WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?

[GaryC 7]

Minimum wage laws are consistent with inflation and costs of living. If a business cannot afford a cost of living wage, they shouldn't be in business, or should be doing the work themselves so they don't have anyone to pay. End of story.

Or, they will hire less people at the higher wage and work them harder, and put more people out of work. Seen happen at my own work. You can force employers to pay people any wage you want, but you can't force them to keep anyone on staff.

It happened in Illinois:

Illinois Minimum Wage Hike Is Costing Jobs

In fall 2006, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed his second increase in the statewide mandatory minimum wage in five years. The legislation raised the state's minimum wage to $7.50 per hour with an additional hike to $8.50 in 2010.

At the time the governor claimed, "Raising the minimum wage again will make it a little easier for thousands of families to pay the bills, put food on the table, or buy clothes for their children."

But for many it isn't panning out as planned.

Just as opponents of minimum wage increases warned, employers are choosing cheaper out-of-state labor or taking other steps to mitigate the increase's effects. That employers are taking steps, in and of itself, is no surprise. What is surprising, however, is that chief among those employers is the Blagojevich administration itself.

Illinois Stiffs State Business

A May 19 story in the Springfield State Journal-Register reported that Rely Services, a Carlinville, Illinois-based data processing contractor, lost two large state contracts in the past year because Illinois' minimum wage law is pricing the computer contractor out of the Illinois market.

The story went on to report that if the company, also known as Accudata Computer Services, loses another state contract it may have to lay off most of its 134 full- and part-time employees. The story details how, at the time of the contract losses, the winning bids came from Indiana, Michigan, and North Carolina, all of which had lower minimum wages.

Two of those states have since raised their minimum wage, but neighboring Indiana is maintaining its competitive edge by holding the line at the federal level of $5.15 per hour.

Lawmakers See Shift

And it's not just one company. State Sen. Deanna Demuzio (D-Carlinville), who voted for the minimum wage increase, told the Journal-Register, "Not only myself but other legislators are having the same experience where bidding has gone out of our state."

In the past election cycle, Democrats around the country viewed minimum wage increases as a political winner. They either ignored minimum wage hike opponents or attacked them on moral grounds. It was a fight about politics, not policy.

During the debate opponents pointed to price theory--the idea that if you raise the price of jobs, there will be fewer of them--and a long history of academic research to argue minimum wage hikes are a bad idea.

Research has consistently found minimum wage hikes increase teenage unemployment, particularly among African-American males; punish poorer and unskilled workers; reduce average earnings of young workers; lead to reduced benefits; and make labor-saving technologies more attractive.

Senate Says Spend More

Yet, Illinois won't do that. Instead of making the state more competitive, the Illinois Senate simply chose to spend more. By a unanimous vote the Senate decided that if state contractors were struggling financially, then they would give them hiring preferences and pay the extra cost.

While some state legislators are willing to pay a premium for contractors, they also are crying poverty and working to hike taxes. State Sen. Dave Syverson (R-Rockford) has stated a willingness to hike taxes to pay for current services. Two House Republicans supported a massive tax hike cloaked as education funding reform in committee earlier this spring.

Senate Democrats, who have a veto-proof majority, overwhelmingly support tax increases for new spending on education and health care. Yet, by their willingness to pay more for government contractors, they are proving they are poor stewards of the public treasury who shouldn't be trusted with more money.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=21677

[akdiver 3]

As distasteful as I find the idea - I have to say, I would rather see NO minimum wage and have the government simply hand out money to those who "do not make a living wage". That would at least be more honest about what's really going on.

[dalegg 143]

Minimum wage laws are consistent with inflation and costs of living. If a business cannot afford a cost of living wage, they shouldn't be in business, or should be doing the work themselves so they don't have anyone to pay. End of story.

Or, they will hire less people at the higher wage and work them harder, and put more people out of work. Seen happen at my own work. You can force employers to pay people any wage you want, but you can't force them to keep anyone on staff.

It happened in Illinois:

Illinois Minimum Wage Hike Is Costing Jobs

In fall 2006, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed his second increase in the statewide mandatory minimum wage in five years. The legislation raised the state's minimum wage to $7.50 per hour with an additional hike to $8.50 in 2010.

At the time the governor claimed, "Raising the minimum wage again will make it a little easier for thousands of families to pay the bills, put food on the table, or buy clothes for their children."

But for many it isn't panning out as planned.

Just as opponents of minimum wage increases warned, employers are choosing cheaper out-of-state labor or taking other steps to mitigate the increase's effects. That employers are taking steps, in and of itself, is no surprise. What is surprising, however, is that chief among those employers is the Blagojevich administration itself.

Illinois Stiffs State Business

A May 19 story in the Springfield State Journal-Register reported that Rely Services, a Carlinville, Illinois-based data processing contractor, lost two large state contracts in the past year because Illinois' minimum wage law is pricing the computer contractor out of the Illinois market.

The story went on to report that if the company, also known as Accudata Computer Services, loses another state contract it may have to lay off most of its 134 full- and part-time employees. The story details how, at the time of the contract losses, the winning bids came from Indiana, Michigan, and North Carolina, all of which had lower minimum wages.

Two of those states have since raised their minimum wage, but neighboring Indiana is maintaining its competitive edge by holding the line at the federal level of $5.15 per hour.

Lawmakers See Shift

And it's not just one company. State Sen. Deanna Demuzio (D-Carlinville), who voted for the minimum wage increase, told the Journal-Register, "Not only myself but other legislators are having the same experience where bidding has gone out of our state."

In the past election cycle, Democrats around the country viewed minimum wage increases as a political winner. They either ignored minimum wage hike opponents or attacked them on moral grounds. It was a fight about politics, not policy.

During the debate opponents pointed to price theory--the idea that if you raise the price of jobs, there will be fewer of them--and a long history of academic research to argue minimum wage hikes are a bad idea.

Research has consistently found minimum wage hikes increase teenage unemployment, particularly among African-American males; punish poorer and unskilled workers; reduce average earnings of young workers; lead to reduced benefits; and make labor-saving technologies more attractive.

Senate Says Spend More

Yet, Illinois won't do that. Instead of making the state more competitive, the Illinois Senate simply chose to spend more. By a unanimous vote the Senate decided that if state contractors were struggling financially, then they would give them hiring preferences and pay the extra cost.

While some state legislators are willing to pay a premium for contractors, they also are crying poverty and working to hike taxes. State Sen. Dave Syverson (R-Rockford) has stated a willingness to hike taxes to pay for current services. Two House Republicans supported a massive tax hike cloaked as education funding reform in committee earlier this spring.

Senate Democrats, who have a veto-proof majority, overwhelmingly support tax increases for new spending on education and health care. Yet, by their willingness to pay more for government contractors, they are proving they are poor stewards of the public treasury who shouldn't be trusted with more money.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=21677

No it doesn't. Just because you can site examples, I've witnessed it in my own workplace, and it makes perfectly logical sense, doesn't mean it actually happens.

[IAMX 3,055]

No it doesn't. Just because you can site examples, I've witnessed it in my own workplace, and it makes perfectly logical sense, doesn't mean it actually happens.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Heartland Institute is an unbiased, conservative free-market think tank that is just as reliable as the AP, Reuters, and PETA. There's no possible slant to their news articles, and Gary wouldn't dare post an article that is biased in any way, shape, or fashion.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

Well lets see, people get sick, people aren't robots who need to work every single day and need time off, as they have this thing called "family" and a "life", and yes, people at a very old age have a tough time working, so rather than let them die instead to let them reap the rewards of their contributions to society.

Wow...so, in other words, you DO think employers should be required to provide all this #######. Wow.

As for me, I simply don't think it is government's responsibility to take care of you, let alone your employer's.

Again, you are arguing with a straw man. The people who you fantasize are saying that government and employers have a responsibility to take care of you have never said that. It is a matter of the society you wish to produce and how you best accomplish that.

Your position relies on the assumption that, left to their own devices, companies will support an economy of healthy, prosperous masses. History clearly proves that wrong and shows that companies will maximize profits and throw workers away when they are old, injured or unable to produce at a high level. Unless you propose to execute these people they become a burden on society in one way or the other. They also become a source of unrest. They don't just cease to exist or wander off into the woods and sacrifice themselves to wolves.

So the question is not whether government is responsible or employers are responsible. It is whether lifting up the greatest number of people helps or hurts us all individually and as a society. History has some answers about that as well.

The question of government or employers is merely a matter of mechanism and not the underlying goal. The only responsibility is to build a stable, civilized, peaceful society TOGETHER.

As a "liberal" I think that government and employers can play an important role in that process and that their are great benefits to be derived for the expenditures being made. Their exact roles can be intelligently debated.

Your argument appears to be that following "the law of the jungle", where everyone looks out for themselves and maximizes the benefit to themselves will not, as it has done historically, result in a stratified, unstable society prone to uprising and revolution but will miraculously in our case have the opposite result. Do you have one example of a society in which this has been true?

The post-Reagan republican economic policies have consistently resulted in the initiation of this process. The middle class shrinks, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Society becomes more polarized. Ideology (superstition) overshadows reality and is actively promoted as superior to reality.

So the question to address first is do you want that stratified, unstable society and hope that you are lucky enough to end up in the top 1 or 2 percent who will prosper? Do you really want to take the road to aristocracy that many have traveled before (and that America at its birth presumably rebelled against)?Do you want to go with the line that anyone who doesn't end up in the top 2% must just be lazy and chose to be unprosperous and that the system has no effect? Do you want that stable, peaceful and prosperous (for more than the aristocracy) society.

Then we can debate the mechanism. To make a straw man of the mechanism serves only those already in the top 2%. If you want to call whatever we set up to accomplish this something other than government, I have no objection.

[akdiver 3]

Your position relies on the assumption that, left to their own devices, companies will support an economy of healthy, prosperous masses.

I never assumed this. I never stated this. I don't even believe this is a good idea.

History clearly... shows that companies will maximize profits and throw workers away when they are old, injured or unable to produce at a high level.

I clearly understand this, believe this, and acknowledge this. I dunno why anyone would expect companies to do anything else.

Unless you propose to execute these people they become a burden on society in one way or the other.

I don't think we should execute them simply for being useless. Now, if they start committing crimes, that's a different story.

They also become a source of unrest. They don't just cease to exist or wander off into the woods and sacrifice themselves to wolves.

Bush could delcare them enemy combatants in the new war on useless people..... but seriously, civil unrest is a potential issue. This, I acknowledge and this is the ONLY reason why I have any inkling of socialism whatsoever. However, I'm at least honest enough to admit that I don't care about the people themselves, I only care about the impact of these useless people on society.

Your argument appears to be that following "the law of the jungle", where everyone looks out for themselves and maximizes the benefit to themselves will not, as it has done historically, result in a stratified, unstable society prone to uprising and revolution but will miraculously in our case have the opposite result.

I have pointed out on VJ numerous times that I believe we need an uprising and revolution. I believe society has become too complacent and needs a good shaking up. I don't object to the destruction of modern society as we know it.

So the question to address first is do you want that stratified, unstable society and hope that you are lucky enough to end up in the top 1 or 2 percent who will prosper?

This is currently my goal, yes.

Do you want to go with the line that anyone who doesn't end up in the top 2% must just be lazy and chose to be unprosperous and that the system has no effect?

I never said that people are lazy.

Do you want that stable, peaceful and prosperous (for more than the aristocracy) society

I don't really care...but I do think an unstable society is a more interesting society.

But what I do care about is that we following the Constitution. If it doesn't cut the mustard, then we should change it. But to ignore it, and just make stuff up, is simply not reasonable to me. I also believe that the federal government should be absolutely minimized to strictly bare essentials and state government should be responsible for whatever social benefits they wish to provide (not that think they should necessarily be providing them - just that if anyone is doing it, it should be them).

But like I said on here before in other places - I think it is time for this country to start over with a new constitution from scratch.

Edited September 14, 2008 by akdiver

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

Interesting read here. Having a wife from china I have tried to get to understand her history. They have gone from the government controling every aspect of their lives to a great deal of freedom. Not as much as here in the states mind you but so much better than even 10-15 years ago. Socialism has not worked. They are running away from it and the democratic party here is running towards it at full speed. For the people who desire national health care one note. National health care is up and running here in the United States. Just drop in to the local VA hospital. Not a good situation. This is what you will get when you try to nationalize health care. The government went after the tobacco companies. They had deep pockets. We will use that money to help the smokers. How many hospitals have been built to take care of the people who cannot read the warnings on the side of the pack. The money is gone and still a health crises in this country. Big oil is the next big business with deep pockets. Under the threat of "nationalization"(socialism)the democratic machine in washington will handle this also. You had Johnson come along and want to build a great society. People who went on the welfare rolls are now 3-4 generations living off the rest of the united states. The children have never seen a parent HAVE to get up at 6 AM put on a suit or blue shirt and get to work 5 days a week. So why should they get off to school. The number one reason for poverty in this country is unwed mothers. They look for the government to be DADDY.(socialism). When you go back in our history you find immigrants who could not even speak english survive here. NOT by government handouts but by working 2 even 3 jobs per week. They made sure the children went to school and college. When you see articles on minorities rarely are asians included. Failure is not an option for the children. No TV at night and study 6-7 hours per night. With the parents sitting right at the table. This takes care of no child left behind.....Do poor in school and your behind is involved. Just a few reasons to vote republican.Socialism is not an the answer for this country.

As someone who also has a wife in China, I would note that your fantasy is entirely untrue. Socialism is still a part of Chinese society, however, the principles of socialism were never as important as the the principles of totalitarianism. They've embraced capitalism in some forms but to suggest that allowing say foreign hotel chains to open hotels as long as they transfer them to Chinese ownership within 5 years could be considered rushing headlong into unfettered capitalism seems like a reach. The society is still tightly controlled and that is NOT a socialist principle, it is a totalitarian principle.

This is another favorite false argument. Point to a totalitarian state that calls itself "socialist" then pretend that this is what "Democrats" wish to emulate. That is entirely untrue. Pretend that immigrants fleeing brutal totalitarian regimes were fleeing "socialism". Do you really believe that? They were fleeing something like a social security payment and not the brutal dictator? This is a common argument and I'd really like to hear from the republicans on this.

So do we have some documents at Ellis Island that show people entering and saying, "The brutal dictator who killed my family I could tolerate, but then they wanted me to pay into social security and I just couldn't take it anymore!"

Was there a mass exodus to America from the social democracies of Europe?

Please explain why you feel that people fleeing repressive regimes that call themselves "socialist" aren't fleeing the dictator or the brutality or the repression but are actually fleeing the few socialist principles that those dictators actually institute.

[dalegg 143]

No it doesn't. Just because you can site examples, I've witnessed it in my own workplace, and it makes perfectly logical sense, doesn't mean it actually happens.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Heartland Institute is an unbiased, conservative free-market think tank that is just as reliable as the AP, Reuters, and PETA. There's no possible slant to their news articles, and Gary wouldn't dare post an article that is biased in any way, shape, or fashion.

Really, so I didn't really see it happen in my own work place? Thanks for helping me out. So, tell me why else some of the best employees we had were laid off?

[lostinblue 1,989]

Interesting read here. Having a wife from china I have tried to get to understand her history. They have gone from the government controling every aspect of their lives to a great deal of freedom. Not as much as here in the states mind you but so much better than even 10-15 years ago. Socialism has not worked. They are running away from it and the democratic party here is running towards it at full speed. For the people who desire national health care one note. National health care is up and running here in the United States. Just drop in to the local VA hospital. Not a good situation. This is what you will get when you try to nationalize health care. The government went after the tobacco companies. They had deep pockets. We will use that money to help the smokers. How many hospitals have been built to take care of the people who cannot read the warnings on the side of the pack. The money is gone and still a health crises in this country. Big oil is the next big business with deep pockets. Under the threat of "nationalization"(socialism)the democratic machine in washington will handle this also. You had Johnson come along and want to build a great society. People who went on the welfare rolls are now 3-4 generations living off the rest of the united states. The children have never seen a parent HAVE to get up at 6 AM put on a suit or blue shirt and get to work 5 days a week. So why should they get off to school. The number one reason for poverty in this country is unwed mothers. They look for the government to be DADDY.(socialism). When you go back in our history you find immigrants who could not even speak english survive here. NOT by government handouts but by working 2 even 3 jobs per week. They made sure the children went to school and college. When you see articles on minorities rarely are asians included. Failure is not an option for the children. No TV at night and study 6-7 hours per night. With the parents sitting right at the table. This takes care of no child left behind.....Do poor in school and your behind is involved. Just a few reasons to vote republican.Socialism is not an the answer for this country.

As someone who also has a wife in China, I would note that your fantasy is entirely untrue. Socialism is still a part of Chinese society, however, the principles of socialism were never as important as the the principles of totalitarianism. They've embraced capitalism in some forms but to suggest that allowing say foreign hotel chains to open hotels as long as they transfer them to Chinese ownership within 5 years could be considered rushing headlong into unfettered capitalism seems like a reach. The society is still tightly controlled and that is NOT a socialist principle, it is a totalitarian principle.

This is another favorite false argument. Point to a totalitarian state that calls itself "socialist" then pretend that this is what "Democrats" wish to emulate. That is entirely untrue. Pretend that immigrants fleeing brutal totalitarian regimes were fleeing "socialism". Do you really believe that? They were fleeing something like a social security payment and not the brutal dictator? This is a common argument and I'd really like to hear from the republicans on this.

So do we have some documents at Ellis Island that show people entering and saying, "The brutal dictator who killed my family I could tolerate, but then they wanted me to pay into social security and I just couldn't take it anymore!"

Was there a mass exodus to America from the social democracies of Europe?

Please explain why you feel that people fleeing repressive regimes that call themselves "socialist" aren't fleeing the dictator or the brutality or the repression but are actually fleeing the few socialist principles that those dictators actually institute.

I never said that the democrats wish to emulate a totalitarian government. Your words. I never mentioned anything about dictators. Socialism by one definition is

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

As a 5 year old girl in china my wife had to stand in line with a ration book to buy a chicken or eggs or the one piece of meat for the month. everything was controled by the state unless you went through "the back door".She would stand in line for hours and then go to another line and stand in line for another few hours. Just to buy the basics.

maxine waters has shown a desire to go down this path with the big oil companies. Socialism . First one industry then another.......This is why I vote republican.

[kaydee457 13]

No it doesn't. Just because you can site examples, I've witnessed it in my own workplace, and it makes perfectly logical sense, doesn't mean it actually happens.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Heartland Institute is an unbiased, conservative free-market think tank that is just as reliable as the AP, Reuters, and PETA. There's no possible slant to their news articles, and Gary wouldn't dare post an article that is biased in any way, shape, or fashion.

Is there anyone that you don't personally attack? Please keep your hissy fits to yourself. There's no point to this kind of bickering! For the second time in as many days I find it necessary to admonish you over these outbursts.

Gary's posts and his references and sources, as well as the ones that I post BTW, are always from legitimate sources that make their own argument for the published information.

If you don't agree with the source's conclusions then please refute them by citing sources of your own......

Edited September 14, 2008 by kaydee457

[IAMX 3,055]

No it doesn't. Just because you can site examples, I've witnessed it in my own workplace, and it makes perfectly logical sense, doesn't mean it actually happens.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Heartland Institute is an unbiased, conservative free-market think tank that is just as reliable as the AP, Reuters, and PETA. There's no possible slant to their news articles, and Gary wouldn't dare post an article that is biased in any way, shape, or fashion.

Really, so I didn't really see it happen in my own work place? Thanks for helping me out. So, tell me why else some of the best employees we had were laid off?

omg..

Read that post again dude. I can't believe I have to tell you that I was being blatantly sarcastic.

[Scott & Lai 12]

But you can see from those differences and at least understand why liberals are OK with the constitution and the system the founders set up, while conservatives tend to criticize the system for being too slow.

You can see why liberals tend to favor the ACLUs positions of supporting that system as written, while conservatives tend to think that speed should be held above the system.

You can see why liberals are less likely to support the death penalty, since it will be frequently applied incorrectly, while for conservatives it is still acceptable as a form of scapegoating that brings a conclusion to the process, right or wrong.

So it's the liberals who support the Constitution and the system the Founders set up?? The liberals believe that the federal government should be as small as possible, with specifically defined and limited powers, all other powers belonging to the states and the people? The liberals believe in the right of the people to arm themselves against goverment tyranny to secure their freedom? The liberals don't believe in wealth re-distribution? The liberals believe that criminals should receive a punishment that fits their crime? The liberals don't believe it is the job of government to provide us with whatever we need? Interesting...

Interesting read here. Having a wife from china I have tried to get to understand her history. They have gone from the government controling every aspect of their lives to a great deal of freedom. Not as much as here in the states mind you but so much better than even 10-15 years ago. Socialism has not worked. They are running away from it and the democratic party here is running towards it at full speed. For the people who desire national health care one note. National health care is up and running here in the United States. Just drop in to the local VA hospital. Not a good situation. This is what you will get when you try to nationalize health care. The government went after the tobacco companies. They had deep pockets. We will use that money to help the smokers. How many hospitals have been built to take care of the people who cannot read the warnings on the side of the pack. The money is gone and still a health crises in this country. Big oil is the next big business with deep pockets. Under the threat of "nationalization"(socialism)the democratic machine in washington will handle this also. You had Johnson come along and want to build a great society. People who went on the welfare rolls are now 3-4 generations living off the rest of the united states. The children have never seen a parent HAVE to get up at 6 AM put on a suit or blue shirt and get to work 5 days a week. So why should they get off to school. The number one reason for poverty in this country is unwed mothers. They look for the government to be DADDY.(socialism). When you go back in our history you find immigrants who could not even speak english survive here. NOT by government handouts but by working 2 even 3 jobs per week. They made sure the children went to school and college. When you see articles on minorities rarely are asians included. Failure is not an option for the children. No TV at night and study 6-7 hours per night. With the parents sitting right at the table. This takes care of no child left behind.....Do poor in school and your behind is involved. Just a few reasons to vote republican.Socialism is not an the answer for this country.

Good points.

[tammy2688 1]

I don't know what makes people vote republican. I cannot fathom it myself so I do not know or wish to know. Overall, best of luck to both parties but I will never stray from the Democratic party.

[IAMX 3,055]

I don't know what makes people vote republican. I cannot fathom it myself so I do not know or wish to know. Overall, best of luck to both parties but I will never stray from the Democratic party.

I can't fathom why you would never stray from a party. Is it like a football team or relationship faithfulness? Loyalty to the end?

Edited September 14, 2008 by SRVT

[dalegg 143]

No it doesn't. Just because you can site examples, I've witnessed it in my own workplace, and it makes perfectly logical sense, doesn't mean it actually happens.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Heartland Institute is an unbiased, conservative free-market think tank that is just as reliable as the AP, Reuters, and PETA. There's no possible slant to their news articles, and Gary wouldn't dare post an article that is biased in any way, shape, or fashion.

Really, so I didn't really see it happen in my own work place? Thanks for helping me out. So, tell me why else some of the best employees we had were laid off?

omg..

Read that post again dude. I can't believe I have to tell you that I was being blatantly sarcastic.

I told you before you confused me! I could see that most of what you were saying was sarcastic, but I thought you were using sarcasm to make your point.

Edited September 14, 2008 by dalegg