Bachmann Says She Would Eliminate Minimum Wage to Spur Growth

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican planning to seek the party's presidential nomination, said she would stoke U.S. economic growth by cutting taxes on corporate income and capital gains and considering elimination of the minimum wage.

Corporate tax rates should be significantly reduced from a maximum 35 percent and capital gains taxes should be eliminated, Bachmann said in an interview on CBS's "Face the Nation" today. Congress should also reevaluate the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, she said.

"Whatever it takes, that's what we need to do for job creation," said Bachmann. She said President Barack Obama "doesn't seem to have an understanding of how to do the job."

Bachmann, who plans to formally announce her campaign tomorrow at an event in her hometown of Waterloo, Iowa, is nearly tied with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among prospective Republican challengers in a poll of likely Iowa caucus voters published today by the Des Moines Register.

More:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fg%2Fa%2F2011%2F06%2F25%2Fbloomberg1376-LNEHTY07SXKX01-2V4PAE1VSTENEF31VDPE7S26C5.DTL




Hat-tip to: http://www.facebook.com/TheBad.Ugly.Irrelevant?sk=wall

are the ones who have been brain-washed by the Republican news media for
generations. They don't even know that their Republican Party had long
ago ceased to exist, because their leaders had been kicked out and the
Party leadership had been taken over by the NeoCons, who were smart enough
to keep the Republican name, so as to keep on getting the votes exactly of
the people like them. And they are falling in line exactly as the NeoCons
had planned.

Eliminating the minimum wage would further depress wages and reduce purchasing power, further slowing growth in aggregate demand. That makes no sense when there is a helluva lot of capital sitting around doing nothing. Bat - - - - crazy.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/6Economy.htm

<...>
Another myth is that Reagan was one of the best Presidents for job creation. In reality, he's among the worst:

Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents8
Johnson 3.8%
Carter 3.1
Clinton 2.4
Kennedy 2.3
Nixon 2.3
Reagan 2.1
Bush 0.6

The following statistics shed light on this surprising finding:

Civilian Labor Force and Participation Rates9
Year (millions) Percent of Population
1970 82.8 60.4%
1980 106.9 63.8
1990 124.8 66.4
1993 128.0 66.2

Supply-siders boast about the 18 million jobs created in the 80s, but they grow unusually mum over the 24 million jobs created during the 70s. The 80s put 2.6 percent more of the population to work, but the 70s outdid them at 3.4 percent. The increasing percentage of the population joining the workforce during these two decades can be attributed to two factors: baby-boomers coming of age, and women joining the workforce in record numbers.
<...>

Bookmark this site-- it's got lots of good stuff in it.

:silly:

how can anyone be so STUPID to think eliminating minimum wage will actually benefit people?

Until American citizens get this one simple fact through their heads, we're fucked:

For profit companies/corporations care only about the bottom line and increased profits. They don't give a shit about the people and will have no problem paying 2.00 an hour to someone desperate to work.

total federal government payroll. At least Valero produced useful energy products. What products can we use made by the federal employees? And we can boycott Valero products but do not try boycotting your IRS bill.

Before I berate you for supporting rebate checks to oil companies, I'd like to understand your point of view on this. Do you understand that Valero, Exxon, etc. make billions and billions in profits? Do you understand they pay ZERO in taxes, then are handed checks from the govt (OUR MONEY)? FOR WHAT?

And boycotting Valero products? Just how are we to do that, stop driving?

I really want to believe you aren't siding with the Republican lie of govt spending is the problem.

you are exactly right. many outfits make lot of money and pay no taxes. that is exactly why i am in favor of consumption tax with tax rebates to low incomers
. also note that corporations never pay any tax. their taxes are 100% passed on to the end consumer of their products.

You consistently regurgitate right-wing talking points here.


If I paid NO TAX as a corporation, what have I passed onto consumers?

Jesus H. Christ.

pass on every penny of tax paid to consumers/customers.
Those companies paying no taxes in spite of large profits are the result of politicians & lobbyists in their pocket. Do not blame the companies, blame the real culprits. We had 2 years of complete and total control of government power before November 2010. Our party did diddly squat to change those laws.

However like I said, taxes should be paid by progressive tax on INDIVIDUALS since every corporation is owned by some individuals at the end of food chain. Taxing domestic corporations makes them take business off-shore and weakens them with foreign competition. Formerly socialist countries such as Russia & China & India have done everything possible to encourage corporations and now create more millionaires than the rest of world combined. Russia even has a flat tax!

they ran off the hispanics, Chipotles has to raise prices now to pay HIGHER WAGES.

now I know that it is widespread. I have a couple who friends that basically are Ron Paul's fluffers...and they totally buy into that conservative/libertarian nuttery...and they believe that the minimum wage should be outlawed...

The kicker- one of them is a highschool teacher...in Texas...who is in danger of losing his job due to Perry's "cut education and stuff for poor people so I don't have to make my rich buds pay more now watch me shoot a coyote YEEHAW!" plan.

where I live not even in the slum. Her salary should be cut to $290 a week.

she is INSANE......

Speak more and more

And, you know, just keep on giving it to the rich . . . because THAT'S a tried-and-true job cree-atin' stratee-gery that's worked since 1979, and all . . .

I mean, does anything sound like a bad idea on Planet BatshitJesusEyes?

is because those employers hoard the money for themselves by themselves outrageous salaries and benefits. And if they want to hire new employees then they should reduce their salaries so they can.

So now there's two people making barely enough per eight hour shift to be able to afford gas for the trip to and from work. But there's more jobs! Full employment! They really got us by the short hairs, don't they?

They'll hire one person for $1.25 an hour and make that person do the work of two people at $7.25 an hour.

:thumbsup:

Swear by this, claiming that most minimum wage earners are:

new to the work force
mostly teens who don't have to be making more than that
or old people earning a little extra in their retirement years
are doing work not worth more than minimum wage.
And that minimum wage increases hurts young people's ability to find jobs.

They claim that any job worth more than minimum will go unfilled until the company pays more or gets tired of frequent and costly turnover.

Now i know this is wrong but does anyone have the truth on this? Like stats i can point to next time it comes up?

should be forced to live on it.

I'm not a total asshole. I know all the people who think the minimum wage should either be lowered or eliminated make vastly more than that--Bachmann makes $174k per year plus her share of the Bachmann family farm's income, and you know she's got investments.

Anyway, we need to do a little experiment for our friend Michele here: For three months, she's got to live the way a minimum wage slave does.

Instead of the $174k she earns as a Member of Congress, she will receive $7.25 per hour for thirty hours a week--because in addition to being paid very little per hour, most minimum wage workers are part-timers.

She can't live in her house. She has to rent an apartment.

She can't use her car to get to work. She can take the bus, or walk.

We'll come by to collect the contents of her pantry. It gets locked up until the end of the three months, because minimum wage workers don't have massive amounts of stored food like she almost certainly does.

She can't wear her designer dresses or jewelry. She can't have her hair done at her usual salon. And she has to wear dollar-store makeup.

If at the end of the 90 days she hasn't changed her tune, there's no hope.

No health insurance.
No paid vacation or sick days.
No benefits.
No whining.

I don't want to kill her so if she comes down with something that absolutely requires immediate medical care (she's only 55 years old, so that's unlikely) I'd say stop the test and take her to the hospital. But if she gets a cavity in her tooth she can either go to the free clinic on Wednesday night when the dentist is there--and make sure she gets there at 4 in the morning so she'll be first in line because he only sees 10 people per week, and by the way the only thing he does is pulls teeth because he doesn't have time to fill them--or she can hit the nearest convenience store for a tube of Anbesol and tough it out until the nerve dies and she can't feel the pain anymore.

On the other hand, you forgot one: at least once a week, on a day we can't predict (although a lot of those days will be Sunday when she would rather be in church) her "boss" will call her up and tell her Sarah or Bill called in sick so she has to come in and cover for them. Oh, and make sure she cuts her time over lunch later this week because we're only budgeted to pay her 32 hours a week this month.

And you're right, no whining.

How long do you think it would be before she'd be picketing along with those other "Socialist" union workers?? Although, with 5 children, she'd at least qualify for some of that "Socialist" welfare.

Why does the visual of Michelle Bachmann standing in line at the Welfare office amuse me?

Give them bigger subsidies? Bigger refunds?

Bake

Because as we all know, if you lower a corporation's taxes by $1000 per year and don't do anything to cause their sales to go up, the first thing they do is run out and hire someone who's going to cost them $10,000 per year.

Isn't that supposed to be the party that knows everything about economics?

I'm not worried about 2012 but the progress made by January 2017 will be minimal and will be easily undone by some psychotic GOP President.