Audio: Rush versus Schwarzenegger on RINOism
posted at 6:04 pm on March 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
A timely debate given Rudy McRomney’s ascendancy to the head of the conservative class. I haven’t “sold out” to liberals, Arnold seems to say, I merely prefer the results I get when I adopt their policies. I guess that’s better than him saying he moved left because he desperately craves their approval, but as comforts go, that one is ice, ice cold.
Giuliani supporters had better make peace with this reasoning. New York’s doing its best to stack the deck in his favor, but the nomination won’t hinge on us.
Full audio and transcript at Rush’s joint. I recommend reading it, especially if health care is your pet issue.
Note: the clip has been edited.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
As Rush went on to say “consensus politics”.
When will RINOs understand that you can not satisfy Liberals or Islamists – you just make them hungry for more compromise.
It should never matter what people think of you. In that respect, I wish “the Terminator” had one tenth of the guts that Rush has.
uptight on March 21, 2007 at 6:16 PM
When you pay the Danegeld…. you just get more Dane’s.
jeffshultz on March 21, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I agree with Governator that increasing the minimum wage is effective in improving the condition of those at the lower end of the earning scale.
There is one major weakness that the Republican party has, and the reason they are held back in poltical influence and power. The Republican party has consistently favored wealthy and corporate interests to the deterement of the nation and it’s citizens. If the Republican party would change that one stand, favor to wealthy and corporate interests at the expense of the nation, they would have overwhelming support.
Bush’s actions are a classic example of why many believe that the Republicans favor wealthy and corporate intersts. He favors the illegal alien in immigration not because of good to the nation but because it is an economic advantage to corporate and wealthy interests. The federal unemployment insurance funds were overfunded and he still denied additional relief to the unemployed. His “tax reforms” are designed to give advantage to the wealthy at the expense of the nation and those that are less able to pay. Elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax and Inheritance Taxes are more examples of wealthy interests being favored over those that are less able to contribute.
I am deeply grateful Bush did not get his greedy hands on Social Security – those that need that relief the most would surely suffer. Hoover and Bush seem to have a lot in common – and many of the reasons for their lack of support are the same.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 6:30 PM
You’re wrong. I wrote an explanation why a few years ago. Go read that, then come back here and discuss where you think I’m wrong.
The Monster on March 21, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Monster:
Some demand for lower skilled workers will be lost with increase in minimum wage but it is minimum. At minimum wage labor demand is to great degree inflexible.
Even small incrases in income for people making minimum wage is of great significance. The end result is that more people have more spending power and mimimum impact is made on employment figures.
Monster – you are DEAD WRONG in application of economics 101 concepts to the benefit of wealthy interests at the expense of that need the income the most. This is a classic example of why the Republican Party is not enjoying overwhelming support – favor the wealthy at the expense of the nation and those who need an increase in income the most.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Rush’s is correct in pointing out Government does best when it’s least involved.
The Governator view seem 180 degrees out of phase with conservatism. I don’t agree with his health care and minimum wage position either. Treating illegal immigration problem as if these people deserve the same rights as those legal immigrants is completely wrong. Arnold’s views are typical leftist. Somebody’s got to pay for this, and it the taxpayer.
If minimum wage is not good enough, get a better job, get educated, why should my tax dollars supplement their lack of effort.
Kini on March 21, 2007 at 7:05 PM
What is the basis for this assertion? Do you think that businesses won’t decide that there’s a certain wage level at which it pays better to invest their money in equipment to make their employees more productive, and therefore need less of them at the higher wage? Do you have any clue how small the net profits of most small businesses are? Have you ever managed a small retail business?
And I’m not favoring the wealthy. I’m supporting the poor people who are legislated into unemployment by their alleged benefactors. I’m supporting the ethnic minority teenagers whose lack of education leaves them unable to contribute anything that could earn the minimum wage in most businesses. The only time raising the minimum wage doesn’t increase unemployment is when equilibrium is above the new minimum anyway.
Let me repeat here what I said in my essay:
The law doesn’t guarantee that anyone who wants a job at $x/hr will get one, it only says that it’s illegal to make anything less. If you believe that someone is better off unemployed than making anything less than some magic amount per hour, then this may make sense to you.
The Monster on March 21, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Can I steal this?
Valiant on March 21, 2007 at 7:08 PM
“Rudy McRomney”
Someone came up with that at CPAC.
It might have been AllahPundit for all I know.
Free Constitution on March 21, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Judging from the buzz, it’ll be Rudy McRomney v. Thompson.
And while I’m right here, this talk of “the wealthy” just fries me. At least in a free economy, “the wealthy” is not a fixed set. There are the wealthy, the formerly wealthy and the hoping to be wealthy. I don’t trust the government to determine how and when those things happen.
kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 7:35 PM
It seemed like Arnold was trying to say that by making everyone have to pay for healthcare, he’d be lowering the individual’s costs as the individual’s insurance would only pay the costs associated with himself, rather than paying for himself and subsidizing all the uninsured as the current system does.
I think a better idea would be to create a mechanism where we could shift the cost of the illegals healthcare back to their country of origin. Let their taxpayers and insurors pay the costs. Its probably not possible, but it’d be nice.
My problem with the govenator is that his approach in effect rewards law braking. On top of the whole socialized medicine issue, of course.
Iblis on March 21, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Agree completely. Your essay lays it out. If I can add to that a generalized observation of what’s going on – on the street right now:
Don’t think many people are aware of how many idle youth we have right now, especially High School age. The first cuts with small businesses, where youths acquire their first work experience, which they would build on for better jobs later, are in the low end jobs. Small employers cannot afford the higher and higher minimum wages – artificially set by remote bureaucrats for any and all industries. People are arguing, “How big a deal is 50 cents more or a dollar?” Say an employer pays $5 an hour times 8 hours = $40 a day, $200 a week. Now, make that $6 x 40 = $240 a week. That’s $160 more a month out of the employer’s pocket per person per month. The employer ALSO has additional costs that rise with the rise in wages, which minumum wage proponents do not discuss whatsoever, as if money grows on trees. If an employer has five employees at $5 per hour and now must pay $6 for the exact same work, zero increase in production or sales – the employer either has less profits – to the point of going out of business or is forced to raise the price of his service/product or fire someone and try to do the same work with fewer. Usually, someone gets fired. So much for helping the poor and entry level youth. Fewer jobs, higher employer costs. Sounds like a recipe for inflation, another “wonderful” effect to be “enjoyed” most fully by the poor.
The minimum wage is a central government meddling of a free and open market.
naliaka on March 21, 2007 at 7:39 PM
It would appear that many here do not approve of increase in minimum wage, if they approve of a minimum wage at all. It would also appear that these people would prefer Laissez-Faire economics to limited government involvement. Profit at all cost regardless of consequence. It would appear that we have Ferengi in our midst here at Hot Air.
Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, recognized how irresponsible and repressive such policy is. Monopolies that gouged everyone they could to the detriment of the nation, Carnegie with deadly labor strife in response to irresponsible working conditions, workers provided with no compensation for work related injuries in unsafe workplaces, and compensation in company towns that amounted to economic slavery seem to be what the Ferrengi have in mind.
One doesn’t have to go very far to find evidence to support the conclusion that increase in minimum wage does not have significant impact on employment numbers. Consider:
But economists don’t generally forecast a major impact on any sector.
“Whatever the effect is, it’s not very large,” said David Gleicher, a labor economics expert at Adelphi University. “First of all, minimum wage workers are a very small percentage of the whole labor force. … It’s almost impossible for it to have a major effect.”
Fewer than 2 percent of all men and about 3.6 percent of women paid hourly make the minimum wage, according to BLS data.
Many, most, small business owners will milk their employees for every dime, and period of time, they can get. If they don’t like an increase in a livable wage for those that need it the most then they can close their business and look for a job – hopefully at a higher wage than what they would have paid. For those small business owners that have lived for so long on fat margins enjoyed from people who were hard pressed to pay their prices, and their policies on wage and hours to employees, I wish a Walmart on their doorstep. Listen carefully, you might hear the world’s smallest violin playing for them.
To those that think that “if minimum wage is good enough get another job”, they are naïve. Often those jobs are the only ones they can get. If anything lower minimum wage decreases government burden because those making minimum wage are so far below the poverty line they qualify for government assistance.
The Bottom Line: Moderate minimum wage increases are good for the worker who needs the income the most, has marginal effect on unemployment, and benefits the nation by providing income for those below the poverty line and may otherwise be entitled to government assistance.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 7:41 PM
The Rules of Acquisition to quote a Ferengi are the only rules.
Kini on March 21, 2007 at 7:42 PM
If everyone gets insurance…everyone will have to pay in another way because the government will tax you in other ways to supplement giving insurance. It is a bait and switch.
tomas on March 21, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Ooops, made a mistake in typing.
If anything higher minimum wage decreases government burden because those making minimum wage are so far below the poverty line they qualify for government assistance.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Omegraram, I bet you think that your employer pays half of your Social Security.
Good grief… when will you people learn that by increasing the minimum wage, you’re decreasing the value of that wage? Government-imposed artificial, across the board wage hikes increase costs. Increased costs devalue wages. It’s called logic. The minimum wage is graft, pure and simple.
Far better is to get rid of the minimum wage altogether and allow employers to pay their employees what they’re worth.
spmat on March 21, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Omegaram, are you being deliberately dense?
You’ve confirmed exactly what I said above:
By your own admission, the minimum wage directly affects only a few percent of the workforce. So how can it be “effective in improving the condition of those at the lower end of the earning scale” as you originally stated?
If you look further at the BLS data, you’ll find that the tiny fraction of people who earn minimum wage right now are mostly people with no skills, who haven’t held their current job for very long.
An interesting look at the correlation between minimum wage and teen unemployment is this graph
The Democrats are complaining that the minimum wage has gone a long time without being raised. And in January of this year, a new record was set for the number of employed people in the country. That is not a coincidence.
The Monster on March 21, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Elimination of the AMT means that a mechanic and his schoolteacher wife in Chicago don’t get hit with extra taxes because their combined incomes are considered ‘rich’ to the IRS.
Elimination of the Inheritance Taxes means that family farms in Iowa don’t have to mortgage the house and barn to pay for the hit taken when Daddy dies after a soul-crushing and expensive battle with cancer.
Darn those e-e-e-e-e-e-e-evil Republicans and their tax cuts for the wealthy!
ScottMcC on March 21, 2007 at 8:07 PM
The lower end of the scale isn’t working under the law.
Pablo on March 21, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Laughing too hard to comment! Perfect.
Zorro on March 21, 2007 at 8:17 PM
I have a strong feeling that Teddy Roosevelt would have looked at things a lot differently if he had lived in a time when entry level / low wage jobs were taken up by illegal immigrants and free market had somehow come to mean huge corporations using sweat shop labor in third world countries to make huge profits to buy politicians in America so they’ll pass laws designed to destroy traditional America before our very eyes.
Buzzy on March 21, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Why does anyone really have the idea in thier head that a law making something illegal, automatically creates something else that is desired – free out of nowhere! Making it illegal to get a job at certain pay rates doesn’t magically create free money.
Now maybe you can argue it is a necessary Robin Hood socialist policy for the greater good, but those in favor of minimum wage dont do that. They pretend free money is being created.
Resolute on March 21, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Free market is scary ain’t it? The abundance of labor for a job defines the price. At the moment, there are not enough workers for entry-level jobs – the local fast food joints in my scruffy town are offering $10 an hour, desperate for staff. How much do you want to pay for a Big Mac anyway? Would you want to pay for one large cheese pizza from Dominos at $40? That’s what it costs in Geneva, Switzerland. $40 for ONE Dominos Cheese Pizza. Plain. The working poor will love those prices.
Only people who read Howard Zinn credulously would say laissez-faire with such a sneer. It isn’t a dirty word. It means allowing the market to come to a price that the BOTH workers and the employers can live with for a particular job.
That’s a parochial, narrow-minded, rigid and one-sided view of economics and the market. Employers who push profits as everything usually end up out of business. If one wants good people, sensible employers try to keep them, through a package of hourly pay, hours, location, benefits, perks, whatever. It’s not always the cash money that makes the deal, that contract between employeee and employer. Each employer comes up with some way that works – tailored for their market – the one they must sell in, and the market in which they must find people to train and invest in to work for them. It is nonsense for people who have no idea how to produce a particular product or service to insist on forcing those to adhere to an arbitray level of minimum payment. On what basis does one arrive at a figure? It’s guesswork.
Ah … what’s a Ferengi?
And who’s “we?” and “our midst” as if there was a conspiracy of … of, dunno. Just debating about minimum wages not being all they have cracked up to be, not advocating say, indentured servitude of the likes of modern Japan where parents sign their children to 99-year mortgages for a crummy flat in Tokyo.
naliaka on March 21, 2007 at 8:40 PM
This thread gives good example why the Left will probably win federal political control in the next election. We have Ferengi who are more interested in protecting the interests of the wealthy and corporate interests than compassion for fellow Americans who barely make enough to survive. Look to these Ferengi when considering why conservatives do not have the political power to lead this nation to strength on important issues when it really counts. For the sake of begrudging pennies to less than 5% of Americans who are paid minimum wage the Left is give major political advantage.
Increasing the minimum wage does not contribute significantly to inflation that would reduce the value of that wage. We are not talking about increase in wage for all workers, only those that make the least amount that can be paid to a person working legally in the United States, less than 5%.
Paying employees “what they are worth” in a Laissez-Faire economy results in working conditions and wages for many that are being experienced in China and many third world nations. The disparity of income increases, the middle class erodes, and those with wealth do not hesitate to take advantage of those that seek work to make a living. If you want a Laissez-Faire (Yes, that is a very dirty word that only a Ferengi would think is acceptable) economy with the fat Roman sitting on the backs of the slaves and considering this the natural order, go to a third world country where lack of government controls make it a reality. If you want to stay in the United States there are rules that minimize exploitation to such a degree, like it or not.
Wage equilibrium is not uniform in the United States and varies to great degree depending on geographic location. Wages are also inflated in some areas that have higher cost of living than other areas, such as San Francisco. The bottom line is that moderate increase in minimum wage does not significantly increase unemployment, the demand schedule is relatively inflexible.
Alternative minimum tax is a method of requiring those who make more to pay more for the government that makes our life in the United States possible. Elimination of this tax favors the wealthy at the expense of those who are less able to contribute. If you don’t like the threshold of the AMT then change it, but the AMT is here to stay, get used to it. The logic is sound: The wealthy enjoy a lifestyle that is made possible by our government that needs support, they pay a higher share of support because others are not able to without great financial distress. The inheritance tax works the same way. If you want Iowa farmers worth millions in assets to be protected, even though they could engage in financial planning and buy life insurance to avoid the problem anyway, then make an exemption. Poor Babies, they must pay tax on their valuations on over 1 million dollars. The rest of us should have such a problem.
OK, whose next? Taking all Farengi on because they are one of the big reasons the Left has so much federal political control.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 9:06 PM
By your argument, ome, the Left should have controlled the government lock, stock and barrel for the past 80 years, since arguments like yours have been their stock and trade. Good think they haven’t. It’s folks like you that have to be fought tooth and nail to keep this country above water and out of the morass of socialist malaise.
Oh, and please keep up the Star Trek references. They really make your arguments sound more cogent.
spmat on March 21, 2007 at 9:14 PM
omegaram – you sound like a marxist. You obviously have no experience in the real world.
TheBigOldDog on March 21, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Sounds like Hot Air is as infested with Progressive ‘droids as FRee Republic.
Oh well. it’s just the price of having a free and open society… until socialism wrings its neck and substitutes its own code of conduct and policies.
normsrevenge on March 21, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Reference to “Ferengi” provides a reference that seems so appropriate, and accurate, to those that value profit and Laizze-Fair exploitation to a degree that is not consistent with the laws, and values of the majority, in the United States. The appearance of such a fictional creature, and the culture that has been created to describe them, seems to capture the essence of human individuals that value profit to a degree that is repugnant to those with good common sense.
The visual image, along with the Rules of Acquisition, are a method of making the point clearly and with humor. The graphics and humor mask the distaste that many feel for an individual with these values, an individual who does not either understand or care about the desperate poverty that so many Americans experience every day. Poverty that makes them count their last quarter for a cup of coffee, that denies health care to alleviate suffering, that creates conditions that makes life a struggle for one moment to the next, and that makes hope a cherished vision for a better future.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 9:33 PM
I have a question, are Union wages are tied to the minimum wage? If so, then the Democrat desire to increase the minimum wage seems to make more sense. They can’t be pandering to people who make the minimum wage because most of those people don’t even vote.
Troy Rasmussen on March 21, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Why is it so expensive to live in San Fran? Taxes are extremely high in San Fran and California in general. The local median income in the Bay Area is well over $70K per year, meaning the AMT hits working families–dock workers that need overtime just to pay for their kids’ soccer jersey and gas to get them to the games on Saturday.
The AMT isn’t indexed to inflation and has been around since before I was born… what was considered ‘rich’ in the Swingin’ 70s barely scrapes into the middle class in 21st Century San Fran.
The AMT’s 27% tax hit on top of the 9% CA state income tax and other Federal income taxes isn’t the noble equalization of income disparities between the dock worker and the grossly overpaid software company execs in San Francisco, it’s hurting the dock worker’s family.
If a Republican is the person wanting dock workers in San Fran to keep more of the money they earn in order to care and nurture their own children, then I am a Republican.
ScottMcC on March 21, 2007 at 9:36 PM
If the AMT does not seem fair because of regional differences in expenses then advocate change that takes this factor into account.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 9:39 PM
have a question, are Union wages are tied to the minimum wage?
Of coarse. That’s why the unions are always pushing for MW increases. then they go into their next contract negations with a new base. It’s an old game. Some even have escalators built into existing contracts. You can’t artificially set any prices or wages w/o it having ripple affects.
Companies get to a point where they can no longer compete and they have to move or go bankrupt. Then, all those people are on the street fighting for fewer and fewer opportunities. But hey, the minimum wage was raised and the government “cares.”
TheBigOldDog on March 21, 2007 at 9:51 PM
The income tax as a fund raising tool has jumped the shark a national 7.65% flat tax on income would be – no wait – we already have that….
Actually – eliminate – the social security tax and the personal income tax as well as reduce corporations tax rates and replace it with a 10% vat tax anything coming or going into America;s 12 to 17 trillion marketplace gets bumped 10%
Everyone pays, everyone pays in the proportion that they consume.
Nothing more fair than that and them also add a 1 dollar a gallon gasoline tax to keep it green and remove peoples rights to enjoy their new money and prosperity
EricPWJohnson on March 21, 2007 at 9:56 PM
A meaningless exchange of pabulum pleasantries with tap-dancing galore from two guys who like cigars, and nothing more.
Arnold is the compleat political opportunist; Rush a fellow who doesn’t want to alienate a Big Star- at least not to his face (or live voice).
Instead of asking why Arnold doesn’t enforce the laws of the land he swore to uphold and defend, and begin to arrest deport illegal aliens who are breaking the basic law of the law (invading the country) and leeching off the welfare system (destroying the medical, scholastic and educational stucture of a once-stable state), “El Rushbo” did a timid tango of faux chumminess.
Sounded as weak as Bush.
Maybe there’s a Republican Dystrophy going around?
Causing the spine to become over-cooked linguini?
Arnold enables the invasion, Rush doesn’t confront him.
The ghosts of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers must be barfing.
profitsbeard on March 21, 2007 at 10:12 PM
omegaram – you sound like a marxist. You obviously have no experience in the real world.
TheBigOldDog on March 21, 2007 at 9:19 PM
TwinkietheKid on March 21, 2007 at 10:14 PM
And which is it? Ferengi or Farengi?
I honestly do not know what reference this is.
That would mean that you do agree that the local market between employers and employees should be allowed to freely make those adjustments, in order to be fair to local conditions. Ahh. Good.
naliaka on March 21, 2007 at 10:32 PM
naliaka, Ferengi are a race of people in Star Trek. They are known for being single minded ruthless capitalist bastards, sometimes they are swindlers, most of them are traders.
omegaram is moron of the highest order. Minimum wage hikes screw small businesses, and most economic growth is a result of small business activity. Most minimum wage activity is menial work meant for teenagers or 2nd income people in a family.
His TR worship is laughable, there is no comparison to today’s economy to that of 1910′s, of course he throws in plenty of stabs at the big business spectre, of course. He then brushes away the damage on small business, that they’re just a bunch of greedy dicks, despite the fact that many small businesses struggle, and any hit against them can put them under.
Your socialist rhetoric is disgusting, comrade.
Bad Candy on March 21, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Ferengi are a race in Star Trek. Ruthless capitalists and swindlers basically. Nice ad hominem stuff.
Bad Candy on March 21, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Nailed it!
Back to the topic at hand, you have to remember how Arnold came into power. A very rare “recall” of a sitting Gov. (can’t quite remember his name, more, I don’t want to, I live in CA)…. he worked the talk shows, he went from town to town in his Hummer, he talked “Conservative” talking points, he even mentioned “Securing the Border”…. Result, he was elected.
Then he gets to the CA State Capital, a place oozing with Union Special Interest money in everyone’s pocket, controlled by the Democrats since the begining of time…. He tries to enact reforms, they are blocked, he goes back to the voters………
Low and behold, he has 50 million to pass his initiatives, and the Labor/Teachers/and every other union from across the country dump almost 300 million to defeat his proposals, proposals that the citizens wanted but the power stucture didn’t, and between La Raza, oh I meant to say Los Angeles, and San Fransico, they took the day…….
His last resort to get anything done……. go left.
Now, myself and my children, and their children, and their children, and their children, are going to have to pay for bonds for work projects, that won’t fix the problems, but ensure that union workers get a “livable wage”.
Is omegaram Happy?
PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Compassion for those Americans making minimum wage, for those Americans who are below or near the federally recognized poverty line, and advocating moderate measures to benefit the poor does not make one a Liberal, Progressive, Marxist, Moonbat, RINO, or member of the Left. Compassion and moderate assistance for American citizens who are at or near the poverty line is a virtue that Republicans should, need to, embrace to regain political control from the Left.
I believe that a significant deciding factor in the contest for federal political control is for Republicans to counter the image that they favor the wealthy and corporate interests at the expense of the nation and the majority of the population. This does not mean advocating government spending that can be classified as pork, excessive government spending, funding programs that advocate a political position, or other spending that one would associate with the Left. This does mean advocating reasonable, moderate, effective, and efficient aid for the poor and those that are proven to be at lower income levels, and a measure of progressive taxation that shifts oppressive financial burden from poor and middle class families to the wealthy and corporate interests.
Advocating passage of a level of minimum wage for American citizens from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over a period to 2009 , which covers less than 3% of the United States working population, is not the excessive spending that may be associated with the Left. Current minimum wages in many states are above or near that level already. The additional income for those at minimum wage would be of great significance, and be a step in the right direction for Republicans to loose the image of favoring the wealthy and corporate interests.
The response from so many in this thread calling one who advocates raising the minimum wage illustrates an issue with those on the right. Anyone who does not buy into the party line completely is anything from a Marxist to a Progressive. I believe that Republican support for raising the minimum wage, securing our borders, no amnesty for illegal aliens, criminal prosecution of those who hire illegal aliens, keeping the AMT and inheritance taxes, and active courting of the electorate concerned with economic issues can be decisive in Republican success in the next election.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Omegaram is not happy with California Pork. Omegaram is not happy with the Left turn the Governator took. Omegaram is advocating federal legislation to increase the minimum wage and modify but not eliminate AMT and inheritance taxation. Omegaram is very smart, you should listen closly …….
Contrary to popular opinon my political persuasion is not to the Left, quite to the contrary. I do not blindly follow conservative ideology however. Support for American citizens who are at or near federal poverty levels makes sense not only from the perspective of a nationalist who believes in our country, but also for polticial support in the coming election.
Omegaram is worth listening to on the issue of political support unless you want to be hit with “President Obama” or “President Clinton – of the Hillary variety” every time the news comes on.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Omegaram forgot to use the word “proletariat”. Otherwise, spot on brother! Fight the power!
Here in adult land though we realize that “people who barely can make a living” are not people on minimum wage. Minimum wage people are kids and tertiary earners, not primary earners. The idea that the American poor are just barely scraping by on minimum wage because the evil Republicans are whoring themselves to big corporations, like this is the freaking depression or something, is nothing but Marxist claptrap.
Did you know that during the Cold War, the Soviets produced a movie about the American poor in an attempt to embarass America before the world? It backfired when the Russians saw the movie and said, “Oh my God! American poor people have TVs and cars?”
Lehosh on March 21, 2007 at 11:34 PM
OK, lets try this again. Obviously some have not been follow the thread, or it’s references to supporting facts and articles.
Nearly Half of Minimum-Wage Workers Are the Household’s Chief Breadwinner
Opponents of increasing the minimum wage often portray minimum-wage workers as middle-class teenagers. Some fit that description, but many others do not. Recent Census data show that among those workers likely to get a pay increase as a direct result of a minimum-wage increase:
nearly half (48 percent) are the household’s chief breadwinner — that is, no higher-paid family members live with them; and
nearly half (47 percent) were poor or near-poor in the prior year — that is, they lived in families with cash incomes below twice the poverty line.a
One reason many minimum-wage workers have low incomes is that they are not employed full-time throughout the year. Low-wage jobs often have high turnover rates, and low-wage workers sometimes have to leave their jobs to care for an ill family member or when child care arrangements fall through. Low-income working parents typically work close to full-time when they are employed, but have periods of joblessness over the course of the year.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Geez, you are a caricature.
Compassion. The most twisted word in modern politics. It is not compassionate to put the boot-heel of governmental control on the means of production. Extorting higher wages under the pretense of compassion neither raises wages nor accomplishes anything resembling compassion.
Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that business owners and companies are not qualified to determine the proper level of wages for their employees. You’re riddled with the rhetoric of the early 20th century, “Punish the greedy capitalists! They want to oppress the people! They eat babies!”
Listen, bubba. Capitalism, as opposed to Marxism or socialism, is responsible, as much as any economic model can be, for the good in the world today. The technology, the innovations, all the things that make this world go round are the result of the free market and the talents and hard work of free men. For all your talk of compassion and workers rights, if the European socialism you’re espousing were ever put into practice here in the United States, the world economy would grind to a halt.
Your Ferengi? They’re a caricature of capitalists, a vicious ad hominem one at that, created by generally leftist Hollywood writers. You suck it up like so much rancid milksop, content to think what they tell you, while real capitalists go about their business in the real world.
Capitalists, and their “greed,” create. What you call greed, I call hard work, sleepless nights, 18 hour days and a willingness to bear the burden of leadership in the face of scoundrels and thieves who want to take it all away in the name of compassion.
Your compassion will have us all begging for scraps at the table of Mother State. God help us all if we give in to the looters and grafters preaching compassion. I’ll fight you, full faced and proud to keep your compassion out of the way of innovation and economic freedom. In the meantime, all this evil greed will create wealth, grow the economy and provide far more real income for working Americans than any governmental scheme could.
spmat on March 22, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Amen.
RobertCSampson on March 22, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Word.
Bad Candy on March 22, 2007 at 12:31 AM
I’m outing myself as a Proud Ferengi.
Viva La Capitalism!
Kini on March 22, 2007 at 1:48 AM
So how many people do you employ and exactly what do you pay them? Do you provide them with a 401K that you contribute to, how about a Medical/Dental Plan, what about Workman’s Comp Insurance, Overhead, Sensitivty Training, what about a quarterly or yearly bonus, or do you offer a profit sharing plan, what about your IT costs, employee theft, inventory control, intelectual license, IT upgrades, servers, phones, (I guess that goes to overhead), OSHA regulations, safety inspections, local, state, and federal licenses, what about your rent, or do you own the building, do you have any vehicles used, there are costs there as well, and your own life insurance, incase you die, your family still has an income……….?
Take your time……. start with the first question.
PinkyBigglesworth on March 22, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Pinky, your question is really two parts, but that’s OK cause it might confuse omegaram to no end on how to answer.
BTW, the name isn’t from Buckaroo Banzai, is it?
Kini on March 22, 2007 at 2:49 AM
The fact is that minimum wage increases don’t help. They hurt and any benefit of MW increases is lost to inflation. It isn’t me saying it, but world renown economists including the head of the Economics Department at George Mason University, Walter Williams. You also have Thomas Sowell, Texas A&M Professors of Economics and all of CATO’s economists have been saying the same thing. Von Mises and all Austrian Economists agree that MW increases hurt more than help.
The government pressuring businesses to keep wages artificially high actually prolonged the Great Depression. Read about it in the definitive work on the Great Depression, written by Murray N. Rothbard.
The fact isn’t that we need back down and give this ground, we need to education the public about the effects of the WM increase.
Tim Burton on March 22, 2007 at 4:32 AM
And here you’ve struck on a key difference between the left and the right. His bludgeoning of the word “compassion”, and the reactions he received from HotAir, readers reveals how the two sides treat political opponents.
The Right says, “I have a considered, logical opinion about politics, so if you don’t agree with me then you’re probably an idiot.” The Left says, “I am on the side of Goodness, so if you don’t agree with me then you must be evil.” Despite the fact that socialist economics is at this very moment causing suffering, hunger, and poverty around the globe, only one side of this debate is claiming the side of goodness and “compassion”, and implicating opposing views as the side of evil.
This split in treatment plays out many times in many ways. “Anyone who doesn’t support Affirmative Action is an evil racist”… “Anyone who doesn’t support periodic increase in MW is an evil corporate shill”… “Anyone who supports the military is an evil bloodthirsty warmonger”… “Anyone who supports aggressive counter-terrorism is an evil fascist.” Compare these positions to the Right. “Affirmative Action is stupid and counterproductive”… “Minimum Wage increases are idiotic publicity stunts for Washington”… “Decrying our military is like throwing down our shield on the battlefield: stupid”… “Anyone turning a blind eye to terrorism is being willfully stupid.”
The beleifs of the left, in my experience, don’t stem from any practical application, but from an emotional attachment to the side of “Good”. Which is why their beliefs never die no matter how many times their schemes fail in the real world: they are on the side of “Good” so there must be some “Evil” reason why they didn’t succeed this time. And who is more evil than bloodthristy, greedy, world-killing, racist Rethuglikkkans? The Left has the corner on the Goodness market.
Lehosh on March 22, 2007 at 7:07 AM
Well as I’m sure you know, you can find economists on all sides of any issue. I prefer to look at data–take a look at the general economic indicators preceding and following MW increases in the US. You’ll notice something interesting–no effect.
I have a moral objection to not increasing the minimum wage as well. We have had a period of enormous increases in productivity. Those increases by right should be shared by both capital and labor. They have not. And in a very simplistic and judgemental statement, in my view, it simply is not right. Avarice is a sin.
honora on March 22, 2007 at 8:02 AM
Please point to the section of the Constitution that establishes this astonishing right.
You clearly don’t own a small business.
kmcguire on March 22, 2007 at 8:32 AM
Arnolito is really just concerning himself with the people he sees as the ultimate masters of California.
He has learned how to gain they’re favor by helping provide for their largess.
It is unlikely at this stage for any candidate for governor to be elected unless the new masters largess is assuaged.
Speakup on March 22, 2007 at 9:57 AM
It is not a sin to decide what what a free man is worth to you as an employee. He chooses to work for you.
What is a sin is being forced to pay someone more than they are worth such that you cannot pay someone else what they are worth. That is truly immoral.
spmat on March 22, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Arnold got thrashed by Rush Yesterday and got so upset he cut the interview short when Rush started questioning him about socialized medical care.
If you listen to the full interview he says I have to go right after Rush hammered him on the medical insurance BS. Arnold voice was sounding like he was getting angry then he said I have to go.
I cannot believe Arnold is trying to force people into socialized medical care and at the same time calling himself a republican. I live in California and most conservatives are outraged with this sell out pandering to the left and Illegal Aliens.
He has put our state into an additional 8 billion in the red since he has taken office.
Arnold is a perfect example why you cannot vote for RHINO’S. I voted for Sen. Tom McClintock even though our Republican Party here never gives him any support.
ScottyDog on March 22, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Not everything is in the Constitution. By right, you should respect your parents and care for them as they get older. What!! Not in the Constitution!!!
I’ll be damned. LOL
honora on March 22, 2007 at 12:57 PM
You should also not hold any god above the Lord. You gonna put that into law, too?
You have no right, either unalienable or otherwise, to force your definition of compassion on the men and women that make this country work. You want to yoke the small businesses of this nation with your socialism and let them bear the burden of your pipe dreams.
Yeah, that’s real compassion. Compassion at the point of a gun.
spmat on March 22, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Supporters of minimum wage increases have got it bass-ackwards. There is no such thing as a “living wage” that employers are refusing to pay out of meanness or greed. The single greatest determinant of what a job pays is what the work is worth.
Minimum wage jobs require no skills or education to speak of. They are jobs that very nearly anyone can do. As a general rule, the more people that can do a job, the more easily someone holding that job can be replaced and the less the job pays as a result.
And about all these “breadwinners” trapped at minimum wage: Before we take the liberal approach of automatically assuming these people are all the helpless victims of cruel forces outside themselves, we should ask a few questions about how they got where they are in the first place. For example: How many of these folks have been involved in crime or drugs? How many of them failed to finish high school? How many of them started having children without benefit of wedlock while they were still teenagers?
Does considering questions like these make me less than “compassionate”?
Forgive me for doubting that the way to prevent complete liberal domination of government is for those of us who are not liberal to adopt a key liberal principle.
p.v. cornelius on March 22, 2007 at 3:46 PM