|
|
Is the Tea Party Making a Comeback?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-06-11 08:42:40
By that you mean keeping money in the hands of those who earn it, and out of those who don't. What a crazy concept...
If you take your average worker, working 40 hours a week in their given profession, making a normal wage (we'll say $50k/year, though that's probably way higher than average, but we'll be generous).
I'm absolutely positive that any executive who earns $500,000/yr isn't doing 10x the work of that average worker. Let alone when you add in stocks and benefits that the worker likely isn't getting.
And that's being awfully frugal in my estimate of what this executive is making.
Your definition of "earn" is the problem. Let's see how the average worker deals with the pressures an executive deals with...on a daily basis.
Also, that $500k/year number includes stocks and taxable benefits.
It must be nice to picture somebody sitting on their *** all day doing nothing, making big bucks in the process. Oh wait, that's just a government worker on a daily basis.
[+]
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2014-06-11 08:45:10
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »OK how about Bill Ayers then? His ties to Democrats are distant huh? Obama began his political career in his living room.
How about the throngs of left wing nuts that destroy every city the G8 meets in?
The problem with your comments about Occupy Wall Street and G8 and now 7 (thanks Putin) protesters is they are not 100% "Democrat". Many of those protesters are Independent, Libertarian, and Republican. Some are also not even American/part of American political party affiliations. It's probably just not convenient for you to accept that.
Ayers comes from a radical time in our political history. 60's and 70's were pretty intense. Maybe if those kids protesting at Kent State didn't get shot up some of the radical offshoots against the then Republican administration and party in general wouldn't have happened. But you know people evolve and realize that certain things they said or believed in at one time are not necessarily true later on in their life. But then again I am not going to claim to say I know the president personally well enough to know if he did evolve out of that mindset or not.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-06-11 08:51:35
By that you mean keeping money in the hands of those who earn it, and out of those who don't. What a crazy concept...
If you take your average worker, working 40 hours a week in their given profession, making a normal wage (we'll say $50k/year, though that's probably way higher than average, but we'll be generous).
I'm absolutely positive that any executive who earns $500,000/yr isn't doing 10x the work of that average worker. Let alone when you add in stocks and benefits that the worker likely isn't getting.
And that's being awfully frugal in my estimate of what this executive is making.
Your definition of "earn" is the problem. Your definition of earn is the problem. Markets determine value not your own personal idea of "fairness".
All you're doing is whining at the fact that you haven't earned any money yet.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-06-11 08:59:10
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-06-11 09:12:12
By that you mean keeping money in the hands of those who earn it, and out of those who don't. What a crazy concept... If you take your average worker, working 40 hours a week in their given profession, making a normal wage (we'll say $50k/year, though that's probably way higher than average, but we'll be generous). I'm absolutely positive that any executive who earns $500,000/yr isn't doing 10x the work of that average worker. Let alone when you add in stocks and benefits that the worker likely isn't getting. And that's being awfully frugal in my estimate of what this executive is making. Your definition of "earn" is the problem. Your definition of earn is the problem. Markets determine value not your own personal idea of "fairness". All you're doing is whining at the fact that you haven't earned any money yet.
"A fair day of work for a fair day of pay."
Isn't that the old standard?
You ***on "fairness" because you and those who think like you don't believe in paying someone what they're worth. You believe in paying them the absolute minimum that you can pay them and not have them walk out on you. And in a bad economy, the rich thrive because they can pit the jobless against their workers and pay them less, and give them fewer benefits, and essentially treat them however they want because they can hold the job itself over their head.
Yeah. Maybe the "market" determines their value as executives.
But their value as a human beings is equal to a festering pile of dog ***.
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2014-06-11 09:19:33
You don't know what "fair" means. Children scream "no fair!"
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-06-11 09:22:05
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »You don't know what "fair" means. Children scream "no fair!"
Inversely. I think "fair" has a pretty static definition. I think it's the position of people such as yourself that like to play with the definition, assuming it's a flexible thing based on exactly how much you can squeeze out of a person before they pop.
 Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11690
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-06-11 09:23:21
Quote: ....
After working for Arthur Andersen and as a consultant for the World Bank, he became a professor at Randolph–Macon College in 1996. Does that mean he is a trilaterlist?
Quote: Brat is currently working on a book titled “Ethics as Leading Economic Indicator? What went Wrong? Notes on the Judeo-Christian Tradition and Human Reason.” His published works include “God and Advanced Mammon – Can Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?” and “An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand.” There are morals in Rand's literature?
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-06-11 09:27:06
Quote: .... After working for Arthur Andersen and as a consultant for the World Bank, he became a professor at Randolph–Macon College in 1996. Does that mean he is a trilaterlist? Quote: Brat is currently working on a book titled “Ethics as Leading Economic Indicator? What went Wrong? Notes on the Judeo-Christian Tradition and Human Reason.” His published works include “God and Advanced Mammon – Can Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?” and “An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand.” There are morals in Rand's literature?
To the Tea Party there are.
Money gives you the right to set whatever morals you want.
Didn't you know?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-06-11 09:36:19
By that you mean keeping money in the hands of those who earn it, and out of those who don't. What a crazy concept... If you take your average worker, working 40 hours a week in their given profession, making a normal wage (we'll say $50k/year, though that's probably way higher than average, but we'll be generous). I'm absolutely positive that any executive who earns $500,000/yr isn't doing 10x the work of that average worker. Let alone when you add in stocks and benefits that the worker likely isn't getting. And that's being awfully frugal in my estimate of what this executive is making. Your definition of "earn" is the problem. Your definition of earn is the problem. Markets determine value not your own personal idea of "fairness". All you're doing is whining at the fact that you haven't earned any money yet.
"A fair day of work for a fair day of pay."
Isn't that the old standard?
You ***on "fairness" because you and those who think like you don't believe in paying someone what they're worth. You believe in paying them the absolute minimum that you can pay them and not have them walk out on you. And in a bad economy, the rich thrive because they can pit the jobless against their workers and pay them less, and give them fewer benefits, and essentially treat them however they want because they can hold the job itself over their head.
Yeah. Maybe the "market" determines their value as executives.
But their value as a human beings is equal to a festering pile of dog ***. If we all are paid what we all think is "fair" then (in my eyes) you would be paid .01/hr and I would be paid $1,000,000/hr. In reverse, you would be paid $1,000,000/hr and I would be paid .01/hr.
See the issue?
That is why paying by "fairness" never works, because everyone has different viewpoints in what is "fair" and what is "unfair."
Markets determining the wages of employees is the best way to determine the rates people should be paid.
If you want to be paid CEO wages, become a CEO.
If you want to be paid minimum wage, work in a minimum wage job.
It is that simple.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-06-11 09:40:43
By that you mean keeping money in the hands of those who earn it, and out of those who don't. What a crazy concept... If you take your average worker, working 40 hours a week in their given profession, making a normal wage (we'll say $50k/year, though that's probably way higher than average, but we'll be generous). I'm absolutely positive that any executive who earns $500,000/yr isn't doing 10x the work of that average worker. Let alone when you add in stocks and benefits that the worker likely isn't getting. And that's being awfully frugal in my estimate of what this executive is making. Your definition of "earn" is the problem. Your definition of earn is the problem. Markets determine value not your own personal idea of "fairness". All you're doing is whining at the fact that you haven't earned any money yet.
"A fair day of work for a fair day of pay."
Isn't that the old standard?
You ***on "fairness" because you and those who think like you don't believe in paying someone what they're worth. You believe in paying them the absolute minimum that you can pay them and not have them walk out on you. And in a bad economy, the rich thrive because they can pit the jobless against their workers and pay them less, and give them fewer benefits, and essentially treat them however they want because they can hold the job itself over their head.
Yeah. Maybe the "market" determines their value as executives.
But their value as a human beings is equal to a festering pile of dog ***.
Ok, if I set up two stands in which I sell oranges and one stand sells them at 2 dollars an orange and the another sells them at 1 dollar. You're saying that the orange is worth 2 dollars. Whatever bro, if you'd pay the extra dollar then you're will to buy the orange at above market value.
The sad part is that you're angry at the wrong people. You're taking your anger out on those who simply follow markets. You'd pit me in the same group of people because I would take advantage of the 1 dollar orange. Instead you should be directing your anger at those who set policy that keeps the economy as choked off as it does. If the economy was really growing, there would be more demand for jobs and thus labor markets would justify higher wages.
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-06-11 09:44:40
Except you're comparing oranges to other human beings.
"Wage slave" is a term for a reason. And while it does not equate with slavery of old, it still keeps one beholden to a master with limited options or choices to go elsewhere.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-06-11 09:48:50
Except you're comparing oranges to other human beings.
"Wage slave" is a term for a reason. And while it does not equate with slavery of old, it still keeps one beholden to a master with limited options or choices to go elsewhere.
Dude human work has a value associated to it. If you mandate that each employer has to pay whatever amount over market value, all you're going to do is create a demand for an automated replacement. What, are the people who use ATMs jerks too because all those human being bank tellers are no longer as valuable?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-06-11 09:51:25
Except you're comparing oranges to other human beings.
"Wage slave" is a term for a reason. And while it does not equate with slavery of old, it still keeps one beholden to a master with limited options or choices to go elsewhere.
Dude human work has a value associated to it. If you mandate that each employer has to pay whatever amount over market value, all you're going to do is create a demand for an automated replacement. What, are the people who use ATMs jerks too because all those human being bank tellers are no longer as valuable? It has been happening for years, and people still demand higher wages to the jobs that are still available.
They haven't been able to put two to two together. And if you show them that, they call you stupid and out-of-touch and whatnot.
[+]
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby
Server: Gilgamesh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 971
By Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby 2014-06-11 09:57:32
"A fair day of work for a fair day of pay."
Isn't that the old standard?
You ***on "fairness" because you and those who think like you don't believe in paying someone what they're worth. You believe in paying them the absolute minimum that you can pay them and not have them walk out on you. And in a bad economy, the rich thrive because they can pit the jobless against their workers and pay them less, and give them fewer benefits, and essentially treat them however they want because they can hold the job itself over their head.
Yeah. Maybe the "market" determines their value as executives.
But their value as a human beings is equal to a festering pile of dog ***. People get paid what they are worth, except some people are worth less than minimum wage.
Monetary value works like this: something is not worth anything more than what someone else is willing to pay you for it. If you want to sell your old Star Wars figurines and you think they are wort $500 each, and nobody is willing to pay you more than $75, then they are not worth more than $75. Same thing with employees. You may THINK you are worth more, but you are not. You cannot measure your worth as a person in dollar figures, so let's dispense with the hurt feelings BS. As an employee, to the market, you always get paid what you are worth. The sooner people can understand this basic truth, the better off we will all be.
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-06-11 09:57:57
Except you're comparing oranges to other human beings. "Wage slave" is a term for a reason. And while it does not equate with slavery of old, it still keeps one beholden to a master with limited options or choices to go elsewhere. Dude human work has a value associated to it. If you mandate that each employer has to pay whatever amount over market value, all you're going to do is create a demand for an automated replacement. What, are the people who use ATMs jerks too because all those human being bank tellers are no longer as valuable?
I really do understand what you're saying.
But I don't think you're getting what I'm saying, and I'm done trying to explain to other grown people how to be good human beings.
Sometimes I really wish I believed in Christianity so I could be content that people like you will burn in Hell for treating other people as subhuman because they don't have enough "market value" to be deemed worthwhile to you.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-06-11 10:02:32
Except you're comparing oranges to other human beings. "Wage slave" is a term for a reason. And while it does not equate with slavery of old, it still keeps one beholden to a master with limited options or choices to go elsewhere. Dude human work has a value associated to it. If you mandate that each employer has to pay whatever amount over market value, all you're going to do is create a demand for an automated replacement. What, are the people who use ATMs jerks too because all those human being bank tellers are no longer as valuable?
I really do understand what you're saying.
But I don't think you're getting what I'm saying, and I'm done trying to explain to other grown people how to be good human beings.
Sometimes I really wish I believed in Christianity so I could be content that people like you will burn in Hell for treating other people as subhuman because they don't have enough "market value" to be deemed worthwhile to you.
Dude overpaying for something isn't being a good human being, it's charity. One can make an argument that good people often engage in charity, but offering charity =/= a good person. If it did you'd think the Koch brothers were good people, they're extremely charitable and we all know from your own posts that you don't!
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-06-11 10:03:59
Except you're comparing oranges to other human beings.
"Wage slave" is a term for a reason. And while it does not equate with slavery of old, it still keeps one beholden to a master with limited options or choices to go elsewhere.
Dude human work has a value associated to it. If you mandate that each employer has to pay whatever amount over market value, all you're going to do is create a demand for an automated replacement. What, are the people who use ATMs jerks too because all those human being bank tellers are no longer as valuable? Companies are always going to aim for the cheapest solution regardless of whether or not there is a demand for a higher wage.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-06-11 10:05:49
Also Cantor's challenger spent 122k in his overall campaign, which is 40k less than what Cantor spent on steakhouses.
#winning
Except you're comparing oranges to other human beings.
"Wage slave" is a term for a reason. And while it does not equate with slavery of old, it still keeps one beholden to a master with limited options or choices to go elsewhere.
Dude human work has a value associated to it. If you mandate that each employer has to pay whatever amount over market value, all you're going to do is create a demand for an automated replacement. What, are the people who use ATMs jerks too because all those human being bank tellers are no longer as valuable? Companies are always going to aim for the cheapest solution regardless of whether or not there is a demand for a higher wage.
Right, it's almost as if they're in business to, you know, make some money!
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-06-11 10:11:16
You guys can talk about worth all day on either side but you don't actually have a clue as to what their actually worth is...
One side will always think people are not getting paid enough because it's not a living wage...
The other will just assume since they're working at minimum wage that what they provide in worht to the company is worth only that or I guess less even to some people lol...
minimum wage workers these days are pretty much a government subsidized work force anyways...
Worth seems to be based on people's own skewed opinions these days.
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-06-11 10:12:52
Also Cantor's challenger spent 122k in his overall campaign, which is 40k less than what Cantor spent on steakhouses.
#winning
Except you're comparing oranges to other human beings.
"Wage slave" is a term for a reason. And while it does not equate with slavery of old, it still keeps one beholden to a master with limited options or choices to go elsewhere.
Dude human work has a value associated to it. If you mandate that each employer has to pay whatever amount over market value, all you're going to do is create a demand for an automated replacement. What, are the people who use ATMs jerks too because all those human being bank tellers are no longer as valuable? Companies are always going to aim for the cheapest solution regardless of whether or not there is a demand for a higher wage.
Right, it's almost as if they're in business to, you know, make some money! The point is that you're previous comment holds absolutely zero weight and once again you have no clue what you're talking about.
You talk about creating demand via people asking for higher wages... Then you agree with me in that the demand is already always there because they're in it to make money... do you even listen to yourself speak?
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-06-11 10:17:41
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: »"A fair day of work for a fair day of pay."
Isn't that the old standard?
You ***on "fairness" because you and those who think like you don't believe in paying someone what they're worth. You believe in paying them the absolute minimum that you can pay them and not have them walk out on you. And in a bad economy, the rich thrive because they can pit the jobless against their workers and pay them less, and give them fewer benefits, and essentially treat them however they want because they can hold the job itself over their head.
Yeah. Maybe the "market" determines their value as executives.
But their value as a human beings is equal to a festering pile of dog ***. People get paid what they are worth, except some people are worth less than minimum wage.
Monetary value works like this: something is not worth anything more than what someone else is willing to pay you for it. If you want to sell your old Star Wars figurines and you think they are wort $500 each, and nobody is willing to pay you more than $75, then they are not worth more than $75. Same thing with employees. You may THINK you are worth more, but you are not. You cannot measure your worth as a person in dollar figures, so let's dispense with the hurt feelings BS. As an employee, to the market, you always get paid what you are worth. The sooner people can understand this basic truth, the better off we will all be. People don't always get paid what they're worth. Others do get paid more than what they're worth (and that isn't only in a minimum wage situation).
Whether or not someone is willing to pay you more does not determine your actual worth. It does determine what someone will pay you but your worth to the company can be determined in actual dollars.
By Jetackuu 2014-06-11 10:19:33
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: »As an employee, to the market, you always get paid what you are worth. The sooner people can understand this basic truth, the better off we will all be. You don't though, people are constantly paid under what they are worth, your pure idea of a proper capitalist market in the job/employment sector is a pure myth.
The minimum wage should be a living wage, it isn't, that's the bottom line. I'm ok with increasing it only partially federally, but then local areas need to do their part as well for their areas.
As for the automation crap being spewed around: good, it will create more jobs that pay decently.
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby
Server: Gilgamesh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 971
By Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby 2014-06-11 10:25:20
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: »As an employee, to the market, you always get paid what you are worth. The sooner people can understand this basic truth, the better off we will all be. You don't though, people are constantly paid under what they are worth, your pure idea of a proper capitalist market in the job/employment sector is a pure myth.
The minimum wage should be a living wage, it isn't, that's the bottom line. I'm ok with increasing it only partially federally, but then local areas need to do their part as well for their areas.
As for the automation crap being spewed around: good, it will create more jobs that pay decently. You get paid what you are worth. If you are worth more, then by definition someone is willing to pay you that amount. Go there.
And ppl don't generally have an income problem, they have a budgeting problem.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-06-11 10:27:32
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: »Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: »As an employee, to the market, you always get paid what you are worth. The sooner people can understand this basic truth, the better off we will all be. You don't though, people are constantly paid under what they are worth, your pure idea of a proper capitalist market in the job/employment sector is a pure myth.
The minimum wage should be a living wage, it isn't, that's the bottom line. I'm ok with increasing it only partially federally, but then local areas need to do their part as well for their areas.
As for the automation crap being spewed around: good, it will create more jobs that pay decently. You get paid what you are worth. If you are worth more, then by definition someone is willing to pay you that amount. Go there.
And ppl don't generally have an income problem, they have a budgeting problem. People aren not always paid what they are worth. The only thing you got right is that people are paid what people are willing to pay them... whether that's more or less than what they are actually worth to that company is somethign you have no clue about lol...
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-06-11 10:28:08
Also Cantor's challenger spent 122k in his overall campaign, which is 40k less than what Cantor spent on steakhouses.
#winning
Except you're comparing oranges to other human beings.
"Wage slave" is a term for a reason. And while it does not equate with slavery of old, it still keeps one beholden to a master with limited options or choices to go elsewhere.
Dude human work has a value associated to it. If you mandate that each employer has to pay whatever amount over market value, all you're going to do is create a demand for an automated replacement. What, are the people who use ATMs jerks too because all those human being bank tellers are no longer as valuable? Companies are always going to aim for the cheapest solution regardless of whether or not there is a demand for a higher wage.
Right, it's almost as if they're in business to, you know, make some money! The point is that you're previous comment holds absolutely zero weight and once again you have no clue what you're talking about.
You talk about creating demand via people asking for higher wages... Then you agree with me in that the demand is already always there because they're in it to make money... do you even listen to yourself speak?
You speak as though you'd actively pay full price for something on sale. Wanting to make as much money as possible nor pay market value is cold or cruel.
<rolls eyes>
By Jetackuu 2014-06-11 10:28:44
Ah Tenshi and the rest of you neocons have your own personal brand of delusions, always a displeasure.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-06-11 10:31:37
Ah Tenshi and the rest of you neocons have your own personal brand of delusions, always a displeasure. So, you are saying that you are paid exactly what you are worth, and if anyone offers you a job where they pay you more for the exact same work, you will automatically turn them down because how dare they pay you more than what you are worth!!
[+]
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby
Server: Gilgamesh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 971
By Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby 2014-06-11 10:33:09
Ah Tenshi and the rest of you neocons have your own personal brand of delusions, always a displeasure.
Neocon?
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby
Server: Gilgamesh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 971
By Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby 2014-06-11 10:34:04
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: »Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: »As an employee, to the market, you always get paid what you are worth. The sooner people can understand this basic truth, the better off we will all be. You don't though, people are constantly paid under what they are worth, your pure idea of a proper capitalist market in the job/employment sector is a pure myth.
The minimum wage should be a living wage, it isn't, that's the bottom line. I'm ok with increasing it only partially federally, but then local areas need to do their part as well for their areas.
As for the automation crap being spewed around: good, it will create more jobs that pay decently. You get paid what you are worth. If you are worth more, then by definition someone is willing to pay you that amount. Go there.
And ppl don't generally have an income problem, they have a budgeting problem. People aren not always paid what they are worth. The only thing you got right is that people are paid what people are willing to pay them... whether that's more or less than what they are actually worth to that company is somethign you have no clue about lol... Name one example of someone not getting paid whatthey are worth, especially in the private sector.
Interesting story today from Virginia:
Quote: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia lost to a Tea Party challenger on Tuesday in a stunning Republican primary upset that sent shockwaves through Congress and gave the conservative Tea Party movement the biggest victory in its four-year history.
Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, was easily beaten by college economics professor David Brat, CNN projected. With nearly 90 percent of votes counted, Brat had 56 percent to Cantor's 44 percent.
Brat, a political newcomer who teaches at Randolph-Macon College, had argued Cantor was not conservative enough and accused the seven-term incumbent of betraying conservative values on spending, the national debt and immigration.
Cantor had been seen by many as an eventual successor to House Speaker John Boehner, and his loss is certain to unsettle members of both parties already nervous about the depth of anger toward Congress among voters.
Cantor had spent more than $5 million to head off the challenge from Brat, who spent about $122,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
What's interesting is not only did the Tea Party candidate win, but also spent far less. $122,000 vs $5 million on his campaign.
However, the Tea Party still has a long way to go:
Quote: The victory followed a string of primary losses by Tea Party candidates this year to candidates backed by the Republican establishment.
The race was the highlight of voting in five states on Tuesday. South Carolina, Maine, Nevada and North Dakota were also selecting candidates for the Nov. 4 midterm elections.
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina also faced a Tea Party challenge on Tuesday. Graham was expected to beat a crowded field of six challengers who had accused him of not being conservative enough.
Are they on the way to making a comeback this November?
Fox News seems to be somewhat optimistic.
Quote: The Tea Party movement would like to make clear that reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.
Victories this week by Tea Party-backed candidates in Nebraska and West Virginia Republican primaries are helping to reinvigorate the movement, which some had written off amid a difficult campaign season. But as its own members point out, whether the movement is winning primaries or not, it's hard to argue its small-government message has faded.
Famous, or infamous, Tea Party-aligned lawmakers in Congress continue to play a strong role in the direction of the party. Polls of conservatives consistently show figures like Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, as political favorites in a hypothetical 2016 race. And it is those figures who keep the Republican Party something of an evolving force -- Paul arguably made drones a bipartisan issue, and also filed a lawsuit this year against the administration over NSA surveillance, pushing the GOP to rethink the balance between security and privacy.
"Political pundits love to role-play as coroners, but they aren't very good at it," Tea Party Express Executive Director Taylor Budowich said after wins Tuesday night in Nebraska and West Virginia. "The mainstream media has been pushing the recycled 'Tea Party is Dead' headlines, but tonight's results show how again they've got it wrong. What these pundits don't understand is ... the broad appeal of the Tea Party's message of fiscal responsibility and economic growth."
In Nebraska, the primary victory by Republican Senate candidate Ben Sasse should help his party in November retain the open seat -- he is immediately considered the favorite for the seat held by retiring GOP Sen. Mike Johanns.
In West Virginia, former Maryland GOP chairman Alex Mooney won the Republican primary with spending help from such outside groups as the Madison Fund, the Senate Conservatives Fund and Tea Party Express.
The Tea Party is optimistic about winning both general election races -- with Mooney's 2nd Congressional District being a Republican stronghold and Sasse, a former Bush administration official, rebuffing the kind of fringe-candidate label that dogged some unsuccessful Tea Party candidates in 2012.
In addition, Tea Party leaders are touting the narrow victory Tuesday by Nebraska GOP Rep. Lee Terry for a House seat he is expected to keep and Florida businessman Curt Clawson's victory last month in a special election for the House seat left by Republican Trey Radel.
Still, it is becoming clear this year that the Tea Party will struggle to repeat its past record of ousting high-profile Republican incumbents in the primaries.
|
|
