Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum Call for Higher Minimum Wage

Townhall ^ | 05/11/2014 | Mike Shedlock

[Finny]

Lib Free, I am self employed and must set my own wage.

Whenever the minimum wage goes up, I must either:

-- Suffer an effective pay cut, hence have to work more hours and hustle more work for the same income

or

-- Raise my wage accordingly by raising my price to my clients, and when I do, I risk angering, alienating, and even losing said clients.

If you are in favor of the minimum wage, then you LIKE it that way. You PUT ME IN THAT POSITION. Thanks a lot, pal.

I am with Fledermaus and the concept of limited government conservatism: Wage should be determined between the employer and the employee. HOW the all-powerful MSM "frames the issue" is absolutely beside the point and how the MSM frames it alters exactly ZERO of the negative consequences of establishing and constantly raising a "minimum wage."

Would you like to know what class of entity benefits FAR AND AWAY the most by a minimum wage increase? FAR AND AWAY? Whose income in dues will increase by a large margin with the increase in the minimum wage, as all other wages represented by that class of entity must also increase to offset what would otherwise be an effective pay reduction for wages above the minimum wage?

As Ridesthemiles observed:

This is entirely a handout to every UNION contract in the USA. THEY & THEY alone will benefit.

To vote for a candidate who supports the minimum wage and wants to raise it, is voting to HARM capitalism and free markets. Those who vote for that candidate won't be voting "against" a single solitary thing; they will ONLY be voting FOR harming capitalism, free markets, and American prosperity.

I will vote for PROTECTING and ADVANCING capitalism, free markets, and American prosperity, and if that means voting for someone other than a Republican, so be it. I've been voting faithfully for Republicans for nearly 40 years, and now I'm looking at REPUBLICAN candidates advocating for what I oppose. To that, I say: NUTS.

I'll vote for America, not for the MSM's framed portrait of it.

[Finny]

Ping to my post 161 -- kind of a quintessential Uniparty-defined post.

I swear, it's insane! I really do believe the Republican party is committing suicide by MSM. The main justification put forth by Republicans who are okay with the Party officially calling for raising the minimum wage, it appears, is to placate a perceived "America" as presented in how the MSM frames the minimum wage.

Because after all, the MSM has framed it such that for Republicans to fight to resist and frustrate the minimum wage, no matter how right and sensible it is, can't work because Americans aren't smart enough, they are controlled by the MSM, so what else can we do??? We have to go along because that's how the MSM has framed it.

The Uniparty has its shots called by the MSM, for crying out loud!! I despair.

[Zeneta]

Thanks, for your kind words.

I just now read this thread and your post #116.

I am reluctant to take sides since there seems to be some misunderstanding here.

More to your post.

Yes, I believe the majority of Americans are “fundamentally” Conservative, an overwhelming majority in fact. If you recall the testimony of an Hispanic representative (Democrat) from the Southwest that recounted her meeting with a Republican/Conservative. After having this “One on One” discussion she realized “Damn, I’m a Republican”. This was very powerful testimony for me.

This dovetails into your subsequent post # 158

---

How can a thing most people don’t trust, have such profound influence on a major philosophical and economic principle that any effort to resist the MSM’s framing of it, it is useless?

---

I have been considering this question for quite some time and I don’t believe there is a single answer. First, I agree “most people don’t trust” the MSM. Secondly, I believe they DO (the MSM) have a PROFOUND INFLUENCE, but I’m also certain that more and more young voters don’t find these issues “Philosophical”, even though they should. “Economic?”, maybe for some, but even here their lack of understanding has resulted in indifference.

Not unless you can have a one on one discussion will these Progressive voters recognize their own conservative foundations. The MSM/Democrat Party is leveraging “Political Correctness”, founded in relativism, with “Peer-Pressure”, by controlling the tone or narrative regardless of what is being said. They utterly destroy the message, not with critical thought or analysis, but by destroying the messenger. This tone has been set and it feeds itself with more and more uncertainty. BTW, they embrace uncertainty as their foundation.

Foundation of belief and worldview are basically the same here.

A few years ago I asked my very conservative College student Daughter, “What does it take to change a persons worldview?” She replied in an instant, “Crisis”. I tend to agree in general but thought there may be more to this.

Back to your question. Our Government, with the help of the MSM, is attempting to remove any and all potential “Crisis” from the lives of Americans. Both philosophical and economic.

So, why do the folks that distrust the MSM and/or Government vote for liberals?

Well, I do think we have a seriously retarded voting class in our country. They don’t think about the issues like most conservatives. They can’t be bothered and as a result, tend to go with the flow in the group think of “feel-good” politics.

For some, it is no more complicated than this, (flawed as it may be);

All politicians suck.

Democrats care.

Republicans are like Hitler.

Hitler Sucks.

I know this seems extreme, however it is the only way to explain how seemingly intelligent people can ever vote for a Liberal/Progressive/Democrat.

[KC_Lion]

Ask and you shall recieve Ping!

Uniparty Ping to Finny's 161 Post.

[xzins]

Not to forget, the government benefits in social security tax when the minimum wage increases. (Also, med, iirc....both are payroll taxes and even those who don’t pay income tax will still pay social security.)

Finny, I agree with you that an increased minimum wage will force you to raise prices, take a personal income hit, or cut hours/employees. On the other hand, I also believe that the anti-market practices of this administration and some previous administrations, particularly in regard to illegal workers and continuing legal immigration, have injured owners, workers, everyone.

Except for these anti-market practices, I’m convinced our market would be right-sized and both workers and owners would be receiving and asking what is the result or real supply and demand and not a manipulated supply and demand.

[TADSLOS]

The government has no business setting wage controls on private enterprise. NONE. It is a form of tryanny that feeds into class warfare that fuels more government power.

[RKBA Democrat]

Good post. Interesting that gop candidates are advocating measures that are really tantamount to a death sentence for small or start up businesses. Interesting, but not surprising as they’re all part of one big, incestuous uniparty.

One minor point of disagreement. I share your sentiment of wanting to vote for America and not the LSM’s framed portrait of it. Unfortunately, America isn’t on the ballot in most places anymore. Just a bunch of uniparty clowns who want to feather their nests and those of their cronies.

[Finny]

One minor point of disagreement. I share your sentiment of wanting to vote for America and not the LSM’s framed portrait of it. Unfortunately, America isn’t on the ballot in most places anymore. Just a bunch of uniparty clowns who want to feather their nests and those of their cronies.

Understood!!! LOL!!I think what I really mean was I will risk or decide my vote on the America I know, not on the phony America as portrayed in the MSM. Too many folks -- including the Republicans who rationalize supporting and raising the minimum wage ONLY because they think the MSM has "framed the issue" so that opposing it wouldn't get the support of enough folks -- decide their policy, so to speak, not on what is right, but on what they think the MSM has done to their fellow Americans.

Thanks for the kind words, RKBA.

[Finny]

Dearest Zeneta, thanks for the response.

I am reluctant to take sides since there seems to be some misunderstanding here.

Do be confident that when I posted to you, and when I referred my post 116 to you, any idea of your taking "sides" in this discussion was out of the picture. There is only ONE reason I thought of you, and that is because you are the ONLY FReeper besides myself whose posts I've read urge people to have faith in their fellow Americans. I think of you as a kindred spirit in that, and so thought you might like to see another post along the lines of your own. There are no "sides."

If there is a misunderstanding, it is purely this: Dave W. stated clearly and concisely, when I said I would vote third party if necessary in 2016 if the GOP ran another Romney-type liberal. His response was: You won't be voting in 2016 - it is that simple. Mitt is a smart enough guy ... followed by an argument justifying Republican embrace of raising the minimum wage based on fear of the MSM.

I asked him if he meant that there would be no elections in 2016, or if he meant that voting for a third party was the same as not voting. No sides to take, just a simple question.

He responded What a silly and shallow response...it is obvious you missed what the post was about. Not surprising in today’s dumb downed culture, and in a later post, suggested My suggestion is to take my comments to someone who has an ability to comprehend simple statements and let this person explain it to you.

That's exactly what I did. I wasn't asking anyone to take sides, I was asking them to comprehend simple statements FOR ME as they would surely understand whether Dave mean a) there would be no elections in 2016 or b) voting third party was the same as not voting, because I am apparently just too much of the "today's dumb downed culture," as Dave calls it, to understand him.

No sides, just asking others if they know which of the two things Dave meant when he said, "You won't be voting in 2016, it is that simple."

I am still in the dark as to what he really meant, as he has refused to answer with a simple A or B.

No "sides," Zeneta, just kindred spirit admiration for someone who understands that having faith and confidence in Americans is crucial.

And one other thing -- Democrats and leftists cheat, it is a fact. There is vote fraud and vote manipulation and gerrymandering galore. WHY?

Because if they didn't cheat, they'd lose. WHY? Because they would lack the legitimate votes. WHY? Because they only represent a minority of Americans. Folks that distrust MSM and government only vote for liberals are a minority. Al Franken, Harry Reid, and God only knows how many other malevolent leftists, are in office SOLEY because of imaginary people who voted for them, just enough pretend votes to tip the balance in the malevolent leftists' favor.

I have faith and confidence that the MAJORITY votes elsewhere or skips voting because there is nothing to vote FOR. I hope that clarifies a few things, and also that you again understand: I wasn't asking you to take sides; at most, I was asking you what YOU think Dave meant by his statement, "You won't be voting in 2016, it's that simple." No sides, just perception. I thought he meant B, personally.

[Finny]

APOLOGIES because after having done some research, I realize I was mistaken when I said:

Whose income in dues will increase by a large margin with the increase in the minimum wage, as all other wages represented by that class of entity must also increase to offset what would otherwise be an effective pay reduction for wages above the minimum wage?

That isn't why unions benefit when minimum wages go up. The REAL reason unions benefit, and why they are the MAIN PROPONENTS of any rise in the minimum wage, is because As long as union members earn wages above the minimum rate, their positions are made more secure by the government policy that eliminates those who might undercut the union wage. People willing to work for less than the government's minimum are not allowed into the labor market at all, as per Cato.

So again, perfect example of how the force of government ALONE empowers unions with an unfair advantage in free markets and gives a minority -- leftist liberals -- power over a majority; no wonder that majority has grown so weary and cynical when it comes to voting. Unions could still exist without government. Government, however, gives them coerced forced advantage that endows them with false strength. So really it could be said that union guys who are making WAY more per hour for work that is ... well, not that highly skilled, live the way they do at the expense of unemployed teenagers.

[LibFreeUSA]

As far as I’m concerned, there are no good unions. The concept is tyrannical and coercive, and stand in the way of personal achievement. That is why their membership has gone from 20% of the US workforce in 1983 down to 11% in 2013. I think you give them more credit and power than they really deserve or have on the US economy. I believe the union payscales exceed min wage levels.

[RKBA Democrat]

You’re welcome. And I’ll leave you a conundrum to ponder: which came first, the uniparty or the Low Information Voter?

[Finny]

Thanks for the great response. :^)

I believe the union payscales exceed min wage levels.

Your belief is correct. The Cato article, although an old one, linked in the post explains it very well.

Best,

Finny

[Finny]

I believe the union payscales exceed min wage levels.

LibFree is correct. Union pay is that class of worker more skilled than minimum wage.

So why are unions the biggest advocates of setting and raising the minimum wage?

Here's why. Written in 1988, and the decades since have confirmed how correct the author's take was and is.

[Finny]

Correct you are in saying of me: You are one that shows the failings of the current culture - a truly dumbed down individual.

After all, you MUST be correct as it must be WHY you should clarify what you meant when you said " You won't be voting in 2016 - it is that simple. Mitt is a smart enough guy ... ," etcetera.

Please have pity on a poor "truly dumbed down individual" like myself, be nice, have mercy, be BIG about it, and condescend to address my lower mentality. Did you mean:

A) There won't be elections in 2016

or

B) Voting for a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat is the same as not voting

Please have mercy and pity on a poor stupid idiot like me -- all you have to do is answer with either "A" or "B," nothing else! I'm not asking much! You are so far above me, please have mercy and forgive how much of a moron I am compared to you.

[Finny]

I hotheadedly accused you of being "mathematically challenged" because I hastily assumed you meant that voting for a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat in 2016 would be the same a not voting when you said: You won't be voting in 2016 - it is that simple.

To that horrific INSULT -- that you are mathematically challenged (which you are if you think voting third party is the same as not voting) -- you responded:

What a twit you are.

and

What an asshole. I feel for your family.

and

You are ... a truly dumbed down individual.... with little intellectual prowess, you are also one with no class. You are also a scared bully, having to run to cyber individuals ...

... which I did, Dave, in order to follow YOUR suggestion ... to take my [Dave W.'s] comments to someone who has an ability to comprehend simple statements and let this person explain it to you.

I took your advice, and you whine that I'm a bully???? Huh???

You have pretty thin skin, don't you? I mean, I call you "mathematically challenged" and you come back with "twit," "asshole," "dumbed down individual," "no class," and "bully"! My stars!

*Nana pinged just for grins. This guy defends Romney -- says he hates doesn't like Romney and hated voting for him, but defends Romney just the same. As arrogant and thin-skinned as every Romney sycophant I've ever dealt with on FR! Of course, he really doesn't like Romney, but he'll support him or anyone else because yadda yadda yadda we've heard it all before. *sigh*

[SunkenCiv]

• Sec. of State Kerry: U.S. Not Responsible for Chaos in Iraq, Libya
• NANCY PELOSI: IRAQ IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY
• Paul Blames Iraq Crisis on Bush Administration
• Rand Paul Defends Obama Against Dick Cheney

Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'

Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists]

[Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]

• Paul: We probably can't get rid of 'Obamacare'
• Paul: We probably can't get rid of 'Obamacare' - [Sep. 21, 2013 9:56 PM EDT ]
• Paul: 'Difficult to turn the clock back' on O-Care
• Rand Paul: GOP 'probably can't defeat' Obamacare
• Rand Paul on abortion: "We're not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise"
• Sen. Paul: 'We're Not Changing Any' Abortion 'Laws Until the Country is Persuaded Otherwise'

Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"

I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.

[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]

• Rand Paul: I think Republicans may have over-emphasized voter fraud
• Rand Paul: Republicans Need to Soften on Social Issues

Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance

...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.

[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]

• Rand Paul Wants Bigger GOP: 'You Go to a Republican Event and It's All White People'
• (Rand) Paul: GOP Needs to 'Look Like the Rest of America' to Win Again (again)
• Rand Paul slams Cliven Bundy's racist rant
• Rand Paul: Bundy's racist remarks are 'offensive'
• Rand Paul: I'm Open to Voting for Immigration Bill
• Paul: Still hope for immigration reform this year

Rand Paul's immigration speech

...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.

Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.

Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...

This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.

Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.

[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]

---

Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform

Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...

[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]

---

[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]