2014
Seems like if this is all correct, every employer would raise the pay of minimum wage workers. Heck, give everybody a raise and benefit from happy employees. Oh, if only it were that simple. I love liberals, they have a simple solution for every symptom.
As a small business owner, I am a firm believer that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do. It will mean more money in the hands of those who need it, allowing them to pay for daily necessities without sacrificing their other basic needs. And increased wages means more money in peoples’ pockets that they then put back into the economy, which is good for businesses.
I have heard numerous debates regarding the minimum wage increase, all starting with the same series of questions: “Won’t higher labor costs be a drag on your bottom line? Won’t a minimum wage increase affect employment? Won’t you have to cut back on hours, slow your hiring or even lay people off?”
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
If they could correct the Obamacare 30 hour law requiring employers to contribute to workers healthcare, millions of entry level workers could get to work more than 29 hours a week. These are just the folks that they are trying to transfer wealth to, that can no longer get a full time job because of the care act!
LikeLike
You and we are all entitled to our own opinions, Mr. Quinn, but you are not entitled to your own facts. As a student of Political Science and History, I can tell you that, dating back to the Truman administration, the American economy has ALWAYS been better with a Democrat president in office. I can also assure you that our economy has ALWAYS prospered when income taxes on the very wealthy were at their highest. All fact-based economic studies and analyses of minimum wage increases clearly demonstrate that raising the minimum wage is good for our economy. Since Reagan’s tax cuts for the wealthy and top corporations in the early 1980’s, “trickle down economics” has failed miserably:
Let’s have more facts and less opinions.
Wilson
LikeLike
Wilson, what about Jimmy Carter? Carter and Obama are two of the worst! As a historian you should know this!
LikeLike
Explain to me how that works Wilson. How does the 1% cause the 99% to not do well? And exactly what relevance does the gap have to do with the rest of us. You realize this trend has been going on for forty years through both Democrat and Republican administrations and yet suddenly higher taxes on the people who already pay most of the taxes is the answer? Ok, let’s say we raise taxes on everyone earning $250,000 or more to a real rate of 60%. Then what, everyone feels better? The money goes into the federal coffers for more programs like we have now so we can keep average people happy? Is that a solution? Figure out how to build up the lower 50% of society rather than tear down the other half and you have something.
Dick
Richard D Quinn
Blog http://www.quinnscommentary.com Twitter @quinnscomments
>
LikeLike
First of all, Mr. Quinn, I am amazed that you wrote this: “Explain to me how that works Wilson. How does the 1% cause the 99% to not do well? And exactly what relevance does the gap have to do with the rest of us” because I am quite certain that you understand money, politics and the “big picture”; but since you asked, here goes:
The Koch brothers, with their friends and associates, spent $407 million dollars in the 2012 election trying to defeat President Obama and attempting to buy Congress. They epitomize “the 1%”. “The 1%” succeeded in maintaining a Republican House majority, but failed in their bid to own the Senate and failed to defeat Obama. The Koch brothers, by the way, continue to receive “big oil subsidies” because the right-wing congress members that they bought and paid for will not support changing those tax loopholes.
As we speak, the Koch brothers and their cronies are meeting and planning in Arizona how to spend many more millions during the 2014 mid-term elections in an attempt to buy the Senate and retain the House.
The candidates supported by millions of campaign dollars from “the 1%”, if elected, are pledged not to support raising the minimum wage and will introduce bills to eliminate the minimum wage entirely. This damages our struggling economy, keeps many of “the 99%” downtrodden and reliant upon “welfare” to survive. That, in turn, hinders our economic recovery increases our national debt and renders our nation vulnerable to the more clever nations in the rest of the world. The national debt is increased because these bought and paid for members of Congress will not support tax reform to require “the 1%” to pay income taxes on the profits of greed stashed in off shore banks that they enjoy by utilizing the infrastructure that legitimate tax-paying citizens have paid for.
The candidates supported by millions of campaign dollars from “the 1%”, if elected, are pledged to vote to eliminate food stamps, head start, meals on wheels, et al. This damages our struggling economy, keeps many of “the 99%” demoralized and dependent upon what “welfare” does remain, to survive. That, in turn, hinders our economic recovery, demoralizes many of our struggling citizens and renders our nation vulnerable to the more benevolent societies in the rest of the world.
The candidates supported by millions of campaign dollars from “the 1%”, if elected, are pledged to vote to eliminate unemployment benefits for those of our citizens who are the victims of the inhumane corporate greed which sent their jobs offshore. That, in turn, increases the need for welfare assistance for their very survival. All of which weakens our economic recovery, creates opportunities for Tea Party Republicans to declare Obama to be “the food stamp president” and again undermines our economic recovery so that they can run against an economy struggling to recover in November of 2014. What a concept. Fuck things up totally through obstructionism and then blame Obama in November.
The candidates supported by millions of campaign dollars from “the 1%”, if elected, at both state and national levels, are pledged to vote to suppress voting rights for any person of color who is likely to vote Democratic and to vote to deny any chance of citizenship for any immigrant who is likely to vote democratic. The minority right wing can no longer win elections so they are resorting to rigging elections. These actions destroy our precious democracy by oppressing the majority of our citizens and telling them that, if they are not wealthy and white, they do not matter. If that is not “relevance to the rest of us”, then tell me what is?
The candidates supported by millions of campaign dollars from “the 1%”, if elected, at both state and national levels, are pledged to vote to crush the power and membership of labor unions. History clearly shows that the income and improving life styles of “the 99%” perfectly correlates with the power and strength of labor unions. An economically enhanced middle class creates more customers for the greedy 1%. However, they don’t mind grinding our workers into exploited servitude because there are so many needy and starving people elsewhere in the world to feed their corporate off shore tax exempt coffers and their blind inhumane greed. This is relevant to the rest of us because it is destroying our once great nation that our president is trying to preserve.
These subjugated workers in America will not complain about working conditions, they will not speak out for a living wage nor will they attempt to unionize because they are petrified of losing their jobs.
As in the 300,000 citizens of West Virginia who are afraid to complain about their drinking water having been polluted by big business for fear of losing their jobs.
The candidates supported by millions of campaign dollars from “the 1%”, if elected, are pledged to returning “the 99%” to an existence of feudal serfdom after adopting the Trans Pacific Partnership which will send even more American jobs off shore to countries such as Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 28 cents per hour, and there are no child labor laws or environmental regulations.
I don’t want to tear down any part of our society. I want a “level playing field”. “The 1%” should not be able to buy our government, as they now can. They own the House and are now spending millions more to buy the Senate. House obstructionism has crippled our nation for four years. We can boast of 48 consecutive months of private sector job growth under Obama in spite of Republican obstructionism, but just imagine how much better it could now be with patriotic support from the right wing rather than greed and divisiveness.
LikeLike
So you believe that none of the 1% support Democrats or that Democrats are not influenced in the same manner? You forget to consider all the years Democrats had total control of Congress and pretty much could have fixed what they wanted. But the biggest flaw is you equate food stamps, etc with helping the poor. Of course, they provide short-term comfort and fill a need, but they solve nothing. The poor are still with us years after these programs were out in effect. The problems of influence are real which is why I support term limits and would prevent all election contributions. Here is an example of waste that indirectly hurts average people. The US utilities have been pouring $750 million a year for decades as required by law into a fund for the storage facility for nuclear waste in Yucca mountain, nothing has happened because Harry Reid has blocked it. Where did all the billions go and still we have the problem of waste. Average electric bills reflect all this waste. Sorry Mr Wilson your argument in no way supports the idea that the 1% or even 20% inhibit the opportunities of others and the fact remains they pay the overwhelming portion of income taxes that pay for all the programs that support the poor and middle class.
LikeLike
Richard, let me say “my thoughts exactly.”
We know “Wilson” is making up his own facts when he rails against the Koch brothers and “their friends and associates” without mentioning the larger left-wing contributions to “buy the government” (both to defeat President Bush and to reelect President Obama) made by George Soros, Progressive Insurance chairman Peter Lewis, Hollywood’s Stephen Bing, Jane Fonda, and Herbert and Marion Sandler of World Savings and Loan fame.
Kudos for your fine (and frustrating) example of Harry Reid forcing utilities (and we the ratepayers) to keep radioactive waste in swimming pools around the country as an example of sheer power and waste.
Unfortunately, I can see “Wilson” is all complaints and no solutions.
LikeLike
Maybe I missed YOUR solution, Joseph? What I wrote is both terribly distasteful, unfortunate and completely irrefutable. Mr. Quinn’s proposed solutions of strict term limits and very limited private campaign contributions have already been written and read by informed people.
LikeLike
In addition, Richard, does it make any difference, in your conservative mindlessness, that contributors to Democratic campaigns are supporting:
1) The repeal of “big oil subsidies” to enemies of our Democracy (e.g. the Koch brothers)
2) Raising the minimum wage to promote economic prosperity and reduce poverty
3) Require “the 1%” and the 25% of corporations that pay no income taxes, to in fact pay their fair share of income taxes to the great nation whose infrastructure enabled them to become wealthy
4) Continue Social Security and Medicare for the elderly and our veterans, continue Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, SNAP, et al for the less fortunate in our great nation
5) Unemployment benefits for our citizens who are suffering from the Republican-created economic catastrophe created by Wall Street deregulation and starting two Middle East wars on a credit card
6) Repealing dozens of state laws which suppress the right to vote for anyone who may happen to vote for a Democratic candidate
7) Supporting labor unions which support our “middle class” citizens and give them the power that they need to share in the corporate profitability demonstrated by the DOW, which has doubled since Obama took office.
I suspect that you don’t give a damn about any of the above and that you are, therefore, an enemy of the American common man and “liberty and justice for all”.
LikeLike
So no Democratic donor is trying to push for self-interest goals? You simply cannot be that naive.
LikeLike
Are any of these Democratic donor patriotic goals self-interest?
1) The repeal of “big oil subsidies” to enemies of our Democracy (e.g. the Koch brothers)
2) Raising the minimum wage to promote economic prosperity and reduce poverty
3) Require “the 1%” and the 25% of corporations that pay no income taxes, to in fact pay their fair share of income taxes to the great nation whose infrastructure enabled them to become wealthy
4) Continue Social Security and Medicare for the elderly and our veterans, continue Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, SNAP, et al for the less fortunate in our great nation
5) Unemployment benefits for our citizens who are suffering from the Republican-created economic catastrophe created by Wall Street deregulation and starting two Middle East wars on a credit card
6) Repealing dozens of state laws which suppress the right to vote for anyone who may happen to vote for a Democratic candidate
7) Supporting labor unions which support our “middle class” citizens and give them the power that they need to share in the corporate profitability demonstrated by the DOW, which has doubled since Obama took office.
Explain the “self interest” herein? You cannot do that!
Surely, even you, can understand that Democratic campaign donors supporting the downtrodden and subjugated American middle class is not “self interest”!?
Smell the coffee, Mr. Quinn!
LikeLike
Hey Wilson is this one of the 1% you would rather see pay more in taxes?
Paul Allen has given more than $1.5 billion towards the advancement of science, technology, education, wildlife conservation, the arts and community services in his lifetime.[24] In 2010, Allen became a signatory of The Giving Pledge, promising to give at least half of his fortune to philanthropic causes.[25] A report in February 2012 named Allen as the most charitable living American in 2011; Allen’s direct giving in 2011 totaled $372.6 million.[26]
LikeLike
Yes – not rather, but also
LikeLike
Wilson, first, let make it clear that I am an independent who has voted both Democrat and Republican over the last 15 years. I have no party agenda whatsoever. With that out of the way, I have to say that there are so many concerning aspects of your post that epitomize the polarized and propaganda infused political environment we find ourselves. The fact that you view people with differing views on how to approach the country’s problems as “enemies of our democracy” is disturbing. Democrats and Republicans are not enemies, we are all Americans working to improve the future for our families and future generations. There are legitimate alternatives based on research and economic foundations to the current administrations wealth re-distribution approach. However, even if you don’t agree with those approaches doesn’t mean the people who do are your “enemies”.
Second, you mention “big oil subsidies”, which is really just a generic political buzz word. One major reason that the country has a much brighter future is the energy boom that has occurred over the last 5 years. It has changed the fortunes of our economy, as we have drastically reduced our trade deficit, created a major competitive advantage with low natural gas prices, which is now attracting manufacturers back to the US. This was done because independent, entrepreneurs (not big oil) were willing to invest in new technologies to extract that oil and gas. they could afford to do that because of the ability to offset a portion of the cost of exploring for oil via the Intangible Drilling Cost write off. Without it, we likely would not be anywhere near energy independent and we would not be enjoying the benefits of cheap gas.
Third, the Democrats enjoy just as much financial support from lobby groups that have their own agenda that isn’t necessarily best for the country. How about the Trial Lawyers Lobby which adamantly opposes tort reform? Ask virtually any Doctor what the single biggest expense is for their practice and you will inevitably hear malpractice insurance. Ask them if they practice defensive medicine, prescribing tests and treatments as precautions so they don’t get sued, and most will tell you yes. Will tort reform completely solve the problem of soaring healthcare costs? no. But it would be a step in the right direction (which, by the way, the ACT does nothing to address the actual cost of care. It is an insurance bill, not a healthcare bill).
Bottom line, there is room for debate in all issues but to take an absolutist view on an issue without having a thoughtful, constructive debate and labeling anyone with a differing view as an “enemy” is a dangerous proposition that tears the country apart and solves nothing.
LikeLike