Posted on 05/11/2014 12:03:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the past few days, three candidates who ran for the last Republican presidential nomination, including nominee Mitt Romney, have endorsed a higher minimum wage.
Yahoo!Finance asks Mitt Romney Calls for Higher Minimum Wage. Does it Matter?
Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential nominee in 2012, called on Republicans Friday to raise the minimum wage, going against the congressional leadership of his own party.
Related Stories
"I think we ought to raise it, because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and I think communicating that is important to us," Mr. Romney said on MSNBCs Morning Joe.
In recent days, two other Republican presidential hopefuls from 2012 former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania have also called for a minimum wage hike. The trend may signal that in presidential politics, some Republicans see the issue as a way to soften the partys image across a broad electorate.
On MSNBC, Romney linked his support for a higher minimum wage to the GOPs effort to reach out to working Americans, including Hispanics. Romney lost the Hispanic vote to President Obama, 71 percent to 27 percent.
I also believe that key for our party is to be able to convince the people who are in the working population, particularly the Hispanic community, that our party will help them get better jobs and better wages, Romney said.
Matter in What Sense?
The senate has blocked debate on the issue. It needs 60 votes to advance but only has 52. The fact that Mitt Romney flip-flopped twice (from for, to against, to for) does not change Senate math.
Nonetheless, Romney's flip-flopping does raise this question once again: From Obamacare to war-mongering to minimum wage, what real differences were there between Obama and Romney?
About all I can come up with is war-mongering and abortion. On the war-mongering front I remain convinced that if Romney had won the US would have attacked Iran and we would be engaged in a hopeless trade war with China.
Non-Differences
There are probably a few other differences, but arguably not on anything the President can directly control. Here are some distinct non-differences.
The 2012 election offered a classic choice of Tweedle-Dum vs. Tweedle-Dee. I said so at the time and numerous Republicans attacked me for that view.
Perhaps Republicans can see the truth now, but I doubt it. Self-assessment by bureaucrats and political parties is about zero.
Hopefully the 2016 election provides a real choice. Don't count on it. However, you can count on bluster, huffing and puffing, finger-pointing, and name calling even if there are few real differences.
RE: Tariffs
http://www.vindy.com/news/2005/jun/17/thomas-sowell-tariffs-didnt-work-then-wont-work/?print
real differences were there between Obama and Romney?
Instead, it is all about politics. From a politician's point of view, it is not worth the trouble publicly debating if someone should make x or y per hour. With the horrid media and $250 million in ads lambasting you for being cold and not caring about people, it is a game they can't win. It is sad, but true. On that basis alone, they have no choice but to support an increased minimum wage. We will survive a higher minimum wage, but we can't survive 4 or 8 more years of what we are experiencing now. This is a product of media bias and the alarming dumbing down of education of the masses, something that is starting to pay off for the democrats.
Romney understands the economic impact of raising the minimum wage. This man made many (many) millions of dollars in business. Rest assured that he gets it.
One can only conclude that he thinks this is the best position to take for political purposes.
So you think voting for a third party is the same as “not voting.” You are mathematically challenged.
I know that in San Francisco even with the “living wage” people can’t afford to live there, due to liberal policies.
There should be no minimum wage. Wages should be agreed upon between the employer and employee. Fast food joints in Midland, TX are paying $15 an hour and they will provide transportation. Why? Not because the gov’t is forcing them, that’s for sure.
Our country seemed to do pretty well until we decided to tax earned income instead of imports.our decline worldwide has only accelerated with the “free trade “agreements. Reality and theory don’t always mesh.
I think some people on this thread are union members. The unions are one of the main reasons we lost so many jobs to overseas.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/20/rick-santorum-immigration-republicans_n_2516157.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/15/will-mitt-flip-a-third-time/
Why are these political thugs being allowed to beat up the entire Republican party on minimum wage? Where is the unity?
Why did they help Democrats distract from real issues?
I know you dip sticks refused to support Santorum....you get what you sow.....I laughed when you guys all cried about Obama’s second term. I said, “Told you so”.....when you make a deal with the Devil you get burned. Everybody who bashed Santorum which was a ton of you got what you deserved. I am comforted in the fact that I wanted Santorum and don’t feel horrible at all that you guys are miserable these four years. I want Walker this round....let’s see if you guys will screw yourself again. I may be laughing again in 2016 due to your stupidity.
Nope!
FairTax!
htttp://www.fairtax.org
The fair tax is just another income tax. There are many different ways to calculate net income. After a while it will become riddled with arcane rules and exemptions, just like the current income tax.
The Smoot-Hawley tariffs, some 60 percent, damn near ruined us.
Some taxes are “fairer” than others. The Libertarian in me wants to agree with you that there is “no way a tax is fair.” However, since the dawn of civilized society, there have been taxes collected to pay for necessary government services.
I am in the camp of “taxes are necessary to support a civilized society” but are absolutely not legitimate to serve as a means for “social engineering” or to establish “social justice.”
After we settle the “how do we raise funds necessary for government,” we can have the “proper role of government” debate.
What we are about with the FairTax is raising funds for the legitimate functions of government in the most fair and equitable manner that can be devised.
And, the answer is, a flat rate sales tax.
EVERYBODY pays the same rate, thus fulfilling the Constitutional requirement that all Americans be treated equally under the law.
Here is the FairTax FRequently Asked Questions response to your comment:
“Yes, the FairTax is fair, and in fact, much fairer than the income tax. Wealthy people spend more money than other individuals. They buy expensive cars, big houses, and yachts. They buy filet mignon instead of hamburger, fine wine instead of beer, designer dresses, and expensive jewelry. The FairTax taxes them on these purchases. If, however, they use their money to build job-creating factories, finance research and development to create new products, or fund charitable activities (all of which help improve the standard of living of others), then those activities are not taxed.”
See http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs for more Q&As re:FairTax.
You are misinformed re: the prebate!
The prebate effectively untaxes the necessities of life: (Excerpt FRom the FairTax FAQ web site — http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs)
“Under the FairTax, all Americans consume what they see as their necessities of life free of tax. While permitting no exemptions, the FairTax (HR25/S122) provides a monthly universal prebate to ensure that each family unit can consume tax free at or beyond the poverty level, with the overall effect of making the FairTax progressive in application. There is no marriage penalty as the couple gets twice the amount that a single adult receives.
“While everyone pays the same tax rate at the cash register, the prebate results in effective tax rates (annual taxes paid divided by annual spending) that increase as the level of spending increases a progressive tax rate structure. For example, a person spending at the poverty level has a 0% effective tax rate, whereas someone spending at twice the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 11.5%, and so on.”
That, my FRiend, is a spending problem, not a taxing problem!
If we keep dong the same thing over and over again, we have to expect we’ll get the same results!
Why is Santorum joining Romney, Rand Paul(voter ID) and Pawlenty to help the Democrat narrative?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.