Every now and then, I poke around the left wing of the blogosphere just to keep a modicum of awareness of what’s going on over there. It’s occasionally educational and entertaining, but mostly a waste of time. Every now and then, though, I find something that really encapsulates precisely why I don’t hang my hat there on a regular basis.
One such blogger (whom I will not name) linked approvingly to a poll (behind members-only access, I’m afraid) that listed what people think would be on the agenda if the Democrats got control of Congress — and, largely, would go along with. The list of items, of which this blogger (who styles himself a champion of the Democratic party):
- Increasing the minimum wage
- Pass legislation to provide healthcare insurance to those who do not have it
- Allow Americans to buy prescription drugs imported from other countries
- Set a time-table for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
- Conduct major investigations of the Bush administration
I actually think that’s a fair list of the Democrats’ top priorities. And they all seemed oriented towards being nice and helping people and making things right. So, why do I have a problem with every single one of them?
]]>< 
Dems have never been ‘stay the course’..They are offering the American people ‘a new direction with a strategy for victory in Iraq that includes a phased redeployment of our troops to better fight the war on terror.” according to Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton…no further questions.
See “Iraq for sale” at a venue near you.
Updat: Ken Starr hired by Blackwater Oct 28.
http://iraqforsale.bravenewtheaters.com/screening/show/8188-riverside
Posted by: Semanticleo
Seen it…own it. Incredible…sad….infuriating. Should be required viewing. No two ways about it our country and democracy is for sale by the Republicans to the Multinational corporations. THAT’S the NUMBER 1 problem for our democracy. Not terrorism, not gay marriage or illegal immigration. And the people supporting this wayward party actually think they are the patriots. Actually I think they ARE patriots just like me and you but they are so ill-informed, ignorant, closed minded, prejudiced and brainwashed they think they are doing the right thing.
Herman, here’s another vote for no minimum wage at all. The government should not be in the business of telling one private party what he has to pay another private party.
Just to see how stupid minimum wage legislation is — why don’t we just make the minimum $200/hour? Then everybody could be rich, right?
Posted by: moon6
We ARE the government. WE decide the rules for business since business CAN NOT EXIST without government….is that too deep for you.
Providing socialized medicine to all in America will sure save money. No one can see a doctor for months and most will die. The only cost that will go up is burial cost.
Posted by: Scrapiron
You say stuff like this like its factual. It’s not. You’ve made it up or are parroting what you heard from an uniformed talking head.
We are the only developed country without National Health Care.
We pay twice as much as many of these other countries and have worse outcomes.
The key is to make it a single payer system where all the government does is pay the bills but healthcare workers have to compete for your business.
You’re nothing but knee jerk Scrap….you really don’t care about the truth and honest discussions.
First of all, as nogo posted, these issues are not the Democrats’ plan. But I’ll play along.
1) Increasing the minimum wage.
Nice thought, but bad idea.
You gave no explanation at all for your “bad idea” opinion. Why is it a bad idea?
As noted by others, in states (including many red states) that have a higher minimum wage than the federal one, the economies are strong, wages are up, unemployment is unrelated. So what exactly makes it a bad idea?
It sounds like those who think about these kinds of things don’t think it’s a bad idea.
2) Pass legislation to provide healthcare insurance to those who do not have it.
Again, nice thought, but utterly impractical.
The leading plan for this is to extend Medicaid to everybody under 25. It would be an option, not a requirement, for those who do not have employer insurance. What’s impractical about that?
3) Allow Americans to buy prescription drugs imported from other countries.
This one is another feel-good idea that I have to oppose on purely ethical grounds. It’s dishonest.
Dishonest? Huh? Lots of governments have laws governing prices in their own countries. How is it dishonest to legally walk into another country and legally purchase a legal product? If it were practical, Europeans would gladly purchase their gasoline in the US, with its lower government-imposed taxes, and ship it back. Hawaiians would purchase goods on the mainland. Americans would purchase electronics in Japan. There’s nothing “dishonest” about that.
If the drug companies were hurt by that, they would need to take that up with the Canadian government, and work to either change the price controls or pull out of the market. The market works it out. Isn’t that what conservatives and libertarians are supposed to believe?
be honest about it and propose setting price controls on drugs here
We do have price controls on drugs here. They force the price to be higher than the market would demand. What kind of a cockamamie law is it to forbid negotiations with drug companies over price?
4) Set a time-table for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
I’ve said this far too many times before. One does not measure accomplishments by time, but by achievements.
There are no serious proposals from the left to say “we’ll be out on June 1; have a nice day”. All proposals involve setting a timeline for achieving specific goals and withdrawal. Bush was against timelines, before he was for them.
5) Conduct major investigations of the Bush administration.
Interesting idea. I guess since Halloween is so close, it’s a good time to bring up witch hunts.
What you call “witch hunts” the Constitution calls oversight.
Muirgeo, of course business can occur without the government. It’s called the black market and it in some ways is a purer form of commerce than that which occurs under many of the more onerous regulations/ subsidies, etc. that business operates under today. And those regulations and subsidies have come from BOTH sides of the aisle.
Yes and how many of those academic economists have ever run a major corporation? How many just pull their “academic” salary every year and probably have never been anything more than some consultant at a business?
Right, because in the question of whether to enact a higher wage, we should rely more on the thoughts of those who would have to pay it, rather than 22 state economies, 5 Nobel prize winners, and 600 economists who have spent their entire professional lives studying the effects of wage increases on economies throughout modern history.
Heh, next you’ll be suggesting that we ask oil company executives what action we should take on global warming! Oh, wait…
Herman or any of the others adovacting minimum wage..
I’d like to hear a reasoned response to the following:
Why shouldn’t the minimum wage be $100/hr ? Or should it ?
_Mike_, your question will be answered when you answer this one:
Bush says lower taxes are better. Why shouldn’t the tax rate be 0%? Or should it?
For all the lofty rhetoric and hefty academic credentials being tossed around, no one can answer my two fundamental questions about the minimum wage:
1) How many people are hired at minimum wage jobs?
2) How many of those people work an entire year at that job without a raise?
Those are the people who would be most directly affected by a raise in the minimum wage, but nobody seems to have the slightest clue how many there are.
J.
Jay, as of 2004, acording to the US Dept of Labor half million American workers were receiving the minimum federal wage of $5.15 an hour another million half workers, less than the minimum wage.
no one can answer my two fundamental questions about the minimum wage:
Really, Jay, your Googling skills are faltering.
But your questions are red herrings. The issue isn’t the number of people making exactly the 1997 minimum wage. As an extreme example, someone who was hired 9 years ago at $5.20 and has since gotten a raise to $5.30 would not be counted in either of your questions.
Yes, it should. That’s why you’d get a national sales tax and the ridiculous *personal* income tax nightmares (and their ever growing code books) would vanish.
That isn’t a rate of 0. That’s just substituting one tax for another.
Brian
“There is a growing view among economists that the minimum wage offers substantial benefits to low-wage workers without negative effect. Although there are still dissenters, the best recent research has shown that the job loss reported in earlier analyses does not, in fact, occur when the minimum wage is increased.”
Unadulterated BS. Any non-market imposed price has direct consequences. To raise the price of a real good (and labor behaves in a real fashion) above the level set by the market will result in no-takers, that is, some people who would have had jobs now don’t.
“An analysis of the Massachusetts minimum wage increase in 2000 and 2001 found that employment in two of the sectors (leisure and hospitality and other services) with a high percentage of minimum wage workers grew more rapidly following the 2000-01 increase than other sectors in Massachusetts as well as growing faster than the national average for those sectors (McLynch 2004, 22).”
It’s very convenient that they chose recession years of 2000 and 2001 to note that the incomes rose more rapidly thereafter. This statement is most likely true after any recession. And yes, the “Bush” recession started in August 2000. It appears that the well researched data yielded results that conveniently matched the objectives of the Economic Policy Institute.
Steve, Brian, you’re getting closer, but your numbers still don’t answer what I was asking. I know a lot of people make minimum wage. I know that raising it will boost the wages of a lot of people. But my questions remain:
1) Of those who make minimum wage, how many make that and do NOT get raises within a year of hiring?
2) What percentage of those who will get raises from hiking the minimum actually MAKE the minimum, and don’t receive a contractually-guaranteed multiple of the minimum?
It is my suspicion that the number of people who make minimum wage, and don’t get raises after hiring, is relatively small. And the more statistics you cite, the more I believe it because those numbers never seem to be reported.
It’s not that complicated a question: how many people are currently “stuck” at making minimum wage? I have no problems believing that the NUMBER of people making it remains fairly constant, but that doesn’t take into account the turnover in the work force, as people enter into it (taking the entry-level jobs that pay minimum), progress up the pay ranks, and eventually leave it.
J.
I think this list of 5 provided by the self-identified Democrat is very close to what the Dims want. Quick comments in bold…
1. Increasing the minimum wage
Our econony is the strongest in the world right now, having shaken off hits that would have collapsed pretty much any other. So naturally the Dimocrats want to FIX it!!
2. Pass legislation to provide healthcare insurance to those who do not have it
With Canada, Britain and France as examples of this “idea”, I think this one collapses under its own weight…kinda like those three “health care” systems
3. Allow Americans to buy prescription drugs imported from other countries
Perfect!! American pharmaceutical companies are far and away the most successful, in curative powers, providers of new medical treatments in the world. Why? Because they are [gasp] allowed to make a profit!! Let’s encourage off-shore rip offs of their discoveries. And let’s encourage import of untested drugs based on them!
4. Set a time-table for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
John F. Kennedy, inaugural address 1/21/64: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
5. Conduct major investigations of the Bush administration
in the dictionary under “Witch Hunt” it says “see Conyers“. Yup.
The Dims want to “fix” what isn’t BROKEN! Emulate those who envy US! And try to secure “Peace in Our Time” in the manner of Neville Chamberlain!!
Vote Republican…there’s a LOT at stake!!!
It’s very convenient that they chose recession years of 2000 and 2001 to note that the incomes rose more rapidly thereafter.
It didn’t say incomes rose. It said job growth increased.
OK, how about a study in the booming ’90s, then? Take your pick.
Unadulterated BS. Any non-market imposed price has direct consequences. … some people who would have had jobs now don’t.
Let’s encourage off-shore rip offs of their discoveries. And let’s encourage import of untested drugs based on them!
Hey genius, it would be the actual American-made drugs, not untested ripoffs.
I doubt anyone who reads this blog works for the minimum wage, yet I’d bet over 90% did at one time in their life.
The last time I worked for the minimum wage was back in 1978 as a teenager. I worked hard and received a raise. I finished high school, went to college, while working, all the time at higher than the minimum wage. As my skills increased, my VALUE to the employer increased and so have my wages.
For those who sit on their asses, drop out of school, the minimum wage is too good, but the libs want to take care of these “victims”.
They are victims alright, victims of liberal ideology and the nanny state.
Get educated, get a job and the minimum wage becomes a non-issue.
It is the worker making $10 an hour or less that buys things. They do not have 401’s or even savings accounts. They spend everything they make.
It is clear no one here depends on a good paying($14-$20 an hour) “factory” job to support their family but many Americans do. When a company like Ford shuts down a plant those workers scramble for any job even min. wage during transition.
I am simply stunned by the lack of compassion expressed on this board. No one is immune to sudden changes..Everyone needs… deserves assistence in the aftermath of this change….
..”Get educated”?…Well here in Colorado tuition has gone up 20% in four years(private schools higher)..cost of Federal Loans doubled in the past year and a half..jobs the average student takes while they are going to school has stayed the same.
Jay Tea,
Why don’t you get off your lazy behind and find the answers to your own questions by yourself, rather than expect others to do it for you?
Because, Herman, as the side that wants to change things, the onus is on you to prove your point. “Change” should NEVER be the default. If you can’t argue WHY something should be changed and answer reasonable questions about them, then you don’t DESERVE to win your argument.
J.
Brian, okay, I’ll bite:
“Some economists say the 1997 increase had no impact on job growth.”
“We saw no ripple effect at all in the unemployment rate,” Stiglitz says. “Unemployment just continued to go down.” The minimum wage increase, he said, “was totally swamped by other factors going on in the economy.”
In other words the loss in jobs due to the increase in minimum wage was offset by the otherwise fast growing economy.
I stand corrected in my earlier post. I wrote “incomes” instead of “job growth”. The idea is the same, however. Job growths would be higher when coming out of a recession. The question is, would they be higher still without the wage hike? I think so.
Brian: “Hey genius, it would be the actual American-made drugs, not untested ripoffs.”
Brian…thx for the compliment!!
After you finish watching (for the 23rd time) your Chinese rip-off version of “The Hulk”…and cursing at the grainy nature of it…you might consider that many of the drugs ripped-off overseas for production do NOT come close to American standards!!
Cheers!
Not able to comment on an ongoing basis on this thread but coming in late I can see there are still people wandering in the wilderness and continue to believe that what this government is doing is all for the common good. Heck. my own brothers and sisters, all of us highly educated, world travelled and caring about our children and grandchildren still think the cure for this nation’s ills will be found in the way we are presently being governed, myself excluded.
Both sides are crooked and corrupt. It just so happens that one side has a practiced, well refined organizational structure built on malicious intent that far outstrips the oraganizational ability of the other.
Don’t look for your government to provide anything. Nothing. The rich have what they want. All the power and all the money. It’s loaded up in the top 5%.
Read and educate yourselves. This democracy is old news. Look to your new authoritarians and remember a day when your life meant something more than a bottom line.
Foolish Americans……..
And thank you Brian for your erudite commentary……facts can be damnable obstacles when presented with such grace. Your scholarly argument is a pleasure to read amongst the immutable rhetoric of the right.
civil behavior: “Foolish Americans……..”
Thanks for excluding yourself…saves me the trouble!
civil behavior:
If the rich and their corporations are as powerful as you say, then how did people like Sam Walton and Michael Dell come from nowhere, and steal the customers so effectively from established corporations?
Keep in mind how both these guys started out … Sam with one store in Rogers, AR; Michael in his college dorm room.
OTOH, many Americans have been inhibited from emulating such success on even a small scale, because they have bought the biggest lie ever told by politicians … far bigger than any “lie” the moonbats have tried to pin on the current President:
All you have to do … is get “a” job. We’ll make sure your future is taken care of from there.
That lie gave millions a false sense of security, that led them away from taking control of their own financial security by “thinking like businessmen” themselves.
Instead of planning for contingencies and the future, striving to maintain and increase the market value of their work, and continually look for that “better offer”, too many thought that simply having a job was all they needed to worry about — after all, they could trust a big corporation, or their union, or the government, to do the right thing.
Thanks to that lie, they indentured themselves to one business … and whenever the owners of that business screwed up, or whenever the competition performed better, or whenever technology rendered that business obsolete, or whenever worker productivity decreased … they suffered right along with it.
If these people had been introduced to reality early on, instead of idealism, they would have the means to smooth out the economic and career bumps already … and the minimum wage would be even less of an issue.
But that would require people to accept responsibility for their own lives … which is anathema to those who, in their idealism, think that life (paricularly, their own) should be No-Fault, unless one’s pockets are beyond a certain depth.
**********
As for the comments on universal health care, consider the following:
1> Are you satisfied with our public-education system? If not, then how do you think that a public-healthcare system will ever avoid the same or similar shortcomings as seen in education?
2> It is ironic that the most vocal supporters of abortion-on-demand … who say they don’t want the government to dictate what goes on in their bodies … are among the most vocal supporters for a healthcare system where that same government has total control of not just funding, but the actual delivery of healthcare … in effect, subordinating the care and maintenance of one’s health to the government.
you might consider that many of the drugs ripped-off overseas for production do NOT come close to American standards!!
Well, I don’t really care about those drugs, since those aren’t relevant to this conversation. Perhaps you should read again the comment that you ignorantly interpreted as a compliment, and perhaps then you will understand the discussion that the adults are having.
Jay, please elaborate on your questions, and explain why they are relevant. Why does being stuck at exactly the minimum wage matter? Why is it important to know that someone got a raise above $5.15 if you don’t care whether that raise was to $7.50 or $5.20?
If you can’t argue WHY something should be changed and answer reasonable questions about them, then you don’t DESERVE to win your argument.
As indicated earlier, raising the wage would benefit a wide range of earners, not just those earning exactly $5.15. Your questions, while perhaps interesting, do not negate that point.
In other words the loss in jobs due to the increase in minimum wage was offset by the otherwise fast growing economy.
Nothing in what you cited indicated that there was any “loss in jobs”. You just made that part up.
Job growths would be higher when coming out of a recession.
Well, I gave you recession-era studies and boom-era studies. You hand-waved both away. That doesn’t leave anything left for me to comment on.
The minimum wage shouldn’t even exist, much less be raised. It is a socialist construct with no place in a federal republic. I would vote to abolish it in a heartbeat.
The six hundred plus academic economists and five others from the Nobel crowd are nothing but socialists and marxists who have never run a business. That’s why they are academics living off the public dole. Pull the plug on their tenure and let them face real competition for their employment. Give them ten years living like that, then … I might give them the time of day.
Don’t be fooled by the top five on the public list.
The libs will also be coming after our guns again. On the Pelosi list, I would bet guns to be in the top three.
Get the guns, the rest of the agenda is cake to implement.
Brian, it’s simple. You seem to see the minimum wage as a static thing, where workers are trapped at making that and no more. I see it as a floor, the lowest possible starting point.
Nearly all the time the minimum wage is brought up, those advocating its change extrapolate that wage into an annual income. I believe, and it’s based on personal observations, that very, very few workers actually fit that — that they get a job that pays minimum wage and stay at that pay scale for an entire year so their income matches that projected amount. As I said, even the local McDonald’s and Wal-Mart start their workers at least a couple of bucks above minimum wage. Furhter, nearly every employer evaluates new hires after a probationary period (90 days seems standard), and those that are retained are usually given a raise of some sort. So any argument based on the annual income of someone who makes minimum wage all year is based on a largely false assumption.
So, who would benefit by a raise in the minimum wage? Mostly, it would be union members whose pay is based on multiples of the minimum wage or “prevailing wages.” And who would suffer? The companies that currently pay their workers at a rate between the existing minimum wage and the new wage. They will have to give across-the-board raises to all their workers who fall in that gap. And at that point, they will probably have to cut back on the number of people they employ who fit that category.
So, in order for some people to feel good and be able to say that they did the right thing, and others to artificially improve their own lot by changing the basis for their own compensations, a bunch of people at the lower end of the wage scales — those least likely to be able to handle it — will take it in the shorts. Sorry, I just don’t think that’s a fair tradeoff.
J.
Brian: “perhaps then you will understand the discussion that the adults are having“
Sorry, boyo, your bleats do not rise to the level of “adult conversation”.
As for the “compliment”…oops, I forgot, Leftists do not believe sarcasm can ever be applied to them. Do you understand acronyms? FOAD.
Sorry, boyo, your bleats do not rise to the level of “adult conversation”.
My bleats were at least relevant bleats, addressing the salient point of the discussion. Your irrelevant response simply indicated that you didn’t understand the exchange in any basic way.
Leftists do not believe sarcasm can ever be applied to them.
Ha! You did a pretty good job of missing the sarcasm yourself, buddy.
I believe, and it’s based on personal observations, that very, very few workers actually fit that — that they get a job that pays minimum wage and stay at that pay scale for an entire year
While you may be right, and it may be inaccurate to project out an annual income that may not exist, that’s a minor point. It doesn’t matter if you stay at $5.15 for a year or get upped to $5.90 after six months. You would still benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.20.
So, who would benefit by a raise in the minimum wage?
15 million people making under $7.20.
And at that point, they will probably have to cut back on the number of people they employ who fit that category.
There have been a number of studies and real-world observations (many posted in this thread) that do not support the statement that minimum wage increases lead to increases in unemployment.
In the spirit of the anouncement that the US population has passed 300 million, I propose that the minimum wage be lowered and that UHC be removed from anyone’s agenda. This would cause many millions to starve, and many millions more will die from health related issues. The population would dip back down below 300 million and I’d feel less crowded and more comfortable.
Are you really that afraid to say my name, Jaytea?