Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Quist’s letter a breath of fresh air

July 16, 2013

To the editor: Allen Quist’s July 13 letter (Walz embarrasses us on the farm bill) was a breath of fresh air to many of us in the greater Mankato area....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(46)

Zorromcgee

Jul-24-13 3:18 PM

If the minimum wage had grown like wages for the top 1%, it would be $28.34.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-23-13 12:30 PM

1) Federal Prevailing Wage

2) Child Labor Laws (some in the south want to eliminate them)

3) Minimum Wage

4) OSHA

5) Education Standards

How many more do you want?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jul-23-13 11:18 AM

A good read in The Atlantic: "The Huge Threat to Capitalism That Republicans Are Ignoring"

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-22-13 11:26 PM

Mnsotn: What is the federal govt doing to "level the playing field" so that Minnesotans are not in direct competition with the "southern bumpkins"?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-22-13 6:42 PM

We saw what happened when we let our guard down on Wall Street and the Big Banks. How many of them saw prison time. Bernie Madoff's only mistake was that he stole from the rich, or he wouldn't have seen prison time either.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-22-13 6:35 PM

MT, you do realize that the quality of life is far better in Minnesota than in much of the country, don't you? Without the Federal government leveling the playing field, we would be in direct competition with the armpit of America (the Deep South) even more than we already are. Southern bumpkins are very happy with very little, and many of the good things in this country would go down hill if we had to compete with those who have and want very little. It would be like having China without the ocean between. At least the Federal laws set specific minimums that these states must meet in education, workplace rights, public safety, public health, etc.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-22-13 4:21 PM

mnsotn: You may not be able to see it, but you and I both want to see the influence of big business in Washington diminished or eliminated. You think that if you make govt larger and increase the govt's regulatory grip, the influence of large corporations will decrease.

I think that history shows that the larger govt becomes, the greater corporations' influence on govt becomes. If you want to decrease the influence of large corporations, you need to decrease the size of the CENTRAL (federal) govt, and bring control back to the STATE and LOCAL govts. By diffusing power (as the Founding Fathers intended) instead of centralizing it, you make it more difficult for any individual or corporation to exert control over the whole system.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-21-13 9:00 PM

But you have no problem with the corporations that already run our government. They aren't going to let you or some silly convention change that.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-21-13 1:52 AM

mnsotn: You may not realize it, but what you are advocating is an all-powerful central govt that controls every aspect of the economy. What makes you think that a govt that is that powerful will stop at dictating to big business? Such a govt will regulate every aspect of the common person's life. Be careful what you wish for.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-20-13 10:59 PM

In a nutshell, you are starting to get somewhere. A little crude and sarcastic, yes, but dirty corporations need to be taught some ethics. If they would quit attacking unions, employees would be able to correct the imbalance without government help. Just about all of the advancements made in the 20th century for the working people are because of unions and the many people who faught for labor rights. Big Money is spending a lot to take away collective bargaining rights. They need to be stopped.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-20-13 6:17 PM

mnsotn: So - and correct me if I'm wrong - your solution is that the govt should exercise tighter control of unethical businesses. Govt should pass more laws and more regulations to control them. Govt should regulate how much businesses should pay their top executives. Govt should pass regulations that will favor small businesses over large corporations. Did I get it right?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jul-20-13 4:18 PM

In the final analysis it appears one commenter confuses analysis of what others say with what the voices in his radio say.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-20-13 4:11 PM

No, Michael. We want companies to have ethics. We want small businesses to thrive against companies without ethics. We want good paying american jobs where the boss makes considerably more than the lowest played employee, but not to the extreme that it is now. I'm tired of seeing my small business friends struggle against unethical people who cheat their employees. If your big businesses that you idolize so much would play fair and treat people as they should, we wouldn't need regulations. You just don't get it.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-20-13 10:10 AM

So, in the final analysis, it appears that what the left-leaning commenters on this site want is a society where private enterprise does not exist; where the govt attempts to micro-manage the entire economy; where private individuals may still own their companies on paper, but all the real business decisions are made in Washington DC. Call that system what you will -- it's been tried, and has reduced the overall prosperity of every single society that has tried it. Without exception.

During the last election cycle, a former resident of one of the Soviet-block nations paid for and ran an ad warning America not to go down that road. If the govt controls everything, he warned, then everyone is on the same economic level, but that level is not a place where anyone wants to be.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Jul-20-13 9:29 AM

I like japanviking's comment. If a company can not stay solvent without paying poverty wages or by relying on the welfare system for their employees I might add, then let them fail. Don't worry MT, you will be able to buy your cheap socks and underwear somewhere else.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-20-13 1:52 AM

Excuse me, I was wrong as to who to credit. The Economic Policy Institute is credited with this statistic.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-20-13 1:38 AM

MichaelT, the statistics on Walmart having to increase prices by a mere 1.1% is from prolaboralliance dot org.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-20-13 1:35 AM

MichaelT, are you seriously that deranged that you put Walmart on some sort of a pedestal as the utopia of corporate citizenship? Depending on what study you read, each Walmart store ***** up anywhere from $300,000 to $900,000 of OUR tax dollars to make up for what they aren't giving their employees. You may think that this isn't a career for adults, but you have to remember that Walmart sent millions of career manufacturing jobs to China with the help of George Bush at the beginning of his term. You pissandmoan about taxes, look at why they are so high!!

Open your eyes!

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jul-19-13 3:56 PM

Quist-wow for him to call someone else an embarrasement is a stretch. Quist believes man and dinosaurs co-existed, women are genetically subservant to men, and once went into an adult bookstore in disguise to root out sin! And no one who owns a farm should have a say in how much governemnt welfare farmers get./

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jul-19-13 3:48 PM

MT said in a previous post "my future response to any of your comments will be no response." What a feeling of joy and freeedom that is. But then MT being what he is he will say "oh I only meant for that letter' or some such other nonsense to justify his breaking his word. But on the off chance he keeps his work, please excuse me while I do my happy dance~!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jul-19-13 3:44 PM

As Schieffer told Kelly, “It’s almost like welfare for the wealthy, but you don’t include a dollar for hungry people for food stamps. What kind of message is that?”

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-18-13 10:17 PM

AD:

(...cont.) You say you want regulations to protect consumers and workers. We already have them. In fact, Dodd-Frank has a whopper of a consumer protection section that is probably unconstitutional.

And yet, when we ask liberals for specifics, they give only vague answers. Mainly, their answer is "MORE!"

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-18-13 10:15 PM

AD- In answer to your comment of 9:15 pm - Your answer contains the same vague generalities that appear again and again in the answers from the liberals on this site. You say that you support minimum wage. We have a minimum wage. What you are saying, I suppose, is that it should be higher. How much higher? What would be your criteria, your formula for determining how high? Or is this formula to be kept secret, developed in closed-door meetings of Congress, and then we'll find out after the bill is passed?

You say you want "modest benefits to protect against financial disaster." First, define "modest." Second, we already have systems in place to provide safety nets to prevent financial disaster. What more do you want? Or is this something else that you want to keep secret and tell us after the decision has been made in Washington?

(Cont...)

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-18-13 3:59 PM

mnsotn: You rail against Wal-Mart as though Wal-Mart has made no contribution to society at large. Wal-Mart has done the same thing that A & P, Sears, and Henry Ford did in the last century -- they developed a system that can get quality products to consumers at a lower price than had ever been achieved before. While individual workers are no doubt impacted by the shift in the labor market, society as a whole is lifted up economically by more efficient use of limited resources.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jul-18-13 1:45 PM

If nobody wanted to work at Walmart for the "low" wages they offered they wouldn't have any open stores. If their starting wage is too low for the job market they will need to raise to it to a point where people will start applying. This concept is known as a free market. Supply and demand determine price. It works in the labor market just like it does in other markets. It is the same reason why minimum wage laws cost workers their jobs.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 46 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web