuuuum NO!"

Uuuuum YES!

Muhammad Rasheed
- Is it really accurate to proclaim that minimum wage increases were responsible for that 4.4% drop? Of course not. What else was going on in the country that could have directly affected the unemployment drop realistically?

Let's dig... [holding]

Muhammad Rasheed - History of the Federal Minimum Wage according to the US Department of Labor - Wage & Hour Division:

In 1974 the minimum wage went up to 2.00 from 1968's 1.60.

In 1975 it went up to 2.10

In 1976 it went up to 2.30

In 1978 it went up to 2.65

In 1979 it went up to 2.90

In 1980 it went up to 3.10

In 1981 it went up to 3.35

In 1990 it went up to 3.80

In 1991 it went up to 4.25

In 1996 it went up to 4.75

In 1997 it went up to 5.15

In 2007 it went up to 5.85

In 2008 it went up to 6.55

In 2009 it went up to 7.25

************

Jimmy Carter is the one that raised it from 1.60 to 3.35.

George H. W. Bush is the one that raised it from 3.35 to 4.25.

Bill Clinton is the one that raised it from 4.25 to 5.15.

George W. Bush is the one that raised it from 5.15 to 6.55.

Barack Obama is the one that raised it from 6.55 to 7.25.

Muhammad Rasheed - During the terms of the two Bush presidents, there were wars going on. In fact, they were shoving poor black youth into the recruitment trucks by the neighborhood full. "War machine cannon fodder" is as legit a job title as any other I'd wager... could that alone be responsible for a good chunk of that 4.4% dip?

Maybe. What else do we have...

Muhammad Rasheed - The National Bureau of Economic Research sets Jun 2009 as the official end date of the Great Recession, and Obama increased the minimum wage the very next month. "YAAYY!! Wages are higher! Let's get these kids in here working... STAT!" Is that realistic? I think it does help boost the fiat economy, because it helps reverse [slightly] the effects of inflation, elevating the USD purchasing power for a minute, but is that WHY the black youth started working?

**********

From Wiki -
(1) The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 [...] was a stimulus package [...] signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama. To respond to the Great Recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. [...] The Act included direct spending [...] The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory, which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.


Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad Rasheed wrote: "During the terms of the two Bush presidents, there were wars going on. In fact, they were shoving poor black youth into the recruitment trucks by the neighborhood full. "War machine cannon fodder" is as legit a job title as any other I'd wager... could that alone be responsible for a good chunk of that 4.4% dip?

Maybe. What else do we have..."

If you were ACTUALLY interested in the TRUTH and not just proving Sowell right you would have looked up the answer and not ASSUMED the answer.

"Military personnel are also automatically relegated to not in labor force status. This segment of the population is excluded from the civilian labor force because military personnel are not considered as resources available for productive activity. Moreover, the military operates under its own set of "employment" rules, apart from resource and labor markets that exist in the rest of the economy. The reasoning behind excluding this segment is perhaps most obvious during periods of rising and declining military activity (that is, during and immediately after wars). If military personnel are included in the labor force, then a major movement of civilians into the military has no apparent affect on the labor resources available for productive activity, when in fact, the quantity of labor available for domestic production declines."

So "No" the military didn't count in the labor force numbers.

Muhammad Rasheed - So if the poor black youth being shipped off overseas aren't counted, then who are the poor black youth who didn't go to war, but became employed?

Did they go the other route, and get their education, and work a minimum wage job busting their asses to improve their quality of life, while hearing reports of their best friends dying in Bush wars...?

Abdur Rasheed
- Muhammad wrote: "So if the poor black youth being shipped off overseas aren't counted, then who are the poor black youth who didn't go to war, but became employed?"

The ones who didn't join the military and got a job.

The answer was kinda baked in the cake right there.

Muhammad Rasheed
- lol The point was it the newly increased minimum wage that made them get a job, or were they already in school, and used the war time scare to knuckle down, went out and got a job to focus? Did college job money in the form of grants increase with the minimum wage?

Abdur Rasheed - I think thast these are all good questions for you to research and answer before you jump on the Sowell bandwagon.

There's nothing wrong with double checking people. Even people that you might respect and look up too.

Muhammad Rasheed - I think these are all areas to explore before we all decide that the partisan popular variable "minumum wage increases reduce unemployment" is the only valid one.

Abdur Rasheed - lol

You weren't that interested in fact checking Sowell. lol

Now you're like, "Lets slow down everybody before we all start jumping to comclusions and shit about my boy being wrong!"

smh

Muhammad Rasheed
- lol Well, if you want to go there, in that MWE article I posted for you, he said there were numerous variables that affect unemployment. As you know, I trust his scholarship on that, so I'm more inclined to be open to other variables being present AND more meaningful, than take your popular talking point seriously at face value. The President's stimulus package and how it functioned, what its purpose was, and its timing pounded that nail home for me. Economic bubbles rise all the time. Did the other minimum wage hikes link up to "spend, Spend, SPEND!" jiggling as well?

At this point I think the ONLY reason they were increasing the minimum wage was to offset inflation. It had nothing to do with the unemployment, you just think that way because it's a leftist talking point and on your radar.

Abdur Rasheed
- Sounds good.

The problem with your need to stick me in a "leftest box" and dismiss me is that I never quoted a talking point like Sowell did, "The economic analysis which concludes that minimum wages increase the unemployment of low-wage workers"

I just got the actual numbers and crunched them.

No "talking point" needed from me.

Just the facts, Sir!

Just because the facts don't line up with Sowell's theory isn't my concern.

It SHOULD BE a concern of yours if you are going to just blindly follow the man.

You got offended at the thought of simply fact checking one of his points.

ANYWAY

There is a driving motivation behind wanting to keep the minimum wage low or get rid of it all together.

Employees are the largest cost of a business.

MY payroll is about $120,000 a MONTH (labor, overtime, holiday pay and fringe benefits)

If you look at that amount on a P&L sheet every month with the year to date totals its easy for an executive to look at that as an easy was to increse profits by reducing head count.

Conservative speak against the minimum wage because their republican donars and PACS are the businesses.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Sowell's job is to try and justify the Conservative talking point against the minimum wage despite the FACTS.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't have a need to stick you in a leftist box. But you are trumpeting a pet liberal belief, and upholding it on flimsy evidence. The facts AREN'T proving that the minimum wage hike lowered unemployment. Your "crunching" deliberately ignored any other variables, and you even proclaimed they didn't matter because you thought you saw what you wanted to see absent any actual analysis of the data. "This is doing that, that is doing that, all of this doesn't matter... I WIN!" That's not "facts." His "economic analysis" you dismissed actually does speak better to what the data showed since he wisely isn't of the opinion to dismiss other variables, which wouldn't make since anyway for someone only interested in facts and truth. That person should be driven to determine what influence the other variables actually have when compared to the easy popular partisan belief point so he can definitively KNOW what is fact or not. The president signed into effect an AGGRESSIVE "get jobs started NOW!" stimulus package, and along the way he went ahead and increased the minimum wage. If what you believe is true, why didn't he do that first? Why didn't increasing the minimum wage sit proudly on top of the stimulus package as its most potent "driving force" component?

The left may not use "talking points" in the strict way the GOP folk do, but they have their favored political beliefs just like their rivals.

Abdur Rasheed - So because you don't like the "facts" you just reject them?

Cool.

First you wouldn't even LOOK at any information.

Muhammad: "He's brilliant and I have no need to doubt him and I don't want to fact check every single thing that he has ever done ever!"

Me: "Well how about this one thing?"

Muhammad: "NO!"

Me: "Here are the numbers that I came up with. Look for yourself. It looks like your boy is one some bullshit!"

Muhammad: "Well you must have included ALL of the general data and not just the African American data so i'm sticking with my hero, nah!"

Me: "Why would you assume that? I think that "Nah" was uncalled for, but whatever. I ONLY focused on the data availible within the parameters of our conversation. I wasnt trying to prove your hero wrong. I just want to know the truth. The facts just don't support his bullshit."

Muhammad: "Well your data must have included the military numbers. [plugs ears} LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!

Me" No my numbers don't include the military numbers."

Muhammad: "W...well....YOU'RE A LEFIST!!!!!"

Me: "I would be a goddamn Klansman if the data support it. It doesn't make ME wrong. His claim is either true or its NOT. Sorry Bro...it's NOT. Your boy is full of shit. You KNOW that he has a political agenda yet you are desperatly trying to dismiss the actual data because ehe said so. The differnce between Sowell and Me is that he's telling you to believe HIM because "come on dawg you know how liberals are" and I'm telling you to look up the data for YOURSELF."

Only ONE of us is trying to bullshit you.

It ain't the good looking one.

Rah

Abdur RasheedCarly Fiorina: Raising the Minimum Wage Will Lead to ‘Less Opportunity’

Abdur RasheedTrump defends minimum wage comments

Abdur RasheedBen Carson said raising the minimum wage will increase joblessness

Abdur Rasheed – Sen. Cruz: Minimum Wage Hike Would Cost Jobs for Young People, Hispanics, African Americans

Abdur Rasheed
Romney on the Minimum Wage

Abdur Rasheed
Paul claimed that raising the minimum wage hurts “minorities and kids.”

Abdur Rasheed
- Because raising the minimum wage ISN'T the best way to raise people's pay! People need tax reform and less government regulations.

Smmfh

GOP Candidates Resoundingly Reject The Idea Of A Minimum Wage Hike

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "I don't have a need to stick you in a leftist box. But YOU are trumpeting a pet liberal belief, and upholding it on flimsy evidence."

Am I now???

Lol

You keep trying to separate Sowell's tripe from his politics and accuse ME of using talking points at the same time.

Amazing!

Muhammad Rasheed - Sowell is an economist. He only 'politics' from the arms of his living room couch, such as it is. What the GOP talking heads do with his writings, or how they choose to interpret/express them, IS separate from Sowell.

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Am I now???"

Yes.

[From Wiki] "Carter's tenure was a time of continuing inflation and recession." This helps support my theory that minimum wages are increased as a tool to offset inflation... not to lower unemployment. My dislike of the fiat debt culture system under the Fed is why I disagree with Dr. Sowell over the need to keep increasing the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation. If we're going to be in it, then at least we can make it fair. As fair as possible anyway.

Tell me how do you think the minimum wage hikes directly affect unemployment, please.

Abdur Rasheed - That was never the question Muhammad.

I never write a book and an article and get worshiped as if I wrote volume 2 of the Holy Quran.

Sowell said that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment of low wage workers.

You would do better asking Sowell what corner of his colon he pulled his data from, because the facts don't support his tripe.

I can tell you definitively that raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment for minorities.

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "Is it really accurate to proclaim that minimum wage increases were responsible for that 4.4% drop? Of course not. What else was going on in the country that could have directly affected the unemployment drop realistically?

Let's dig... [holding]"

Sowell's theory is that a minimum wage increase INCREASES unskilled unemployment for African Americans.

The FACT that it actually decreased when the minimum wage increased and the variables behind it doesn't matter.

What matters is if Sowells theory is factual or not.

If African American unemployment had actually went UP like Sowell said by 4.4% you would have been like, "SEE!!!!!! That's why he's my hero!"

The fact that he was wrong now you're like, "Must be the black kids who joined the military because my hero is never wrong. He wrote a book and everything!"

Muhammad Rasheed - The fact that there are many other variables that affect unemployment, including aggressive job creation stimulus packages, and other items put into place by the leader of the free world, absolutely does matter. How do you know the minimum wage is what did it when it alone wasn't the only variable involved? Why are you so positive that the minimum wage was the only variable that mattered?

Abdur Rasheed - I removed the recessions and the stimulus and got a gain of 4.4%.

If I DIDN'T get a gain and netted ZERO Sowell would still be wrong. Because that's still NOT an increase in African American Unemployment.

I didn't have to prove that Unemployment was reduced. It just is what it is.

Abdur Rasheed - Track National Unemployment, Job Gains and Job Losses

Abdur Rasheed - You quoting Sowell's books and articles on this stuff when everything he wrote on the subject is based on a pro corporate LIE.

Even if there are other variables which makes it impossible to say wether the increase in the minimum wage caused african american employment to go down like the raw data suggests...it SURE AS SHIT DIDN'T CAUSE IT TO GO UP!!

Muhammad Rasheed - That's not a real argument. Quit.

Abdur Rasheed - No?

If Sowell said and wrote that, "Minimum wages increase the unemployment of low-wage workers"

Then it's either true or its NOT, right?

The burden ISN'T to prove that the Unemployment rates went DOWN.

THAT is the very argument that we have been going back and forth over.

Does the unemployment rate for low wage workers increase as the minimum wage increases or NOT??

The minimum wage has increased 14 times in the last 44 years as you have pointed out.

From the department of Labor and Statistics data sorted under the following parameters

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS14000006

Seasonally Adjusted

Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

Labor force status: Unemployment rate

Type of data: Percent or rate

Age: 16 years and over

Race: Black or African American

Years: 1972 to 2015


I removed the recessions because obviously that would skew the data because the unemployment sky rocket for everybody across the board and that isn't a true representation of the facts.

I ran the numbers with and without the recessions.

We have had 6 recessions since 1973.

The total unemployment rate during the 6 recessions netted a unemployment GAIN of 17.1 percent during and after the periods after the raise in the minimum wage.

Not including the recessions netted a LOSS of -4.9%.

Muhammad Rasheed - So you removed the recessions, but had to leave the minimum wage hikes since that's what we're looking for. But the minimum wage was hiked as a part of the strategy for dealing with the recessions...? Help me out here.

Abdur Rasheed - The recessions were for certain months. I ran the numbers with and without those months.

Help you out???

If you really gave a shit then you would have done it yourself.

You're going to fact check ME though, huh?

Smdh

Muhammad Rasheed - Did the minimum wage increases match with those months?

Abdur Rasheed - You didn't get the spread sheet that I sent?

Muhammad Rasheed - In this thread? Or the carter meme one?

Abdur Rasheed - The recessions lasted months (a few were a year and a few months.)

The minimum wage increases lasted for years.

It wasn't difficult at all.

Abdur Rasheed - E-mail

I can't send an excel file on Facebook.

Muhammad Rasheed - Here, check this out:



Muhammad Rasheed - Keeping wages low isn't helping the workers, of course. The minimum wage was hiked up to offset inflation, and enable those now lowered wages to have a bit more purchasing power.

Sure the increases lasted for years, but they were put in place initially as a counter-balance for something specific... not unemployment itself. As the economy improved over those years, and businesses did better and were able to hire more workers, they did so. Why are they assuming it was the minimum wage increases itself that did it?

My issue right now is figuring out the reason why people have been saying that the minimum wage does improve unemployment. Who is the first person to suggest it?

Abdur Rasheed - You are.

I never said it and yet you keep asking me.

I KEEP saying that the republican talking point isn't supported by the actual data.

Muhammad Rasheed - I meant improve it. That increasing the minimum wage cures unemployment. The GOP talking heads said it doesn't.

Abdur Rasheed - They are only are speaking against the minimum wage. No one ever said that it cured unemployment.

There was no counter argument pendulum swing.

Only that they are WRONG and raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment and the data doesn't support the GOP talking point. .

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "There was no counter argument pendulum swing."

Oh. Hm.

Muhammad Rasheed
- (i wasn't really expecting that. lol)

Abdur Rasheed
- That's because you weren't listening to me.

Muhammad Rasheed
...

Muhammad Rasheed
- (now i have to regroup)

Abdur Rasheed - Did Sowell say that was the counter argument and I missed it?

Everything that I read that you posted was just him justifying the GOP talking point and not saying that there was a counter swing.

He was just trying to prove that raising the minimum wage was a bad idea for low skilled workers.

Muhammad Rasheed
- It's clearly a good idea for low-skilled workers, because if the tiny bit of money they do make doesn't have enough purchasing power to by basic necessities, then what the eff are they working for? Practice?

Muhammad Rasheed - I just assumed there was a mirror image opposite because... well...

...partisan stuff.

Muhammad Rasheed - MY BAD!!!

Abdur Rasheed - Did you get the spreadsheet?

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes. I grabbed the original one out of the Junk/HAZMAT folder.

Abdur Rasheed
- I highlighted the recession months in yellow and ran the runners with and without.

The first time i didn't take the time to pull out only the recession months and it gave me an average of 4.4% reduction.

This time I took the time to pull out only the individual months of recessions to make it more accurate and got an unemployment reduction of 4.9%.

I can definitively say that it didn't increase.

Abdur Rasheed - Numbers don't lie.

Muhammad Rasheed
- This is all your fault anyway. I just came to challenge the Carter Meme....

The Government Middleman - Helping the Poor on Your Behalf?




Abdur Rasheed -



Muhammad Rasheed - I want my charity to help the poor. What dos that have to do with taxes?

Abdur Rasheed - You don't think that your taxes help the poor?

Abdur Rasheed

Guy Who Confronts Food Stamp Muffs Who Buy Lottery Tickets Is A Goddamn American Hero

Muhammad Rasheed - Show me in the bible where it says that in order to be a Christian, I have to pay taxes so that the gov can help the poor.

I know I'm supposed to do it myself. Where is the part where Jesus is commanding me to give to a middle man?

Abdur Rasheed - So you're saying that you DONT believe that your tax dollars should help the poor?

Do you cruise parking lots and jack steaks out of people's baskets?

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm asking where is the verse that says that paying taxes is one of the Christian values? "If you don't believe what I made up then you aren't a Christian!"

Abdur Rasheed - You seem to be stuck on your Libertarian limited Government argument and ignoring that actual point.

If you don't believe in the society in which we live with a representative government and the laws that were passed in order to help out those in need because you feel as if your hard earned tax dollars shouldn't go to help out anybody but you and if you want to help somebody then you will give them money as you see fit and you don't need and representative government handing out your money to help poor people for you...move your happy ass to Kuwait...oh...never mind.

Muhammad Rasheed - You seem to be stuck on confusing taxes with Christian values like the former president character did in that there meme.

Do I have any choice at all in what is being done with the pool of collected taxes? What if the "helping the poor" programs are actually inefficient and wasteful? If I'd rather pool portions of my disposable income with like minds in my neighborhood community, to help local poor in my area, instead of tossing it into the bureaucratic machine, that means I somehow don't want a country based on Christian values? That is absurd.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm a citizen of the USA. I am the country. WE are the country. Not the suited bureaucrats who have unlimited access to the tax funds.

Abdur Rasheed - No I'm not.

I'm comparing selfish fucktards who want to police what poor people buy with their food stamp cards because poor people have been demonized by rich people as parasites and ignoring the fact that 80% of people on food stamps are working and if people who want to snatch the steaks out of people's baskets because they feel like the government has wasted their tax money should fuck all the way off.

Abdur Rasheed - For some reason the word "Tax" makes your fists ball up by themselves. I don't know why. It shouldn't.

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, so you posted the meme in response to the jackasses in the vid clip. I understand. But I was only responding to what the former president character actually said. I didn't know it was a sneak attack post against a very specific incident. It wasn't me!#dontTazeMeBro

Abdur Rasheed - Those stereotypes of "suited bureaucrats" is Republican talking point rhetoric Muhammad.

They aren't BORN with government jobs.

WE THE PEOPLE elect them and they appoint people in certain positions.

If WE THE PEOPLE elect different people then those people appoint different people. It isn't magic. It's how our system works.

Muhammad Rasheed - No, I don't have a prob with taxes. I have a prob with someone telling me I don't get to say i'm a Christian unless I really, really, really want some suits in Washington D.C. to figure out how to "help the poor" by continuing the trend of widening the economic gap between the country's poor and middle class.

Muhammad Rasheed - I believe in voting and the election process. You're talking to someone else.

"Suited bureaucrat" isn’t a stereotype since the suit IS the official political uniform of the day, and they do bureaucrat it up over there. lol

Abdur Rasheed - Well if you were actually responding to what the President said then you would see that he didn't say shit about you calling yourself a Christian. "A Nation Based on Christian values" is what it said.

There was NOTHING wrong with what was said.

#calmthefuckdownorgetyousomevoltsforbreakfastbro

Abdur Rasheed - How does the government widen the gap between the poor and middle class?

Abdur Rasheed - I swear if you say that welfare "grooms a culture of dependency that hold poor people back" Thomas Sowell bullshit...

Muhammad Rasheed - "You don't want a nation based on Christian values if you don't want politicians to swim in the tax coffers like Uncle Scrooge Mcduck."

Abdur Rasheed - Told you that you were stuck in that anti tax Libertarian mindset.
Wrong argument for this discussion.

Muhammad Rasheed - Giving a portion of my disposable income to the gov in order for them to help the poor, instead of just doing it myself, isn't having a nation based on Christian values. Just doing it myself is having a nation based on Christian values.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't have an anti-tax mindset. I have an anti-mismanaging funds telling me you're helping folk mindset.

Muhammad Rasheed - The government widens the gap by continuing to put broken programs in place that actually don't help the poor the way they are supposed to, make their problems worse, run on partisan talking points promising to continue those same broken programs, and taxing me so they can pay for them.

No process improvement efforts, no internal root cause analysis... just berating me for being hesitant to give those people my money.

Muhammad Rasheed - I know, you're going to interpret that as "Muhammad said he hates all taxes and wants anarchy!"

Abdur Rasheed - That's sounds great.

So let's look at it practically.

Take the amount that you pay in taxes last year.

I the average American spends about 25% of their income in taxes so if you made $40,000 then you spent $10,000 in taxes.

Federal spending on welfare is 10% so out of your $10,000 in taxes $1000 went toward welfare and helping the poor.

The government took your $1000 and bought every school lunch, housing, foodstamp card, head start program, daycare, unemployment check, and social service emergency assistance program in the entire country...and you think that if you only had your $1000 back...you could do better?

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't understand your caricature of Sowell.

Abdur Rasheed - That's ok Kirb. You don't have to. I do. That's what's important.

Muhammad Rasheed - Now I don't understand the Kirb reference considering I addressed every point and saved the Sowell one for last.

Are YOU doing a Neil P impression?

Abdur Rasheed - Your just mad because you worship the Moon God.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sowell's thing wasn't about the "culture of dependency," but the part about specific welfare programs that only payout if there is no father in the home. That concept was the kiss of death for the black community.

Muhammad Rasheed - LEAVE THE MOON GOD ALONE, ASSHOLE!!!

Abdur Rasheed - Families with a father in the home can STILL qualify for welfare assistance. It only goes by the total income no the home.

That didn't break the damn black family.

If you wanted to be there... A government check wasn't going to stop you.

Don't drink the Kool aide.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't have a problem going through those listed "practical" items, auditing them to see if they are working the way they were envisioned to, improving them if they are archaic and broken, keeping the proven ones, and discarding the broken ones.

Muhammad Rasheed - I know the POTUS wouldn't have a problem doing it, but he doesn't believe in micromanaging the states.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "If you wanted to be there..."

I know, I'm talking about the problem child statistics. The trends of juvenile delinquency since the implementation of those types of programs.

I don't have a problem with efficient programming designed to actually help. I don't believe that the systems we've had in place in these last 50 something years have been that.

Abdur Rasheed - That's because, contrary to popular belief, the Federal government isn't nearly big enough to micromanage the states. If it grew large enough to micromanage the states then your taxes would go up by a factor of 10 easily.

"Big Government" is another bullshit republican talking point used to scare the bunker folks into voting loyalty.

Muhammad Rasheed - That wasn't a big gov comment. It was a "I expect Obama to care about efficiency under his watch, but wouldn't expect him to want to force people to do their jobs" comment.

Muhammad Rasheed - You seem to still be stuck on your "Muhammad is ALLL about the classic GOP/Libertarian talking points" thing.

Abdur Rasheed - Juvenile delinquency is a very complex problem with MANY variables.

Despite all of the noise from the partisan political billshit (of which Thomas Sowell is a major contributor)

Juvenile delinquency has gone DOWN despite the fact that welfare spending has been pretty consistent and even peeked during the economy crash of 2008.

Trends in Juvenile Violence – US Department of Justice 1996

Now the number CLEARLY state that juvenile delinquency started trending up at an astronomical rate starting in the early 1980's through the 1990's.

Welfare has been steady long before to long after but crack was developed and sold during that time. Followed by the privatization of prisons. Followed by minimum sentencing for non violent drug crimes.

Ronald Reagan sold drugs in the inner cities to fund his contra war and then declared a war on drugs so he could fill up his private prisons and THAT is what crushed millions of black families from BOTH sides.

Welfare being the problem is a myth perpetuated by republicans to help demonize us and Thomas Sowell tried to tie it to our very morality.

Did you know that there is a limit of 5 years to be on welfare?

Culture of perpetual dependency is a myth used to help promote the thought that we are parasites on society hell bent to use hard working people's hard earned tax dollars and steal and our lives are worthless.

They use the demonization of poor black people just like they used "Birth of a Nation" after slavery. So when they show pictures of cops killing you instantly 50% of the country says a collective, "Good riddance!"

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "That didn't break the damn black family."

The trends of increased juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancies, and a generation of males growing up avoiding committed relationships... all in the lower class black community... run parallel to the implementation and maintenance of those types of programs in the last 50 years. The strength of the family unit was the poor's greatest tool during the jim crow era. I think it was deliberately taken from them myself, so they could sneak slavery back in: 1) isolate the poor by luring away the middle class with "integration" 2) break up the poor families with money schemes increasing delinquency rates 3) increase alcohol/drugs in poor communities 4) Negotiate lucrative free gov subsidy deals for prisons and prison contractors 5) fuck black people

Abdur Rasheed - Again that's NOT what the actual numbers say.

Trends in Juvenile Violence – US Department of Justice 1996

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't hold onto that "culture of dependency" thing. It isn't part of my argument.

I believe a specific type of welfare program was absolutely used as a tool to break up the poor black families.

Abdur Rasheed - Which welfare program was that??
And how?

Abdur Rasheed - Juvenile delinquency is WAAAAY down and has been going down since the 1990's.

Your theory about welfare being a major factor is seriously flawed.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims – 2014 National Report

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Which welfare program was that??"

This was the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, in effect from 1935 (when it was limited strictly to widows & orphans) to 1996.

It was designed to give payouts to households that didn't have an adult male living there, creating a "creeping" culture in which men didn't want to be there, and weren't encouraged to. Young boys grew up thinking like that, and this became the new normal in the poor community.

Muhammad Rasheed - I have to jump through so many hoops to open your pdfs...

How come you can't also post a screen capture of the graph you want to highlight or whatever?

Abdur Rasheed - Because I'm a firm believer in complete data.



Abdur Rasheed -



Abdur Rasheed



Abdur Rasheed - So put this AFDC program in practical terms for me.

You love your wife/babies momma/ girlfriend but you work at McDonalds and you make the minimum wage at 40hours a week and you qualify for the ADC program. She could get MORE if you didn't live there on paper so she says that she is a single parent...why aren't you in the house? Because she might have a scheduled appointment with her worker?

I call bullshit!

Muhammad Rasheed - It functioned with gov workers popping up and trying to catch her with a man in there, with both scheduled and surprise visits... making sure they hired the biggest assholes in the world to do it. Like those social workers that came by the house after Malcolm X's dad was killed.

Muhammad Rasheed - It was bullshit. The end goal was to destroy that family.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm good with the complete data, I just have to play the live action version of Atari's Pitfall® to download those pdfs. I'm just saying, how about post the screen capture WITH the pdf link. Thanks btw.

Muhammad Rasheed - So your graphs show that the increasing juvenile delinquency has been dropping down from record highs, but are still high, and are still high in low income black communities. I don't see how that disproves my contention that welfare was one of the tools that led to the current problems in the poor black community, outside of a specific narrowly focused timeline.

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "It functioned with gov workers popping up and trying to catch her with a man in there, with both scheduled and surprise visits... making sure they hired the biggest assholes in the world to do it. Like those social workers that came by the house after Malcolm X's dad was killed."

I ask you to give an example of a government trying to use social programs in order to destroy the black family and you show an example of how the state government shit on the Little family in the 1920's after their father was lynched?

That isn't an example of the evil government popping up over your house to check for men folk Like the goddamn patty rollers, Muhammad.

The act of the Hillsdale local government isn't the entire government nor is it show the intent of any government program.

"Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined "need," set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at "matching" rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits."

This program was established for the instances where one parent is missing and the income is low.

Republican's always blame the program itself and then they try to use bullshit statistics to justify their claim. They use Thomas Sowell to do it to his own people.

Why?

Demonizing welfare was used as a desperate attempt by Ronald Reagan to scare white people into voting for him. He used some gangster lady and exaggerated her welfare abuse (ignoring her drug dealing and human trafficking and all of the other shit that she was into) and acted as if that's what she was all about AND that every other black person who sucks off the government tit does the same thing.

The Truth Behind The Lies Of The Original 'Welfare Queen'

It started in the 1970's when it wasn't as popular to call black people niggers on tv anymore and political correctness was used to try and heal some of the wounds after the civil rights era. George Wallace and the Dixiecrats' message of "Hating the colored folk" had failed nationally mostly because of MLK and his willingness to let the southern racist beat them on TV and show the average American what support for them looks like.

In the 1970's they could just get on TV and scream, "NIGGER, NIGGER, NIGGER!!!" They had to change their wording for their message.

Ronald Reagan decided to use welfare as his pet issue. Listen to the reactions of the crowd as the "gasped" and "whoooooed" in horror as Ronald Reagan used this one lady to represent all of us.

Ronald Reagan didn't get the nomination but that bullshit welfare demonization stuck with most working class white people and he became President in 1980 pushed by what they coined "Reagan Democrats."

In 1981 Lee Atwater was being recorded by a journalist and gave up the game.

Exclusive: Lee Atwater's Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy (YouTube)
                                                                                               
Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy (Article)

"Harvey LeRoy "Lee" Atwater (February 27, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican Party. He was an adviser to U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee."

You know that Thomas Sowell is a big fan of Ronald Reagan.

The facts tell a much different story.

The Truth Behind The Lies Of The Original 'Welfare Queen'

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "So your graphs show that the increasing juvenile delinquency has been dropping down from record highs, but are still high, and are still high in low income black communities. I don't see how that disproves my contention that welfare was one of the tools that led to the current problems in the poor black community, outside of a specific narrowly focused timeline."

You say that welfare causes it yet welfare benefits are a constant.

If the juvenile delinquency rates fluctuate then by the very definition of process variation your argument is false.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) I already know about the 'welfare queen' scandal, and I've always sided with you on it. That's not my argument.

2.) Post an example quote of Sowell using bullshit/false statistics to justify a GOP talking point, please.

3.) Sending gov workers out to terrorize families -- as in the example used -- is how those aid assistance laws were enforced. Your patty rollers analogy is apt. Systemic racism didn't lift off.

4.) When I first posted the AFDC program I said what it was originally created for back in 1935. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, and 'integration' took, the AFDC and how it was maintained altered as well.

5.) *brb*

Abdur Rasheed - 1. And yet...

2. Thomas Sowell - Government Statistics

3. I'm so scared of the government case worker that I'm not going to be in my kids lives anymore is the worlds dumbest argument. We can't meet at your mommas house or nothing, huh?

4. Post up

5. Excuse you

Abdur Rasheed

Thomas Sowell (former Marxist) Dismantles Leftist Ideology

Abdur Rasheed - I can't stand this fucker!

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "And yet..."

At no point ever have I advocated for that pro-Reagan 'welfare queen' concept. Ever. I know you have your bucket full of ammo to use against that stuff, but I'm not that guy. My arguments using welfare involve two items: 1) a specific type of program that trained a generation of uncommitted fathers and "I don't need a man!" mothers 2) mega-corporations receiving the lion's share of the gov welfare pie, while the CEOs and lesser GOP minions pretend that the poor's share is the problem with the world.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Thomas Sowell - Government Statistics - Video Dailymotion [Video]"

He saw the published gov report with excerpted statistics, and order the complete data and dismantled it on camera. Technically he's using the real statistics, while critiquing the original bullshit, cherry-picked statistics that were falsely being used to support a fake point. I don't really think he's promoting a GOP talking point here per se. You're going to have to counter him to show that he's wrong in order to make your point.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I'm so scared of the government case worker that I'm not going to be in my kids lives anymore is the worlds dumbest argument. We can't meet at your mommas house or nothing, huh?"

I'm sure people were doing that and figuring out the system, sure. There were also many other that were falling victim to the darkside of what those programs allowed. No commitment to mothers of your children, when who are trained to "not need a man" since they can't count on the men of their own generation to help unlike the previous generations.

Abdur Rasheed - 1. A welfare program can't train you into doing shit that you don't already want to do. There are millions of different variables that cause people to not stick around for their families. Just because Sowell made a career trying to tie social welfare programs to the morality of poor black people doesn't make it so. Ignoring the deliberate drug culture injected on us does your argument a disservice Muhammad. You KNOW that the revolution wasn't televised because it was drowned in drugs.

2. Income inequality has very little to do with government welfare pie and everything to do with corporations paying people less while raking in record profits. Sowell also is against the minimum wage and blames it for poor people being poor. He worked at the labor department when they introduced the minimum wage and sited it as a reason why he quit. Government welfare as a cause isn't supported by the facts.

Abdur Rasheed - "Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I'm so scared of the government case worker that I'm not going to be in my kids lives anymore is the worlds dumbest argument. We can't meet at your mommas house or nothing, huh?"

Muhammad wrote: "I'm sure people were doing that and figuring out the system, sure. There were also many other that were falling victim to the darkside of what those programs allowed. No commitment to mothers of your children, when who are trained to "not need a man" since they can't count on the men of their own generation to help unlike the previous generations."

Do you have any data to support this theory?

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "...trying to tie social welfare programs to the morality of poor black people..."

Where'd he do THAT at? Because the Sowell I know is the one that traced the worst behavioral traits of poor blacks to the uncouth behaviors of the slavery era poor whites they picked it up from.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Do you have any data to support this theory?"

Yes, it's detailed in the original Moynihan Report.

The Negro Family: The Case for National Action

Abdur Rasheed - And what programs does the Thomas Sowell that you know credit for the continued uncouth behaviors of poor blacks? What social programs are you arguing against that "trained" our people and keep us in poverty?

You can't argue BOTH sides Muhammad.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Ignoring the deliberate drug culture injected on us does your argument a disservice Muhammad."

That's curious, because I'm pretty sure that unleashing the drug/alcohol upon the now broken up families was actually the number three point in my ACTUAL argument I took the time (you're welcome) to detail out for you point by point.

As usual you choose instead to argue with the caricature of Muhammad you made up in your head, thus comments like "And yet..."

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "You can't argue BOTH sides Muhammad."

I don't even know what "both sides" you're supposed to be subscribing to me. I am willing to admit that I haven't done a good job of laying out what my argument really is...? Possibly being the reason you skimmed over that post, and thought I was regurgitating that 'welfare queen' shit?

Sowell didn't say anything about "continued programs" as far as I know. I just know that the one that did the damage in the relevant era was the AFDC one. Did it need to continue pass 1996? Two generations of poor black youth were trained to act that way, and continue to pass those traits along to the next gen. Did the programs have to continue? Obviously not. That shit is part of that community's sub-culture now.

Muhammad Rasheed - They continue to be in poverty because, once the family was broken up, the drugs/alcohol were pumped in, and the prison industrial complex feeds upon them in the new slave state era. The original 'conscious rap' of the hip-hop pioneers was deliberately ignored by mainstream music company execs in favor of that bs that glorifies the traits that lead to the broken family. Once again manipulating the community with money...

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Income inequality has very little to do with government welfare pie and everything to do with corporations paying people less while raking in record profits."

Doesn't matter here. I only bring it up in my own debates to show the hypocrisy of wealthy GOP folk -- who receive free gov subsidies as part of their income stream folio -- blaming the poor's tiny slice of that same pie for the country's ills.

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Sowell also is against the minimum wage and blames it for poor people being poor."

I think that the minimum wage should regularly be increased to keep up with the rate of inflation, otherwise it's not fair.#theFiatPlayerIsAMotherfucker

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "He worked at the labor department when they introduced the minimum wage and sited it as a reason why he quit."

Before the minimum wage, unemployment was lower among the black community, especially among the youth. After it was put in effect, the unemployment skyrocketed. Basic economics. I'm genuinely interested in your counter to his argument to prove him wrong.

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Government welfare as a cause isn't supported by the facts."

I guess it depends on what cause you are referring to exactly.

Abdur Rasheed - Maybe I have been arguing against a caricature of you.

I've been thinking that you are an fan of Partisan conservative economist Thomas Sowell who CLEARLY is following the GOP agenda and it appeared that you believe him sighting a report written in 1965 and sighting that the single parent rate of African Americans is 25% and using that biased ass data point that welfare was used to break up the black family and ignoring the current data that 39% of white families are single right NOW.

There are 49 million people on some kind of welfare in this country.

38% are black. That's 18million black people on welfare.

50% of them are in single parent houses (one mother or one father) that's 9 million single black homes on welfare.

There are 42 million black people in this country TOTAL.

That's 21% single black families on welfare.

21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month

Poverty of African Americans has also declined yet the welfare programs are STILL in place.

Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait

That percentage hasn't changed.

21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "Before the minimum wage, unemployment was lower among the black community, especially among the youth. After it was put in effect, the unemployment skyrocketed. Basic economics. I'm genuinely interested in your counter to his argument to prove him wrong."

Source please.

Abdur Rasheed - The minimum wage was set in 1938 at .25 cents.

Unemployment skyrocketed in 1929 during the Great Depression.

There was a market force spike in 1938 after the law was implemented then the unemployment rate dropped as the recovery took place.

The data suggests that unemployment certainly didn't hurt poor people. It looks like it was a driving force that got the economy working again.

The data suggests that who ever you got that from is full of shit.



Abdur Rasheed

Watch: Pres. Clinton Explains Why Republicans are Wrong About the Minimum Wage

Muhammad Rasheed - Thomas Sowell wrote: Words seem to carry far more weight than facts among those liberals who argue as if rent-control laws actually control rents and gun-control laws actually control guns.

It does no good to point out to them that the two American cities where rent-control laws have existed longest and strongest — New York and San Francisco — are also the two cities with the highest average rents.

Nor does it make a dent on them when you point out evidence, from both sides of the Atlantic, that tightening gun-control laws does not reduce gun crimes, including murder. It is not uncommon for gun crimes to rise when gun-control laws are tightened. Apparently armed criminals prefer unarmed victims.

Minimum-wage laws are another issue where the words seem to carry great weight, leading to the fact-free assumption that such laws will cause wages to rise to the legally specified minimum. Various studies going back for decades indicate that minimum-wage laws create unemployment, especially among younger, less experienced, and less skilled workers.

When you are unemployed, your wages are zero, regardless of what the minimum-wage law specifies.

Having followed the controversies over minimum-wage laws for more than half a century, I am always amazed at how many ways there are to evade the obvious.

A discredited argument that first appeared back in 1946 recently surfaced again in a televised discussion of minimum wages. A recent survey of employers asked if they would fire workers if the minimum wage were raised. Two-thirds of the employers said that they would not. That was good enough for a minimum-wage advocate.

Unfortunately, the consequences of minimum-wage laws cannot be predicted on the basis of employers’ statements of their intentions. Nor can the consequences of a minimum-wage law be determined, even after the fact, by polling employers on what they did.

The problem with polls, in dealing with an empirical question like this, is that you can only poll survivors.

Every surviving business in an industry might have as many employees as it had before a minimum-wage increase — and yet, if the additional labor costs led to fewer businesses’ surviving, there could still be a reduction in industry employment, despite what the poll results were from survivors.

There are many other complications that make an empirical study of the effects of minimum wages much more difficult than it might seem.

Since employment varies for many reasons other than a minimum-wage law, at any given time the effects of those other factors can outweigh the effects of minimum-wage laws. In that case, employment could go up after a particular minimum-wage increase — even if it goes up less than it would have without that increase.

Minimum-wage advocates can seize upon statistics collected in particular odd circumstances to declare that they have now “refuted” the “myth” that minimum wages cause unemployment.

Yet, despite such anomalies, it is surely no coincidence that those few places in the industrial world which have had no minimum-wage law, such as Switzerland and Singapore, have consistently had unemployment rates down around 3 percent. “The Economist” magazine once reported: “Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9% in February.”

It is surely no coincidence that during the last administration in which there was no federal minimum wage — the Calvin Coolidge administration — unemployment ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent over its last four years. It is surely no coincidence that, when the federal minimum-wage law remained unchanged for twelve years while inflation rendered the law meaningless, the black teenage unemployment rate — even during the recession year of 1949 — was literally a fraction of what it has been throughout later years when the minimum-wage rate was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.

When words trump facts, you can believe anything. And the liberal groupthink taught in our schools and colleges is the path of least resistance.

SOURCE: Facing Minimum-Wage Truth

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "The minimum wage was set in 1938 at .25 cents. Unemployment skyrocketed in 1929 during the Great Depression. There was a market force spike in 1938 after the law was implemented then the unemployment rate dropped as the recovery took place. The data suggests that unemployment certainly didn't hurt poor people. It looks like it was a driving force that got the economy working again."

You jumped to some weird conclusions here. I think you jumped to them anyway. The GP represented the nation's very first fiat system "bubble pop," which cause businesses to tank, resulting in mass unemployment. The 'recovery' procedure advised by the Money Trust is to spend your way out of it. So the gov started borrowing money from the Money Trust like they did during Bush's Great Recession. The economy slowly 'recovered' until the inevitable next bubble pop, as that's what fiat systems do.

Sowell pointed out that in 1939, the "minimum-wage law was ten years old, and the wage specified in that law was now so low that it was irrelevant, after years of inflation. It was the same as if there were no minimum-wage law." Yet you think it was somehow part of the 'recovery.'

I think that the minimum wage should increase to keep up with inflation, because of my stance on the gold standard versus fiat. Sowell is luke-warm to indifferent about gold standard discussions, and 100% disagrees with increasing the wage to match inflation. (i suspect this will cause a certain level of cognitive dissonance for you since the Muhammad caricature is all about blindly, uncritically following behind his "gurus").

Abdur Rasheed - Have you verified anything that Thomas Sowell has claimed on your own or did you just roll with his bullshit talking points and assume that they were facts?

Muhammad Rasheed - What are you using to determine whether his arguments are bullshit or not? Since you seem so definitive that they are.

Abdur Rasheed - Answer mine first.

Have you gone and pulled the number of times that the minimum wage have been raised and correlated that data against the national and African American unemployment numbers for those years and a few years after and followed where the actual data takes you or did you just take uncle Tom's partisan word for it?

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Answer mine first."

I can't. My Libertarian Limited Government argument has a mental block up.

Have you gone and pulled the number of times that the minimum wage have been raised and correlated that data against the national and African American unemployment numbers for those years and a few years after and followed where the actual data takes you, or nah?

Abdur Rasheed - What does Libertarian limited Government mental block up mean?

If you haven't then you're not done yet.

Quoting this Uncle Tom's bullshit ISN'T research, Bro.

Do the work and follow where it leads. If I do it for you and post it you're going to dismiss it because it didn't come from Sowell.

It's either going to verify what Sowell is saying or expose him for a fraudulent bitch. Either way...you'll KNOW.

I posted the first year's data from 1938 when they came up with the minimum wage.

His bullshit theory doesn't line up with the facts.

I can tell you that he quoted the NRA's bullshit argument about gun control laws not being effective. We BOTH know that I know ALL about how criminals acquire guns and I can definitively bust his and the NRA's bullshit argument with ease.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Maybe I have been arguing against a caricature of you."

Feels like you do it a lot. I'm pretty sure your Ma does it to you and you don't like it. Why would you think I'd love it?  :P

Actually I don't care. You can keep doing it. It's funny. I get my real Internet Argument fix from strangers anyway.

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I've been thinking that you are an fan of Partisan conservative economist Thomas Sowell..."

I'm a BIG fan of his works on race.

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "...who CLEARLY is following the GOP agenda..."

He's been a Senior Fellow at the very conservative Hoover Institute for many years, and since that's been his main gig, he is casually friendly with a lot of those GOP talking points. His strength is when he pulls out his scholar kit for his masterworks though. That's the stuff I'm into. It's funny watching the GOP tenderly tiptoe around that stuff: "He's so well spoken!"

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "...and it appeared that you believe him sighting a report written in 1965 and sighting that the single parent rate of African Americans is 25% and using that biased ass data point that welfare was used to break up the black family..."

The important part is that the program did what it needed to do to negatively affect the demographic it did, with the desired results. Instant slaves!

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "...and ignoring the current data that 39% of white families are single right NOW."

They also are on heroin, drinking, and committing suicide a lot. They can fix their own shit, I'm talking about MY people.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "What does Libertarian limited Government mental block up mean?"

It means I can't snap to "AYE, SIR!" at your command because I have a mental block caused by the "Libertarian limited Government argument" you subscribed to me earlier.

Abdur Rasheed - What? I'm not giving you an order to do shit.

I'm asking a question wether you did your OWN research and pulled the ACTUAL data to compare to Thomas Sowell's comments about unemployment vs the minimum wage?

If you don't think that it's necessary then that's cool, but until you do you have to stop quoting him and posting his trope as if it's a fact. It makes you look like a fan boy and less smart.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's how I feel whenever I notice you uncritically repeating left-leaning talking points, and arguing against GOP talking points that I never claimed. It makes you come across like a sheeple automaton.

Thomas Sowell is a high-level, highly educated, professional scholar, and subject matter expert in the things I quote him on. The only person who would attempt to shame someone else for quoting a scholarly subject matter expert to support a point, is the person who finds that he cannot counter said scholar. So he invents a new debate rule that says I'm not allowed to quote a professional, ivy league university trained scholar unless I aped all of his research first.

Did you think that made you sound smart?

Abdur Rasheed - It Absolutely does.

If ANYBODY has a political agenda that they want to push then verification of their "facts" is very important.

Letters behind your name isn't proof that you're not bullshitting me. Is it??

I'm not arguing against his stance on these things because he's a conservative.

I verified Rachel Maddow's "facts" as well.

"Damn! That's true. Check mark."

All I'm ASKING is if you have done the same with Sowell?
If not...cool.

If you don't want too because he went to school then...

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I verified Rachel Maddow's 'facts' as well."

Which ones?

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "If you don't want too because he went to school then..."

I don't want to because I'm busy. lol The idea that I can't quote a professional scholar -- who has a team of grunt work researchers on the Hoover Institute's payroll working under him mind -- because I haven't followed behind him and duplicated all of the prep work used to write his books, is more than just "not smart," it's absolutely insane.

At this point, I'm expecting you to find my number and call my house and whatever else Neil P claimed you did. Get back on your damn meds, Sarge.

Abdur Rasheed - So did I say go behind him and re check EVERYTHING he said or did I ask you to verify the "facts" that YOU posted as proof of his case???

Let's rewind the tape.

Abdur ACTUALLY wrote: "Answer mine first.

Have you gone and pulled the number of times that the minimum wage have been raised and correlated that data against the national and African American unemployment numbers for those years and a few years after and followed where the actual data takes you or did you just take uncle Tom's partisan word for it?"

Seemed like I asked IF You verified ONE SPECIFIC POINT to me.

Maybe I'm tripping.

If what he said can be verified as an actual fact and not a partisan talking point verified with a "come on man...you know how those liberals are."

Then you know that poster that you have of him is right.

What's the name of the bullshit argument when people attribute a point that you NEVER MADE and then argue against it as if you said it? Sounds pretty Neil Pish to me, Bruh.

."because I haven't duplicated ALL of his prep work..."

Not even close. Just that one thing.

Are you afraid that you will expose him as a bullshitter?

You shouldn't worry because you know...he's scholar and all so it's ok for him to bullshit you. Nice poster.

I like to KNOW when people are trying to bullshit ME. Probably because of my Sarg Meds or whatever.

They make me twitchy.

Abdur Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I verified Rachel Maddow's 'facts' as well."

Muhammad wrote: "Which ones?"

What do YOU care? Lol

You know that she has PHD's and shit so shouldn't you just believe her??

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Are you afraid that you will expose him as a bullshitter?"

No.

In fact, in this particular thread, I'm confident that if you could've smashed it, you would have. You can't, so this is your new battle tactic.

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "You know that she has PHD's and shit so shouldn't you just believe her??"

I do trust Rachel's scholarship since you asked. I find that she's thorough when she has her scholar kit hat on, just like Sowell is. I'm a fan of hers, too. I'm not following behind them to verify unless I find I HAVE to, like for a project's control documents or whatever. HERE I do not have to, despite your claims. I just have to be able to understand their argument enough to argue and defend it, with a Rasheed's trademark wit, sarcasm & pizzazz.

Abdur Rasheed - "Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Are you afraid that you will expose him as a bullshitter?"

Muhammad wrote: "No.

In fact, in this particular thread, I'm confident that if you could've smashed it, you would have. You can't, so this is your new battle tactic."

*nods*

I guess that makes sense. I guess I'm arguing against Sowell's EASILY VERIFIABLE stance on this highly partisan issue just to practice.

It looks like you have no idea where to get the data from.

Just ask. You don't have to do the Neil P "Yes or no?" Bullshit Muhammad.

Unemployment numbers from 1948 to present 

Do you know where to find the minimum wage numbers? How many times has it been raised and the amount to correlate the two sets of data?

You wanted to pick a fight with ME. Why? I don't give a shit, but at least verify your OWN stance on shit and quit hiding behind this Uncle Tom because "He went to school and learned not to flinch when the Republicans stuck their hand up his ass and worked his mouth like a puppet and he said that U.S. Colored folk got all of our bad traits and low morality from white folks so I trust him."

Do better.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your link says "data not available." I'm too far away, I guess.

Making fun of a caricature of Sowell you invented doesn't move me either. lol

Abdur Rasheed - You don't want to find it. It's ok.

It's scary.

I get it.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not picking a fight. I came to challenge the Carter meme quote, and it got legs like a regular thread.

Muhammad Rasheed - You think I can't see where you went in and fixed the link?



Muhammad Rasheed



Muhammad Rasheed - (^welfare queen)

Muhammad Rasheed - O_O

Muhammad Rasheed - j/k

Abdur Rasheed - Well??

Muhammad Rasheed - Well what? I'm running errands and stuff. Wait. Stop acting like Jeremy.

Muhammad Rasheed - Here, find the statistics on this for me while you wait. And don't cheat because I'll know.

unemployment statistics for poor black youth 1935-1996

Abdur Rasheed - Yeah I'm just fucking around running a multi-million dollar facility while you're running errands and shit.

I'll get right on that.

Muhammad Rasheed - You SAID if I needed help you would do it for me! hahahaha!

If you don't mean it then don't offer it. hahaha

Anyway, that's the exact data needed in order to confirm/disprove this particular pet issue. General population performance isn't the topic, but how the numbers looked for poor black youth during the relevant time period. I'm going to trust Sowell's scholarship on it because that's his thing. You can continue to poo-poo it while claiming you're too busy to pull those numbers to squash it because you were too busy pulling the numbers for gun control, or whatever you're paid to do over there.   :P

Abdur Rasheed - You confused "help" with me doing it FOR you.
I used "help" as in I will show you where you can find the data.

I've already pulled the data. They didn't break out the data by race until 1971 according to the department of labor and statistics.

Unemployment for poor African Americans went DOWN 4.4% overall after all of the minimum wage increases.

I'm not going to do it for you just so that you can dismiss it as "fingers and toes arithmetic" or whatever way that you feel that you need to avoid what I'm saying.
You do it yourself.

Muhammad Rasheed - Unemployment for poor African Americans went down between 1971 and 1996?

Abdur Rasheed - 1971 to 2015

Muhammad Rasheed - What about up to 1996 when the AFDC program stopped?

Abdur Rasheed - Well...1996 is WITHIN the time period of 1971 through 2015 sooooo....

Muhammad Rasheed - lol But if the unemployment didn't drop for them inside of that period, it would mean the over-all drop would mean something else in the analysis, I would think.

Abdur Rasheed - Yes it would mean that the raising of the minimum wage is NOT a factor at best and that bullshit pro corporate anti minimum wage talking point is debunked.

Muhammad Rasheed - The over-all picture is too broad to make that claim. The narrowed focused data is needed to confirm or rule that out.

Muhammad Rasheed - For example, you said there was a 'market force spike' in '38 when the Money Trust's "spend, Spend, SPEND!" advice was implemented to enable the new fiat economy to recover from the Great Depression. It did so. You claimed that the earlier implemented minimum wage law looked like it was "a driving force that got the economy working again." That's one of those wild conclusions you jumped to because you just wanted it to be true, absent concrete proof in the data you pulled.

The recovery plan for Bush's Great Recession was no different than the original Money Trust's century old advice. The economy recovered under Obama, but can we say that minimum wage laws were the driving force that did so? Of course not. What did Hoover, Roosevelt, Bush, And Obama spend that borrowed Federal Reserve money ON that caused the economies to recover from those bubbles? Minimum wage policies?