Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Minimum jobs

January 7, 2014

The current administration has many economy killing policies, but none is more misunderstood than the minimum wage....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-09-14 8:01 AM

By saying liberal, I was referring to the entire state. California has many conservative areas also. Actually Bobbie, I can. They are inhabited by a greater percentage of people with little education. They are unemployed and could care less. They are predominantly WTPW. They aren't just "low information voters", they are just low information. Guess which way they vote and they, in fact,*****up the most in financial aid individually and by state. C'mon Bobbie, answer this without calling anyone names.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-08-14 5:52 PM


I lived in Long Beach (suburb of LA)for years. I'm not certain what you mean by LA not being liberal, but be certain it is not conservative. Now, if you are referring to demographics as opposed to socially, even the jury would be out for some time on that assertion. The entire state of CA is perhaps the most liberal state in the union.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-08-14 2:57 PM

No CMReeder, it is you who talks the 'nonsense'. The meaning of constitutional is: "Consistent with, sanctioned by, or permissible according to a constitution: a law that was declared constitutional by the court; the constitutional right of free speech. Established by or operating under a constitution: a constitutional government."

Our government was to be a Republican form of government, yes a Republic. But the government today is not 'Consistent with, sanctioned by, or permissible according to a constitution'so it is not a constitutional government. And CM to be precise we are a constitutional republic, not a constitutional democracy or democratic republic. In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves except for those items delegated to the government. The people have no obligation to the government; it is the government as a servant of the people that is obliged to its owner, We the People. Many have lost sight of that distinction. Learn the differ

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-08-14 9:39 AM

A Constitutional government? I see Carl is once again talking nonsense. We don't have a Constitutional government we have a Constitution that designed our system of government. We are a republic to be precise a democratic republic. But what you are advocating is a whole different system not in our Constitution.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-08-14 9:34 AM

Well Vince you did not meet the terms of the challenge. All you did was sound off against Obama. You did not prove a darn thing about liberalism or demonstrate how conservatism isn't destructive. But my expectations of you are low to begin with so nice try but big fail.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-08-14 8:22 AM

Enigma, they aren't stupid and L.A. isn't the only wealth source in California. This is the second largest state. Saying they are liberal is just stupid. Like it or not most red states are extremely poor, not all, but most. Conversely, most liberal states are not. Why? Do some research before you hit dislike.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-08-14 7:19 AM

eriklatranyi - "The federal government has no authority to set a minimum wage. I dare anyone to show me where this authority comes from in the Constitution."

I do not disagree under a Constitutional government, but if you have not recognized it yet - we do not live under a government that follows the constitution. If we did we would not have O-care, the patriot act, the NDAA, NAFTA, CAFTA and so many other laws that are quite against what the Constitution states.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 11:38 PM


Carl Hiller does his homework, He is bright, articulate and he doesn't stand by either party. He is fiercely independent, which is why his posts are full of information. He tends to unveil the liberals at their lies and when we conservatives try to assert our views, he has a diplomatic way of putting us in place too.....but he's a nice guy!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 6:19 PM

"California did not need a minimum wage increase to keep liberals in office. Why did they increase the minimum wage?"

Because they're stupid. Actually, they're just liberal, but it's hard to tell the difference. Liberals have been lying about things for so long, they've forgotten that they were lies and started believing them.

"Maybe minimum wage should apply to companies with a set # of employees, something similar to FMLA."

What ever happened to equality under the law? Forcing someone to do something you have no right to force them to do is not made right by the possibility that they might survive it.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 5:21 PM

Question. California did not need a minimum wage increase to keep "liberals in office. Why did they increase the minimum wage? Maybe minimum wage should apply to companies with a set # of employees, something similar to FMLA. Businesses with under 50 employees are exempt from FMLA. Hiller - your posts were interesting. i guess by the number of dislikes you see one can never question or question reasoning? You tried to start a discussion.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 5:21 PM

"Why is this so difficult for libs to understand?"- nobud74.

Do you really need to ask?

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 4:18 PM

That's true! "Cracking-the-whip", to make your employees work, harder, rather-than (swallowing your pride, and) incorporating them into the decision-making-process (and, allowing them to work SMARTER), sounds like your bigger-problem.--Shamturd

This is a business, not a communist collective. I take input, but the ultimate decision is mine. I don't want to make my staff work harder, but if you increase my costs by govt fiat, then you leave me no choice. I refuse to go out of business or take a cut in my pay because the govt says I have to now pay a higher minimum wage and by extension pay everyone else a corresponding wage increase. Oh, and by the way, nobody that works for me makes minimum wage, but the increase to other businesses will necessitate an increase in my wages. Why is this so difficult for libs to understand?

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 4:15 PM

So Sham at least gave me a number for what he thought the minimum wage should be. What about the rest of you libs? The $10.10 number that Sham gave sounds a lot like the number Obama is throwing around, but where did it come from? The current minimum wage of $7.25 brings a person above the current poverty level for a single person. $10.10 would put them above the poverty level for a family of three, but then so would $9.40 and both fall short of the poverty level for a family of four. How do you calculate a "living wage"? Maybe we should have a sliding scale based on family size. That fits the leftist criteria of a "living wage", but it would obviously make it harder to find a job if you had a family. Maybe we could just let employers pay what the job is worth and forget this whole minimum wage thing.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 3:55 PM

"C'mon...c'mon...don't let your "conservative"-greed run-loose. $10.10 will be fine." - Sham

How did you calculate that number? A better question is which body orifice did you pull it out of? If more is better, then why isn't a lot more a lot better? The reason politicians want to only raise it a little is because they know raising the minimum wage will hurt the economy, but they figure that a small increase will only hurt it a little and people won't notice. If raising it helps the economy, why not raise it to $15, $20 or even $50. If all it takes to improve people's lifestyle and eliminate poverty is to raise the minimum wage, why not go for the gusto? Are you afraid that poor people will then live as well as you? Or are you afraid that you will end up living like a poor person? Any argument you can make for a minimum wage of $10.10, I can make for $50 and any argument you can make against $50 I can make against $10.10. It's a made up number and it means nothing

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 3:35 PM


The federal government has no authority to set a minimum wage.

I dare anyone to show me where this authority comes from in the Constitution.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 2:19 PM

I know many on both sides will disagree with me on this and that is OK. The right because it goes against all they hear and believe; and the left because of the same. All I ever wish to do is to help guide those who want the truth to search it themselves and hopefully to see that the storyline from both parties is not the true story. Those on the right listening to the Limbaugh's and the Hannity's and the left listens to the Olbermann's, the Maher's but do not look for the fact themselves. If you do not want the truth it's no skin off my chin.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 2:10 PM

The left wants to increase social programs spending but have no idea how to create the wealth to pay for these programs other than redistributional policies. The left throws them to the wolves but gives them a stick to fend them off. The minimum wage issue is a social issue and is the only social issue that becomes a personal issue because many see that costs may rise, although there are no legitimate studies that prove this. Or, they see their own wage as less because they should get a comparable raise, which in many cases won't happen, yet some will. Many here cite economics, ignoring the impact of inflation and the declining value of a dollar, lending us a net effect of minimum wage earners making less than they were making 4 years ago. That’s Economics 101, and it’s a major factor in economic decision making. Doing the right thing without being legislatively forced to do so would be a boon to many large corporations but what do you do when they won't?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 2:06 PM

it? Do you create ever greater social programs or do you require a certain wage level? Do you increase government employment at wage levels above minimum wage or do you require business to pick it up? We have become so divided in this country by politics that we cannot even see that both sides today are creating a class of serfs. Everything done in government is done with a reason and an expected outcome, and many times it is not what we are lead to believe. One of the problems today is that the politicians created a wage floor on wages. There should be none, but there is and it will not change anytime soon. So the right wants to cut the social programs, and the minimum wage is a government social program, but do not want to do anything to get government out of the way so an individual or group who wants to do something to create wealth for themselves. They basically want to throw them to the wolves without the weapons to protect themselves.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 2:05 PM

When discussing minimum wage today you cannot just discuss the rate, you need to discuss the effects of issuing dollars created by debt; immigration, both legal and illegal; corporate personhood; government regulations; and a whole host of others. Minimum wages are just one link in the whole fence and can not be debated without looking at so many other issues. A huge problem with this whole issue is that too many on the right are thinking with a soft head and a hard heart and on the left with a soft heart and a hard head. Neither side really grasps the true implications of their stance they are just spouting their prospective party line without looking at real world facts. Minimum wage would not even be an issue if we were creating wealth in America instead of burning it. Since we have such great government involvement and interference in the American economy it becomes a question of how well do you take care of the poor or even the so-called middle class and how do you do it?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 1:21 PM

The Obama economy is not doing so well.

Obama said today that he never met a person that would rather have an employment check than a job. He needs to get out more.

I'm guessing he's also never met a welfare or disability recipient who wouldn't either.

Society would be able to BETTER help the TRULY needy if it weren't for the decades-long dishonesty by Liberals about why people are "poor."

It's called laziness, and it's enabled by a government that says that's OK, vote for me, I'll send you the fruits of others' labor.

See: Pelosi saying, "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job..."

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 1:19 PM

President Obama got exactly his economic policies when he was elected.

President Obama did a stimulus of $1 trillion and the economy still flounders.

Now, with this nation $17 trillion in debt, liberals talk about spending more.

Meanwhile, no talk about jobs or growing the economy from the liberals.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 1:08 PM

"No...I've quite-simply had MUCH-more experience with various management-styles, and...a better education on what does/doesn't impact quality...than someone who relied on the government for food, shelter, clothing, etc. -Shaman


"LoL you wouldn't have a clue how to lead, train and nurture hundreds of men and women like I have. Companies hire prior military because they are great leaders." - Capricorn1



Businesses hire ex-military 'cause they've "learned" how to take-orders...without asking a lot o' questions.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 1:07 PM

Vince you can't prove that it doesn't. You can't even prove that liberalism is harmful.

Obama just helped me meet the challenge you gave me (even though you continue to duck mine). Obama claimed that extending unemployment benefits leads to a better economy because people have more money to spend in local businesses and that can lead to that business hiring more workers. Did you hear that? I just heard that sound bite on the news. If giving people money to spend helps the economy, as Obama (your hero) just said. Then it must also be true that taking more money from people must have a detriment to the economy. Doesn't that make sense, Chuck? And is it not Liberals who constantly advocate higher and higher taxes, which would take money away from people who then would not have that money to spend in that local business, who then might have to lay people off because of that lost business?

Thanks for the challenge, Chuck. Now tell me how I am wrong with any of that.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 1:06 PM

Have a nice day Shaman, I've fed the troll enough for one day. I do find it funny that even liberals stay clear of everything you say. LoL

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-14 1:04 PM

Yeah..."learning", how to do what you're TOLD, must be quite the "common-sense" builder. -Shaman

You can attempt to degrade those that served all you want. It just shows your total ignorance. So please, continue.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 110 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web