Morning Joe allowed McCain adviser to falsely assert Clinton and Obama are "talking about raising taxes across the board"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough, Willie Geist, and NBC News' Savannah Guthrie did not challenge senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt's false assertion that "[w]ith regard to the economy," Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are "talking about raising taxes across the board." In fact, Obama and Clinton have proposed tax cuts -- not tax increases -- for the poor and the middle class.
During the March 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain's campaign, falsely claimed that "[w]ith regard to the economy," Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are "talking about raising taxes across the board." In fact, Obama and Clinton have proposed tax cuts for the poor and the middle class. Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist, and NBC News correspondent Savannah Guthrie did not challenge Schmidt's assertion.
Indeed, a day earlier, during a March 27 interview on sister station CNBC, Obama reiterated, "I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less":
MARIA BARTIROMO (CNBC's Closing Bell host): So what about the top marginal rate for ordinary income? Who ought to pay more and who should pay less?
OBAMA: Well, you know, what I've said is that we should go back to probably a top marginal rate of 39 percent -- what it was before the Bush tax cuts. So I would roll back those Bush tax cuts, I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less. For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family. Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize. Because if you live in a house that's pretty expensive, like I do, and I itemize, I get a pretty big break from Uncle Sam. If you own a $100,000 house and you're making 65, $75,000 a year, you're not getting that same deduction. I think that they deserve a break as well. That will actually help relieve some of the pressure on homeowners.
Obama's website states that he "will create a new 'Making Work Pay' tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family." CNN reported on September 18, 2007: "Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed overhauling the tax code to lower taxes for the poor and middle class, increase them for the rich and make it so most Americans can file their taxes in five minutes. The tax relief plan he envisions for the middle class alone would mean $80 billion or more in tax cuts, he said."
Similarly, in a March 27 speech on the economy, Clinton also called for "middle class tax cuts":
CLINTON: I have proposed a very specific agenda to end the giveaways to corporate special interests and to save the American people at least $55 billion a year.
That's money that can go right back into your pockets through middle class tax cuts, money we can use to create new high-paying jobs, to invest in our nation's futures (sic) again, you know, for rebuilding our roads to our schools to our manufacturing sector.
Additionally, in a March 27 interview (subscription required) with The Wall Street Journal, Clinton noted that she supports "letting the [Bush] tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000." Clinton's website says that she would "[l]ower taxes for middle class families by: extending the middle class tax cuts including child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, offering new tax cuts for healthcare, college and retirement, and expanding the EITC [earned income tax credit] and the child care tax credit." Clinton also discussed reducing the tax burden on middle-income families in an October 8, 2007, speech on economic policy.
From the March 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCHMIDT: I hate to tell you, there's nothing you can do to keep John McCain off those shows. He loves them. He loves them. He loves going on. He's got a great sense of humor -- and, look, he understands politics. And, you know, he's a guy who watches this stuff at night and gets a laugh out of it, too.
SCARBOROUGH: Is he getting a laugh out of what the Democrats are doing to each other right now?
SCHMIDT: Well, we're interested by it, of course. We're watching it closely. We don't know who we're going to be running against yet, but we know they have a lot in common with regard to national security issues. We think they're wrong on that. With regard to the economy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton talking about raising taxes across the board. I think it's terrible for the economy. So, we're watching their process sort out. What we do know, Senator McCain is doing very well with Republicans, with independents, and an awful lot of Democrats, I think, are going to wind up supporting John McCain in this election.
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, let's talk about what's going on in Iraq.
The GOP shills have gotten so brazen in their lies that they don't even bother making it LOOK like they're presenting factual information. And morons like Joe Scarborough let them get away with it.
I hope that the first thing President Obama does next January is sign an Executive Order reinstitution the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe THAT will restore fairness and accuracy to the media.
Campaign advisors and spokespeople for both sides are always spinning their opponents in the worst possible light, wait until the Democrats stop sniping at each other and watch them haul out all sorts of doozies about McCain, no doubt.
So, Ok, Joe should have asked Schmidt for backup for his across the board tax raising assertion, but it is also a wise idea for anyone watching to take what a candidate's chief opponent says about the other guy/gal with a chunk of salt.
And thankfully, nobody with a lick of sense is proposing or advocating the absolutely unworkable Fairness Doctrine.
Ya, no more media outlets to worry about now, is there?
Just how would you work it?
I listen to Ed Schultz every day. With Progressives like Ed in major markets, why are you crying for the Fairness Doctrine?
If they're good like Schultz and others, there will be a demand for their program.
If they're good like Schultz and others, there will be a demand for their program.
There IS a demand. Unfortunately, that demand is ignored by station owner-comglomerates such as Clear Channel, Citadel, Salem, and Sinclair - they're only interested in broadcasting right-wing propaganda and crap.
Tommy, was the fairness doctrine unworkable before it was abolished? hardly. I would dare say it was working...and quite well, I might add.
It was working so well, in fact, that Reagan and his accomplices got it abolished under the guise of "Freedom of Speech". And as a result, the only speech you hear in many major radio markets is right-wing. So suppression of political speech is part of Reagan's "legacy" - a leagacy that looks worse and worse as time goes on.
The death of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of companies like Clear Channel, Salem Communications, and Citidel that own and program hundreds of stations to spew their right wing agenda to the exclusion of alternate views is IMHO the worst thing that ever happened to radio in this country.
The most important item in all of this: Obama "want[s] to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less."
So ... if you make more than $75,000, you are getting your taxes raised! Meanwhile, almost 27 percent of all households in the U.S. had incomes of $75K or greater in 2006!
If you're a working guy hoping to support your family, look out! Obama's message: Don't make "too much"!
No, Shoes, I realize that. I was just wondering why you mentioned Obama planning to raise taxes on people making 75k+, then gave a stat on households .
I'm not saying you're lying, I was asking. I wasn't able to find a clear answer using the Googles.Does anybody have a good source for Obama's tax plan regarding how it applies to individuals vs. joint filers?
Solon, I may have interpreted it wrong, but I think POV was saying that MMFA would be gone because theyre wrong/a smear site/liars, etc. I think you interpreted it as saying that a fairness doctrine would instantly eliminate all of the BS in the media.
I could be wrong. Not the first time.
Numbers really confuse you, right? It isn't Bush's debt--it's what we're on the hook for as a result of programs like Medicare and Social Security.
And it's 50+ trillion.
But hey, elect a Progressive and he/she will just make "The Rich" pay for it. Won't cost the rest of us anything.
But wait....they just decided that you're one of the rich...the threshhold keeps getting lower.
no, they don't give a damn about YOUR or MY grandchildren. They are setting theirs up to take over the country and are usurping all the wealth.
The elite run the nation, and nepatism is the rule.
You're even starting to beleive your own BS, BB! If you know anything, you know that the bigtime entitlements started with one of your icons, FDR.
Which party moved SS funds from the "Trust Fund" into the general fund? Democrats, under Johnson.
Which party eliminated the income tax deduction for SS withholding? The Democrats.
Which party started taxing SS annuities? The Democrats, with Gore casting the tie-breaking vote as VP and Pres. of the Senate.
You have a problem in trying to blame the SS mess on anybody but the Democrat party, in view of the fact that FDR started it, and Dems were in power without a break for what--45 or 50 years?
Don't lie to your descendants when they ask who conceived and accelerated this mess.
I'll give you a pass on your inability to do simple math--you're doubtless a product of U.S. public education, which delights in dumbing everybody down so that a few won't have their feelings hurt.
If the BUDGET deficit were a trillion for every year of Dubya's tenure(which it wasn't), WHAT PART OF 43 TRILLION IS THAT?
Get some help.
I wonder how the dittoheads will defend this one...
Actually, technically, tax rates may not go up for everybody under a Democratic controlled WH and Congress, but you can bet your secret chicken recipe of 11 herbs and spices that your expenses may go up.....when the Democrats soak the rich and raise their taxes, while funding all their social programs, what do you think the dirty rich folks are going to do? Sit there an take it? Not likely - they either lay people off to cut expenses, or raise prices to offset their tax increases, which hurts the poor and middle class the most.
But it's typical liberal policies, they always end up hurting the most the people they say they want to help.
Tommy, I work for somebody else now, but I've run my own business in the past, and there's one thing in your post that I can never understand- the part about getting rid of employees to cut expenses.
If you consider employees an expense, you probably shouldn't be in business. I exploited the hell out of my employees. Hopefully, I provided them with a relationship that was beneficial to them,kept them happy, and allowed them to improve their lives, but I sure didn't do it as a public service.They were there to make money for me. That goes in the other column, not expenses.
I completely agree. "payroll", however, is only a part, the "expense" part, of what an employee is. My point is that if your employee is not making enough money to cover payroll, bennies, and all related taxes, overhead and expenses, plus the profit you've decided to make, then either that employee is paid too much, or you don't know how to run a business.
I was just pointing out that reliable threat that's used by conservatives, that if a business owner is taxed( his net income is reduced), he'll naturally react by getting rid of something that is making him money (reducing his income further).
Just has never made sense to me. I always made more money when I had more employees.
Col, I am talking about payroll, employee payroll as an expense of a business. When business are faced with less gross profit margin, payroll is usually looked at first to see where cuts can be made - if not in wage increases, then hours cut, or as a last resort, layoffs to reduce said expense.
Stockholders and business plans have certain expectations, if revenues are dwindling for whatever reason, expenses will need to be cut as a result otherwise management is not doing their job.
I'm not arguing with that, Tommy. In fact, when things get tight, it often forces businesses to do things they should have done before-getting rid of dead weight and "redundant" employees.
I was only making the point that it's not logical, regardless of changes in tax rates or any other outside factor, to get rid of something that (ideally) is increasing profit ,to increase profit. "Ideally" meaning the business is being run competently. If that employee is not making money, they should be gone regardless of the tax shift.
The scenario you are describing is EXACTLY what happens in businesses like Mall-Wart, McCrappy's, Notexactlythe BestBuy, etc. Having been an employee and a manager at these types of places, I can tell you that managers are ALWAYS doing that to employee payrolls regardless of profits falling or rising. That is our main job, other than getting the product out.
One reason we were told to do this (and it was NEVER for the benefit of the employees, obviously) was because no matter how many suspensions, firings, low wages, dissatisfaction, etc. the employees had to deal with, if they decided to leave it was SO EASY to replace them due to how easy the particular job function is to train (flipping burgers is now just pressing a button and using the spatula to stack them in a container- so easy even Bush could do it!). Managers look at the day-to-day operations to cut cost while the bigwigs look at outside factors to cut cost (outsourcing, new shipping routes, where to build, what product to sell at that locaion, etc.).
The point is at these types of businesses employee payroll is pretty much the ONLY thing managers can control to keep costs down even if their decisions are *really* neccessary, because, as we all know, there IS more to life than just making a buck. Making people live with affordable wages and enjoying their work is NOT what these companies have in mind at all!
Hey, why not cut all the "expenses", lay off the entire workforce. Then the magic gnomes can come out at night to get the work accomplished.
That's the fairy tale land you live in.
It's too bad for Tommy that he can't dismiss this argument from Solon without insults. Solon actually used reasonable points, and then Tommy becomes a projector and a mirror at the same time.
Business is looser with payroll when times are good.
The only thing more obvious is that most posters here have not been business owners.
You mean the obvious fact that most here have no experience @ business aside from workin' for da man (hence the attitude)?
Thanks for concurring on the obvious fact.
Ask any business owner Solon, if you don't believe me. It's not about excess employees, that is absurd. Have you never heard of a business that lays off workers, or gives little or no raises? The reason is lack of work for those employees, or expenses have risen so managers look to the most controllable expense in any company to cut, which is payroll.
Management tells existing employees they need to compensate or pick up the slack, this isn't some liberal or conservative bias, it's reality.
If you don't get it, then you refuse to accept it.........sorry.
tommy,
Union advocates rarely have a grasp on a company's profit and loss structure.
Hi Wes,
You have been sorely missed, and you are so right......I forget, employees are always victims, and the job producers/creators are the villians - weird, huh?
Union advocates rarely have a grasp on a company's profit and loss structure.
This is my position. If you're an employer who can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, maybe running a business is not your forte.
-- I just need to know how the economy works. -- loonz
Correctamundo...
Wes,
You got me right in the conscience. From now on I'm not gonna get my car washed at any place that isn't paying their help at least 30k (that's 40 w/payroll taxes and comp).
Everybody here is willing to pay 30 bucks for a car wash, I'm sure.
And nobody here is a party to worker exploitation. No Wal-Mart customers here, no sir!
Just Wal-Mart owners, through their pension funds.
"No wonder my paperboy looks like a darned ragamuffin. It never dawned on me before that the evil newspaper company should be paying him about $30k a year."
You have paperboys? My paper deliverer is a 28 year old single woman with two kids. She works three jobs to make a living wage.
I get it...I get it.
Forget my paltry plea for $30k...single mother with 2 kids...heck they should be paying her about $60K.
'm in a union and the prevailing wage for the particular industry I'm in is determined by our hourly wage. The hourly wage is based on an agreement between my union and the contractors who employ us.
Reasonable people should be able to agree on what the living wage should be.
what if the employer cannot pay that?
They need to find a better business model or find another profession.
So if all the newspaper carriers who make let's say 20k per year, now make 60k per year, you think there will be no noticeable increase in prices of the product their employers put out? You can't possibly believe it will be spread out over anything or some such nonsense?
Perhaps the people working their need to get a better education, that allows them to get a better job.
They could but in my opinion, if you can't pay your employees a decent wage, you should find another profession.
"you either work to improve your skills to get a better paying job"
That still shouldn't negate an employer from paying a decent wage.
Tommy, Loonz is trying to tell you he is willing and able to pay $5 for his daily newspaper--that's all, give the man credit for his compassion.
The point is that some people think business has a bottomless bank account that it hoards just to be mean.
If somebody doesn't pay you enough--go to a company or industry that WILL pay you what you want.
It mystifies me that good Libs such as the NYT and Wash. Post don't have higher paid delivery persons?
How COULD that be?
Those two newspapers are "good liberals"??! Even putting the anthropromorphic generalization aside, it is so lame of you to characterize these papers as "liberal." Remember Judith Miller and all her articles based on Chalabi's misinformation?
Read all the Media Matters articles showing these papers printing conservative misinformation. If anything, these papers are guilty of simply parroting statements by this administration. There are notable exceptions where they've done stellar digging into the facts and uncovering misdeeds. This you probably think of as "liberal."
In other words you CANT show your math because you pulled it directly out of your ASS and it isnt a point after all.
You, Mr. L, Loonz, et al will NOT answer this question coherently (you will sidestep it):
HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY, TODAY, FOR A NEWSPAPER OR A CARWASH?
We're all ready for your non-answers.
Time's up!!!
I'll make it easier on you. What should a good, UNION rate be for a car wash or a newspaper.
You won't give a straight answer to that either.
Or conversely, why do you need a Lexus...maybe the government should just mandate that everyone drive a yugo...wouldn't require such a high a living wage.
Beer for everybody instead of champagne. Steak? Forget it...beans and taters are adequate.
I didn't realize how easy this wage thing could be fixed.
Mass transit? Even better. What a life...the government hauling me everywhere I need to go...and we can stick it to those nasty insurance companies gouging us for car insurance.
I have no idea where I'm going to spend all my money when I get that paperboy job for $60K a year.
Wesley and Tommy....
You guys are just brutal. Ya won the exchange w/the ragamuffon paperboy remark (two pages ago). Do ya just hafta griiiiiiind on the defenseless here?
For shame.
"Who determines that living wage? If my living wage demands that I have a new Lexus every two years in order to live, why isn't that my living wage?"
http://www.nea.org/pay/espcalc.html
Who determines that living wage? You do! And your local community.
And your "new Lexus every two years" quip is funny, but unnecessary, because I'm sure you know that that doesn't figure in to a living wage.
When he said "you do", he meant the royal "you".
It's like two kids who want the same piece of cake. They decide how to share it. The best way is for one of them to cut the piece in half, and the other one gets to pick his chosen half. The community decides what a living wage includes, and I cannot imagine any community that will look at the cost/benefit ratio and conclude that a Lexus is an appropriate part of a living wage. You yourself will not decide that you and everyone else should be able to buy a Lexus because you will recognize the costs you would incur if you did.
Here's a good definition from Wikipedia:
"[A living wage] means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation."
The living wage will vary from state to state based on the cost of living.
Those programs will of course disappear once everybody is paid a living wage.
And just to fully extend that subsidy you cite--you mean WE, the CONSUMERS, are therefore subsidized, don't you?
At whose expense? Why is it you conservatives are ALWAYS so concerned about a richmans dollar but never very concerned about a working mans? Why is it we have to be SOOOO worried about what will happen to wealth and power but not what will happen to the working class? Why do you think that what MIGHT happen indirectly is so much more important than what WILL happen directly. Do you seriously want to tell a working stiff working fulltime for poverty wages he ought to give up a raise to a living wage because it MIGHT cost him more money in consumer costs down the road? That what WILL effect him directly is no good because of how it MIGHT effect him indirectly? You guys act like the ONLY criteria for the price of anything is what it costs to make. That is assuming facts not in evidence. Bussinesses charge WHAT THEY CAN GET. Over the past thirty years wages have stayed flat while corporate profits have skyrocketed. The average CEO in the 70s in the US used to make 25 times what a worker made now he makes more than 400 times as much as the average worker. Do you think the ONLY fat to be trimmed is to be found in workers salaries? Or ALL costs are passed on to consumers? I remember that labor costs for cars went down as they moved their factories to Mexico and I didnt see any drop in car prices. They charge what they can get.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
You guys have it exactly wrong you think capital is superior to labor.
For the record, I am presently just a "working stiff" myself (sob).
If you think management is overcompensated, you (as an owner of these companies, which you are) must have a reason for not spending more of your time trying to effect change within YOUR companies. Presumably, then, the companies would waste less money and be more profitable--a benefit to you, an owner.
But wait. Elsewhere here you are holding forth on the topic of compensation, and insisting that business pays only as much as it HAS to.
Get yourself up to speed on what's happening in the pension fund world.
California State Employees Association would be one example. The retirement fund brings a lot of pressure to bear re: corporate governance, compensation of executives, etc.
Your "20 shares" premise is false when you consider the huge blocks of stock it would be part of.
The lack of activism among shareholders is because they are happy to collect on the benefits of ownership and are not motivated to put time and effort into activism in light of how they are benefitting.
First you argue that a paperboy should make $60k...and now you say a living wage is only $50k...gosh...just how much should that evil newspaper be forced to pay?
Let's see...if the paper is required to pay $60k...I'm beginning to figure it out. I can start a company and hire 500 paperboys at $50k...pocket the other $10k and knock down a cool $5MM.
Wow...I'm beginning to get the hang of this living wage thing.
Exactly, just ignore that fact that your newspaper costs $180.00 per copy, and $185.00 for the Sunday edition.......people won't grumble about paying that, at least they won't leave it laying around Starbucks at that price.
Exactly, just ignore that fact that your newspaper costs $180.00 per copy
If the paper costs $180.00 then we'll have to raise the living wage to one million dollars.
"Exactly, just ignore that fact that your newspaper costs $180.00 per copy, and $185.00 for the Sunday edition......."
OK, Tommy, you didn't show your work, but 60K comes out to $1,154 a week gross, or 164 bucks a day (7 day week) your math works out if that paper carrier was delivering one paper per day and originally was being paid about negative 15 dollars a day.
Did this scenario come from the same low-wage enthusiasts trying to scare people with the $50 Big Mac?
"Exactly, just ignore that fact that your newspaper costs $180.00 per copy, and $185.00 for the Sunday edition......."
OK, Tommy, you didn't show your work, but 60K comes out to $1,154 a week gross, or 164 bucks a day (7 day week) your math works out if that paper carrier was delivering one paper per day and originally was being paid about negative 15 dollars a day.
Did this scenario come from the same low-wage enthusiasts trying to scare people with the $50 Big Mac?
No, but there must have been some reason for quality compromise (species compromise?) in that deep fried chicken.
I'm disappointed, Lemoc. You seem to be Tommy and Wesley's cheerleader, except when they're exposed, then it's a chicken joke and a dodge.
Although I dig the chicken jokes! ;0)
And who specifies that? Exactly, and is it the same for everyone in a certain community?
The employers and the community can come up with a reasonable wage that ensures that workers live comfortably.
This is my last attempt. Let me try this. If I sell a widget for $1 dollar and I have 10 employees that I pay $10 her hour per, then just to break even with payroll alone I need to sell 100 widgets per hour @ $1 per widget. If I am forced to increase their pay to let's say, $20 per hour, then I have options;
1) cut 5 employees and have the same payroll expense.
2) or raise the price of widgets to $2 each, and hope people still buy.
3) or just hope I sell 200 widgets an hour on my new business model.
Either the laid off employees are screwed, the consumer who is now forced to pay $2 for a widget is screwed, or I am screwed because I can't meet expenses and close my business, where all 10 employees are then screwed.
Everything has a cost, the living wage idiocy certainly does, if you look beyond the end of your nose.
-Again, if the employer cannot pay a decent wage, they should not be in business.
-Increasing the wages of people at the bottom leads to an increase in demand, which leads to an increase in employment (the employer has to meet that demand) and a decrease in the cost per product.
-If the employer raises prices too high, he is shooting himself in the foot.
Right now, our economy is only working for wealthy people. I want it to work for everyone.
You have not addressed one single real scenario or specific I have laid out, except to regurgitate the same generalizing pie-in-the-sky silliness over and over again. You won't address the astronomical increases in costs of goods or how employers are to pay these whopping wage increasese except to say employers shouldn't be in business, or people will have more to spend so everything will be peachy keen. You have failed to say who will determine this living wage except more generalizing baloney about how people will work it out for themselves.
Typical liberal lala land stuff, glad the rest of us deal in reality.
We disagree.
tommy...we've circled all the way around to the beginning...union advocates rarely get the fundamentals of business...want proof...
-- an increase in demand, which leads to an increase in employment (the employer has to meet that demand) and a decrease in the cost per product. -- loonz
There is no direct link to higher demand...hence higher production...meaning the price per unit goes lower...except in the union mentality. The oil leaking in this theory is demonstrated by the naive discounting of the increased payroll to increase production, along with increased tooling and equipment.
But that is why most unions vote liberal. They favor government taking care of them...just as they think that corporations owe them a living. Victimhood...it will bring you down every time.
Actually, it's your precious free market. The way unions see it, you have the right to offer crappy pay for good work, and we have the right to not do it. You don't want to pay what we're asking? Don't hire us.
We don't think that corporations owe us a living......unless they've hired us to work.
So why do you want to tax them (taxing yourself, if you could just see it) at every opportunity?
You don't think they owe you a living, INDEED! Verrrrrry funny.
They favor government taking care of them
If the government is not here to serve us, why the hell do we need a government?
Why do you vote?
There is no direct link to higher demand...hence higher production...meaning the price per unit goes lower
Of course there is. If you raise the wages of people who spend 100 percent of their income, the money will find its way back into the economy benefiting everyone.
sppllfft...gaak...sputter...pardon me while I clean off my screen and keyboard...LOL.
Only a hypnotized union member would equate higher wages with lower production costs. It runs directly opposite of union philosophy. Empowering workers with incentives of higher wages can lead to a more productive work force...but not in a union shop.
Unions oppose merit raises and support seniority raises...everyone does the same work with little incentive for innovation.
Good luck with that financial wizardry of spending every penny you make...whoo boy...that's ripe.
Unions oppose merit raises and support seniority raises
This is a lie. I get paid over the rate specified in our contract because the employer likes the work I do.
Can't happen...unless the union growler is unaware of the contract violation
It's not a contract violation.
Only a hypnotized union member would equate higher wages with lower production costs. (Wesley)
Who did that?
The oil leaking in this theory is demonstrated by the naive discounting of the increased payroll to increase production, along with increased tooling and equipment.
What you've basically said right here is that an increase in demand does nothing to help a business.
You have failed to say who will determine this living wage except more generalizing baloney about how people will work it out for themselves.
The community can decide what the basic needs of an individual are (this can be determined with a survey). The community can then set a living wage to meet those needs.
Oh gawd amighty...quit it...you're killing me...
While you're at this community survey...ask them what clothes you should wear...what food to eat...how often you need to brush your teeth...what time you should go to work...
How much is your rent per month?
How much are your utilities per month?
How much do you spend on food per week?
How much are your medical premiums?
How much do you spend on transportation to get to and from work?
And you can come up with an amount for five basic outfits to wear.
"You have not addressed one single real scenario or specific I have laid out..." (Tommy)
You mean like the one where you pay your employees the retail price of your widgets to make them, and then, hypothetically, have to double their wages? I think I'm getting an idea of what a "real scenario" is in Tommyworld.
"...the one where you pay your employees the retail price..."
Correction: Before I get busted on a technical, that could be wholesale. I don't know if Tommy was paying his employees $1 to produce something he sells to a middleman or the end user for $1.
Who is wealthy, Loonz?
You won't say, because you know that some consider YOU wealthy, compared to their circumstances. But you have a vague, if slightly apprehensive idea that you can stay under the radar, by just voting for the next Robin Hood that'll sock it to "the wealthy" (them business owners).
Right now, as a matter of fact, you're feeling comfortable because your pension fund is profiting. On what? Them dirty businesses, owned by those "wealthy" stockholders like yourself.
Think about it.
Right except the richest 10% of Americans own 85% of all stock
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
"The richest 10% of Americans" takes in everybody posting here.
Others who could own stock don't by choice. But they have that LCD or plasma tv, drink at bars, eat fastfood two meals a day, etc.
I'm one of them, at least to an extent. And it's so comforting to come here and find out that my financial straits are somebody else's fault.
Gee, thanks.
Nanny will decide what you need soon enough.
Good Progressives think 100k is way more than you need.
The voice of experience.
Thanks.
I've been on a payroll for about a year , and received a couple raises.
If it's not enough, I'll go elsewhere instead of kidding myself into the mindset that I have an ownership interest by virtue of the fact that I work there. Ownership carries risk and headaches.
I've enjoyed the luxury of not having risk and headaches during the last year.
You learn fast when the goons show up to "organize" and agitate, in any way they damn please, thanks to NLRB.
"...back in the day..."; could you maybe come forward to modern times--say within the last fifty years?
You've led a sheltered life as to what goes on in labor organizing (you're obsessed with a hundred years ago).
Tommy, "lack of work for employees" is a different matter altogether (since what started this was your point that consumer expenses would go up with taxes on business owners), an employee with nothing to do is not making money no matter the tax rate.
I do think you and Wesley going to the "evil employer" story and insulting others' understanding of business is funny considering that your first impulse in dealing with a tax increase on wealthier people is to put their employees out of their jobs.It sort of implies that the solution is to increase the burden on the remaining people actually doing the work to make sure the owners and stockholders don't suffer any inconvenience.
I get what you're saying, Tommy.But, as I said before, payroll is the expense (the bulk of it) of an employee. It is not the sum total of that employee, which is what that employee is producing, less the expense of employing him. Hopefully, this number is in the positives.
Payroll is controllable as compared to most of your overhead, materials, etc., but just because that's generally interpreted to mean that should be the prime target doesn't mean that any change that affects a business should be absorbed entirely by "payroll". It's historically been thought of that way, mainly because the people at the top get to decide what's most controllable.
Business is generally looser with payroll when times are good. It's axiomatic. The converse is also true.
Your depiction of business owners as Ebineezer Scrooge, burning the midnight oil over their books to see if they can shave somebody's wages, is ridiculous and naiive.
Economies of scale are altered with changes in taxes, general health of the economy, local and national fluctuations, etc.
Businesses will opt to run "tighter ships", or just smaller scale operations (many have that flexibility), figuring that they must get lean to make it through tough times.
Indexing minimum wage to inflation, as Obama proposes, will have immediate results in that regard; payroll costs will increase ahead of revenues. Higher costs due to inflation often squeeze a business before the increased revenues due to inflation ever arrive. Marginal workers will be laid off.
I guess somebody has to draw you a picture.
Here it is: raise minimum wage enough, and I will not hire the help I do currently to wash my trucks.
They'll be washed only occassionally, and at a drive-through.
Shiny vehicles are worth only so much. At some point, the expense cannot be justified to the stockholders (you).
Oh, and I forgot to add: when you live a life of 100% security (union member in an industry that will never be allowed to fail--you know, the one where the Fireman shovelled coal into a conveyor that dumped it back in front of him, for 40 years after the switch to diesel), it colors your whole thought process.
Puts you into a rut so deep you can't see over the sides.
Tommy'ds post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, namely McCain's spokespeople lying about something neither Obama nor Clinton have said.
Don't let him derail yet another discussion in which he can't counter the lies but tries to deflect to hide his lack of defense.
No they dont. YOU are a liar.
Given that the decisions, policies and results we've endured for the last 7 years have been anything but liberal, I'm ready and willing to find out for real whether or not a liberal agenda would really be any worse, instead of hearing righties do all the math and economics in their head and tell us how bad it will be.
Somebody making 100K is standing against the weak when you endorse policies that eliminate jobs for THE WEAKEST (minimum wage earners).
Sure 'nuff...this $100k/yr train conductor should be willing to sacrifice for his fellow man. I think we should find two unfortunate homeless persons to help him. They can split the $100k three ways.
Just think of the humanity...3 workers making a living wage...instead of just one hogging the $100k...and I'm sure the performance wouldn't suffer with 3 guys to do the work of one...sounds like utopia for a union man.
Utopians are pitifully bound by a PIE MINDSET. Everything is about who gets what % of some pie somewhere.
Get a clue. Economic freedom makes a bigger pie. Or, in the case of entrepeneurs, you make your OWN pie (quintessentially, Bill Gates).
Of course you can opt for the Progressive model. Shiny examples are Cuba, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, The Soviet Union...
OK...just a couple of questions about Obama.
-- I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less -- Obama
Who is Obama defining as middle class? Are those making +$76k wealthy?
-- The tax relief plan he envisions for the middle class alone would mean $80 billion or more in tax cuts -- mmfa
Shouldn't mmfa have explained where he plans to make up the $80B decrease in revenue...since they believe that tax cuts reduce revenue. The link provided by mmfa doesn't address that.
"Shouldn't mmfa have explained where he plans to make up the $80B decrease in revenue."
It's really that tough to figure out where $80 billion in savings could possibly come from?
It's not part of what Budget? Obama's? He has yet to submit one as president.
If he holds true to his promise, Obama will immediately reduce the cost of the Iraq occupation and eventually eliminate it from his budget altogether.
That's $340 million in savings per day, which means...
8 months of no American forces in Iraq = $80 billion in savings.
That doesn't mean it's off the backs of the taxpayers.
Lying about an expense by calling it "off budget" doesn't mean it ceases to exist as an expense.
Of course it doesn't...but the question was about the budget...not the total expenses. Pulling out of Iraq and elimination of those expenses does nothing to address the out of control spending in the federal budget.
When "budget" cuts are proposed...mmfa is at the forefront of whining about how we pay for them. But when Obama proposes a tax cut...mmfa is strangely quiet on how he proposes to pay for them.
Strangely quiet because....
1. It's not within their scope to educate you on Obama's plans, only to correct those who lie about them.
2. It's obvious because of the reason I stated.
Who is Obama defining as middle class? Are those making +$76k wealthy?
I wouldn't categorize a person making 76k as wealthy and I'm pretty sure Obama wouldn't either. I think he's trying to find some middle ground by cutting taxes for those making less than 75K. About 80 - 85 percent of American workers make 75K or less.
In Washington-speak when congress reduces a proposed budget increase it is called a cut - though in reality it is indeed an increase. As the Bush tax cuts expire and middle class rates are scheduled to return to their higher levels, if they only rise back to half of what they are planned to go to is that in BO-speak a "cut"? Show me the numbers BO before you use the word cut. What experience does BO have in developing a tax policy anyway?
Face it folks - all three candidates are liberals - hold on to your wallets.
I will ! (hold onto my wallet) . Unless we have another "conservative" administration, and there's nothing to put into it, I'll get rid of the useless thing.
But assuming we get those scary "liberals" back in office, I'm looking forward to using my wallet more often. Last time they were in charge, I had a lot more in my wallet.
Only because you had a Republican Congress who controlled spending and the budgets.
Divided government works best!
first part - possibly, in some areas
second part - 10-4, Tommy!
That could only be true if the participants were sincere and not vindictive game playing, arrogant lobby controlled deceitful two-timers. (and although I am talking about the Republican congress, both parties are somewhat guilty.)
The Republican party politicians have buried their better impulses so deep that no inner Light breaks out at all.
What experience does BO have in developing a tax policy anyway?
I just need to know how the economy works. I would have to say that both Obama and Clinton have a better understanding of how the economy works than any republican.
From BO's website:
Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.
You need to know how tax policy works. If BO believes that the people who are spending $2B on tax prep are the same ones who are going to file with pre-filled IRS forms he doesn't have a clue as to how real people file their taxes. Unless he is going to totally revamp the tax code the only people using the pre-filled forms are the same ones using the 1040EZ now. That may end up costing more for the employers and banks to provide that service.
The $2B being spent on tax prep is being used by those who take advantage of every loophole and deduction to reduce their tax burden. That will increase as his plans to soak the rich will lead to even greater efforts to avoid paying taxes.
The Tax code is as much a political tool as a revenue generator. Getting the majority of congress to buy into his plan will be difficult at best. He doesn't have the political capital to pull it off.
I'm not sure you're correct on this one. I bet there are thousands of people who pay $50 for tax prep with turbotax or hr block for every ONE person who pays more for more complex tax preparation.
What's does "simplifying tax filings" have to do with "how the economy works"?
And I file my taxes using H&R Block's TaxCut software. The program migrates a lot of the information from the previous year and I can literally file my taxes within minutes because of that feature.
-- Actually, it's your precious free market. The way unions see it, you have the right to offer crappy pay for good work, and we have the right to not do it. You don't want to pay what we're asking? Don't hire us. -- kevino
I like that idea...now the next step is to get rid of the closed union shops...that fits neatly in your premise of "don't hire us".
Most of the benefits and wages non-union employees enjoy today are as a result of the efforts of unions for a century before today.
Unions won lots of rights and fair treatment for employees, and made employers accountable. They aren't as necessary today because they did their jobs well in previous decades.
During those decades when unions were winning their biggest accomplishments were the decades that America became the strongest nation in the world by far.
Now that unions have less power and influence, our nation is struggling with much more class warfare and much more income-disparity than most of us have seen in our lifetimes. We're reverting. Yet conservative disparge unions. They want that disparity, or think they do. Brainwashed people who think that keeping the powerful right in the lap of luxury will trickle down to them.
This was a pretty enlightening thread, I mean for the conservative views. I live among a lot of trust fund babies and bored real housewives of the O.C., and I've always been amazed at their view of economics,They start a business, expect somebody else to do all the work, and when the business fails, it's always because the people running it wanted some money.
And these are usually small vanity sort of efforts, not even getting into that frightening and oppressive Union stuff. Thank you for volunteering your very interesting views.
Solon's put out some good stuff, the Col and some others have been most informative as well.
Been in the electricians union of all things for most of my career. Being in work considered a national security issue they don't have many of the tools that most unions have. I support them regardless of their personal utility. With them you can start from zelitch, and develop a say in matters, the has nothing to do with who yo daddy is or how much your worth. This says nothing about the worth of your say either. Humans can screw up the most amazing things.