PRESIDENT BUSH CAVES ON MINIMUM WAGE
This morning in his last press conference of 2006 among many subjects that the President covered was his willingness to side with Democrats in Congress and the proposal as their first act in leadership to increase the minimum wage by more than two dollars over the next two years. While he did state that he would support it combined with tax incentives and regulatory relaxing so as not to , "hurt small business, " his support still looks to be a sign that rather than standing for sound economic principle that Bush is going to cave and compromise with Democrats which may also be an indication of how he will handle the next two years of his Presidency. If this is the case he is already a lame duck President because this type of compromise will lead to nothing more than a rubber stamp by the President to Democrat legislation and a liberal agenda.
First his contention that he will back a raise in the minimum wage combined with tax incentives and relaxing of regulations for small business is a pipe dream because Democrats will not do either. They prefer raising taxes over tax cuts and adding regulations rather than relaxing especially when associated with business. Additionally IF and again that is an unlikely IF, Democrats were to agree to tagging a minimum wage increase with tax incentives and regulatory relaxing by the time either had the ability to assist business the rise in the minimum wage would already have taken its toll both on business and the economy. It is a proven fact that raising the minimum wage damages the economy in several aspects. The increase in salary compensation that is not associated with company growth but rather by government regulation, drives consumer prices up to counter the increase thus causing inflation to rise and slow if not stagnate the economy. When employers are forced to raise wages by the government rather than by merit or promotion in the company, business' will begin making choices concerning the number of employees that they can financially handle. Either a higher wage employee will be laid off to compensate for the raise in the salaries of their minimum employees or the most likely scenario the number of lower wage employees will be decreased both by lay - off and a stoppage in hiring to compensate for the burden on the company payroll. Again having an economic effect raising the unemployment numbers as more workers will be forced onto the job market searching for new employment and less are hired. Also raising the wage is advantageous to Unions, who are big Democrat supporters, because they use the raise as leverage to force business that uses Union labor to raise worker salaries again forcing a cycle of lay-offs, cut backs and price increases. All of this has the effect of stopping any vibrant economy which we are now experiencing. Employers do not need government to step in to force them into paying employees since in a Capitalist economy salary is based on employee merit, work, seniority and other factors that are decided by the employer. Additionally as the company grows in a strong economy that employer then has the capability with expansion and growth to hire more employees at the base level which in most cases is already higher than minimum wage and the employee then has the opportunity to climb the ladder.
The deception by Democrats that the minimum wage is a living wage is the root cause that is driving this push to raise the wage by more than two dollars. Minimum wage is a starting point and the vast percentage of workers who receive it are just starting as workers for example teenagers etc. Very few who receive minimum wage use it to, "support a family, " as the Dems try to spin yet in this push to raise the wage it is being portrayed as assistance the the majority of workers. In a free Republic and Capitalist form of economy a minimum wage should not exist in the first place as every worker has the ability if they so desire to better their job situation by acquiring better skills whether through better education whthin their current job or on the job training or seeking higher education both of which also has the effect of improving their life. This compromise by the President could set a precedence for the next two years that will be disasterous for our strong economy and if it carries over to foreign policy damaging to our security and the war.
Ken Taylor
First his contention that he will back a raise in the minimum wage combined with tax incentives and relaxing of regulations for small business is a pipe dream because Democrats will not do either. They prefer raising taxes over tax cuts and adding regulations rather than relaxing especially when associated with business. Additionally IF and again that is an unlikely IF, Democrats were to agree to tagging a minimum wage increase with tax incentives and regulatory relaxing by the time either had the ability to assist business the rise in the minimum wage would already have taken its toll both on business and the economy. It is a proven fact that raising the minimum wage damages the economy in several aspects. The increase in salary compensation that is not associated with company growth but rather by government regulation, drives consumer prices up to counter the increase thus causing inflation to rise and slow if not stagnate the economy. When employers are forced to raise wages by the government rather than by merit or promotion in the company, business' will begin making choices concerning the number of employees that they can financially handle. Either a higher wage employee will be laid off to compensate for the raise in the salaries of their minimum employees or the most likely scenario the number of lower wage employees will be decreased both by lay - off and a stoppage in hiring to compensate for the burden on the company payroll. Again having an economic effect raising the unemployment numbers as more workers will be forced onto the job market searching for new employment and less are hired. Also raising the wage is advantageous to Unions, who are big Democrat supporters, because they use the raise as leverage to force business that uses Union labor to raise worker salaries again forcing a cycle of lay-offs, cut backs and price increases. All of this has the effect of stopping any vibrant economy which we are now experiencing. Employers do not need government to step in to force them into paying employees since in a Capitalist economy salary is based on employee merit, work, seniority and other factors that are decided by the employer. Additionally as the company grows in a strong economy that employer then has the capability with expansion and growth to hire more employees at the base level which in most cases is already higher than minimum wage and the employee then has the opportunity to climb the ladder.
The deception by Democrats that the minimum wage is a living wage is the root cause that is driving this push to raise the wage by more than two dollars. Minimum wage is a starting point and the vast percentage of workers who receive it are just starting as workers for example teenagers etc. Very few who receive minimum wage use it to, "support a family, " as the Dems try to spin yet in this push to raise the wage it is being portrayed as assistance the the majority of workers. In a free Republic and Capitalist form of economy a minimum wage should not exist in the first place as every worker has the ability if they so desire to better their job situation by acquiring better skills whether through better education whthin their current job or on the job training or seeking higher education both of which also has the effect of improving their life. This compromise by the President could set a precedence for the next two years that will be disasterous for our strong economy and if it carries over to foreign policy damaging to our security and the war.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 3:38 PM
27 Comments:
"Satanic American Cowards." LOL! That's rich, Ken, look at the pot calling the kettle black. Just who is it that's posting anonymously here, anyway? It isn't you or me, is it? These people are to pathetically stupid to even be insulting; they're just humerous. I believe this is the best laugh I've had all day!
I agree with you; raising the minimum wage could be very disastrous to our economy, which is doing quite well. The old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here. Why mess with something that doesn't need fixing? I am disappointed that Bush caved in on this issue. I pray to God, as you probably also do, that he doesn't cave on even more important issues such as foreign policy.
It's an awesome post, Ken. Absolutely awesome. Thanks for posting Anonymous's comment! I really needed a good laugh today.
Blessings and Merry Christmas.
Great Post Ken,
Look's like KEvron wont be the only weirdo you have to delete.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
KEvron
Minimum wage is a starting point and the vast percentage of workers who receive it are just starting as workers
And amount to 2% of the population; 98% of American workers are paid above minimum wage salaries.
Anonymous: noun; 1.pitiful excuse for a Frenchman;
2.coward that’s afraid of his own name;
3.a simple minded troll who has nothing to say of substance,
but would rather spend his/her time playing juvenile games;
4.Spineless moonbat (see also Dumocrat)
5.Proud defender of that which has no logical defense
adjective;1.spineless; 2.cowardly;
3.yellow (not to be confused with the color); 4.weak;
5.without couth; 6. of French origin;
7. disguised as French but actually German
Great analogy, Ken.
Liberals will never get it: America got to be the richest and most powerful country on earth because of limited government and because the government left the marketplace alone. Government interference in the marketplace, as in pretty much anything else, will only be injurious to the economy. The funny thing is that liberals who push all these anti-capitalism, socialist agendas on everybody else don't subscribe to them in their own private business endeavors.
Nancy Pelosi is one of the biggest hypocrites to that end.
Related, this OpEd was in yesterday's WSJ
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009407
Anonymous, I beleive in freedom of speech but with that freedom comes responsibility that you obviously do not understand. I will leave your comment this time to prove my point and for that reason only. Hate speech is not freedom of speech but irresponsible babbling by an unimaginative mind that wishes to show their lack of intelligence in debate so name calling and hate speech are all that they have left.
Anonymous can go f-himself.
He's a republican mole, paid to come here to make me and other libs look bad.
And yeah, Bush will cave when convenient. You didn't actually think he was a man of principle, did you?
That said, a win for the democrats is a win for the middle class and the country as a whole.
"In a free Republic and Capitalist form of economy a minimum wage should not exist in the first place as every worker has the ability if they so desire to better their job situation"....Amen.
Kitty dear,no, Anon is just what I always refer to when I refer to Liberals. Prime speciman.
You sure do get around the Righty blogs, becareful or someone will start thinking you're a freeper.
"Hate speech is not freedom of speech but irresponsible babbling by an unimaginative mind that wishes to show their lack of intelligence in debate so name calling and hate speech are all that they have left."
and yet you gladly indulge your conservo-pals of the very same. go figger.
and i'm with mudkitty; anon's a fraud. probably ken's own straw creation.
KEvron
or maybe anon is jenn....
KEvron
"98% of American workers are paid above minimum wage salaries."
care to give us figure for the % of americans making poverty wages?
KEvron
Ken, excellent points. Most unions contractually tie wages to the minimum wage as multiples. So a union employee who earns a base wage 3 times the MW would receive a $6/hour raise over the next two years versus the MW earner who would receive the base $2/hour raise. Any idea how that $6/hour wage increase will be financed within a business? Yup, the consumer gets to absorb the cost, because the labor force is also contractually established. Lay offs are not too likely for unionized work forces. Nice gig if you’re in on it.
Merry Christmas, Ken, to you and yours.
"Anonymous can go f-himself."
I agree.
"He's a republican mole, paid to come here to make me and other libs look bad."
You do that better than any GOP mole.
"That said, a win for the democrats is a win for the middle class and the country as a whole."
We'll believe that when they get around to actually doing something about poverty other than raising taxes and the cost of living with their minimum wage increases.
care to give us figure for the % of americans making poverty wages?
Care to explain how raising the minimum wage, affecting only 2% of the population, will help alleviate those in the lower income bracket?
Jenn, I'm just a garden variety unpaid troll. Anon is a paid troll, from your side.
Word refers to 2%? The only 2% in this country is the top 2% of the wealthy.
A min wage - a federal min wage increase will effect millions for the better.
I'm still asking for any examples of a business that was adversily effected by an increase in min wage - just one example...forget trying to find a business that went under.
"Care to explain how raising the minimum wage, affecting only 2% of the population, will help alleviate those in the lower income bracket?"
i'll take that as a "no".
in 2004, nearly 30% of the work force earned poverty-level (for a household of four) wages.
care to give us the figure for the % of jobs that pay poverty-level wages?
KEvron
"Nice gig if you’re in on it."
it's a very nice gig, one you frighties have been successfully undermining for decades (in the fifties, nearly 2 in five workeres were organized. today, it's one in twelve).
"Most unions contractually tie wages to the minimum wage as multiples."
care to back that up with citations, or did you pull that from your keester file?
KEvron
Word refers to 2%? The only 2% in this country is the top 2% of the wealthy.
And how much of the tax burden is provided by that top 2%? The top 1% pay something around 30% of the national burden and the top 10% pay around 68%. The lower 50% pay only 3%.
i'll take that as a "no".
It was actually a "yes". Around 35 million are living "in poverty". But I wanted to know how your citation of the poverty rate has anything to do with the topic of minimum wage. How does increase in the minimum wage decrease poverty levels?
in 2004, nearly 30% of the work force earned poverty-level (for a household of four) wages.
KEvron, it is a flawed figure. How does the Census Bureau define "poverty"? The poverty rate often used as a yardstick to measure with is misleading. It not fails to calculate trends in impoverishment accurately.
Today, the standard of living amongst the so-called "poor" in America means this: on average, around 46% own their homes; around 75 or 76% have air conditioning compared to around 35% 30 years ago. Many own a car and around a third of those who the Census Bureau classifies as poor own 2 or more cars. The majority of this "30%" own televisions and have cable, vcr and dvd players, and countless other luxuries only dreamt of in other countries.
A better poverty rate to measure might be not what is earned, but what is spent. When you look at spending patterns, there's a huge discrepancy between what is reported income and what is being spent by those in the lower income bracket. Today, the expenditures per person of the bottom 1/5th of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.
Most of our poor do not suffer from malnourishment. They'll die from obesity before they die from lack of food.
care to give us the figure for the % of jobs that pay poverty-level wages?
And how would you define "poverty-level wages"? Do you mean minimum wage, or something different?
Care to tell me what the sure-fire method is of avoiding a life of poverty?
"And how much of the tax burden is provided by that top 2%?"
"no, thank you" to your red herring. you want to tax the poor into even deeper poverty, that's your perverse fantasy.
"I wanted to know how your citation of the poverty rate has anything to do with the topic of minimum wage."
i didn't say "poverty rate", i said "poverty-level wages", of which the current minimum wage is certainly included.
"it is a flawed figure."
only if you continue, as you are so doing, to confuse "poverty rate" with "poverty-level wages".
"Today, the standard of living amongst the so-called "poor" in America means this"
lol!
"And how would you define 'poverty-level wages'?"
simple: wages that leave the recipient at the povertty level.
"Care to tell me what the sure-fire method is of avoiding a life of poverty?"
"sure fire"? lol! yeah, pay all workers less, and give them no healthcare benefits! am i close?
KEvron
"Care to tell me what the sure-fire method is of avoiding a life of poverty?"
yeah: be born as paris hilton.
KEvron
"no, thank you" to your red herring. you want to tax the poor into even deeper poverty, that's your perverse fantasy.
It's your side that wants to tax the nation into poverty. How does the Bush tax cuts hurt the poor, exactly?
i didn't say "poverty rate", i said "poverty-level wages", of which the current minimum wage is certainly included.
Yes, and I believe I asked for a clarification; because the topic is "minimum wage".
lol!
Roflol!
"And how would you define 'poverty-level wages'?"
simple: wages that leave the recipient at the povertty level.
The "poverty level"....yes, for years Democrats have been defining poverty up and defining wealth down. You don't agree that the living standard of the average "poor" person has gone up in the last 30 years?
Most of those making minimum wage (2% of the population) won't be making that their whole life. Surveys show that 40% of those who qualify as being poor in any given year are not poor the following year.
And why not allow the free market to decide what people should be paid?
"sure fire"? lol! yeah, pay all workers less, and give them no healthcare benefits! am i close?
You forgot to mention, "tax cuts for the rich".
At least you didn't mention Lyndon Johnson as your poverty-fighting guru.
"It's your side that wants to tax the nation into poverty."
give that strawman a good whoopin'!
"How does the Bush tax cuts hurt the poor, exactly?"
again, "no, thank you" to your red herring.
"Yes, and I believe I asked for a clarification; because the topic is 'minimum wage'."
says the guy who interjected tax burden into the discussion.
"Roflol!"
narf!
"The "poverty level"....yes, for years Democrats have been defining poverty up and defining wealth down."
ludicrously specious.
"You don't agree that the living standard of the average "poor" person has gone up in the last 30 years?"
when did i ever say that? but since you brought it up: do you pressume to discount the effects that increases in the minimum wage have had on that standard during that time span? c'mon, now; you guys say it hurts the economy, yet you turn around and insist the standard has improved regardless. pick a stance, would you?
"Most of those making minimum wage (2% of the population) won't be making that their whole life."
how many will, none the less, continue to earn poverty-level wages?
"Surveys show that 40% of those who qualify as being poor in any given year are not poor the following year."
and yet, from year to year, the number of impoverished americans increases; we seldom see a 40% decrease in a single year in the total number of poor americans, do we? i suspect some creative accounting went into that statistic.
what percntage of those who manage to rise above the poverty level one year find themselves again impoverished at a later date? how significant is the change in the sol for that 40%, immediately and over the course of their lives?
"And why not allow the free market to decide what people should be paid?"
lol! you certainly do enjoy a fallacious retort!
"You forgot to mention, 'tax cuts for the rich'."
"and 'sure fire' tax cuts for the rich." better?
"At least you didn't mention Lyndon Johnson as your poverty-fighting guru."
at least you managed to slip yet another straw man into your specious tirade. you frighties seem unable to focus.
KEvron
give that strawman a good whoopin'!
You brought it up.
again, "no, thank you" to your red herring.
I took your bait. Now you're taking it away?
says the guy who interjected tax burden into the discussion.
And you injected: you want to tax the poor into even deeper poverty, that's your perverse fantasy. into the discussion.
narf!
nyuk, nyuk
ludicrously specious.
Kind of like your response.
when did i ever say that? but since you brought it up: do you pressume to discount the effects that increases in the minimum wage have had on that standard during that time span? c'mon, now; you guys say it hurts the economy, yet you turn around and insist the standard has improved regardless. pick a stance, would you?
I don't think increasing the minimum wage will "kill us". But I don't see how it will help the economy.
how many will, none the less, continue to earn poverty-level wages?
If minimum wage is considered part of poverty-level wages, and only 2% of the population earns that much (and how many actually ever stay at that rate, if they keep their jobs?), then you probably don't even agree with the 40% increase, because in your estimation, it probably isn't enough. So what's the solution to ridding us of poverty if you are lamenting "poverty-level wages"?
and yet, from year to year, the number of impoverished americans increases; we seldom see a 40% decrease in a single year in the total number of poor americans, do we? i suspect some creative accounting went into that statistic.
This is why I mentioned about the broken yardstick of how we are measuring "poverty", and how the standard of living has gone up in the last 30 years. What in your eyes constitutes a "fair way" and not a "creative way" of measuring the standard of poverty?
Why not measure real income capita which has risen by 50% at the same time that househould income looks to be the same?
what percntage of those who manage to rise above the poverty level one year find themselves again impoverished at a later date? how significant is the change in the sol for that 40%, immediately and over the course of their lives?
I don't know. But my understanding is that the majority of "the poor" do not remain poor in this country. People who were in the bottom 20% 3 decades ago have also been at the top of the income bracket at some time in their lives since. Most Americans don't stay in just one income bracket. People who remain permanently poor all their lives constitute 1% of the population. Actually, less than 1%, I think. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know the current figures.
lol! you certainly do enjoy a fallacious retort!
Well, why should we allow the government to decide just how much people should make? Raising minimum wage is something that makes people feel good- with other people's money. People who take a job and stick to it will not find themselves earning the same amount, over time.
"and 'sure fire' tax cuts for the rich." better?
Excellent!
at least you managed to slip yet another straw man into your specious tirade. you frighties seem unable to focus.
Your comments are making me blurry-eyed.
Why should we allow the government to do anything? Because the government is comprised of "we the people."
And that's just for starters.
Do you think it's government's job to take care of "we the people", 'kitty?
Post a Comment
<< Home