Werthless wrote:I must say that Jack Lew having investments in Cayman-based funds is delicious irony.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

I can't wait for the snarky criticisms of Jack Lew from Doll is Mine, JFLNYC, Monkeyboy, and Youseff on this issue.

Obama excoriated his opponent in last year’s election as being unfit for office for having such investments. So by Obama’s own standard, shouldn’t Lew be considered unfit for office as well? Obama specifically called the investment Lew held the world’s biggest “tax scam.” Should the man responsible for U.S. tax policy be someone the president says was involved in a “tax scam”? Someone the Democratic Senate Finance Committee chairman says was “feasting at America’s taxpayers’ expense”?

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, pointed out that Lew broke no laws and “paid all of his taxes and reported all of the income, gains and losses from the investment on his tax returns.” But last year Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said that while Romney had not technically broken any laws by keeping his money in offshore tax havens, “is not technically breaking the law a high-enough standard for someone who wants to be president of the United States?” Well, is not technically breaking the law a high-enough standard for someone who wants to be secretary of the Treasury?

Investing in the Cayman Islands does not make Lew unfit to be Treasury secretary. But it does make him unfit to be Obama’s Treasury secretary.

Youseff wrote:I have no doubts Democrats are corrupt. Don't throw me into that conversation. I'm of the camp that Republicans are by and large (not exclusively) stupider and more evil than Dems. That's my camp.

Werthless wrote:I don't understand what you're arguing for, doc, so it's hard for me to address you directly. I'm guessing that you think the federal minimum wage should be immediately raised to $9/hr?

Bucky wrote:watched the speech in a luxury bar/restaurant on Wall Street last night

Guess how that went

dajafi wrote:

Bucky wrote:watched the speech in a luxury bar/restaurant on Wall Street last night

Guess how that went

Which one?

dajafi wrote:A sub-minimum or apprenticeship wage for non-primary earners would be my wish here

dajafi wrote:On minimum wage:

1) phased in, it does more good than harm, because the boost to demand is real; research is pretty unambiguous about that

2) if it's a national rate--a floor--I'm inclined to agree that it should be toward the lower end of the 50 states

3) in terms of what I do for a living and the policy stuff I most care about, I'm terrified for the unintended consequences to youth employment of a minimum wage increase. Already it's very, very tough to put low-income kids (who lack the family/social networks we took for granted) to get "first jobs," particularly as the Feds don't fund youth employment much anymore. A big boost could be crippling, and given what we know about path dependency in youth employment the long term effects could be devastating. A sub-minimum or apprenticeship wage for non-primary earners would be my wish here, or some kind of tax incentive for employers who hire young adults... though tax incentives only work if they're large and highly publicized.

dajafi wrote:On minimum wage:
3) in terms of what I do for a living and the policy stuff I most care about, I'm terrified for the unintended consequences to youth employment of a minimum wage increase. Already it's very, very tough to put low-income kids (who lack the family/social networks we took for granted) to get "first jobs," particularly as the Feds don't fund youth employment much anymore. A big boost could be crippling, and given what we know about path dependency in youth employment the long term effects could be devastating. A sub-minimum or apprenticeship wage for non-primary earners would be my wish here, or some kind of tax incentive for employers who hire young adults... though tax incentives only work if they're large and highly publicized.

jerseyhoya wrote:Jesus wept