VectorVictor Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Mitt Romney just isn't having a good today today. After being blasted in three states by Santorum yesterday, Romney was just starting to get the foul taste out of his mouth when he was attacked today...by his own party...for engaging in "class warfare". Why? Because Mitt Romney suggested that Minimum Wage should be increased to keep pace with inflation. Romney said last week that he supports regular increases in the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, a position he took as a candidate for president in 2008. Six years before that, as a candidate for Massachusetts governor, Romney supported linking automatic increases in the state's minimum wage to inflation. "I haven't changed my thoughts on that," he told reporters. Dick Armey, Steve Forbes, and Newt have all spoken out against this proposal, which is obviously targeted towards getting independent voters to consider the Republican party this fall. But what is one man's campaigning is another man's pandering and "class warfare"--to note: And an article by the writer Andrew McCarthy on the website of National Review, a leading conservative opinion journal, accused Romney of "class warfare" and "pandering." But why the opposition to raising the minimum wage? Because it will obviously hurt the poor. Jim DeMint, the Republican senator from South Carolina and a Tea Party favorite, also offered a thumbs-down. "Senator DeMint opposes the minimum wage because it hurts the poor and destroys desperately needed jobs," DeMint's spokesman, Wesley Denton, told Yahoo News. "Wage mandates prevent people from getting jobs and the skills they need to climb the economic ladder." Read the rest of the article at Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.co...-143038744.html Link to comment
strigori Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Yep, paying people the same wages as they do in places like China, India, and Taiwan (you know the places they all sent our jobs) is whats keeping the poor poor. After all, working for $3.50 an hour is the way to climb out of poverty. Link to comment
teachercd Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Mitt has ZERO idea what "minimum wage" is. Just stop talking, you are already getting the nomination, dont ruin it by talking. Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I stopped reading at Dick Armey Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 I just find it interesting from a political wonk standpoint that Romney is having to sneak what are moderate and left-of-center ideas into his rhetoric to try and remain appealing to the independents and moderate Republicans. It's like having to sneak vegetables in with the good food when I had to feed my kid--you know it's needed, but you hope they don't notice, and when they do, they throw a tantrum. I just wonder what the future will hold for the Republican party--at this rate, they're not even going to 'win' a participation ribbon, let alone the presidency, because they're more than content to alienate the moderate and independent bases. And if someone does come along that is moderate and appeals to the independents (e.g. Huntsman), he's driven out of town. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Yep, paying people the same wages as they do in places like China, India, and Taiwan (you know the places they all sent our jobs) is whats keeping the poor poor. After all, working for $3.50 an hour is the way to climb out of poverty. I'll be quite honest when I say that a lower minimum wage helps the poor. Having 3 people working who are making $5.25 per hour as opposed to 2 people who are working and making 7.25 per hour while the 3rd is homeless is a much better thing for the country. I think that 3 or 4 years ago when the minimum wage was like $5.15 or something, the huge mistake that was made was jumping it straight to $7.25. If we are going to raise the minimum wage, we need to phase it in over several years. I wouldn't be opposed to something along the lines of a $.05 or $.10 increase in minimum wage each year. To workers, those 5 or 10 cents could help get them by, while for the employers, that wage increase would not seem like so much that they would have to cut jobs so that they can keep making money. Theres my input on the matter. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 It would be better to have three people making $10.00 per hour, and not burden the company with health care costs. And if one of those three people in not needed, they should be cleaning the highway or repairing a bridge. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 And if someone does come along that is moderate and appeals to the independents (e.g. Huntsman), he's driven out of town. I really did not get to learn enough about what Jon Huntsman said. What were his policies that were moderate? Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 It would be better to have three people making $10.00 per hour, and not burden the company with health care costs. And if one of those three people in not needed, they should be cleaning the highway or repairing a bridge. Too bad that's not an option. Who is going to fund the health care? Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 And if someone does come along that is moderate and appeals to the independents (e.g. Huntsman), he's driven out of town. I really did not get to learn enough about what Jon Huntsman said. What were his policies that were moderate? From what I recall, he campaigned in favor of current environmental policies and believed the scientific evidence behind global warming. Plus, he was a diplomat to China under the Obama administration, IIRC, before he took leave to run for office. Not saying he was completely moderate, but compared to the santorum that's left running, Jon was a moderate breath of fresh air. Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Mitt has ZERO idea what "minimum wage" is. Just stop talking, you are already getting the nomination, dont ruin it by talking. He supports regular increases in minimum wage - I don't see where the disagreement is here? He is basically a Communist now :-P Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 It would be better to have three people making $10.00 per hour, and not burden the company with health care costs. And if one of those three people in not needed, they should be cleaning the highway or repairing a bridge. Too bad that's not an option. Who is going to fund the health care? http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/57861-single-payer-health-insurance-in-vermont/ There is too much waste in the current system. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 And if someone does come along that is moderate and appeals to the independents (e.g. Huntsman), he's driven out of town. I really did not get to learn enough about what Jon Huntsman said. What were his policies that were moderate? From what I recall, he campaigned in favor of current environmental policies and believed the scientific evidence behind global warming. Plus, he was a diplomat to China under the Obama administration, IIRC, before he took leave to run for office. Not saying he was completely moderate, but compared to the santorum that's left running, Jon was a moderate breath of fresh air. Yeah, he was moderate on the environmental side and sonded like an adult, but policy-wise I don't recall anything else different. Compared to the frothy lube guy, Romney is a breath of slightly less toxic air. Link to comment
Recommended Posts