for a little debate. I just now saw her response to a
previous diary of mine from a couple days ago, in which I laid out four points to my "bottom line" if I can't have the whole left wing enchilada.
I typed up a response there, but (a) wasn't sure if she'd see it way down there, and (b) figured it was kind of a new subject since I wasn't actually expecting anyone here to dispute the need for things like universal health care!
If we double the minimum wage, we'll have to charge double for American made product, no?
Uh, no. This is a common fallacy which seems to assume that, what, minimum wage makes up 100% of the cost of American products? That's silly. There's raw materials, machinery, energy, various other overhead, plus of course the payroll of all those workers and management making much more than minimum wage. Maybe some of them will have to take a pay cut. Boo frickin' hoo.
How will this help employ unskilled workers?
I don't buy into the insulting notion of "unskilled" workers. Anyone who is not severely mentally disabled has skill at something.
Also, do you honestly believe that 0% unemployment is a good thing?
There will never be 0% unemployment as some people will remain unemployed by choice.
I know of no economist that would agree with that. There are a whole slew of new problems that coincide with employment rates that are too low.
These are "problems" from the viewpoint of Wall Street, not for the working poor.
Could you guarantee [universal health care] would be better than Canada's healthcare system?
Why would I need to? Canadians (including my naturalised sister) are overwhelmingly satisfied with their system, though of course it could always be improved.
Why would we have to amend the constituion to expand civil liberties? On the contrary, Bush is trying to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage thus taking away civil liberties - this isn't a good thing! Our constitution covers everyone and should not be messed with.
It has been "messed with" several times to expand civil liberties (I agree that it should not be used to reduce them). Okay, so you don't count the first ten amendments, which were passed en masse and called a "Bill of Rights" shortly after the passage of the main body of the Constitution. Fine. But the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and to a lesser extent 23rd, 24th, and 26th Amendments are unassailable examples. Would you rather go back to reserving the vote only for affluent white men?
As for what I think should be further expanded/clarified, we could start with the ERA, which came close to being adopted. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments should be clarified as being in line with the interpretation of the ACLU, SPLC, and liberal judiciary. Stuff like that.
Well...old growth needs to be cut down [from time to time] to make room for new growth,
Baloney. Trees fall down on their own, and provide nourishment as they rot for important components of the ecosystem. How do you think forests managed all those eons without us cutting them down, for heaven's sake?