Republican leaders hate workers

[FilmFestGuy]

Interesting but I don't see a response to anything posted. Why is it that liberals complaining about what people make don't take the risk, invest their own money, start their own businesses, and hire people paying them the salaries that you and others claim are a liveable wages. the answer is quite easy, it is a lot easier whining and complaining about business that you know nothing about vs. actually having your own and practicing what you preach.

And before you claim anything, my parents EACH owned their own businesses and I worked for both of them (as did about fifteen other people at any given time). I know what it means. And I know that we were successful because we paid good workers a good wage for their work. As I improved my skills in my mother's catering business, she began paying me $10 / hour in high school (in the 80s). I would give up going out with friends to work for her because she gave me motivation. If she'd paid me minimum ($3.15 at the time), I would have worked as little as possible for her (I had another job at the time as well).

Obviously, some business owners don't understand that.

 

[Conservative]

If you think Republicans are for workers, then please explain how this happened:

Median income rose as did poverty in 2007; 2000s have been extremely weak for living standards of most households

Why - with Republicans in control - was 2000 - 2007 the worst period in the last 40 years for income growth vs. inflation? The average family lost $324 over those 7 years while productivity rose an average of 2.5% per year. So the American worker was working harder than ever, but getting paid less. All the while the economy was growing. Where did the money go? Who got the money? Who got rich while workers were working harder?

I'll give the you answer: it went to the wealthiest Americans. Trends in American Income Inequality Prior to the Recession-Becker - The Becker-Posner Blog

The problem - with BOTH parties, mind you - is that we have a huge structural problem in this nation that needs serious adjustment or we're going to become a South American nation - with a small, very wealth class - and a HUGE impoverished class. Growth must occur in all percentiles of the economic scale. That didn't happen in the 2000s under Republican leadership.

I don't see returning to them as a solution for the American worker. The only solution for the American worker is continued education, innovation in the entrepreneurial classes that actually address future needs instead of relying on the same old fossil fuels, modes of transportation, and energy infrastructure.

We suck. And we're stuck.

The wealthy were supposed to invest in things and it was supposed to trickle down. They didn't. They hoarded the advantages they got under the Bush tax cuts. Income inequality was at its all time high right before the collapse (it's back, by the way)
Wealth And Inequality In America

You have to have a tax structure that encourages spending amongst the upper classes instead of rewarding hoarding. The tax cuts could have worked, but they didn't. Because the wealthy hoard. The middle classes and the working poor spend their money. The wealthy were supposed to create jobs, but they didn't. Bush's recovery from the early 2000s recession never got back to the job levels that preceded it.

But the biggest issue was income. When people work harder and get more productive and don't get paid, it means the money is being held up top. If people would have been paid increasing wages to match productivity, the recession likely wouldn't have been so bad. But they forgot the lesson of Henry Ford, pay your employees enough to buy the products you sell.

In the 1990s, taxes were raised on the top classes. They told us awful things were going to happen. They didn't. The economy improved, more jobs were created than at any point in US history. And the rich also got richer. Why? Because people were buying as their status improved. When the lower and middle classes improve, the rich naturally get richer. When the rich get richer, it stalls out right there.

The jobs bill must be passed and Republicans have to stop holding it up with their filibuster.

Republicans don't care about workers. They care about capital and wealth and will skew the market to reward hoarding over hard work.

How much are those 16 million unemployed people making today and what is Obama doing to get them back to work? What is your share of the 3 trillion dollars Obama has added to the debt? Do you really believe that it is the government's job to guarantee jobs for individuals? What exactly are you doing to create jobs for people and provide them with that liveable wage you seem so worried about?

The jobs bill that you are talking about does nothing to create jobs. Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts as to why that bill isn't being supported. As for control, Democrats have been in control of Congress from 2007 to the present, are things better or worse?

In the 90's when Clinton took charge he had the worst economic growth of his administration in 1993-94 and gave us a GOP Congress. that Congress repealed business taxes and other clinton tax increases and led to the economic growth we have. You can re-write history but you cannot change it.

 

[Redress]

\

In the 90's when Clinton took charge he had the worst economic growth of his administration in 1993-94 and gave us a GOP Congress. that Congress repealed business taxes and other clinton tax increases and led to the economic growth we have. You can re-write history but you cannot change it.

You are assuming one caused the other. There is no proof of this.

 

[Conservative]

Sorry I can't debate you because you continue to insult me.

My apology, Liberal Avenger, I was out of line with that comment.

Now I would appreciate it however if you responded to my post and in addition let us all know what you are doing to create jobs for individuals and paying them a liveable wage? DO you own a business, have you taken any risk, have you invested your own money in a business, ever have an employee steal from you or fail to show up for work forcing you to cover their job? Seems that a lot of people never have run a business so don't have a clue as to the expenses required and how difficult it is to make a living in that business. Over 80% of the businesses in this country aren't those evil corporations you and others seem to hate and very few if any of those mega corporations pay minimum wage to their employees and that includes that evil Wal-Mart

 

[ricksfolly]

I never could understand how a bunch of republican millionaires could trash American workers while receiving the most socialistic benefits on the planet. When they start cutting their own pay and benefits I may listen to the hypocrites.

Congress should make a ruling that all lobbyists be kicked out, and corporation welfare be stopped but it won't happen, both sides benefit from it.

Back in the sixties the super rich had to pay 92 percent income tax, NASA limited management to $25,000 a year, including all overtime, and Lockheed military contracts only allowed 4 percent profit.

ricksfolly

 

[Conservative]

Congress should make a ruling that all lobbyists be kicked out, and corporation welfare be stopped but it won't happen, both sides benefit from it.

Back in the sixties the super rich had to pay 92 percent income tax, NASA limited management to $25,000 a year, including all overtime, and Lockheed military contracts only allowed 4 percent profit.

ricksfolly

Liberal Avenger seems to have a problem with Republicans and the stereotype the media is spinning. Suggest Liberal Avenger find out who really is worth the most, Democrats or Republicans in Congress and just may be surprised with the outcome. Just a sample for him/her

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Average Maximum Net Worth , from a 2008 report, the top ten, 8 out of the top 10 richest Congressional Representatives were Democrats. Imagine that?

1 Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $164,650,039 $251,025,020 $337,400,002
2 Jane Harman (D-Calif) $112,318,335 $244,796,667 $377,275,000
3 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $163,510,027 $214,570,011 $265,629,996
4 Mark Warner (D-Va) $73,315,204 $209,700,598 $346,085,992
5 John Kerry (D-Mass) $158,643,501 $208,801,275 $258,959,049
6 Jared Polis (D-Colo) $50,737,134 $158,173,566 $265,609,998
7 Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) $-68,340,597 $142,432,692 $353,205,982
8 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $60,196,019 $94,306,010 $128,416,002
9 Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) $47,632,169 $74,744,094 $101,856,020
10 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $42,912,257 $72,380,637 $101,849,018

 

[Redress]

Liberal Avenger seems to have a problem with Republicans and the stereotype the media is spinning. Suggest Liberal Avenger find out who really is worth the most, Democrats or Republicans in Congress and just may be surprised with the outcome. Just a sample for him/her

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Average Maximum Net Worth , from a 2008 report, the top ten, 8 out of the top 10 richest Congressional Representatives were Democrats. Imagine that?

1 Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $164,650,039 $251,025,020 $337,400,002
2 Jane Harman (D-Calif) $112,318,335 $244,796,667 $377,275,000
3 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $163,510,027 $214,570,011 $265,629,996
4 Mark Warner (D-Va) $73,315,204 $209,700,598 $346,085,992
5 John Kerry (D-Mass) $158,643,501 $208,801,275 $258,959,049
6 Jared Polis (D-Colo) $50,737,134 $158,173,566 $265,609,998
7 Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) $-68,340,597 $142,432,692 $353,205,982
8 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $60,196,019 $94,306,010 $128,416,002
9 Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) $47,632,169 $74,744,094 $101,856,020
10 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $42,912,257 $72,380,637 $101,849,018

So apparently democrats do know about running businesses. And further, when they talk about more taxes on the wealthy, they are talking about themselves too.

 

[randel]

Interesting but I don't see a response to anything posted. Why is it that liberals complaining about what people make don't take the risk, invest their own money, start their own businesses, and hire people paying them the salaries that you and others claim are a liveable wages. the answer is quite easy, it is a lot easier whining and complaining about business that you know nothing about vs. actually having your own and practicing what you preach.

so...are you saying that there are no 'liberal' businessman or women? that there are no 'liberal' businessmen and women who have invested their own money, time, sweat and tears into a business?...are you really, really reeeeeeally saying this?

 

[Conservative]

so...are you saying that there are no 'liberal' businessman or women? that there are no 'liberal' businessmen and women who have invested their own money, time, sweat and tears into a business?...are you really, really reeeeeeally saying this?

Didn't say that at all and I believe you are smart enough to understand that. Read the post I was responding to. Seems we have a poster here who believes it is only rich Republicans in Congress. I have no problem with anyone rich, including you. The problem is too many rich people have theirs and want to keep others dependent. I have yet to see a govt. social program make any recipient rich, only dependent. The question is why do you care what someone else makes since obviously I don't nor does any other conservative?

 

[randel]

Didn't say that at all and I believe you are smart enough to understand that. Read the post I was responding to. Seems we have a poster here who believes it is only rich Republicans in Congress. I have no problem with anyone rich, including you. The problem is too many rich people have theirs and want to keep others dependent. I have yet to see a govt. social program make anyone rich, only dependent. The question is why do you care what someone else makes since obviously I don't nor does any other conservative?

there are definitely rich folk on both sides of the aisle, no doubt...

 

[Renae]

I just love that an AFL Blog post is considered worthy of discussion. It's just kool-aide for the Unions.

 

[Conservative]

And before you claim anything, my parents EACH owned their own businesses and I worked for both of them (as did about fifteen other people at any given time). I know what it means. And I know that we were successful because we paid good workers a good wage for their work. As I improved my skills in my mother's catering business, she began paying me $10 / hour in high school (in the 80s). I would give up going out with friends to work for her because she gave me motivation. If she'd paid me minimum ($3.15 at the time), I would have worked as little as possible for her (I had another job at the time as well).

Obviously, some business owners don't understand that.

Obviously business owners that don't know that fail yet they are the ones that get the negative publicity but aren't the norm. Your parents had their hard earned money invested in their business and paid their workers what they felt they could afford to pay. They got their pay last if anything was left and that is the point. People complaining about what someone else makes is normally based upon ignorance and not knowing the financial position of the employer. That doesn't stop them from whining.

I employed over a thousand and couldn't retain any employee if I wasn't competitive. I didn't need the govt. to tell me what the minimum wage was because one, I never paid it, always paid more because that is what competition dictated. Too many people don't understand business yet act like experts regarding business.

 

[randel]

I just love that an AFL Blog post is considered worthy of discussion. It's just kool-aide for the Unions.

why wouldnt it be worthy of discussion?

 

[Redress]

I just love that an AFL Blog post is considered worthy of discussion. It's just kool-aide for the Unions.

Lots of discussions on this board come from blog posts.

 

[MaggieD]

And before you claim anything, my parents EACH owned their own businesses and I worked for both of them (as did about fifteen other people at any given time). I know what it means. And I know that we were successful because we paid good workers a good wage for their work. As I improved my skills in my mother's catering business, she began paying me $10 / hour in high school (in the 80s). I would give up going out with friends to work for her because she gave me motivation. If she'd paid me minimum ($3.15 at the time), I would have worked as little as possible for her (I had another job at the time as well).

Obviously, some business owners don't understand that.

I'da paid ya' $20 an hour -- it would have let me deduct your college education. ;-)

 

[pbrauer]

Why 50K a year? Why $10 per hour? Why not 100K a year and $20/hr? think a young kid working a part time job at McDonalds is worth $10/hr? By the way in some cities that is what McDonald's pays? See you just don't get it, the market decides what to pay people. no one holds a gun to anyone's head to take a job. Shop your services and see what you can get. What you are trying to do is set wages based upon your own biases and beliefs and not letting the market work. Anytime there is a minimum wage that also serves as the maximum wage that a company has to pay in many areas when if you let the markets work the wages could be a lot higher. Supply and demand!! Get educated.

Well at least you go something right. The more people are paid, the more goods and services they purchase aka Demand. The more demand there is, the more workers are needed to supply that demand. Get it?

 

[MaggieD]

Well at least you go something right. The more people are paid, the more goods and services they purchase aka Demand. The more demand there is, the more workers are needed to supply that demand. Get it?

Ah, but it's a delicate balance. If it were that easy, we'd just pay everybody a minimum of $100,000 a year. Too much money chasing too few goods is another problem we don't want to have. There's no magic potion -- at least none that we've found so far.

 

[Redress]

MaggieD is correct here. Just bumping every one's salary to some level is a recipe for inflation, which would simply reduce the value of the money earned. There does need to be a balance point though. I don't think just relying on market forces will work effectively(if this was historically true, unions would never have been necessary, but in fact they where at one time).

 

[winston53660]

MaggieD is correct here. Just bumping every one's salary to some level is a recipe for inflation, which would simply reduce the value of the money earned. There does need to be a balance point though. I don't think just relying on market forces will work effectively(if this was historically true, unions would never have been necessary, but in fact they where at one time).

Well we have a bounty of food and shelter yet many struggle everyday just to achieve those goals. I would have to argue for a living wage in the neighborhood of 40k depending on the location eg New York City vs Twiddle de Dum Arizona.

 

[Renae]

why wouldnt it be worthy of discussion?

It's propaganda and spin maybe? I suppose as a point and laugh piece... but this is pure biased BS to fire up Union Members and liberals.

 

[Renae]

Well we have a bounty of food and shelter yet many struggle everyday just to achieve those goals. I would have to argue for a living wage in the neighborhood of 40k depending on the location eg New York City vs Twiddle de Dum Arizona.

People aren't entitled to money. You have to earn it.

 

[winston53660]

People aren't entitled to money. You have to earn it.

That is not what I said.

 

[Conservative]

Well at least you go something right. The more people are paid, the more goods and services they purchase aka Demand. The more demand there is, the more workers are needed to supply that demand. Get it?

Do you understand supply and demand? If everyone made big dollars supply couldn't keep up with demand and you would be paying $20 for a Big Mac. I don't think many here understand business at all. the largest expense of any business is payroll including all the taxes that have to be paid on that payroll. The employer is the last person paid if anything is left over and the employee doesn't have a dime invested in that business, get it now?

 

[Cold Highway]

What Republicans don't like and I agree is that special interest group called Unions claiming they represent the American worker when all they are doing is destroying the American worker. Unions were bailed out by the "stimulus" plan that has cost this country another 3 million workers and 3 trillion added to the debt.

Only the Auto workers Union (which is the most corrupt IMO) was bailout, other trade unions took their economic lumps like the rest of us did.

I never hear any republicans complaining about an unfair trade policy with COMMUNIST China.

China is Communist in name only. It's an authoritarian nation will economic policies a few steps above Europe.

Talk to the Democratic Congress. Theyu could do that in a heartbeat. ;-)

Congress shouldnt have the power to raise its own pay in the first place. This should be reserved for the American People.

 

[MaggieD]

Only the Auto workers Union (which is the most corrupt IMO) was bailout, other trade unions took their economic lumps like the rest of us did.

Not exactly true. The infrastructure spending benefited construction unions quite a bit. With projects having to be "shovel ready," most of the money went to roads. Yippee!!!! (In Chicago, road construction workers earn $40-$60 when one includes benefits. Taken from a Chicago Tribune article a while back when they were on strike. And no, I'm not going to go get a link on this one.)

Congress shouldnt have the power to raise its own pay in the first place. This should be reserved for the American People.

Well, what should be is often very different from what is.