Rumsfeld steps down

[SR540Beaver 116]

I get a kick out of all of the Republican water carriers.....I mean independent talk radio hosts and their glowing support for Joe Lieberman. The ONLY reason they praised Lieberman was because of his stance on the war. Lieberman is a dyed in the wool liberal who would never fit in on the Republican side of the aisle except for this one issue. On anything beyond that issue, he is one of those mental disordered traitors Hannity and his ilk like to defame on a daily basis.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Lisabob,

 

B.A.U.- Business as Usual

 

In spite of the election results- means that the policies that most felt that should be addressed will be ignored and the policies that most felt the least about will be raised to the top of the flagpole to be saluted by the new Democratic majority. They will march in lock step and hail the beginning of a new day. When they will be asked about the War or the Economy, they will proudly point to their new commission on studying the war and they will attempt to raise the minimum wage so that people can still live in poverty.

 

About all that can be done now is political gridlock and/or maneuvering over the small issues. The big issues are stalemated until the 2008 elections. The Democrats will become more Republican in the next two years. Bush will only appear to be bi-partisan and the new Democratic nominee will find his (*her will not find a seat on the wagon) Republican roots. B.A.U.

 

fb

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

OK, this minimum-wage thing is puzzling...at least I'm not clear in my mind how having a minimum wage causes poverty. Could someone please explain? Would there be less poverty if there was no minimum wage? How would that work?

[Gonzo1 10]

Packsaddle:

 

As I see it, democrats try to raise the minimum wage to garner votes of the poor and lower class, the so-called "working people" and union workers.

 

Minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. There are typically 40 hours worked per week for 52 weeks, 40 40 x 52 = 2,080

 

2,080 x 5.15 = $10,712 per year. Then subtract FITW, Medicare contribution, SS contribution and any app;icable state taxes, there isn't much left. Basically, democrats try to buy votes by promising a higher minimum wage. Realistically, a minimum wage job is entry level and should not be relied upon to actually live with any degree of success.

 

Enter into the job, learn some skills, gain experience and then get a better job that pays more.

 

Some cities and states are pushing for a "living wage" minimum. Here's where the slippery slope comes into play. What's 'livable'? $6 / hr? If $6 is good, how about $10, if $10 is good, how about $12 or more. Once the minimum wage goes EVERYTHING goes up because many government contracts and union jobs wages are tied to the minimum wage. If the minimum wage goes up, so the salary of government employees, contractors and many (but not all) union employees.

 

[BrentAllen 10]

packsaddle,

The minimum wage argument is not really about those on the bottom. There are union jobs which have wages based on multiples of the minimum wage. A increase in the minimum wage means a big increase to union positions.

Also, small companies that are forced to pay higher wages to entry level workers will be forced to reduce their work force - laying off workers. Those laid off workers are now looking at zero income, which I think would qualify as poverty.

[packsaddle 753]

Thanks Gonzo1 and Brent, interesting, seems to make sense. If we gradually did away with the minimum wage, how would that work in terms of its effect on the factors you mention?

 

The reason I ask is that I sense a dichotomy. Your reasoning seems to lead to a conclusion that there should be no minimum wage. Yet, there must have been some rationale for the minimum wage in the first place. I could be wrong but following that assumption, when would we violate that original rationale, whatever it was? This is something about our economy that I have always found a bit confusing.

[Gonzo1 10]

You know, you get what you pay for. It holds true for employees as well. Pay $1 per hour, and you get lousy help, pay $15 or more, and well, the quality goes up.

 

I wouldn't work in one of Gainesville's chicken plants for anything, but I'm glad there are people who do.

 

Chicago Illinois has a higher minimum wage than the rest of the state. Wal-mart was about to open a store in the city limits until Wal-mart was notified of the new, higher wage. Walmart opened in a neighboring town and pays the lower wage. Could Wal-mart afford it? Of course, but it wouldn't be good business sense to spend more for the same help.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Minimum wage works a little different since food, clothing, shelter, transportation and all related utilities, and maintenance must be subtracted as well. If the person gets sick or has a problem with the car, then they find themselves below $0 which looks allot like poverty to me. They are forced to ask for social services which puts a tax back where it all started, on those who voted for poverty wages in the first place.

 

Wal-mart adds in a health insurance policy which looks good until a person actually uses it for anything other than minimal health issues. If the person gets sick or has a disability that causes problems with the duties of their job, then Wal-mart does one even better; they fire them. They try to act like the ADA doesn't exist and won't consider moving the person to a job that fits the person's abilities, which would show they care for their Associates and would be darn good PR besides. The dollar seems important for those in charge that make millions. Yet, Wal-mart is one of the few companies that even tries to insure those working for them.

 

Doing away with the minimum wage will not come up for consideration as long as rich people need serfs to work their industries. The minimum wage is decoration that looks like somebody is actually voting for the man on the street. Once a person becomes dependent on minimum wage and begins to live and depend on it, then they will invariably find themselves trapped by overwhelming bills, poverty and welfare.

 

So, does one do away with a type of "safety net" and opt for mandatory training? Who would flip all of those millions of hamburgers? I suppose that the flow of illegals is the answer but then that brings us to another problem

fb

[packsaddle 753]

I guess Rumsfeld has become yesterday's news but this new fiber in this thread is more interesting anyway.

It would be interesting to know if after passing the first minimum wage, there actually was an attributable decline in poverty. As opposed, say, to the first compulsory education, or the first comprehensive public health programs. Poverty, it seems to me, is related to many factors and because we tend to use income as a simple metric to define it, we then think that by simply manipulating the metric we can affect poverty. But really, isn't this really just treating symptoms?

 

I have mixed feelings on the subject. But I am willing to ask the question. It is clear that compulsory education benefits everyone and society in general. Same for public health programs like childhood innoculations and the various functions of the CDC. But I am unconvinced that merely by manipulating the bottom of the pay scale, we can directly affect something as complex as poverty.

 

At the same time, I see the 'fend for yourself' approach to have real negatives for everyone and society in general. Failure to successfully fend for oneself or one's family can lead to poverty - manifested by such things as homelessness, lack of access to education, disenfranchisement, increased frequency of disease, increased crime, and on and on. When this includes large numbers of people with children the effect lasts for generations. As Fuzzy noted, we devote public funds to diminish some of the things I listed. So it comes back to money. As Rush says, it's all about money.

 

So, is it better to pay the money directly to the individuals in the form of a minimum wage? Or to pay the money in the form of government services for the impoverished? Or do we just let them fend for themselves?

If someone can articulate another option I'd be interested in reading it.

[BadenP 93]

Brent and Gonzo sometimes I wonder if you live in the same country as the rest of us. Your skewed economic philosophies are almost as laughable as the rest of your ideologies. If you really think that the Democrats are going to pander to the poor so that they can win in 2008 then your understanding of politics is as flawed as your economics. Speaking of pandering do you remember Bush promising to give illegals amnesty in the last election to get the hispanic vote, which he got for the most part, and then afterwards he tells them he didn't really mean Amnesty, so who has no credibility left with the American people, good ol GW.

 

Hope you guys enjoy living in your plastic bubbles, and I can't wait to read your replies.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

The Fuzzy Bear Plan for a better Tomorrow

 

Right now, our money turns out too many (high school kids) that cant get through the next level, meaning Vo-tech, Community College, Private programs, etc. If the minimum wage was stopped, it would force people to turn/return to school to upgrade their skills. For those with low achievement skills, they would be forced to remediate, sign up for Adult Ed, Literacy programs, etc. High schools could upgrade their programs and integrate higher Ed programs so that when a student graduates, they would be ready for the job market. Employers could be invited into the schools to tool up programs so that they would have an educated and trained workforce upon graduation. Education could also be offered through the workplace during work hours. Federal grants could be given to states for scholarship programs for any that would accept and work hard enough to pass. Companies could pay poverty wages to those that refuse educational opportunities or that simply cannot learn. For those that cant or wont, Social Security could supplement their wages and low income housing would be available as well as Medicaid/health insurance. For those that come here illegally without an education, the opportunity would be offered to them. If they refuse or cant, then they would be subject to poverty wages without the other benefits, just like the wages they were getting back home. They would be forced to become educated or return to their homeland. This plan would impact the service industry and increase the health of the overall country. fb

 

[Gonzo1 10]

BadenP,

You said: Your skewed economic philosophies are almost as laughable as the rest of your ideologies.

 

I suppose you favor HIGHER taxes for everyone? Lower taxes actually raise more money, the tax base is broadened allowing for more tax revenue.

 

You said: If you really think that the Democrats are going to pander to the poor so that they can win in 2008 then your understanding of politics is as flawed as your economics.

 

I believe democrats will pander to anyone, alive or dead. I really believe democrats have the dead voting. They especially pander to the poor and minorities because democrats tell them that without democrats in office, minorities can't get ahead. Republicans believe anyone can get ahead, work hard and achieve the American dream.

 

You said: Speaking of pandering do you remember Bush promising to give illegals amnesty in the last election to get the hispanic vote, which he got for the most part, and then afterwards he tells them he didn't really mean Amnesty, so who has no credibility left with the American people, good ol GW.

 

He didn't actually say anything about 'amnesty', but he did say that "guest workers" could be given a 'fast track' to citizenship. BadenP, I'm Hispanic and I completely disagree with given 'guest workers' or illegals anything, no school for their children, no drivers license, no health care, NOTHING. I can't believe that there wasn't already a fence along the border. Put one up NOW, and deport ALL illegals, regardless of their country of origin. Their very presence here is against the law. Lock 'em up, ship 'em back,

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

BadenP,

Speaking of keeping your word, I believe you said you were adding me to you ignore list. What happened? Yes, I did get that very nasty email you sent me - do you want me to post it to jog your memory? Such harsh words - from a minister?!?! Or did one of your friends steal your password again? That was a good one! By the way, I have never claimed to be a DE, as you mentioned. I am a volunteer - a Cubmaster and District Activities Chair. Please get your insults straight.

 

Let's see - Republican economics have produced a record market, extremely low unemployment, low interest rates and low inflation. All that - with a minimum wage of $5.15, and low taxes. How is it possible???

Democrats have always pandered to the poor. They have convinced the poor that they need the Democrats in power to help them survive. That only the government can help them take care of themselves and their families. This is common knowledge.

 

Bush proposed a guest worker program; it is not amnesty. My guess is you will see the Dems pushing amnesty. I think that would be a huge mistake.

[Hunt 11]

"Democrats have always pandered to the poor. They have convinced the poor that they need the Democrats in power to help them survive. That only the government can help them take care of themselves and their families. This is common knowledge."

 

I would argue that one difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats generally deliver to the masses to whom they pandered--thus, the Dems will pass an increased minimum wage. By contrast, the Republicans have done little to deliver to the social conservatives to whom they pandered to get elected. This is common knowledge, too, and has been the case all the way back to Reagan.

[packsaddle 753]

OK, I give up.