Friday, January 12, 2007

Pelosi's 'hypocrisy'

Nancy Pelosi already being a true liberal: A FUCKING HYPOCRITE! She want's to raise minimum wage up to $7.25 an hour, but is giving her pals, that have business' in the bay area, an exemption from minimum wage raise! What the fuck is this? Are they to good to pay more in taxes! Fuck her and all her liberal buddies. A day will come when we'll get rid of all these communist assholes and take this country back!

Back to this minimum wage deal, who does it benefit? NOBODY, exactly! All this will do is cause the price of everything else to go up, so really you'll be making less! The more money you make means the more taxes you'll pay on it!


Blogger Progressive Pete said...

you've oversimplified taxation. congrats. what's wrong with giving people a living wage? does it interfere too much with your capitalist ideologies?

however you make a good point. no politician should play favorites, especially.

idealy we should be propping up politicians, not condemning them. shame on pelosi!

3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, a thing can only be worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

In other words, there is no free lunch.

A minimum wage is a wrong for two reasons, one of which Boodge already explained- it is a hidden tax on goods and services which will only serve to increase inflation, not real wealth, and will also harm those least-able to afford additional costs, small businesses.

The other reason a minimum wage is wrong is because it's inherently racist and ageist.

A minimum wage is not designed, never was designed, and never coud be designed to be a living wage. It is only suitable for those whose skill are so meager that they cannot do something more than an entry-level job.

Who have the lowest skill levels on average? People who are young and undereducated, people new to the workforce, and people who cannot speak English- in other words, young minorities are the ones who are most likely to fit this description.

Therefore, a minimum wage which requires an employer to pay a person more money than they can reasonably be expected to gain by employing that person means that the job that would otherwise go to a low-skill person would have to go to someone with higher skills, or be eliminated entirely.

Which means the young, the disadvantaged and the non-English speakers have fewer job opportunities.

Which means, I guess, they go on welfare or steal from you.

Which means, maybe Nancy Pelosi knows what she's doing after all.

After all, once a felon, always a Democrat!


8:50 AM  
Blogger Progressive Pete said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:34 PM  
Blogger Progressive Pete said...

Mr. North, among others, subscribes to Economics 101 which says that a thing (a salary, in this case) is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Perhaps in some ideal economic world that is true in theory. But as my old friend used to say, "We've all been to college and we have all read the textbooks--this is the real world!"

Every economic system creates and distributes wealth. Farmers grow food, miners and loggers go cut stuff down or dig stuff up, factories build stuff, lawyers and accountants provide services, etc. In America, we do that in a capitalist framework. We reward those who take risks in business by allowing them to earn profit.

Now, we do not live in a pure capitalist market. If we did, it would be possible for businesses to sell us spoiled meat. It would be possible to make people work in horrible, unsafe conditions, we could make children work, etc. We, as a society, have said that a pure, unregulated economic system stacks the deck in favor of those with power and wealth and keeps it there, making the poor and the infirm suffer. Instead, we have said the system is unsound and needs to be regulated in a lot of ways. That's what government does.

There is also a system of political checks and balances that comes into play here. Big corporations and industrial groups have a HUGE advantage in affecting public policy at the level of Congress. We call it lobbying--that is the special interests at work trying to still stack the deck. They create tax breaks, special exemptions to regulations, special deals for them selves. [One area to look at in this regard are oil drilling and mining rights. Mining rights cost about $5. They haven't changed that law in over 100 years. originally it might have been good public policy but today, it makes control over public lands much easier than maybe it should be. Who benefits? Corporate stockholders and the corporate executives who are paid insanely HIGH salaries.]

Everytime the debate rages to raise the minimum wage, people like Mr. North trot out these "sky is falling" arguments about how everything will go to hell, poor black kids will lose their jobs, small business will suffer, blah, blah, blah. And everytime, EVERYTIME, it turns out OK. The brilliance of tweaking the system so that more money is in the pockets of the lower classes is that--wait for it...wait for it...--they SPEND it. That's right, the money goes right back into the economy where the big corporate big shots have another crack at trying to get it again.

Here's something that is interesting. Since the last time the minimum wage was raised--in the Clinton years--America has added about 325 BILLIONAIRES to the roles. That's with a B. If you do the math, do you have any idea what it would take to spend a billion dollars in a life time? Could you live in a nicer house than say, someone with only $100 million? Could you eat a nicer dinner? Could you sleep in a better bed? Could your kids get a better education?

The brilliance of the post-Depression American economy is that it created a booming middle class by working the system so those folks had decent incomes. With that income, those folks bought houses--not mansions, but houses like yours. That put lots of people to work and created both value and wealth. Since then the system has eroded and the middle class is starting to fray at the edge. People are moving down the economic ladder. Since 1930, nearly everyone moved up. Something is wrong.

I read an article about a guy who paid $135 million for a single painting because he wanted it. What in the name of the Great Spaghetti Monster did the guy who sold him the painting do to deserve to get paid that much? Did he paint the painting? No. Did he build a nice frame for it? No. He simply owned it and found a sucker who would pay him that much. What kind of system rewards you for simply OWNING something that someone else created?

I am not a socialist but I have no patience for folks who defend a system where the rich are able to concentrate obscene amounts of wealth and power while at the same time, they expect people on the low end of the system to get by on a wage that has been suffering from inflation for 13 years.

Sorry about this not being a short answer. This is complicated stuff but it gets down to what you think is RIGHT. What do you think is right? What is Fair?

Mr North, your apparent hostility to FDR's "living wage" can be seen in your crass self-interest and callousness and you forget we have had experience with it. Afterall, it was proposed in 1812. Why haven't we systematically raised minimum wage in accordinance with inflation?

10:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home