Programming note.... Vilsack to be on Daily Show tonight
A very helpful reader has informed the blog that Iowa Governor and presidential hopeful Tom Vilsack will appear on The Daily Show with John Stewart tonight. It airs on The Comedy Channel (Mediacom channel 50) at 10:00 p.m.
Catch it.
Stewart's gag has been to have the Aflac duck go across the bottom of the screen every time Vilsak is mentioned and squawk "VIL-SACK!".
~~~~~~~~
There will also be an opportunity to meet Gov. Vilsack in Davenport Wednesday, December 20th at the home of Roy Farnum, 712 W. 8th Street. The event begins at 5:45 P.M.. Any questions or to RSVP, call the Vilsack office at (515) 283-2008.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 12/18/2006
18 comments
18 Comments:
Dope, I really could not care about Vilsack - what is this guy thinking, like he has a chance to be anything but the first guy out?
My question...why no talk about the minimum wage increase in Illinois. One small restaurant owner that I know (pizza) asked a real question...as this will cost him $18,000/ year and since he has not recouped the expense of the last minimum wage increase - how is he to compete with Iowa restaurants that are able to pay their people $2.00 hour less?
I do not understand. It is a complete falacy thinking that more than a VERY small percentage of people are 'raising a family' on a minimum wage job - these people are teenagers for the most part.
This will be inflationary in Illinois.
This will hurt Illinois (small) businesses.
This will cause Illinois (small) businesses to hire less minimum wage people - a definate negative to the people that the (stupid) law was trying to help.
This will cause some Illinois (small) businesses to close - a bad deal all around (some small businesses just cannot handle another $10,000, $20,000 or more hit).
What is it about Democrats that do not allow them to see the big picture when they try to do something that (appears good).
As to the minimum wage increase, we'll see.
All the dire predictions from chamber types of wrecking small business and destroying the economy which is always trotted out every time a minimum wage increase has been proposed never prove true.
I don't know why this time would be any different.
Can't you read - this is ACTUAL TRUTH from a local businessperson. You can't see that a $2.00 an hour difference in the wage scale 2-miles a part will have an impact?
Will it wreck commerce in the Illinois QC area - certainly not.
Will it be the final straw and cause the end of some small businesses in the Illinois QC area - most certainly!
Will it be another reason for a business or two to relocate to the Illinois side of the river - certainly!
Will John Deere Road businesses be affect - certainly. To the extent of moving - likely not. How about 23rd Avenue (I refuse to call it Avenue of the Cities) - a much greater impact (as their gross revenues are smaller, less able to deal with the impact.
I know plenty of people trying to make ends meet with minimum wage (or barely above) jobs. Why should there not be an increase? Each year costs go up. Gas costs more, electricity will cost drastically more, etc... How can we still expect people to survive on the same wage as a decade ago? Your point about Iowa having a lower wage makes sense though hopefully it will become null when the democrats are able to raise the federal wage next year. Though I think one thing you need to remember is that the whole state doesn't border Iowa. The QC is the only major market that is effected my the disparity of Iowa. Certainly there could be situations with Wisc. Ind. etc, but I don't think that should be a reason to not raise the wage.
oavpctny
Why not take you business to Bangaldash? I hear people are willing to work for free!
If you can't deal with change as a business person, you're sunk. That's life, pretty much.
These are what you deal with. You either adapt or perish, and yes, a few who are in a perilous financial situation to begin with just might.
Somehow when it's hundreds of thousands of workers who take it on the chin and get tossed on the street due to some Wall St. buyout or "downsizing" or similar manipulation by top management, no one seems to squeal.
But a few businesses suffer in order to provide people a fair minimum wage, and listen to the howling.
As I said, we'll see. But I'd be very surprised if any business in any sort of health will be forced to go under because of this.
Dope, you are about as intellectually lazy as a person can get..."if you can't deal with change."
We are not talking about change here, we are talking about a competitive situation whereby one team is forced to play by different rules.
Let's make it a little easier on you -
It's like making the Bears play the Colts, yet the Colts get 5-downs.
Would you tell the Bears to just 'deal with the change?'
13:32.
I don't think the term intellectually lazy can apply to me.
What you're presupposing is that this minimum raise hike is going to wreak havoc and cause widespread damage.
I simply disagree. As I said earlier, this same "the sky is falling" doomsday predictions have been made every time a min wage hike has been proposed. It simply never happens.
Trust me. Life will go on, very, very few businesses will go under, and millions of workers will have enough money to actually live on and plow back into the economy.
Dope, it is most definately 'intellectually lazy' of you to take a very valid point that I made - based directly from a real-life situation of a small businessperson - and turn it into,
"going to wreak havoc and cause widespread damage" and "doomsday predictions."
I never said such things...my point is as simple as there are consequences to having a wage scale that is 35% higher than your competition (let's face it, your readers are saying the exact same thing when it comes to national trade issues).
Please, have the intellectual integrity to argue an issue as it was presented. Clearly, an Illinois QC restaurant with a wage scale 35% higher than its Iowa QC counterpart has a distinct competitive disadvantage - and this will cost Illinois QC restaurants (and other businesses). It will cost employees jobs and as some (not all), but some of these small businesses close (and some will), it will cost the municipalities tax revenues.
You obviously have no idea what intellectually lazy means. You keep howling about how this is going to, yes, wreak havoc, on small businesses (you just did it again, by the way)
The wage hike will have little noticable effects and life will go on, only better for many low wage employees.
You sound like Mowen, though, I must admit. I keep answering and answering and you keep responding as if you don't read a word I write.
I am sorry, my comment is a micro comment and yours seems to be a macro comment.
I am talking about the havoc that is created to the (1) small business owner, (2) the employees that inevitably will lose their jobs (as there is only so many dollars that a small businessperson can put into the 'wage' catagory, and (3) the municipalities (in a small manner) when a few businesses cannot compete when the playing field is not level.
These, for the most part, are micro-issues.
You speak as though I am discussing the entire fall of the Illinois QC economy by using (your terms)
"wreak havoc"
"sky is falling"
"doomsday predictions"
I agree, many (certainly not 'millions' of Illinois workers are earning minimum wage) workers will get a raise and,
________________________
Thank you for finally understanding and agreeing with TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS (as these additional dollars that these people now have indeed will flow through the economy).
Whether it is an increase in the minimum wage, or a reduction in a persons taxes (additional dollars are additional dollars) - more money in a persons pocket TRICKLES THROUGH THE ECONOMY.
(See you just hated the term when it was a perceived Republican term).
____________________________
Bottom-line with a minimum wage increase - for the trickle-down reasons that you state, it certainly is not a bad thing.
For the uncompetitive nature that it puts Illinois QC businesses in (35% greater wage scale), it is a problem. In Peoria, the problem is minimal as it is here as they do not have the Iowa wage issue competing against them.
Please don't misconstrue my views as being an endorsement of "trickle down" economics. (Or Voodoo Economics, as George Bush Sr. put it so well.)
Giving people that work paycheck to paycheck a little more money is the surest way to pump money back into the economy.
Handing the very smallest sliver of the wealthiest people in the country a huge tax handout is NOT productive.
It only ensures that they can have 5 homes around the world instead of 4.
Giving away the wealth of this country to those who already own a hugely disproportionate share of the country's wealth is not good policy.
Shifting most of it to the lower and middle class taxpayers is far more productive as that money gets immediately put back into the economy for goods and services, vs. being used to play Wall St. paper games and making millions more, which is what those making many millions a year do with their windfalls.
Trickle down economics has never worked, and will not work.
It's a failed theory. Even it's biggest promoter back in the Reagan era came forward and said as much.
By the way, wasn't this thread about Vilsack?
Anyone see his appearance with John Stewart on The Daily Show??
I had taped it, but I think I taped over it by accident before I got to see it.
I did see a clip on some cable program where they showed Vilsack presenting Stewart with a little plush stuffed duck since Stewart had used the Aflac duck squawking "Vil-sask!" A good move by Vilsack and it seems like his appearance went well.
It's certainly some great exposure to Stewart's enormous audience of younger viewers.
I'm still perplexed at his seemingly miniscule chances, but I guess he has his reasons for making a run.
As the thread started - who cares about Vilsack?
Come on Dope, what do you think that 'Trickle-Down Economics' is?
It is exactly what you said originally, 'THE MORE MONEY PEOPLE HAVE (whether through increased wages, or reduced taxes) THE MORE MONEY THEY SPEND, FUELING THE ECONOMY.
Reagan proved it in 1990 and Bush, Jr. proved it again. You want to say that the tax-reduction was a'for the rich only' but the simple FACT is that in all instances the tax cuts benefitted every taxpayer and THE GREATEST PERCENTAGE OF REDUCTION WAS WITH MIDDLE TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE.
You have now stated TWICE that you agree with the CONCEPT of trickle-down economics, its just the fact that this is a 'Republican name' for what you support is what is burning you!
Welcome to the dark side!!!
I saw Vilsack on TDS. It was a good interview. Vilsack came off as humorous. He didn't get up there like a stiff as some politicians do. Its amazing how many people dont know that COlbert and Stewart are totally unserious people. Their staffs apparently do a terrible job breifing them. OK, back on topic. I recall Stewart being fairly realistic about Vilsacks chances. And I also recall Vilsack being very adament about the anti-Iraq position. He wants to withdraw everyone and let the Iraqis fight their own war. Then stewart brought up the point about us going in there and wrecking things and just leaving. Kinda got him in a bind.
Also can someone give anonymous a lesson on economics??? Increasing the minimum wage is the last thing trickle down econ would do. TDE was based on cutting costs for the rich in hopes they might throw a bone to their poor ass employees. Increasing the minimum wage is the EXACT opposite. Its trickle up economics.
huvbewq
We can safely end this argument because I firmly believe that you're factually wrong.
Trickle down economics has NEVER worked and that view is shared by a majority of economists and most measures of the economy.
And it's only true that most of the tax giveaways went to the middle class if perhaps you count the total amount, certainly NOT the individual amount, and certainly NOT by percentage of taxes paid which is the only honest measure.
With Bush squandering literally trillions on a rapidly deteriorating firestorm in the mid-east, I bet you're feeling just SOOOOOOO good and smug about having not paid much for it.
How American citizens can get possitively frenzied about paying as little as possible to support their government has always been curious to me.
Fair share? Sure, but tax wingnuts are obsessed with the idea that they shouldn't have to pay any tax, or a triffle at best.
The fact remains that even before Bush's massive tax cuts, Americans were the lowest taxed citizens in the developed world, but that wasn't good enough.
The tax cuts have registered barely a blip as far as economic growth, and have sapped far more out of the government and left us unprepared for disasters (Katrina) and ill-defended against terror. (ports and an endless list of neglected measures)
It's just anounced today that Wall St. brokerages are paying out nearly $24 BILLION in bonuses alone to their execs, more than the GNP of many countries. There's your "trickle down".
Unless you happen to sell Dom Perignon, you're not going to get "trickled on" at all.
You simply believe your own facts, I happen to know that they're not the case.
This thread is about Vilsack, disussion of tax cuts are over.
Interesting Dope - you are the one that stated that as people get more money in their pocket - it helps the economy.
Now when you are proven wrong (as money is money, whether arrived at through increasaed wages or reduced taxes) - you want to take your ball and go-home.
Come on, you can't always be right!
I am not always right, but giving millions of minimum wage earners a cost of living raise is NOT the same as giving Paris Hilton and a tiny fraction of the population who already control about 40% of the assets of the country a half million dollar tax break.
If you cant' grasp that... I'm sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home