This is all over the internet news, and it would not seem like these two people would have much association with each other's beliefs. However, the news is proclaiming that Dr. Carson stated that his goals are the same as Al Sharpton's goals. There are pictures of Dr. Carson speaking at Al Sharpton's events, so it does seem like the two men do want to be associated with each other. Al Sharpton's motives have been in question since long before Ben Carson announced his presidential candidacy, so it is not like he did not know Sharpton's goals and his character. I am hoping that this is another one of those cases where the media takes a statement and blows it out of proportion and makes it sound like something which it was never intended to be. I am sure that racial equality is a concern of all of the candidates, and perhaps that is all that Dr. Carson was referring to as being the same goal ? http://newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh251.htm
Carson did a WHOLE lot better in his interview this morning on Face The Nation than he's ever done at the debates. He said everyone is so focused on Syria but that Libya should be more of a concern…hmmm…I missed that part where he explained why. That last debate was a total disaster and I lost complete interest in him. But his interview today made some points with me….but not enough. Bernie Sanders was also interviewed on Face The Nation this morning and did very well. He's more concerned with the lower and middle class's economic situation than Trump is. Trump's plan won't raise minimum wage but will benefit the upper 1%. I know we knew that but it's been brushed under the carpet here of late. The reminder was good.
I like Ben Carson but he's not among my choices. I don't like Bernie Sanders a bit but he is better than Hillary. Do you not realize that raising the minimum wage hurts retirees and poor people the most. Reducing or better yet eliminating corporate taxes will provide jobs and lower prices of goods.
I have heard that from Trump over and over... "Raising the minimum wage is the worst thing we can do"….and I've heard explanations. But I still don't understand how it can hurt the poor and middle-class. I think naysayers are talking about raising it to $15 an hour….it doesn't have to be raised that high. Many states pay under $8 an hour still. You can hardly feed a family on that. Rising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 dollars makes sense and is fair.
Raising the minimum wage causes prices to go up and jobs to be lost. Retirees are mostly on fixed incomes. When prices go up their income stays the same. Not many people stay on minimum wage very long. It is a starting wage, as people learn the skills that go with the job they get raises. If companies have to pay too much for new, unskilled workers there will be no money left to give the rest of them a raise. While starting at a higher rate sounds good to young workers they will be stuck at that level. There will be few if any raises. Reducing or eliminating Corporate taxes will enable American companies to better compete with foreign companies and keep or bring back jobs from foreign lands. People with jobs pay taxes to run the government, people without jobs use up government resources and put us in debt.
I have to respectfully disagree. The average minimum wage is 7.25 right now and this year there will be no increase in SS for retirees…so we can't blame that on higher minimum wages. Social Security's explanation for not giving a cost of living increase was lower gas prices and increased sales this past year. I'm sorry, but you are saying that if we pay the poor a fair wage then "there will be no money left to give the rest a raise"? That's a blanket statement for all businesses and untrue for successful companies who have outrageous profits. Those businesses who don't make a profit have other issues. Treating employees fairly is the first step to creating a successful company.
The one thing that would result in higher wages and lower unemployment is if we were to close our borders, or at least considerably slow down the flow of people coming here. The people behind the people who are pushing for open borders are not concerned with compassion, but with keeping wages low. If we were to pair this up with policies that didn't make unemployment so attractive, there would be jobs for people, and employers would have to pay a living wage in order to attract employees. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for the right price. The problem is that our government is dominated by people from our two major political parties, which are owned by large corporate interests who would rather hire illegals or do business outside of the country than pay the right price.
Ken, you've hit exactly on the two issues with stagnant wages. We've told a generation of kids that they can get a college degree and never have to get their hands dirty. Then, all the craft/labor jobs are taken by illegals or Green Card immigrants at minimum wage or 'under-the-table' cash. Jail CEO's whose companies hire illegals. Shut down the borders. One problem goes away. The other issue is how we've made it more financially attractive to sit on your butt than find a job. At one point, you had to have prospective employers sign cards showing you had actually applied for a job before receiving unemployment benefits. Today, we pay for not working. We pay for groceries. We pay for clothing, rent, televisions, cell phones... and you don't have to even try to get a job. In the areas where minimum wage has been elevated to $10 to $15 people won't work more than 15 or 20 hours/week so they can still draw social program benefits. 1. Raise minimum wage to a Federally mandated $15/hour. 2. Cut Federal unemployment benefits and social welfare benefits 10%. 3. Implement a "bonus/bounty" program in the state social welfare departments, motivating workers to find and turn in those sucking the system dry. The tax savings in cutting benefits and ferreting out the corruption would more than make up the slightly added cost of goods.
I reckon we'll disagree on this. Of course companies like to keep wages low as well as other costs. But all companies have a limited amount of money to spend on wages. If the government forces them to spend that money on newly hired, unskilled workers there will be less or no money to give raises to the rest. They can, of course, raise the prices of their products to cover those costs, but there again it makes it harder to compete with foreign companies. Many companies move to foreign lands to be able to compete. So people can start at $7.25 an hour and get raises as they learn a skill and become of more value to a company, or they can sit home drawing welfare checks, saying..." I'd get $15 an hour if I had a job. I think paying a good wage to long time, productive employees, ( who are the age that they are starting families ) is so much more important than paying a higher minimum to new hires. When social security does get raises it is never enough to keep up with higher prices, but it does sometimes go up. Most company pensions are finalized at the time of retirement and never go up at all. Higher prices for any reason hurt retirees, but most of us are more secure financially than we were when we were younger. Higher prices hurt young families the most. They are struggling to raise kids, pay rent or mortgages, auto loans, etc. If the minimum wage is raised that will only be a temporary help to those who are making the minimum. The rest will still make the same but have to pay the higher prices.
Living in California I see mexicans every day bent over all day long picking some crop. I don't know what they get paid but willing to bet its less than minimum. How much would you do it for? Especially in 105+ degrees in Fresno. Even paying minimum wage for legal workers would probably raise the cost of produce even more.
I liked Ben Carson at first before he opened his mouth.b thought he was an intelligent man being a neuro surgeon but some of the things he's said boggle the mind. I would vote for Chris Christie but don't see much about him and he may not even be a choice. I'm not seeing one person that I would really want for Prez.
Social Security should have no bearing whatsoever on the minimum wage for workers. It has become popular among people from both parties, these days, to speak of Social Security as a handout from government. However, while government has long been dipping into the Social Security fund for other purposes, it wasn't intended that way, and Social Security is in no way funded through regular tax dollars. Social Security is funded through mandatory deductions from the paychecks of workers, as well as from mandatory funds paid by employers. The only reason why Social Security has become a debt is because when the number of people collecting Social Security rises, the government is forced to use these funds for their intended purposes, leaving less of it for them to use for other purposes. Yes, the retirement of larger numbers of baby boomers has put a strain on the budget, but these people (and their employers) were paying into the fund during the working life. The fact that the government has spent that money, and may not have the money to repay it does not imply that Social Security is a government handout, any more than if I had given you a loan and you did not have the money to repay it at the time that it was due.
Well, I never paid my fair share, Ken. I get a portion of deceased husbands social security but it really all works out because he only got it for about a year before he died. It probably all evens out...many do die before collecting a cent.
Social Security wasn't supposed to cover spouses or disabled people who hadn't paid into the system. They were added as ways for the government to dip into the Social Security fund even before it was mingled with the general fund. A 1939 change added survivors benefits, and disabled people were added in 1956. The SS funds had a lot of money in it because, at the time, there were far more people paying into it than collecting from it, and the politicians couldn't stand having money around that they couldn't get their hands on so they added classes of people who could dip into the Social Security fund, despite having not paid into it.
In any case, it helped me out. I wasn't eligible til I was 60 though so I had 7 years of living off savings and then a job. I don't know what the law is now but I think I would have lost my widow's benefits had I remarried, which I wouldn't do anyway.