There is a tipping point in every family, at which family members do not have enough and over which there is little extra to provide for some dreams.

The living wage situation is worse than ever. I see honest men and women doing their best to provide for their children. One way they manage is by having only one old family car and riding bicycles.

Other ways are to make the best use of food and rent only a small home. Another way is to work long hours at multiple or even part-time jobs.

There is not enough money to meet basic needs, let alone to have access to educational and technological opportunities.

Raising the minimum wage to even $11 per hour would help to provide a little extra cushion to avoid going into debt.

The work landscape has changed so that today people cannot grow much of their own food. People have to be able to access respectable work and earn a living wage for themselves and their families.

The corporations should not make their profits at the expense of poor, working Americans and working middle class Americans. We will all be more secure if we give a living wage to workers.

Sylvia Suzcs


(76) comments

Carlos Ponce

There should be NO minimum wage. You would see wages rise without government intervention. Each potential employee should negotiate for his salary and let the market forces prevail. In most cases you will see that supply and demand works even in the employee market. Why do you think they have have to put wage caps on NFL players? Think of it this way. You apply for a job at companies A, B, C, D which all currently offer minimum wage. Which do you pick? You pick the one with the better package; better benefits, hours, job conditions. But let's say there is NO minimum wage. You go to company A and ask "How much do you pay?" I offer $8 an hour. "Thank you" you say. "Company B offers me $8.50 or $9, or $10, or more". You negotiate. If company A is really in need of your services, they will meet or beat the other company's offer. Right now it's an employer's paradise, a monopoly. They offer the government mandated minimum wage. Canada has NO national minimum wage. Neither does Austria, Bahrain, Brunei, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Micronesia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Norway, Rwanda, São Tomé, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Zimbabwe all through which wages may be negotiated. And the current minimum wage is just an entry level wage.

Kevin Lang

When it's a seller's market, it's much easier for workers to command wages higher than employers want to pay. In a buyer's market, not so much. Considering that the market for unskilled labor is a buyer's market, people looking for work will have to accept what McDonald's is offering. Now, once you've proven your value, you can certainly ask for a raise, but, you'd better make sure that someone else will pay what you're asking for before making too strong of demands. Many skilled labor jobs are in demand. However, a lot of those are open only so far as to justify the cost of moving them offshore. For those jobs, you'd better be careful about your asking price, as you might wind up landing the job just long enough to train your offshore replacement and go look for another one.

It's wise that one understand the market they're bartering in before they start making demands on the market.

J. Shaffer

In Canada, the minimum wage is $9,95 usd/hr. Denmark uses collective bargaining and the wage is $20 usd/hr.

Here in America, the minimum wage has stayed stagnant for twenty years. Then, I could work three jobs and put myself through college. Now, you can work three jobs and not be able to pay the rent.

With far too many workers and not enough jobs thanks to corporate outsourcing, the competition for jobs will NOT increase salaries if the minimum wage cap was eliminated, it would reduce wages as desperate people try to feed families.

Who picks up the slack if employers pay slave wages? You and I do. Right now a family making minimum wage qualifies for food stamps and other government assistance. They don't like it, you don't like it.

If they made enough per hour, we wouldn't have to support workers with our tax dollars while also giving giant corporations giant tax cuts.

In states where the minimum wage was raised, the economy has not suffered as a result. In Australia the minimum wage is $17 usd/hr and their economy is booming.

Carlos Ponce

Again I repeat, Canada has NO NATIONAL Minimum wage The minimum wage in Canada is set by each province and territory; ranges from C$9.95 to C$11.00 per hour. From your source.
And collective bargaining is NEGOTIATING. Denmark has no government mandated minimum wage.
And Australia has zero illegal immigrants, too. Must be those sharks in the water!

George Croix

I can remember back a few years to B.O. time when college grads talked about going out and finding a good job and incumbent employees would get raises and decent benefits and 20 bucks an hour was considered good but not great, and so on...
Now, some call it 'compassionate' to argue for raising the MINIMUM wage, because it's become a career path for miilions who once would have had a hope of a real good long term job, not what has historically been a place for high school kids to make some extra dough. The 26 year old "children" back in their old bedrooms at home may rightly wonder what the H is being done for them besides 'helping' them with a higher amount of not enough money to live on.
It DOES say a lot for two things that 'minimum wage' is the hot topic these days:
1) The ability of this Adminsitration to deflect and divert attention away from it's own failures
2) The willingness of their still adoring supporters to be deflected and diverted

A deep breath...iiinnnn....ooouuutttt...then, reality........

(Tax Foundation) - In today’s globalized world, U.S. corporations are increasingly at a competitive disadvantage. They currently face the highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent. This overall rate is a combination of our 35 percent federal rate and the average rate levied by U.S. states. Corporations headquartered in the 33 other industrialized countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), however, face an average rate of 25 percent. Even corporations in high-tax European countries such as Belgium (34 percent), France (34.4 percent), and Sweden (22 percent) face much lower rates than those in the United States. Our largest trading partners—Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom—have each cut their corporate tax rates over the past few years to become more competitive.
(Politifact) It’s accurate that, at 39.1 percent, the United States has the highest statutory corporate tax rate among industrialized nations. But with various tax breaks, U.S. effective corporate tax rates range anywhere from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, studies show. Those effective tax rates may not land in first place, but they’re still among the highest in the world.

(Reuters - Reported in the Huffington post) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.
Faltering economic growth at home and abroad and concern that President Barack Obama's signature health care law will drive up business costs are behind the wariness about taking on full-time staff, executives at staffing and payroll firms say.

(CNS News) - The number of major federal regulations issued in the first five years of the Obama administration was 153.2% higher than during the first five years of the Bush administration.
A major federal regulation is defined as “any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result in: (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions;
or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets,” reads the report.

Instead of a near total focus on what's best for the Obama Administration, perhaps at least a few months...ONE month?....could be used by them to focus on what's best for America....

Paula Flinn

The minimum wage needs to be raised periodically in America. Read
"Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America," by Barbara Ehrenreich. Try living on minimum wage like she did. Try raising a family on two minimum wage jobs.

Raising the minimum wage would make going on welfare less attractive.

Carlos Ponce

Macy's CEO: Increase in Minimum Wage Will Result in Layoffs
Macy's CEO Terry Lundgren believes that raising the minimum wage would result in fewer jobs for Americans.
"We did this in 2009, that was the last time, and I think there was half a million jobs lost that were attributed to that raise," Lundgren told Sapna Maheshwari at Buzzfeed. "What you really have to be careful of is you don’t want to raise the wage and lay people off in order to be able to afford it because that would be the opposite of what we are all trying to do here," he said. Macy's sales associates make an average of $8.76 an hour, according to the website Glass Door.

Kevin Lang

Yes, that is many businesses immediate reaction to increases in wages for ANY reason, not just minimum wage increases. In fact, it's the way many businesses react to ANY change in cost structures. However, there are MANY ways to adjust the total cost and revenue equations to reach the same result.

There are quite a few ways to take 25 or 30 or more floating point numbers in order to reach a total of 100. In an open-ended question, none of those ways would be incorrect. Sales associate wages are only one of those 25 or 30 variables that companies like Macy's have to play with.

Considering how "well" Macy's has done over the past two decades, I'm not sure I'd take their CEO as the final word in any kind of business formula. Yes, if the minimum wage is driven up, either by the government or by the labor market, I'm sure he'll do the same think Macy's has done over and over again, all while expecting a different result for his company.

Chris Gimenez

Lang, what is your business experience? You spout a lot of generalities ("There are quite a few ways to take 25 or 30 or more floating point numbers in order to reach a total of 100.") but very little specifics.

Why should anyone desiring to be a sales clerk at Macy's believe they're entitled to earn a living wage in that position, especially in a city like NYC?

"Yes, if the minimum wage is driven up, either by the government or by the labor market, I'm sure he'll do the same think Macy's has done over and over again, all while expecting a different result for his company."

That's two different scenarios Lang. If the government imposes a false wage on employers then it obviously counters the idea that in order to improve our financial lot in life we must improve ourselves and it forces companies to either push the cost of their products up or reduce profits. In that scenario shareholders may then decide to seek higher returns in other sectors resulting in layoffs at Macy's. How's that a benefit to employees.

Quite the opposite, if the labor market supply-and-demand force wages up then it's based on purely economic-driven conditions that CEO's are expected to deal with in a competitive environment where efficiency and productivity are normal drivers of profit expectations for investors.

Tell us again what you're business background is?

Kevin Lang

You're the one that claims to be a BBA and MBA. Why do you think you need me to figure this out for you? Perhaps you can figure out how you're both benefiting from, and getting taken from due to those wages. I see you're one of those economists that thinks that everything happens in a vacuum.

Try using your brain for something other than trying to come up with less-than-clever insults.

After re-reading what I wrote, try pointing me to the passage where I advocated a "living wage". All I did was countered the argument that raising the minimum wage must result in job losses. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are a lot of ways for any company to give someone a $0.25/hr raise without raising prices or cutting profits. That is simple math. Don't even need a high school diploma to figure that out. The guts to do it, I guess they don't teach that in business schools.

Kevin Lang

You're the one that claims to be a BBA and MBA. Why do you think you need me to figure this out for you? Perhaps you can figure out how you're both benefiting from, and getting taken from due to those wages. I see you're one of those economists that thinks that everything happens in a vacuum.

Try using your brain for something other than trying to come up with less-than-clever insults.

After re-reading what I wrote, try pointing me to the passage where I advocated a "living wage". All I did was countered the argument that raising the minimum wage must result in job losses. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are a lot of ways for any company to give someone a $0.25/hr raise without raising prices or cutting profits. That is simple math. Don't even need a high school diploma to figure that out. The guts to do it, I guess they don't teach that in business schools.

Chris Gimenez

Why am I asking you to explain what you wrote? How bizarre. Just exactly what was the less-than-clever insult you say I addressed to you? Asking what your business experience/background is? You seem kind of touchy about being asked to clarify what you're stating so that would indicate you just pulled something out of your backside. That's why people normally speak in generalities-to cover up for the lack of any real knowledge about what they're speaking of.

As for the sudden revelation that you're only talking about companies raising their wages by $.025/hr that seems to be damage control on your part. There is no one in the current administration advocating that small of an increase-they're talking about a minimum increase of $2.25 per hour.

As for my claim about the degrees I have, it was a response to mytoby asking sarcastically if I had a college degree. But it's not a "claim", it's a fact. Both from U of H at Clear Lake, BBA-1999, MBA-2000. I also have 23 yrs. of experience in the family-owned business we had and I now operate my own professional practice working primarily with closely-held businesses. None of that makes me any smarter than you or anyone else and the fact is that many of the most successful business-owners I know have only a high-school diploma. But they always have some good business background and experience.

The difference between you and me is that I don't get red-in-the-face when someone asks me to explain what I wrote. Now, are you going to tell everyone what your business experience/background is or are you just going to admit your expansive-but convoluted-opinion wasn't based on experience, training, or education?

Kevin Lang

I don't care whether the hourly rate goes up 1 cent or 20 dollars. It's still arithmetic. Business deal with dozens, if not hundreds of variables. If you're only looking at one or two, you're not running your business. If Terry Lundgren thinks that there's only one possible outcome to an increase in hourly wages at the bottom of his pay scale, he's spewing FUD, unless he's willing to demonstrate how every other value in his equation is a fixed value.

For example, if I give 100 people a 1 dollar per hour wage to 10 dollars per hour, is there no other way for me to balance things out than to fire $100 worth of salary? Or, do I look at the rest of my business and see if there are other places where I can save that $100? Or, perhaps I can refine my warehousing and transportation operations so that my inventory management and shipping costs aren't as high. Or, maybe I don't give the Chief Derriere Kisser as big of a bonus. Or, maybe when I take my secretary out for a romantic lunch, we have the 8 oz Sirloins instead of the 12 oz Filets with our martinis.

Or, maybe you and Lundren are right, and there is only one possible outcome to an increase in lowest tier wages. And, maybe pigs really do fly. And, maybe there really are icicles in Hades.

Kevin Lang

Is a wage increase somehow different if it's market driven versus government mandated? If my labor costs increase by one million dollars, is my reaction to it supposed to differ based on whether it was triggered by the big, bad, government or the big, bad, open market? I don't think so. What if my transportation costs go up by a million dollars? Is my only response there the same as if the government triggers a million dollar increase in my labor costs?

Please show me any legitimate accounting text that says that changes in any level of labor costs have to be offset purely by labor costs in order for my costs to remain level? While you're at it, show me where it's written that the only way to keep labor costs constant despite a pay raise to a group of workers is by firing workers? I can see it if the sum total of staff is me and nothing but workers getting mandated raises, but I don't think that's the model that fits Macy's is it?

Chris Gimenez

Wow! Lang has just condensed the business model to simple math. If that's all it takes then all successful business owners would be math majors or all math majors would be successful business owners. I want to call it insanity but unfortunately it's the thought processes of so many on the Left who've never owned their own business or had to pay vendors or finance growth or inventory or struggle to get paid by customers or fight the incursion of new businesses who won't last but screw up the market for everyone else until they burn out and go away.

Kevin Lang sees absolutely no difference between a rise in labor costs if it's a result of the business environment or if it's artificially forced on business by the federal government. That folks, is the all-too-common view of those who've never done it themselves but believe being successful in business just isn't that difficult.

"Please show me any legitimate accounting text that says that changes in any level of labor costs have to be offset purely by labor costs in order for my costs to remain level?"

Don't stop there Kevin! Tell us what other areas of business you would cut to offset the increase in labor costs! This is simple math until you have to be the one doing it you genius.

I have to believe this guy sits behind some computer monitor all day watching processes and has way too much time on his hands to ponder why he isn't worth twice as much as he's being paid.

Kevin Lang

Please explain how $100 of increased labor costs hits the bottom line differently when it's negotiated versus mandated? The fact that you want one less than the other is not the driving factor on the bottom line impacts.

As I've noted, and you've ignored, there are plenty of other areas to look for cost reductions. It's a lot of work, and intestinal fortitude to manage the bottom line. Whether you're looking solely at labor, or you're looking at your entire balance sheet, you very well might not find your offsetting savings all in one place. Of course, your costs only represent half of the opportunities for figuring out how to pay for increased labor costs. If you wind up selling more stuff, you may actually make more money.

One way or another, your job as a business operator is to figure out a way to make things work. You'd like to be 100% in control of all factors that will influence your business. However, you also know you can't. God grant you the serenity to accept the things you cannot change, the courage to change the things you can, and the wisdom to know the difference. I wouldn't advise just laying back and taking it, regardless of where the influence is coming from, but there comes a point where you still have to run your business the most effective way you can.

Chris Gimenez

So if the federal government mandates that a particular business or industry should pay its employees more then you believe that mandated cost is no different from a cost that is driven by a competitive business environment. You're a true progressive. Those evil businesses can just squeeze out some more inefficiencies in their processes (of course if they're still in business now those inefficiencies have been long gone) or they can what? Raise their prices? It's kind of like taxation. If you think you're paying too little now then just put some more money in the pot when you go out to eat or go to Home Depot or sign a contract to have a remodel on your home.

But that's not what you're saying is it Lang? You want everyone to pay for your idea of social justice. And why would "you end up selling more stuff" just because the federal government decides you should pay your employees more? I don't know where you get your business philosophy but it ain't based on reality.

Kevin Lang

You are so full of something, but certainly nothing that I wrote. Where did I ever say that I want anyone other than myself to pay for my idea of social justice.

I've also never said that the minimum wage SHOULD be raised. I'm just saying that an increase in labor costs doesn't HAVE to result in staff cuts. I didn't say it WOULDN'T, nor did I say it COULDN'T. I'm saying that each business has to look at itself and determine the best way to handle a rise in costs in ANY area of the business.

If I'm a good business person, I'm operating my business for the long haul. I'm not leaving stones unturned because I'd rather throw a hissy fit because the government raised the minimum wage. Certainly, I'll let my congressmen and legislators know the ways it could affect my business, but that doesn't mean I'm not looking for ways it might help my business, or at least be a neutral event. After all, I'm looking for ways to stay in business.

J. Shaffer

I'm sure Macy's is convinced that wages will make them go out of business. After all, they wrote Rick Perry and got the equal pay amendment axed in Texas.

Raise wages? Ha! We don't even pay women what we pay men for the same work!

Carlos Ponce

" We don't even pay women what we pay men for the same work!"
True in Obama's White House!
" The analysis concluded that the White House pays its female staffers just 87 percent of what it pays its male staffers, a “gender pay gap” of nearly 13 percent. "
"Rick Perry got the equal pay amendment axed in Texas." With the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, such an amendment WAS NOT NEEDED. So why spend the taxpayer's Time and money on something that is ALREADY THERE, in place and working in the state of Texas. And yet watch the Donkey Party try to make political hay out of this non-issue in the next election. It's just like the proposed "Hate Crimes" bill that they blamed Governor Bush for not enacting. Texas laws already sentenced the Jasper men responsible to death. A hate crimes law would have delayed those executions. It was not necessary. The death penalty is currently not a deterrent because it takes YEARS for the execution to occur under current law.

Chris Gimenez

NurseJayne, don't forget about the unequal pay for women in the White House!

Typical Left, do as I say not as I do.

George Croix

Nurse, nobody as smart as you are should be referencing ANYTHING with any association at all to Senfronia Thompson as any kind of informed, even rational, source...[wink]
Now about those wages and the evil Republicans...

After multiple, many multiples, speaches demonizing the evil Republicans and their opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, and, in so doing, says POTUS and other top Dems, continuing their 'war on women', despite the fact that not even Republican women in Congress would vote for it, a little inconvenient truth finally saw the light of day...The Obama Adminsitration, the White House, home of the Hate Those Republican Women Hater SOB's mantra, does, ITSELF, pay women 13% less on average than their male counterparts.
13% LESS.
Since that January report, and it finally escaping diversion and deflection in April, there has been doodly squat by the White House pushing the issue, following a LOT of excuse making and stammering about why their two faces were showing.
I believe the official final BS line on it was 'we were taken out of context'.
No, put IN context, it's just another divide and conquer scam that fails when the facts come out.
It's EXACTLY like the 'evil 1%' mantra repeated ad nauseum by...wait for it....members of the left wing that are ARE in that 1%.
Or, demonizing the Koch brothers for donating 30 million bucks to conservative causes, (even proposing a Constitutional Amendment JUST against the Kochs!!!), while not ONCE officially mentioning that Democrats are eagerly accepting 100 MILLION bucks from Tom Steyer, "progressive' billionaire, in return for killing Keystone and for support of the 'climate change' agenda.
Amazingly, this constant subterfuge, and flat out lies, and taking their supporters to be easily manipulated

Chris Gimenez

Here's our Liar-in-Chief showing his true side regarding tax inversions and corporate America. It's "unpatriotic" to move corporate headquarters overseas in order to avoid the U.S. government's oppressive tax code-that is unless you happen to be supported for doing it by the President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama. Then it's okay. As long as our government believes tax money is an endless pot-o-gold to plunder, corporations will move to a less oppressive tax environment.

The concept of lower taxation to spur business growth that will ultimately produce higher tax revenue from corporations and employees is completely foreign to the Left. They can only grasp the concept of stealing and wasting more and more of the available tax receipts that then leads to lower tax revenue and decreased employment in the U.S. But then again, what should we have expected from a community-organizer-turned-president?

GW Cornelius

$11 an hour is not enough. Tax the GOP for being dumb and there will be enough to give the working people $25 an hour.

Carlos Ponce

So much hatred from the Left. Island Runner, The Lord sends you a message: "‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” We may disagree on politics, economics etc. but that is no reason express hatred by name calling. We still love you.
"Now they stood beside the treasure on the mountain dark and red
Turn the stone and which beneath it, "Peace on Earth" was all it said
Go ahead and hate your neighbor. Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven, You can justify it in the end
There won't be any trumpets blowing Come the Judgment Day
On the bloody morning after, One tin soldier rides away"

Lars Faltskog

HOST: "The GOP is soooooooooo dumb!"
AUDIENCE: "How dumb are they?"

So dumb that a state GOP strategist and Twitter Master developed a platform:

"No sex ed, no birth control. Pregnant? No abortion. Have a kid? Stay home. No income? No assistance."

Then, they opened a twitter account, advertising said platform, then titled it -


Chris Gimenez

Hey Island Runner, you're hatred for the GOP is telling. It tells us you realize who it is in this country that start businesses, who risk everything to succeed or fail, who get there early and stay late because the employees (democrats) believe working more than 8 hours in a day is some kind of abuse, and who ultimately are the reason that people like her have a job and it makes her angry. Angry that she is paid far more than she's worth and it's still not enough in her small mind, angry that she hasn't advanced in rank or isn't running the business when she hasn't endeavored to learn any more than she's been forced to learn, and angry that at the end of the day she owes her ability to make a living to a business owner who is more than likely an evil conservative.

Kevin Lang

I think that we need to look at different classes of jobs differently. I think before we start assigning jobs to some "Living Wage" class, we need to look and see what makes that job a 40-hours per week, head or joint-head of household type job. I don't have a problem with there being a floor establishing the minimum value of human labor. I can't think of any job that isn't worthy of human respect, and I can't see any reason why we should allow a company to declare otherwise. However, I see a difference between a dignified wage and a living wage. Essentially, if I have a position that I'd like to have one person filling for 40 hours per week, and I'd like them to take pride in that job such that they're not just there to look pretty, but to add real value to my business, then I should make sure that they are able to meet basic needs with what I'm paying them. Of course, that's a matter of personal ethics. I would hope others would have similar ethics. However, would a government mandate solve the problem, or would it create logistics and accountability issues? That, I'm not sure about.

Should a burger flipper at McDonald's make enough to support a family of four, knowing that most of these jobs are filled by teenagers and college students? Or, is it reasonable to offer these jobs at "training" wages, while actively encouraging the workers that want to follow a career path with the opportunities required to get into that track fairly soon.

The really tricky thing is when dealing with adults that, for one reason or another, are limited to flipping burgers full time. For those people, do we let McDonald's continue to pay them a "training"/dignified minimum wage, knowing full well that the taxpayers will foot the bill for those people's medical needs, and perhaps additional welfare funding?

From a pure economics standpoint, I don't doubt that McDonald's could afford to pay everyone a $25/hr minimum wage. Ethically, I don't think it's reasonable to demand that. However, I think it's good that we're having a public dialog about what constitutes fair and equitable and economically viable wages. There's no one right answer, but I think we'll all benefit if there's some set of intolerables noted in our ethical of legal standards. For example, if your sewer line needs to be cleaned out, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you could find someone that needs the money badly enough to do it for $20. However, I don't think it would be humane to make someone clean out my sewer line for $20, and I hope you wouldn't either. I think anyone that puts up with my ^@&% should get paid more than $20. I'm pretty sure my boss agrees :-)

Ron Shelby

Minimum wage should have been pegged to inflation. The same goes for the wage limit on Social Security. Then we wouldn't be arguing about these issues.

Kevin Lang

The trick is figuring out how to index those to inflation without them being inflationary. I think there definitely should be points where we re-evaluate both in relation to inflation, but doing a straight indexing could tend to put those wages and benefits into a category where the recipients aren't attempting to push back on inflation. Why would I care what the inflation rate is when I know I'm going to get more money anyway?

George Croix

The minimum wage argument should be pegged to exactly what it is. A diversion, a deflection, to take focus off WHY we are talking about a 'living wage' at jobs that were never meant to be the only source of income for anyone other than the unskilled or beginning workers with zero experience elsewhere.
Better to steer the talk to why 'those people' don't want to give a lousy 2 or 3 buck an hour raise so folks can 'make a living', so you don't have to talk about what happened to the better jobs they had, and the prospects for others, before your policies and actions made them a distant memory, and reduced more of the middle class to working poor than anybody in the last 50 years.

Kevin Lang

There are so many factors involved in the loss of "livable wage" jobs. Many of these factors date back years, even decades, before 9/11 or 2007. Our current economy results from the culmination of seeds planted over quite a few years that all broke through at once. Yes, some of these seeds were planted since 2009. Trying to make off-the-cuff determinations of which seeds are more responsible is an exercise in shoveling political fodder.

I agree that it's been a rare occurrence over the past decades when a household could be run on a single minimum wage job. The fact that there are families that are having to try it now does raise societal issues. Merely blaming the politicians in charge is roughly equivalent to burying our heads in the sand. The issue isn't going to go away just because we blame Obama (or Bush), or say that the minimum wage was never intended for it. These are still people that are working their tails off, trying to make a living, and trying to feed their families. They definitely deserve more than the same political tough love that welfare moochers get. The fact they're trying seems to me to be worth the rest of us trying, too.

J. Shaffer

I can't believe those who support corporations over people. My, how the world has changed.

“ No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. ”

—President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act.[102

Carlos Ponce

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government."—Thomas Jefferson

Chris Gimenez

NurseJayne, here's what you left out about the National Recovery Act and it's failure.

The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was a law passed by the United States Congress in 1933 to authorize the President to regulate industry in an attempt to raise prices after severe deflation and stimulate economic recovery.[1] It also established a national public works program known as the Public Works Administration (PWA, not to be confused with the WPA of 1935).[2] The National Recovery Administration (NRA) portion was widely hailed in 1933 but by 1934 business' opinion of the act had soured.[3] By March of 1934 the "NIRA was engaged chiefly in drawing up these industrial codes for all industries to adopt."[4] However,the NRA was abolished by the Supreme Court in 1935 and not replaced.[5][3][6]

George Croix

Speaking strictly for myself, I support good private sector jobs with good wages and bennies over low wage jobs and dependency on government.
I don't favor corporations over people. Acorporations IS just a big mass of people.
I favor them over government...After the last few years of 'fundamental change', I marvel that anyone has any faith in governement at all.
Of course, applied to today, FDR's quote says that fast food joints and most restaurants and an entire host of service related jobs then 'have no right to continue'. Also notable is that the CCC, considered widely one of FDR's great successes, was only open to young, unmarried males, not just because the work was hard, but because it did not pay enough for a 'living wage' for more than one, and even for that one, not exactly much living. The 1933 quote means the CCC program was already underway....

I FULLY agree that the world has changed...fundamentally....[wink]

Jim Forsythe

The CCC gave family's relief in the form of one less mouth to feed and $25 dollars a month that went back to the family. $25 dollars then is worth $400 in today money.
"Young men were provided with meals, housing, uniforms, and medical care for working in the national forests and other government properties"
"The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, to relieve families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression in the United States while at the same time implementing a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory"

Chris Gimenez

As long as the federal government continues to intervene in private business and force oppressive requirements on them-whether it be wages or taxes or regulations-the able bodied and unskilled or uneducated will continue to live on entitlements. Just like the failed ACA, business will find a way around the regulations or go out of business. Not necessarily a desired outcome unless Socialism is the desired outcome.

Entire generations have either lost or never been taught the value of working hard, learning a skill, a craft, a trade, or earning a degree in a field that provides employment opportunity, and the result is future generations enslaved to federal entitlements. While this regime boasts about the 200,000 jobs created last month or the millions over the last few years the reality is that the majority are low wage or part-time positions. And yet they still don't get it. Their solution is to place more regulations on business while increasing the cost of doing business through the ridiculous machinations of crap like the ACA.

But then again, who in their right mind would have ever truly believed a community organizer had even a smidgeon of business acumen? His forte and that of his party is how to grow entitlements and the masses on entitlements.

J. Shaffer

"FDR's quote says that fast food joints and most restaurants and an entire host of service related jobs then 'have no right to continue'."

No, neither he nor I are saying that. Fast food restaurants will do just fine even if they pay a living wage.... they just don't want to cut into profits.

The government places restrictions on business because the government represents The People. People who deserve a living wage over soaring business profits. How many jobs do you think there were in the 1930s that required education and pre-trained skills to be employed?

Whether you require an education to do the job or not is irrelevant. Plant workers have no more than a high school education. Assembly line workers in plants, too, require no special training. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to make enough to feed a family.

If a business is really worried about salaries, then why have CEO salaries grown by such huge proportions? I cannot believe that a hospital CEO works SO hard and is SO well educated that he should be paid what forty nurses (who are also well educated) make.

Everyone wants to work and be self supporting. How can you defend a system that leaves them broke after working so hard? Why shouldn't blue collar workers make enough to dream of sending their children to college for a better life? You can't dig yourself out of the hole of poverty if you don't make enough to go to school yourself, either.

This is exactly like the debt bondage of sharecroppers; getting paid in credits and owing more than you make.

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

Paula Flinn

Totally agree, NurseJayne.

J. Shaffer

The pay gap separating fast-food workers from their chief executive officers is growing at each of those companies. The disparity has doubled at McDonald’s Corp. in the last 10 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. At the same time, the company helped pay for lobbying against minimum-wage increases and sought to quash the kind of unionization efforts that erupted recently on the streets of Chicago and New York.

The recovery from the last downturn has been the most uneven in recent history. The 1.2 million households whose incomes put them in the top 1 percent of the U.S. saw their earnings increase 5.5 percent last year, according to census estimates. Earnings fell 1.7 percent for the 97 million households in the bottom 80 percent -- those who made less than $101,583.

The wage gap between CEOs and store workers wasn’t always so wide. Twenty years ago, when Johnson first started at McDonald’s, the CEO’s compensation was about 230 times that of a full-time worker paid the federal minimum wage. The $8.75 million that Thompson’s predecessor as CEO, Skinner, made last year was 580 times, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Chris Gimenez

About 70% of all McDonald's outlets are owned by independents who have invested a great deal of money into those franchises. Why would anyone believe that if you want to look at flipping burgers at a fast-food joint as your last job rather than your first job that we are supposed to feel sorry for you? Get an education, work harder to move up at where you are, stop making bad decisions that keep you in the place you are. It ain't rocket science but it does require a work ethic. That rules out most of those on the Left.

My bigger concern is the enormous number of federal employees we are now supporting at wages and benefits that are higher than their counterparts in private industry and who for the most part can't be terminated no matter what.

J. Shaffer

Whether it's a last job or first job, it still needs to be enough to pay the rent. I'm positive that everyone who works at Mickey D's hopes to get a better job.... but does that justify not paying fair wages in the meantime?

If you want an education, you have to be able to pay for it..... and you can't do that anymore on a fast food wage.

J. Shaffer

"Son, I know you work hard but I had fifteen people apply for your job today alone and all of them will do it for minimum wage. You have the bad judgment to be eighteen and ONLY have a high school education.

Maybe you should go to school. Since you also have the bad judgment to have no credit history, you'll have to take out high interest loans, though, because I'm not giving you a raise. Or get another job or two. I'm a franchise owner; what do you expect? I have my own son to put through college. Those fraternity fees are high!"

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 9:41 am on Thu, Aug 7, 2014:

Many of us are of the contention that folks who live in poverty or near poverty don't "want" to be where they are. Do you really think that people who work at McDonalds for minimum wage "want" that job for low pay. Wouldn't you think that if given the choice and/or opportunity, you would take a job that's higher paying?

If given the choice, you would take classes to qualify for something more high paying. How do we know that the majority of McDonald workers "made bad decisions"? That's why decades ago they created things like the United Negro College Fund and now we have ample scholarship opportunities. However, they only go a certain degree to help offset costs of classes, books, time away from fulfilling 2 to 3 part-time jobs. As I've mentioned, it's easy for us more affluent people to show disdain for the underprivileged. But, I still say that anyone would take a higher paying job and the esteem it gives over being in poverty.

I think you may want to place yourself in another person's perspective, and not just take in all of the things like Rush Limbaugh and the elitist "right" say. A job at McD's is not going to help anyone pay for his/her college.

Kevin Lang

I think bvresident has already eloquently stated that the math does not exist to make an increase in minimum wage possible without killing businesses or driving them out of the country. Anyone that doesn't understand that is obviously a proglib that doesn't have any sense about how businesses operate. Those nincompoops that work at McDonald's are already overpaid by at least $5/hr. They should be thankful for every penny of their minimum wage salary. McDonald's is doing those pipsqueaks a favor by letting them flip burgers without charging them $7.25 an hour for the privilege.

bvresident, I really mean it, thank you for the lesson. Give me a couple more chances. I swear I'll grow up to be a good conservative someday. Please don't give up on me.

Chris Gimenez

I guess it wasn't too eloquent because you sure didn't-or won't-grasp what I said. There is a difference between government picking and choosing what businesses, industries, etc. and how much they pay employees and what economic and business conditions dictate. I never said raising minimum wage would put anyone out of business but you sure believe there is no difference between your alleged $.025/hr. and your boy president's $2.25/hr. or more increase.

But try to put two and two together if possible. The boy president is now trying to take executive action to prevent corporations from moving overseas to avoid our oppressive and growth-stifling tax code. Of course, if he had just an inkling of business sense-which he doesn't-he'd understand that reforming the tax code would spur business growth and result in better jobs at higher wages in that competitive environment. Instead, he's siding with all his tech company supporters who want more visas for foreign workers so they can pay them less to do the work of our U.S. workers.

And look Kevin, stay over there with the community organizer bunch okay? I mean, he's done such a bang-up job of fixing the economy and growing jobs. Well, federal jobs anyway. And you don't have to thank me for the free business lessons, I do it all the time for the uninformed Left.

Paula Flinn

President Obama is 53 years old, hardly a "boy". Your racism is showing, and the ugliness of it prevents your comment(s) from having any merit.

Jim Forsythe

He thinks it the way and adult acts, by insulting the President

Chris Gimenez

Aw bigjim, did you get your feelings hurt because I told you to go pound sand? Nobody cares what you think because you and pflinn are just Lefties who are more than happy to see this country degrade into a Socialist society that's totally dependent on the federal government for its every want and need from cradle to grave.

Your boy president has earned every denigration and insult posted about him.

Kevin Lang

bvresident, if you had a clue about what I believe, or even what I write, then, well, you'd have a clue. Please cite me one place where I said that I was FOR an increase in the minimum wage, or that I was FOR a proposed $2.25 increase.

As stated previously, I'm just stating that it's possible to raise the minimum wage without necessitating job losses. I think that if we want to go down that road, we should have Government and Business sit down and look at the options and see if there's a way to make the numbers work. Perhaps a combination of tax decreases and wage increases could make it work, or something like that. Perhaps some kind of tier structure for minimum wage--perhaps a higher rate for heads of households and a lower wage for teens and others that just want to do part-time work to make spending money. A unilateral yes or no on the subject, I believe, is unacceptable. Let's spend some time to figure out what the right answer really should be. After all, if McDonald's or Macy's pays people with children minimum wage, and the worker or the kids get sick or hurt, who's likely paying for it, and how much is it costing us?

Lars Faltskog

Well, I would think it's a rather venial sin to call GOPs "dumb". I can think of other "name calling" terms, but the crux of the debate, I think, lies in what any job constitutes as "just" compensation.

Let's admit that working at a McD's is not any easier than most other jobs that deal with the pubic. If you're flipping burgers and dousing fries in the cooking oil, you are most likely "rushed" for time to make the fast food that inside diners and drive-thru diners are waiting for.

Risks run in regard to burning oneself and others in the oil and burners. The kitchen very likely is hot, especially this time of year. Health inspectors come in and probably show up when either manager or asst. manager isn't available. Then, you as the minimum wage worker have to answer as to why 2 French fries ended up in the cash register and why there's an open jar of mayo on the counter, unprotected by refrigeration.

Then, if you are a cashier at the drive-thru, you contend with folks complaining that they got charged for a full priced meal, instead of the current discount. If you're taking the orders, you are dealing with surly customers who want it fast and don't understand why YOU didn't understand them the 1st time they rattled out their order while the French fry alarm timer just went off and occluded your hearing senses.

Yes, I believe McD workers should earn wages that are reasonable and customary, perhaps comparable to clerical jobs - DMV persons, auto/car office insurance assistants, Rent-a-Car clerks. It's a tough job working at a fast-food establishment.

Carlos Ponce

I think we all started out working minimum wage jobs. I started at Hoffman Lumber Company in Texas City, cleaning the store area, yard work, stacking lumber, going on deliveries, making stakes all at minimum wage. I worked for Roy A. Hoffman then Norine Hoffman. I worked under Ralph Thompson. Did I stay there for the rest of my life? No. It's a starting job, a starting salary. We all move on.

J. Shaffer

The problem is that the minimum wage hasn't increased that much since then.

I worked (one of) my college jobs for $7.25/hr. I was training someone and learned what they made and asked to please be fired and then re-hired so I could make what the new employee was making.[tongue_smile]

That was twenty years ago, when tuna was four cans for a dollar and gas was $2.35/gal. Everything else is more expensive, why are wages the same? Would you have worked at the lumber company for half the wages?

Carlos Ponce

Twenty years ago was 1994. The minimum wage was $4.25.
At $7.25 you were doing pretty good. I remember working at $1.00 an hour and thought that was pretty good. It was the 60s. You must have been buying Premium Gasoline. The average price of gas was $1.11 in 1994:
4 cans of tuna for $1.00 was a bargain. At Randalls in Galveston on February 20, 1994, a 6.125 ounce can of Star Kist Chunk Light Tuna cost 39 cents but 2 for 99 cents at Gerlands (GDN March 23, 1994).

J. Shaffer

Oopsie. I blame my old brain for that one. I was making a whopping $5.25/hr.

Chris Gimenez

So NurseJayne, are you still making minimum wage or much more than that? If so, why don't you tell everyone how you changed your situation and the value of your work? Those making a minimum wage are content making that wage or they will becpme uncomfortable enough to change their situation.

George Croix

Wouldn't we be better off talking about wanting MAXIMUM wage?
Why aren't we?
Well, the good jobs markets are dryer than talcum powder, and the ACA has caused many that were paying better, with more to come once fully implemented and not unilaterally delayed, 'executive order delayed, to go to a 29.5 hour work week.


I give credit for a really good propaganda machine that can get people fighting over who gets to gnaw a little more sinew off the chicken leg bone while the propagandists are eating Wagyu beef ...
Sometimes, you feel like a nut....

George Croix

Rather than have government sit down with business to discuss raising the minimum wage, and thus further settling for a fundamentally changed economy where a family trys to make a 'living wage' at a formerly entry level for one person job, why not have government sit down with business and LISTEN to business tell them how they can get back to creating GOOD jobs if government will kindly get the hel_ out of their way and reverse the inane policies and regs enacted by the new THOUSANDS in just the last few short years that have turned the nation into one with half the folks on some form of government assistance to some degree, and created a work force participation rate about what it was when Ike was President, all the time talking about 'fair share' while the ones doing the talking about it are living large off the public.
Maybe take advice from experts in business and jobs creation, and not Dan Pfeiffer and Valerie Jarrett and the entire Admin. don't-do-squat-unless-we-benefit-politically team?

What they've got people doing is arguing over whether they should get corned beef or PBJ, instead of the sirloin they used to afford, while the admin. talkers themselves sit smugly by eating Wagyu beef.

I believe a one word description fits nicely here for the folks willing to argue over crumbs left by the ruling class, , and it happens to be the same word used to describe a pice of candy that has a stick in the bottom of it and is wrapped in cellophane....

J. Shaffer

Business runs roughshod over our political system already. Listen to business? They already write the laws themselves:

— Bank lobbyists are not leaving it to lawmakers to draft legislation that softens financial regulations. Instead, the lobbyists are helping to write it themselves.

One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month — over the objections of the Treasury Department — was essentially Citigroup’s, according to e-mails reviewed by The New York Times. The bill would exempt broad swathes of trades from new regulation.

George Croix

I doubt they wrote laws to put themselves out of business or causing them to cut back hours for employees or face big penalties or causing them to dump employees into the ACA or causing them to go overseas when restrictions here are too onerous to make business profitable.
I also thought Dodd/Frank had a little something to do with financial laws after the economic collapse. Of course, they both had a little something to do with causing that collpase, too....
Anyway, here's an eye opener concerning one big proponent of helping the little guy, raising min wage, looking out for the middle class. A guy who has railed against the evil 1%, private businesses, industry, etc. Just one of many who talk the talk, then don't walk the walk.

"Labor Secretary-turned-college professor Robert Reich’s latest lectures on income inequality don't square with his $240,000 salary for teaching just one class. Reich, who served in the Clinton White House and is now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, took on the topic of “Work and Worth” in an Aug. 2 post on his blog. In it, he lamented that there is “little or no relationship” between what someone is paid and their actual worth to society."

I say again, don't listen to rich people who tell you to hate people...

J. Shaffer

Companies move overseas because they don't want to pay American workers. Not because they would go out of business, but because they wouldn't be AS profitable.

Robert Reich’s total net worth is four million dollars. That's not rich. With property and retirement investments, there are many people worth that amount.

Compare that to the average net worth of the top 400 richest people: each are worth over five BILLION dollars. Thanks to the kind tax codes we've given them, they are each worth 800 million MORE than last year.

What kind of work are they doing to earn 800 million a year?

Kevin Lang

We can't ignore the Health Insurance Lobby's huge influence on the ACA. Yes, the insurance companies were ordered to drop exclusions for prior conditions, and allow dependent coverage through age 25. However, in return, they were guaranteed a huge pool of healthy young people that usually wouldn't have insurance unless their employers practically gave it to them.

We have to get things changed such that we don't have businesses write the laws that will govern them, however, we shouldn't swing the pendulum the other way and tell business that we're going to legislate despite them. I don't think anyone really believes that businesses are looking for a business climate that includes no laws, regulations, taxes, oversight, or any other government involvement. However, they do evaluate the whole package of government involvement as part of their formula for determining the best places for them to do business.

Chris Gimenez

"We can't ignore the Health Insurance Lobby's huge influence on the ACA. Yes, the insurance companies were ordered to drop exclusions for prior conditions, and allow dependent coverage through age 25. However, in return, they were guaranteed a huge pool of healthy young people that usually wouldn't have insurance unless their employers practically gave it to them.

We have to get things changed such that we don't have businesses write the laws that will govern them, however, we shouldn't swing the pendulum the other way and tell business that we're going to legislate despite them." (kevjlang)

Your president's administration mandated to insurance companies they would have to accept clients regardless of pre-existing conditions. They mandated covered services such as birth control, pregnancy, psychiatric and mental care on each and every policy regardless of the insured's need for those services. Why wouldn't the healthcare industry's lobbyists not go to bat to ensure their clients would be able to maintain profitability? And guess what? Those lobbyist's did the bidding of the democrat party who passed the ACA on a partisan vote.

You also say these companies were "guaranteed" a pool of healthy young people in exchange for going along with this horrendous law. The "guarantee" you're referring to is actually the guaranteed payments to insurance companies if they don't get the enrollment needed to make things work and that's coming down the road because this law is a dismal failure.

When government insists on legislating what companies can charge, who they have to serve, and under what conditions then we will continue to experience the kind of fiscal and policy disasters we now know the UACA has become.

I'm watching a FOX News special (I know that's going to make smoke come out of your ears) by Bret Baier and the effects of the UACA are devastating to small business and not affordable for many of those who believed they would have a chance to obtain health insurance. The networks of doctors and hospitals have shrunk as part of the UACA platform and the necessity to drive clients to a smaller number of providers.

My take-away is that the less involvement of government in fewer of our affairs is better because those who supposedly represent us-from your president to Congress and those at the state level-are generally incompetent, self-serving, and bought and sold by special interests. .

Kevin Lang

What is with you and your "your president" BS?

And what makes you think that smoke would come out of my ears because you're watching a FOX special?

As gecroix has said repeatedly: Can't fix it.

However, let me try, anyway. Quit putting words out, attributing them to me, just so you can feel like you look good.

FYI: YOUR party's "Affordable Care Plan", also includes the abolition of the Prior Condition's exclusion. I don't know of any plan out there that can get insurance companies to accept high risk customers without them either getting a much bigger pool of low risk customers, or the ability to significantly hike the prices for low risk customers.

It seems to me that the biggest difference between the Conservative Plan and the ACA is HOW those low risk customers would be delivered to the Insurance companies. I don't think that either advertised plan covers all the bases for delivering those low risk customers effectively and efficiently. I think language around standard types of care and prescription drug lists, and things like that, while potentially significant, are things that are much smaller impacts on the cost profile. The Conservative plan uses sugar to entice people to buy insurance. The Liberal plan uses the vinegar approach. Both methods are prone to controversy, and to high cost reimbursements if they fail to deliver the healthy people to the insurance companies.

Chris Gimenez

Wow Lang, you might need to see someone about those anger issues you have. I copied-and-pasted your words exactly and then posed some questions. Just exactly what words did I try to attribute to you that you didn't actually state? You're not going to answer because once again you're reading stuff that ain't there.

As for my party's abolition of the prior condition exclusion-PROVE IT! Show me where the plan with the majority of the support from the House GOP abolishes the pre-existing condition mandate. You're completely off the deep end.

Chris Gimenez

I failed to address my "your president" statement. He is somebody else's president but not mine because he doesn't represent anything that I stand for-morally, ethically, fiscally, religiously, or in any other way. So physically he is the President of the United States but he isn't my president in any other way, shape, or form. I personally think it's his goal to utterly destroy the greatest country in the world before he finally is forced to unoccupy the White House at the end of his term-or as he believes, his reign.

Kevin Lang

How about this?


Or, how about this from 2009?

Did you not claim that the Fox report would make smoke come out of my ears? That's among the types of BS that you pull out of your rear.

Anger? Nah. Puzzled at your enchantment with your thinking that you can categorize people and then berate the category. I don't fit into any box other than the "not bvresident" box. That doesn't mean I disagree with everything you say, but I'm never going to be a clone of yours nor anyone else's political ideals.

Chris Gimenez

Well Lang, before I blow up your other false statements you have failed to state what words I attributed to you that you didn't actually put in writing. You have done this repeatedly and without basis. That's called lying.

Now, as for the first link. They offer a pre-existing condition mandate as part of their plan. Although it doesn't blow up the bank like the UACA mandate, it does say that if someone is moving from one health plan to another they can't be underwritten for pre-existing conditions. No where in that plan does it say there is nothing to address pre-existing conditions.

I couldn't get anything to come up from your second link.

The CBS link said this-and again, there is nothing in there that stated pre-existing conditions would be denied coverage. You're hallucinating.

Here's what it does say though.

"Encourages states to create a Universal Access Program by establishing and/or reforming existing programs to guarantee all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable coverage."

You see Lang, you're all smoke and mirrors. Are you going to man up and admit there was nothing in my comment that attributed something to you that you didn't state previously?

Chris Gimenez

While I'm at it, let me address your "clone" statement. You're not anybody's clone because you don't have a stance on anything that can be defined. If you say something and someone takes it one way then you say "nyet", that's not what you said. But then again, you can't state with any clarity just what it is that you stand for or behind.

Kevin Lang

I have no idea what you're claiming now. Are you claiming the GOP is AGAINST having people denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or are you claiming the GOP is FOR having people denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or are you claiming the GOP has not taken a stance on insurance companies excluding people with pre-existing conditions?

I take lots of stands. The issue for you is that you WANT my stands to either be in the same footprints as you, or in the same footprints as YOUR president. You cannot stand that my footprints are somewhere else entirely, and, instead of trying to understand my position, you'd rather just put me in Obama's and start ranting.

Kevin Lang

Did you not state "I'm watching a FOX News special (I know that's going to make smoke come out of your ears) by Bret Baier"

Again, I ask, what makes you believe--know--that citing a FOX News special would make smoke come out of my ears? Face it, you don't know that. In fact, if you know that, then you know stuff that just isn't so. FOX news is a legitimate source of information. Not the only source, of course, but legitimate. When it comes to ACA, or any legislation, for that matter, there's no reason to expect that the first version is without problems. Analyzing it, understanding the critiques, and addressing those that need addressing is responsible statesmanship. I don't think the "do not touch" advocates on the left are doing us any favors, nor do I think the "kill everything, including the things we agree with" types are doing any favors either. Responsible Statesmanship took a back seat to Overwhelmingly Stubborn Partisanship, and I can't see that we're going to derive any benefits from it.

Chris Gimenez

Lang, you're so far off in the weeds I can't even see the top of your head. You're trying to say that "I'm watching a FOX News special (I know that's going to make smoke come out of your ears) by Bret Baier" is the same as attributing statements to you that you didn't say? That's really a bizarre stretch.

But here's a suggestion. If you don't want anyone to assume you stand with your president's policies then try taking a stand one way or the other and stop being so mealy-mouthed. As it is, what you're saying makes it difficult to understand what it is you mean. And get some help for that anger problem.

Kevin Lang

Sounds like the pot is trying to find a kettle to call black. Sorry, but I'm not your kettle today.

Seeing as you haven't been able to rebut the fact that the GOP plan for Health Insurance Reform includes the end of denying people coverage due to pre-existing conditions, I guess you have nothing else left than to call me angry. And mealy-mouthed? What, pray tell, is that supposed to mean?

Kevin Lang

I was only referring to one issue. If you want to open up to zillions of issues, I'm sure I could get my fingers typing responses. However, since we are only talking about minimum wage jobs--and no matter how vibrant an economy our business community creates, there will always be minimum wage jobs--I chose to have a specific discussion on that.

Certainly, Government and Business need to figure out what it would take to get on the same page with many other issues, too, and then probably another set of discussions to make sure that all of the micro issues previously framed will fit together into a macro solution.

I've been in plenty of business meetings where the initial agendas included a zillion items to be resolved, and nothing gets accomplished because you just have too many people with too many points to make about too many things that you never get a focused response to anything. Government isn't any better in such scenarios.

George Croix

"Robert Reich’s total net worth is four million dollars. That's not rich.'


He's making 240 grand to teach ONE class, has a 4 mil net worth, but that's not rich?

You're WAAAAY out of my league, Nurse..... [beam][beam][beam]

That sounds like some fo that Hillary stuff where their 200 mil or so net worth isn't 'really rich'.
A cynic might say that the folks telling everyone else to hate rich people while making sure they define rich so it doesn't include them are being a bit....what's the term...full of it.....

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.