We got a good laugh the other day when the three Republican U.S. Senate candidates in Missouri got together for a debate, and none of the three knew what the federal minimum wage is. But there's another angle to this clip that's worth paying attention to.
Greg Sargent noted that, in addition to the candidates' ignorance, two of the three candidates hoping to take on Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) in November "seemed to come out for doing away with the minimum wage entirely."
The three candidates — GOP Rep Todd Akin, businessman Jon Brunner, and state treasurer Sarah Steelman — were all asked today whether they favored increasing the minimum wage.
[Rep. Todd Akin] was the most forceful in suggesting it should be done away with. "I don't think the government should be setting the prices or wages of different things," he said. "I don't think that's the function of the government."
[Businessman Jon Brunner] came close. "We've got to let free enterprise reign in the marketplace," he said, which in the context of the question, seems to suggest it should be done away with. He added that it was a burden on small businesses. [...]
Dems will cast the statements as the latest example of Republicans being beholden to corporate benefactors, and skapegoating people on the lowest rungs of the income ladder for our continued economic suffering.
Quite right. I'd just add that this will apparently be the second consecutive cycle in which this is a problem -- with increasing frequency, statewide GOP candidates are taking firm stands against the minimum wage.
In 2010 Senate races, for example, Republican nominees in Connecticut, Alaska, West Virginia, Kentucky, and the state of Washington argued that they either oppose the minimum wage, consider its existence unconstitutional, or both.
Remember when the Republican Party leaders used to champion a "living wage"? Many of its statewide candidates apparently don't. (As recently as the 1970s, GOP support for wage controls, at least on a temporary basis, was not uncommon.)
Indeed, the fact that U.S. Senate candidates would have no qualms about standing against the existence of a minimum wage is a reminder about how far the Republican mainstream has shifted. It's no longer unusual for statewide GOP candidates to oppose the minimum wage, child-labor laws, the existing structure of Medicare and guaranteed benefits, restrictions on torture, collective bargaining, and unemployment benefits.
Not too long ago, this would have been largely unthinkable, and such candidates would have been labeled "extremists," unable to even compete in a statewide primary.
Leave a Comment:
*Shakes head and slowly walks away*...
This caption should read ... "Ignorance is Bliss"
The people who now control the Republican Party are the offspring of the folks William F. Buckley drove out of the party and the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Buckley thought he'd driven a stake through the heart of the goofball fringe but, like Young Frankenstein's monster, "It lives!"
Beyond Buckley, I can remember when a quite conservative, Commie fighting member of Congress who represented Minneapolis in the 1950s said that extremists such as The John Birch Society had no place in American politics and the Republican Party. Today, Walter Judd - the former representative, long since dead - likely would face a primary challenge for being too liberal.
What's truly incredible is that there are people on minimum wage in Missouri who may well vote for one of these three idiots.
An after-thought: It stikes me that people who do not know what the minimum wage is should not be talking about getting rid of it for people who depend on minimum wages to scratch out a living and survive, barely.
It would be cool to see how these Repugs feel about government control over *maximum* wages. I'm thinking of a question like, "Would you support legislation prohibiting unions from demanding inflationary wage increases?" I suspect this would be another case where the so-called conservatives want less government participation for our side, but more government control for theirs.
I think the repugs are quite clean in their stance. Get the gov of the backs of the small business and let the free market decide.
Jim I bet you have an Iphone yet the left Idolizes Jobs. The only thing the government should be doing is making shore the dishonest people are removed from the market. Steve Jobs was brilliant and worked hard and on the other side of things, when you go through a drive through how many times is your order wrong? How hard it is to remember NO MAYO? Minimum wage is too high for the effort that guy is putting in.
Hahahaha...well by this logic then the private sector shouldn't have paid all the people who crashed the economy at Goldman Sachs and other firms. Yet not only were they paid but they were re-hired to work for their firms. I love how you can just arbitrarily access that because someone messes up your order they don't get paid. How many times as a supposed medical doctor have you been sued for malpractice? Hmm? Almost every single medical doctor that goes into the business will be sued at least once for malpractice. Why? Because almost every single doctor who goes into business will mess up at some point. It's called 'human error.' But no you as a supposed doctor still deserve the higher paycheck because when you screw up it causes someone to die or lose the use of their limb. And of course your hamburger is EVER SO MORE important than someone else's life.
Well stated.
Herbert Hoover couldn't have quoted the GOP stance better when it comes to the government roll of improving the economy after republicans drive the economy off a cliff.
@chemdmd: What an intellectual toddler you are!?! As the Mouzer wisely pointed out, you have no problem with the mistakes made by wealthy elites (incompetent doctors should be shielded from malpractice by tort reform, crooked banksters should still get their bonuses after wrecking the global economy) but want the pay docked from overworked, underpaid fast food workers because every now and then one of them screws up your order! If there were a God, you'd die tomorrow from eating tainted beef from a Quarter Pounder, since I'm sure you oppose FDA regulations too, right?
I guess from where he is sitting we all look like muppets. If they are supposed to be getting rid of all the dishonest people from the market they better start with themselves. Over here on your right, we may now commence to partake in the ever popular dance called "Squeezing the Turnip" they love that one along with "Trickling down, trickling down"
Now I remember what I wanted to do. So...put chemdmd back on ignore. Done!
Note to self: Just because you can't remember the reason why someone is on the ignore list, that doesn't mean there is no reason why that person is on the list.
According to the "Economic Policy Inst." In 1978 ceo pay was 35x the average employee's. In 2010 it was 243x down from 299x due to the recession. These heroes of small business are shilling for the big corporations. Small business owners are a lot more keenly aware that they will not sell many products locally if no one can afford their products.
Now that March Madness is drawing to a conclusion, how about a new pool: The percentage of eligible voters who actually go to the polls this November?
Bonus question: How many will stay home, and then rail against "the gummint". . .
The inexorable march towards total irrelevancy in the modern world, lead by ignorant republicans, most of them financially well-off and completely ignorant of the issues they're trying to be chosen to deal with.
Here's to hoping that after I die from poverty-related illness (because right now the minimum wage is already just barely enough to cover a medical insurance policy, if you are lucky enough to work someplace that pays you A)minimum wage and B) gives you 32+ hours a week and C)also offers you insurance of some sort), the wheel of life deposits me into one of these wealthy families. Ha, yeah right. This wheel, it seems to be broken.
Oh woe is me . How will we ever create a permanent underclass who will work for Chinese factory wages here in the US , if you people insist on paying them sustenance wages that will get them a roof over their head and a closet full of Ramen Noodles
Yet more proof that Republicans want to achieve a bad economy as a goal.
The component that the "free Marketers/free enterprisers" always leave out of their equations is purchasing power. Demand is a function of how much money a consumers has and not just need or desire. Whether someone buys something depends on how much money they have to spend.
The rich and the super rich have no idea what demand is because they have almost unlimited purchasing power. When Ann Romney said she did not feel rich, that is because she has not idea what it is like to be poor. It is like saying a fish does not feel wet.
The theoretical basis of free enterprise and the market driven economy is based on the idea that people make rational decisions about what they buy and that the larger "market" is thus rational and can be mathematicallyl modeled. But no one can make a rational decision about what to buy without knowing how much money he/she has to spend. If you are dying of cancer and the only drug that will save your life costs $13,000.00 for each treatment, theoretically you will pay the $13,000.00 dollars, but if you are poor and do not have insurance, you simply die.
Many business persons both from small businesses and from large are saying that they do not need more credit in order to expand and hire more workers. What they need is more customers. Take money out of the economy by cutting government spending and the economy shrinks.
When has not knowing or understanding anything that they want to push for prevent any of the GOP leader from pushing any agenda or trying to get what they want?
Why should they know what the minimum wage is to done away with minimum wage? It works for the people in China, it should work here, right? Just ask Michele Bachmann.
Republicans should be required to undergo a trans-cranial probe as a prerequisite to assuming office.
I am waiting for the Republicans to come out with their criminalizing being a democrat, what the hell, everything else is in their fascist sights.
Erm so wait. You say you're a small business owner, but that you paid your employees above minimum wage? And this hurt your business? So is what you're trying to say, in reality, that you wanted to pay them less than what you were paying them, but because minimum wage was in existence you had to pay them more in order to be competitive? That latter point would be the entire reason that minimum wage exists.
Also what 'kids' are being forced out of the workforce due to minimum wage laws? The problem kids have right now isn't that they can't find minimum wage jobs it's that they can't find jobs that pay above that because they don't have relevant work experience and can't work their way up into those hire income brackets. If you work at Starbucks for 9$/hr you won't move anywhere even if you're the hardest worker and you work there for years. Once you get a degree you then apply to, say, a hospital, but that hospital says they won't hire you because you don't have 3-5 years worth of relevant work experience for this supposedly entry level job.
Additionally I should point out that you can mathematically calculate the economic impact of what the minimum wage will do. The current minimum wage should be at something more than 10$/hr. The current minimum wage is just slightly above 7$/hr.
Well stated.
The minimum wage does not reduce consumer demand. It increases it.
Bleh I keep doing this: I keep crossing higher and hire. You pay your workers a higher salary after you've hired them to work for you. >.<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
The GOP: Party of the well to do (big tent!!), Party of the white male (big tent!!), Party of the Special Interest (big tent!!). Party of the common man (no tents allowed you lazy, self-entitled hippies and you promiscuous abortion zombies!)?
Cookie faux pas!
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/forest_solutions/rainforest-safe-cookies.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=tw
The UN has recently honored these friends of mine for their work to safeguard orangutan rain forests ...
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2012/02/part-1-international-year-of-forests-2011-closing-ceremony.html
This is their petition which has run mighty fast at gathering almost 70,000 votes - they are honestly fighting a much bigger fight than it would appear ... you CAN'T go and support Girl Scout cookies! Support their efforts, make donations ... but no cookies!
http://www.change.org/petitions/girl-scouts-make-your-cookies-rainforest-safe
When asked what IS the role of the Federal Government, all three said "To tell women what to do in regards to their own bodies."
Legislators pay should be minimum wage or below; they are unskilled labor.
I wonder if the women legislators are being paid less along with other female Government officials? This sure sounds like the Tealiban is trying to incite a Gender war also. It's begining to look like someone is sabatoging the U.S. and trying to get us to kill each other.
"I do not know what the minimum wage is but I believe is what a 1st term Senator or member of Congress should earn" that comment was agreed to my all 3 during commercial break
Let's see....
None of the Missouri GOP candidates knew what the minimum wage was.
Rachel Maddow, when recently asked on a television talk-show what 'global warming' was, said - and I quote:
"I think global warming probably means extreme weather of all kinds."
(sigh)
Yup...people come across pretty silly when they have no clue as to what they're talking about!
In what way was she wrong? Global warming does mean extreme weather of all kinds.
I also love that you don't actually provide citation as to what the television show was or give a clip of her saying it. Global warming is the general process of the planet heating up which is expressed in terms of severe weather patterns that can range from snow and cold temperatures to severe rain and earth quakes. Also this argument is a red herring- rather than discuss the subject at hand you're attempting to scapegoat the conversation on to Rachel Maddow. By presenting this argument the logic you use justifies the stupidity of the candidates- something that you readily admit to w/ your closing sentence. So your defense of these candidates is that they are stupid.
No officer you can't give me a ticket for speeding because you didn't pull all those other people over for speeding!
For the record red herring arguments do not show hypocrisy.
A quick explanation, not for the troll but for the interested public. Here's the basic idea: more heat in the atmosphere = more energy in the atmosphere = stronger currents, stronger turbulence, more powerful storms. Desert climates get drier, Hurricane/tornado/cyclone/typhoon prone areas get more of those. Etc. etc., weather is complicated but the basic idea is not.
It also means that in some places, winter becomes more severe. Heat powers lots of things, including winter weather.
Also, I think johnlorican is another slab-head I took off of ignore because I couldn't remember why he was on it in the first place. So, back on the list he goes.
A Republican acquaintance is fond of posting on facebook "Can we make Al Gore give his Nobel prize back now?" every time it gets unusually cold in Virginia. *sigh* For the life of me, I can't get him to understand the difference between climate and weather nor how the concept of "Global Warming", though perhaps poorly "named", affects global temperature and global climate trends. It's like they believe there's a prize at the end of life for being the strongest adherent to stupidity.
For those of you interested, Rachel Maddow made her comment on the David Letterman show, January 7, 2010 - available to all on YouTube.
Global warming does NOT mean 'extreme weather of all kinds.'
It was an absurd comment then; it remains an absurd comment now. Maddow's definition of 'global warming' puts her right in the middle of a glass house where she - or her staff - shouldn't be throwing stones.
The purpose of my post was to highlight how this blog does nothing but demean others for their comments that aren't aligned with the leftist worldview.
It doesn't promote civil discourse - it just simply demeans others. Meddling Monks' assessment of me as a 'slabhead' simply confirms the leftist method of operation: call people names instead of engaging in forthright dialogue...
Sad.
Actually Rachel gave a pretty good answer for Global Warming.
The problem stems from calling it "Global Warming" when it should probably be called " Global Climate Imbalance" or something similar. Take a relatively stable system and increase or decrease the level of energy by some means. At some point - something - will happen. If you believe in General Systems Theory then you would expect the system, after being forced out of balance, to move toward equilibrium. In the process of finding a new equilibrium you would expect extreme cycles that would eventually get smaller. There is a parallel to this in Statistical Quality Control - when changes are made in a manufacturing process without actually understanding the process - large variations above and below normal can occur and cycle back and forth - Google Quality Control and "Tampering". Keep in mind that there are a couple of billion Chinese and Indians who can hardly wait to purchase a new SUV and start pumping yet more energy into the system. Will this increase "Global Warming" or increase climate system variation - don't know - should make an interesting experiment. In the mean time, we can pass a Constitutional Amendment that declares that "Global Warming" does not exist - take pride in a job well done and move on to more important problems.
For some reason "Global Warming" has become political - I just don't get it - can it seriously be a "bad thing" to be a good steward of the ten "minas" we have been given.
For one opinion Google
Deep Freezes: Will future warming paradoxically cause more extreme cold events? and CLIMAS
So you may disagree with Rachel, but her answer is not "silly" - she has simply sided with one group of scientists while others side with another. We won't know for a few hundred years - so I guess the real question is "Are you feeling lucky - huh - are you!"
Wow, it's amazing how they keep coming up with more newer and improved ways to screw the middle class and the poor. If they ever pass this law you might as well start making bets as to which company is going to be the first to lower their rate of pay to employees. They have already taken away health insurance benefits, the workers pensions are gone what else? Seriously, this is political suicide. I don't get it. what kind of an outcome are they looking for here? I only see 1 and it has the smell of Large Corporations all over it.
"no minimum wage for the 99%"?... fits right in with the REPS' new favorite workforce model taken from the illegal drug and sex trade workforce industries - no voice, no rights, no union, no safety, no healthcare, no pension, no living wage, no benefits, no retirement, no higher education, no fairness, no way out, and no American Dream because the 1% can be stateless and countryless without any stake in the survival of the American Dream for the 99%.