If Republicans are anti-poor, why did they vote for minimum wage increase?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 5:37 AM GMT
    Minimum wage increases passed in all red states this November. And yet GOP is portrayed as anti-poor. I do not get it.


    What do you guys think about this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 2:51 PM GMT
    The GOP is anti-poor, but their base is incredibly poor. Poverty is bad, but the GOP makes it seem like abortion and healthcare are worse. But the minimum wage increases weren't up to the GOP. They were ballot measures which passed ultimately becuz no one turns down a raise and the GOP base, as ignorant as they can be, is in SEVERE need of a raise.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Dec 07, 2014 3:36 PM GMT
    At the same time these red states voted to raise the minimum wage, they also voted for Republicans who have publicly stated they are against raising the minimum wage.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 5:07 PM GMT
    misery_loves_me saidMinimum wage increases passed in all red states this November. And yet GOP is portrayed as anti-poor. I do not get it.


    What do you guys think about this?


    I'm not surprised you don't get it. That's not meant to be flip, just recognition that the premise of an "anti-poor" GOP is false and doesn't mesh w/ the facts. Don't worry about not getting nonsense; no one in his right mind can.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 6:12 PM GMT
    MGINSD said

    I'm not surprised you don't get it. That's not meant to be flip, just recognition that the premise of an "anti-poor" GOP is false and doesn't mesh w/ the facts. Don't worry about not getting nonsense; no one in his right mind can.


    The GOP is anti-poor. They may not say it outright, but their policies hammer the poor. Giving massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, the key part of Supply-Side economics, has never worked. We only have to look to Kansas, where the Republican State Senate leadership rallied against the GOP nominee for wanting to continue their trickle down experiment, even though the state is on the verge of collapse as a result of Sam Brownbacks massive tax cuts.

    The GOP fights so hard the ban abortions, but them at the same time attempts to limit the access to birthcontrol to those who can afford to pay for them. Combine that with removing sex ed from schools, and you have a perfect storm of poor areas with high birthrates and STDs, teenage mothers, and children who are at a natural disadvantage from being born into a shit situation.

    And the the minimum wage...no one can live off of that. Fuck no one should live off of that. Even $10/hr is really low. Republicans give everything they've got to keep the minimum wage at poverty level. The excuse they always give is it's bad for business, but they seem to ignore that in a consumer-based economy, it's terrible for business when people don't have enough money to buy anything. If you, as a business (major, not some shitty fruit stand you own and want your son's friend to help), depend on the minimum wage to keep you a float, then you are probably doomed to fail. What's worse is how Republicans protect business thatare successful, yet refuse to pay more all in the name of shareholders receiving more profit. And all of this becuz of some stupid law written in the 1800's that declared the responsibility of a public corporation is to make money for its shareholders.

    There are some democrats that are like this, but Republicans march lock-step on these issues. All of them. Thus, the GOP is anti-poor.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3385

    Dec 07, 2014 6:29 PM GMT
    What ElusiveTechy said.
    Maybe the next question we ponder will be:

    If plantation owners were anti-black, why did they feed their slaves?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 6:40 PM GMT
    ElusiveTechy said...And all of this becuz of some stupid law written in the 1800's that declared the responsibility of a public corporation is to make money for its shareholders.

    The shareholders include employee pension plans for teachers, as an example. If corporations did not make money for shareholders, would they invest in the corporations? If corporations did not get investment money, how would they stay in business? Would they requirement "investment" from the Government? Are you advocating government take-over of all business?

    In short, did you think through that statement, and what exactly did you mean by it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 6:58 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    The shareholders include employee pension plans for teachers, as an example. If corporations did not make money for shareholders, would they invest in the corporations? If corporations did not get investment money, how would they stay in business? Would they requirement "investment" from the Government? Are you advocating government take-over of all business?

    In short, did you think through that statement, and what exactly did you mean by it?


    Corporations are required by law to increase profit for their shareholders from year to year. And while this does include pension plans, the pension holder are not the ones that complain that the company only increase profit at 1.5% as opposed to 4% the previous year.

    The problem isn't investment. The problem is having to increase the return on investment, year after year, or else face legal action. This is unsustainable growth, even for governments. At some point, you get to a place where you can't grow anymore profit unless you a) cut wages (Walmart, McDonalds, The Macys) or b) cut employees (Chase, Microsoft, Staples).

    I don't think you thought your statement thru. Either that, or you don't understand government or business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 7:08 PM GMT
    ElusiveTechy said
    socalfitness said
    The shareholders include employee pension plans for teachers, as an example. If corporations did not make money for shareholders, would they invest in the corporations? If corporations did not get investment money, how would they stay in business? Would they requirement "investment" from the Government? Are you advocating government take-over of all business?

    In short, did you think through that statement, and what exactly did you mean by it?


    Corporations are required by law to increase profit for their shareholders from year to year. And while this does include pension plans, the pension holder are not the ones that complain that the company only increase profit at 1.5% as opposed to 4% the previous year.

    The problem isn't investment. The problem is having to increase the return on investment, year after year, or else face legal action. This is unsustainable growth, even for governments. At some point, you get to a place where you can't grow anymore profit unless you a) cut wages (Walmart, McDonalds, The Macys) or b) cut employees (Chase, Microsoft, Staples).

    I don't think you thought your statement thru. Either that, or you don't understand government or business.

    I thought through my statement quite well but I do give you credit for trying to cover up your statement. Where is there a law requiring corporations to increase profit or else face legal action?

    A company will always try to maximize profit - unless you propose making that illegal. If a company gets to a point where it decides it needs to cut wages or reduce employees, which can be the case in a poor economy or if they were bloated or made other business decisions. In a free marketplace that can happen. Investors and employees can go elsewhere, unless the market conditions are so bad that all are in the same boat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 7:15 PM GMT
    How many of the state increases in minimum wage were due to ballot measures or were mandatory due to legal requirements based on increases in cost of living and inflation? It's interesting that in a number of states voters supported ballot measures to increase minimum wage but then voted in Republican members of Congress.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Dec 07, 2014 7:35 PM GMT
    ElusiveTechy said
    MGINSD said

    I'm not surprised you don't get it. That's not meant to be flip, just recognition that the premise of an "anti-poor" GOP is false and doesn't mesh w/ the facts. Don't worry about not getting nonsense; no one in his right mind can.


    The GOP is anti-poor. They may not say it outright, but their policies hammer the poor. Giving massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, the key part of Supply-Side economics, has never worked. We only have to look to Kansas, where the Republican State Senate leadership rallied against the GOP nominee for wanting to continue their trickle down experiment, even though the state is on the verge of collapse as a result of Sam Brownbacks massive tax cuts.

    The GOP fights so hard the ban abortions, but them at the same time attempts to limit the access to birthcontrol to those who can afford to pay for them. Combine that with removing sex ed from schools, and you have a perfect storm of poor areas with high birthrates and STDs, teenage mothers, and children who are at a natural disadvantage from being born into a shit situation.

    And the the minimum wage...no one can live off of that. Fuck no one should live off of that. Even $10/hr is really low. Republicans give everything they've got to keep the minimum wage at poverty level. The excuse they always give is it's bad for business, but they seem to ignore that in a consumer-based economy, it's terrible for business when people don't have enough money to buy anything. If you, as a business (major, not some shitty fruit stand you own and want your son's friend to help), depend on the minimum wage to keep you a float, then you are probably doomed to fail. What's worse is how Republicans protect business thatare successful, yet refuse to pay more all in the name of shareholders receiving more profit. And all of this becuz of some stupid law written in the 1800's that declared the responsibility of a public corporation is to make money for its shareholders.

    There are some democrats that are like this, but Republicans march lock-step on these issues. All of them. Thus, the GOP is anti-poor.
    The democrats are also anti-poor because they love to preserve these welfare programs that keep the poor addicted and down on the farm of misery and struggling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 8:41 PM GMT
    IF the dems cared about the poor working families ,they why has the misery index double under obama ? Why did the cost of healthcare double or triple? Serious just because a group of people say something over and over doesnt make it true. Also giving priority to illegals for hiring preference is quite obvious , he just doesnt give a damn

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/01/21/reminder-the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-has-expanded-under-obama-n1782256

  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Dec 07, 2014 8:46 PM GMT

    If the democrats were so pro poor, pro working class, and pro middle class than why are so many older northern cities still on combined federal/state financial life support thanks to the longtime monolithic rule of the democratic party in northern urban governmentsicon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 8:53 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    If the democrats were so pro poor, pro working class, and pro middle class than why are so many older northern cities still on combined federal/state financial life support thanks to the longtime monolithic rule of the democratic party in northern urban governmentsicon_question.gif

    Good point. The Democrats are pro-poor. That is the poor staying poor. Increasing entitlements is a demotivation for pulling themselves up. In their view, the poor depending on entitlements means votes for Democrats - which is what they are really about - using the poor to keep themselves in power. The classic statement: They would rather give out fish instead of teaching to fish.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 07, 2014 9:08 PM GMT
    ElusiveTechy said
    socalfitness said
    The shareholders include employee pension plans for teachers, as an example. If corporations did not make money for shareholders, would they invest in the corporations? If corporations did not get investment money, how would they stay in business? Would they requirement "investment" from the Government? Are you advocating government take-over of all business?

    In short, did you think through that statement, and what exactly did you mean by it?


    Corporations are required by law to increase profit for their shareholders from year to year. And while this does include pension plans, the pension holder are not the ones that complain that the company only increase profit at 1.5% as opposed to 4% the previous year.

    The problem isn't investment. The problem is having to increase the return on investment, year after year, or else face legal action. This is unsustainable growth, even for governments. At some point, you get to a place where you can't grow anymore profit unless you a) cut wages (Walmart, McDonalds, The Macys) or b) cut employees (Chase, Microsoft, Staples).

    I don't think you thought your statement thru. Either that, or you don't understand government or business.


    Corporations are not legally required to increase their profits from year to year. I have no idea what the source of that idea is. Even if such a law were passed, it would be impossible to enforce it.

    Corporation profits are only partly within control of corporations. They are influenced by market forces over which they have only limited control. For example, when the number of housing starts drops sharply, the demand for plywood and other building materials also drops and that will reduce the profits for the corporations which provide building materials. Of course when that happens, companies can reduce expenses by laying off employees, which they do, but that generally is insufficient to keep profits from falling.

    There is no way a law could force companies to increase profits. Attempting to use the legal system to force companies to increase profits would make about as much sense as enacting a law to force people to stay forever young.

    Return investment does not necessarily increase from year to year either; it often drops, at least for a while.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 07, 2014 9:19 PM GMT
    PatrickRyan saidHow many of the state increases in minimum wage were due to ballot measures or were mandatory due to legal requirements based on increases in cost of living and inflation? It's interesting that in a number of states voters supported ballot measures to increase minimum wage but then voted in Republican members of Congress.


    The traditional belief is that increasing minimum wages will cause other wages to increase by a similar percentage which will lead to higher prices and inflation which will offset the increased wages. It has also been widely believed that increasing minimum wages will increase the unemployment rate. However, there is empirical evidence indicating that these traditional beliefs are not always correct and that increasing minimum wages can provide wide-spread benefits with few adverse effects.

    It is important for theories, including economic theories, to be checked under real world conditions. That can be difficult because often there are too many variables to keep track of. Because I have a minor in economics, I am well aware of that.

    The fact that some states which voted Republican also supported raising minimum wages should not be surprising since few people base their votes on only one issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 9:47 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    roadbikeRob said
    If the democrats were so pro poor, pro working class, and pro middle class than why are so many older northern cities still on combined federal/state financial life support thanks to the longtime monolithic rule of the democratic party in northern urban governmentsicon_question.gif

    Good point. The Democrats are pro-poor. That is the poor staying poor. Increasing entitlements is a demotivation for pulling themselves up. In their view, the poor depending on entitlements means votes for Democrats - which is what they are really about - using the poor to keep themselves in power. The classic statement: They would rather give out fish instead of teaching to fish.


    Notorious Slacker Warren Buffet is a Democrat.

    socalfitness aka topathlete, What we don't produce are Angry Old Men who have enormous amounts of time to type endlessly about the sky falling.
    You Republicans seem to be neglecting your lives in order to bitch about Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 10:12 PM GMT
    Determinate said
    socalfitness said
    roadbikeRob said
    If the democrats were so pro poor, pro working class, and pro middle class than why are so many older northern cities still on combined federal/state financial life support thanks to the longtime monolithic rule of the democratic party in northern urban governmentsicon_question.gif

    Good point. The Democrats are pro-poor. That is the poor staying poor. Increasing entitlements is a demotivation for pulling themselves up. In their view, the poor depending on entitlements means votes for Democrats - which is what they are really about - using the poor to keep themselves in power. The classic statement: They would rather give out fish instead of teaching to fish.


    Notorious Slacker Warren Buffet is a Democrat.

    socalfitness aka topathlete, What we don't produce are Angry Old Men who have enormous amounts of time to type endlessly about the sky falling.
    You Republicans seem to be neglecting your lives in order to bitch about Obama.

    I generally don't respond to you but I'll make an exception now. I don't use other accounts and don't know the person or account you mentioned. I don't need to. I speak my mind freely with this account. You on the other hand have a well known track record of having several accounts. The previous site owners banned each one. You're lucky the current one is more tolerant.

    Second, I vote for candidates of both parties, but not the far left Democrats or the far right Republicans.

    Third, I am not angry and don't spend an inordinate amount of time here. Certainly not as much time as your sorry self.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2014 11:13 PM GMT
    PatrickRyan saidHow many of the state increases in minimum wage were due to ballot measures or were mandatory due to legal requirements based on increases in cost of living and inflation? It's interesting that in a number of states voters supported ballot measures to increase minimum wage but then voted in Republican members of Congress.


    They were referendums. Overwhelming support.

    Republicans were elected to a majority by roughly 19% of the eligible voting population. That voting population handily made away like bandits due to apathy on the other side.

    Since liberal ballot measures prevailed (mostly), Democrats would be well advised to hitch their candidacies to those measures. No, instead they tried to look like Republicans by shooting fucking guns in their ads, running from Obama, and generally giving up the South for the chance to lick from the teat of oil, gas and coal.
  • carew28

    Posts: 661

    Dec 07, 2014 11:51 PM GMT
    Here in Massachusetts, the referendum a few months ago passed, so after Jan.1, the minimum-wage will go up.

    In the election last month, we elected a Republican governor. ( I myself voted in the referendums, but I didn't vote for any candidates). I don't know where he stood on the minimum-wage increase, although I suspect he was opposed to it. The Democratic gubernatorial candidate supported the minimum-wage increase, although she also supported an automatic raise in the gasoline tax each year, which I think is the reason she lost many votes.

    Voters, in the November referendum, repealled the automatic gas-tax increase.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2014 12:00 AM GMT
    misery_loves_me saidMinimum wage increases passed in all red states this November. And yet GOP is portrayed as anti-poor. I do not get it.


    What do you guys think about this?



    8 out of the 10 richest members of congress are Democrats. It's just a old urban myth that Democrats are poor. Watch Obama become a insurance company executive after the Whitehouse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2014 1:32 AM GMT
    Determinate said
    socalfitness said
    roadbikeRob said
    If the democrats were so pro poor, pro working class, and pro middle class than why are so many older northern cities still on combined federal/state financial life support thanks to the longtime monolithic rule of the democratic party in northern urban governmentsicon_question.gif

    Good point. The Democrats are pro-poor. That is the poor staying poor. Increasing entitlements is a demotivation for pulling themselves up. In their view, the poor depending on entitlements means votes for Democrats - which is what they are really about - using the poor to keep themselves in power. The classic statement: They would rather give out fish instead of teaching to fish.


    Notorious Slacker Warren Buffet is a Democrat.

    socalfitness aka topathlete, What we don't produce are Angry Old Men who have enormous amounts of time to type endlessly about the sky falling.
    You Republicans seem to be neglecting your lives in order to bitch about Obama.


    Yep how odd that billionaires like Buffet advocate for policies that keep them rich... Oh wait...
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Dec 08, 2014 1:48 AM GMT
    A great question to ask of all the Republican politicians who keep voting AGAINST raising the minimum raise.
    The corrupt GOP politicians can only count on their gerrymandered districts for so long... they're definitely pushing it on this issue, where even their own party is against them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2014 2:19 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidA great question to ask of all the Republican politicians who keep voting AGAINST raising the minimum raise.
    The corrupt GOP politicians can only count on their gerrymandered districts for so long... they're definitely pushing it on this issue, where even their own party is against them.

    Maybe you might care to explain how gerrymandered districts explains the situation from the Carolinas to Texas. Fact is you can't because your arguments are full of crap.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SENATE_LOUISIANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-06-21-17-12

    "The results also will leave Democrats without a single governor, U.S. senator or legislative majority across nine Southern states from the Carolinas to Texas."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2014 2:47 AM GMT
    ElusiveTechy saidThe GOP is anti-poor, but their base is incredibly poor. Poverty is bad, but the GOP makes it seem like abortion and healthcare are worse. But the minimum wage increases weren't up to the GOP. They were ballot measures which passed ultimately becuz no one turns down a raise and the GOP base, as ignorant as they can be, is in SEVERE need of a raise.


    "The GOP is anti-poor"

    You're damn right we (republicans) are anti-poor. We want to bring everyone up so there are no poor. A 'rising tide' does what? Raises all what? That's what we're for.

    But yet 'you' behave like you're pro poor. If there were no more poor, you lose your constituency . It's like Al and Jesse ...., do you really thing they want to see the end (truly) of racism? If by some miracle we could end the last vestiges of racism, what the hell do we need them for?