Thursday, June 22, 2006

SENATE REJECTS RAISING MINIMUM WAGE ABOVE $5.15 an hour

Photo of GEORGE BUSH (candid)

Senate Rejects Higher Minimum Wage
Congressmen Voted over $30,000 for Themselves since 1997 PLUS LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS FOR THEIR FAMILES EVEN AFTER LEAVING OFFICE and PENSION PLANS

IN THE UK, THE MINIMUM WAGE IS $9.00 an hour.

More Than 300,000 Americans Have Been Forced to Get a Second (Or Third) Job Over the Past Year. (And Bush wonders why Americans are "addicted to oil." Driving to work is a must for most people.) According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of Americans working more than one job at the same time has increased by 306,000 from June 2004 to June 2005 - increasing to 5.4 percent of all working Americans. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t13.htm

COMMENT BY LARRY: The Senators and members of Congress have no problem arranging for airline tickets at taxpayers expense. These same officials have no problem getting food allowances for themselves at taxpayers expense.
These same elected officials have no problem allowing taxpayers to pay for dinner and a few drinks for themselves and their "companions". These same elected officials have a problem forcing businesses, to pay their workers more money so they can pay for the higher cost of living.

Isn't there something wrong with this picture of Bush's America?

Photo of Jack and Kevin

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Harry Reid said people who work full time should not be living in poverty, and he said that's reason enough to raise the minimum wage. The Senate disagreed, however -- rejecting a proposed hike in the minimum wage by a vote of 52-46. Four of the eight Republicans who voted to hike the minimum wage are running for re-election in November, wire reports said. House leaders, meanwhile, have refused to allow a vote on the issue. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) noted that Congress has received about $30,000 in pay hikes since the last hike in the minimum wage -- in 1997. "When the Democrats control the Senate, one of the first pieces of legislation we'll see is an increase in the minimum wage," Kennedy was quoted as saying. Read News on the Web


Sidebar: Nine Years and Counting

(CNSNews.com) - The federal minimum wage, originally established in 1933, declared unconstitutional in 1935 and then re-established in 1938, was 25 cents at first. There have been many increases since then, but none lately. Read today's Fact-O-Rama

182 comments:

  1. Fitting epiutath to the repug controlled congress, they need $30,000 more but those just scraping by need nothing more....because they never will be able to make campaign contributions...which drive the repugs in everything they do

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What the minumum wage bill failed???

    I didn't hear this.

    Is that right?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can anyone suggest a number they'd like to raise it to?

    ReplyDelete
  5. When I was 18, back in 1980, I was making $5.25 per hour just out of high school.

    It's a damn shame that the minimum wage is a paltry $5.15 per hour in 2006.

    Bush doesn't give 2 shits about the American public to save his wretched soul

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes voltair a wage that they can raise a family on

    you know family values until it costs anything ...right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. (still lookin cliffy, just not sure I can find a source you'll accept. Will the CATO institute do? - and I may have overstated it anyway. Best source I can find right now says "doubled".)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Like I said, what's a good number?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is according to where they live costs are less here in KY than either my poarents faced in upstate NY or my sister does in Maryland...and high costs of living got my older brother to move from California to Oklahoma

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, it's $5.15 everywhere now. You want to make it different from state to state? Or even area to area?

    ReplyDelete
  11. During his presidency, Bill Clinton gave states the power to set their minimum wages above the federal level. As of 2004, 12 states had done so; and on November 2 of that year two additional states (Florida and Nevada) approved increases in statewide referendums. Community organizing efforts initiated by ACORN were responsible for the Florida and Nevada increases. Some government entities, such as counties and cities, observe minimum wages that are higher than the state as a whole. Another device to increase wages, living wage ordinances apply only to businesses that are under contract to the local government itself. Santa Fe's $9.50-per-hour minimum wage is the highest in the nation, and there are plans to increase this wage to $10.50 in 2008.

    applauded Maryland lawmakers for overriding the veto on the increase and urged Congress to adopt legislation that would increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25. Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a ranking member of the Senate Committe on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions also commended Maryland for increasing its minimum wage, in a statement issued on January 17th, he stated that "Maryland is one of many states and communities across the country to recognize that no one who works for a living should have to live in poverty." Source.

    Minimum wage jobs virtually never include health insurance coverage (as noted here and here), although that is changing in some parts of the USA where the cost of living is high, such as California, and at some companies

    ReplyDelete
  12. No have a minimun that makes everyone stable and let states raise it if need be like quite a few do now....but at least keep up with congresses raises....

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Santa Fe lost 300 jobs in May, which is similar to what happened last year. Small gains were made in construction and retail trade, but those gains were more than offset by losses in other industries. There were 200 fewer government jobs and 200 fewer leisure and hospitality jobs. Also reported was the loss of 100 information jobs and another 100 jobs in educational and health services.

    Over-the-year job growth for Santa Fe was only 1.0 percent, adding just 600 jobs. This is the lowest rate of job growth the area has seen in about 18 months. Previously the rate of job growth had been close to the average for the state. The job growth is evident in only five of the area's 12 industries. Five industries remain at the same level of employment as last year, and two industries have lost jobs over the year.

    The large government sector added just 200 jobs on the year, growing 1.2 percent. Federal government jobs have declined in number over the year, and state government has shown no growth. All of the new government jobs are in local government. The local government gains have come mostly from employment at local schools."

    http://www.dol.state.nm.us/dol_Mnews.htm

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lydia and Clif, i'm probably going to take some heat on this, but here's my view on this subject, first of all I think its reprehensible that congress gave them self a 30,000 raise when the deficit is going to the moon and they have a 20% approval rating, must be nice to vote to give YOURSELF a raise, who's going to actually say "no I dont think I deserve a raise?

    Now regarding the minimum wage, I think big jumps in the minimum wage are a lose lose for everyone, particulary the poor it was supposedly designed to help, when there is a big jump in the minimum wage, it triggers inflation and the increase is moot because prices for everything are raised by the employers trying to pass on the higher labor costs, in fact real wages ajusted for inflation as well as employment for both the poor and lower middle class usually go down and people actually lose ground economically, and thats not even considering the increased layoffs or the higher unemploymentas a result.

    Now dont get me wrong I dont think congress should ever have to vote on increasing the minimum wage, I think it should be indexed to the inflation rate (CPI) annually just like social security currently is so the minimum wage is automatically indexed to inflation and the poor dont lose ground, but having said that I think there is much more we can do to help the poor more directly than a big jump to the minimum wage, for instance there is a huge amount of the poor and lower middle class who do not have health insurance, we need to take action to insure that these people are able to get medical treatment when needed, whether that is via tax deductions or setting up clinics or hospitals specifically for people with no medical coverage.

    we also need to help the poor people with little skills who are in a bottomless pits they cant seem to get out of, we need to give tax credits or education certificates to these people to allow them to learn job skills that will lift them out of poverty if these people have children we need to provide child care to allow them to attend school to aquire skills so they can become productive members of the workforce and lift themselves out of poverty, same with welfare we should give people on welfare childcare if they need it so they can either attend school or intern or volunteer somewhere where they can aquire job skills and develop connections to help their transition to the workforce.

    instead of spending the money killing people in Iraq and creating terrorists that hate us we should be putting money into education, childcare and healthcare as well as preparing our country better for disasters.

    We could be finding ways to keep health care costs down and insure the poor are able to get some type of medical treatment when needed, we could also be cultivating relationships between schools, businesses and welfare ofices to provide training, experiece and jobs for the poor to lift them out of poverty.

    aditionally if stimulation of the economy is needed it should go strictly to the poor or lower middle class who will spend it immediately as opposed to the wealthy who generally save refunds.

    ReplyDelete
  15. like I said before it should not be up to congress to raise the minimum wage every 5-10 years all big increases like that do is trigger inflation and increased unemployment and it doesnt help the very people it was designed to help, they need to set a living wage then index it to inflation (CPI) annually so people can not lose ground to inflation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A lot of employers especially in the service and leisure sectors can't afford to raise their rates or they'll lose business.

    They'll just let people go...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Voltair all those people have been raising their prices every year but just didn't have to raise the pay of their workers...electricity has gone up phone rates gone up feul costs gone up food costs gone up rents gone up...but not the pay of the lowest paid

    ReplyDelete
  18. clif,

    "The lowest paid" are usually young people starting out in life. As they grow and get experience they get raises and promotions.

    No person working for a living usually stays at the "lowest" level for very long.

    ReplyDelete
  19. By the way Mikey, I'm trying to be nice tonight, so I'll also agree with you about congress. However you did get one thing wrong. They don't vote to give themselves raises anymore. They made those automatic. They have to vote to STOP the raises from occuring.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not true for those who work in transient jobs that are usually minimun wage...and even so it should keep up with inflation...if congress thinks they need more then they should do as Jesus said and take care of the poor amoung us first...or is doing the christian thing not part of the repug party set of ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  21. clif, and the biggest reason all those have gone up is the one you hid in the middle there. Fuel costs have gone up. Affects EVERY sector of the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Volt, there is a lot of adults either working for the minimum wage or unemployed because they have no skills and no one seems to want to give them a chance to get skills or experiece.

    we need some programs to help them get those skills and experience and become productive members of the work force.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thus the MINIMUN wage should rise voltair it should be the miniumun one can live on

    ReplyDelete
  24. Good point volt, that ties in with my point that the minimum wage should be indexed to the CPI so they get automatic raises and keep pace with inflation as well.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thats fine clif. For individuals. I think what we need to do is repeal the "Raw Deal". Lets get the government back to taking care of the defense and infrastructure. Let's get them out of our back pocket and we'll ALL have more money. Even maybe to spend on charitable organizations. Encourage famillies to stay together and take care of their parents and grandparents like they used to in the good old days. Allow religeous organizations and charities to take care of the rest. And MAYBE the federal government if no one else is availible. But make my wallet the LAST place you look, not the FIRST.

    ReplyDelete
  26. clif,

    Do teenagers NEED enough money to live independently? Should we buy them all of them a house and a car as soon as they turn 16?

    ReplyDelete
  27. And Mike, WE ALREADY have those programs, they're called "schools".

    Maybe if they faced the prospect of being unemployable they'd study a little harder.

    And maybe it'd help if we'd actually TEACH them something useful in schools, instead of how evil corporations are, global warming and how the rainforest is disappearing, and making them read books like "Heather has two mommies"

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm talking college Voltaire do you have any idea how difficult it is to afford a college education now a days, are you trying to say college is only for the privleged????

    ReplyDelete
  29. Volt you are about as regressive as they come...it is about what you have to give up not what others need...and you look for the extremes...not the family where both parents work for minimun wage and what that does to them and their children...keep being so glutonous it be fits your repug troll status

    ReplyDelete
  30. BTW the best economic times were set up by Roosevelts new deal and trumans post WW@ econoimic policies...as well as the Clinton years...wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Might it be because progressives want the economic pie shared with all so all rise not just the richest who nowdays want to out source and deny a basic living wage to those they can't

    ReplyDelete
  32. And when repugs get control like they did in the 20's or now they break the bank and ruin the economy

    ReplyDelete
  33. The repugs only see their little world and worry about their bank accouynts not others like Christ TELLS them to

    ReplyDelete
  34. No voltaire we dont have programs to help the adult working poor or unemployed poor, and help them aquire skills or experiene or get medical treatment,are you saying "let them eat cake" or "let them die and decrease the surplus population", because thats sure what it sounds like, because these people werent wealthy or priverged enough to afford to go to college or dont have connections to get decent jobs should we just turn our backs on them because then theres more of the pie for us to stuff our face with.

    ReplyDelete
  35. But this is not a Christ like nation it is a modern repug christofascist serve money not God nation

    ReplyDelete
  36. BTW voltaire why are you so against taxes going up for the top wage earners???, your not even in the top bracket anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mike,
    If the government didn't tax you so much you could pay for college alot easier. (and they could probably LOWER their tuition if suppliers didn't HAVE to pass on the high costs of government regulations.)

    ReplyDelete
  38. WJD is supposed to be a modern christian message..well he would not agree with the fat catys in DC getting automatic raises and the poorest losing economic advantages every year..as well as medical and social safety nets...it is biblical to support them

    ReplyDelete
  39. people like you disgust me volt, its all about what you can take and whats best for your greedy kind, do you ever think of helping someone when there's nothing in it for you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Clif, It's not the GOVERNMENTS responsibility to live up to Christs example. Its governments job to provide infrastructure and defense.

    Besides that YOU GUYS are the ones who want "seperation of church and state".

    It's the INDIVIUALS responsibility to live up to Christs example. And we might do a better job of it than government can.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Volt you throw so many bullsh*t norquist talking points...everything is the governments fault according to your point...but the facts belie you.

    ReplyDelete
  42. so are you saying reduce taxes or eliminate taxes????

    and let me ask this how would you propose to reduce or eliminate taxes, as it would be political suicide for the incumbent party to reduce or eliminate entitlements, benefits and social programs and public services.

    ReplyDelete
  43. BUT Volt the government is made up of individuals...and the reich wingnuts CLAIM to be christian/\...hell Bush claims God talks to him...did Christ find that the Dow Jones was more important than the poor?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jesus do you people listen to yourselves?

    I guess by what you're trying to tell me here is that I don't have to worry about doing good works because my government is doing them for me with my money? How gracious of them.

    How much money do you think we should all give to the government?

    ReplyDelete
  45. And those who are crying for lower and lower tax rates...what level would be proper, volt what tax rates would be good to pay for the government and who makes up for what we must give up?

    ReplyDelete
  46. "people like you disgust me volt, its all about what you can take and whats best for your greedy kind"

    You guys have convinced me. Instead of giving to charities and religious organizations I'm just going to start giving everything I have to the government. I now realize that they know better how to spend my money than I do.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Not the government but the repug voters who support it...why are they crying about Money issues but not the issues that Jesus talked about?

    ReplyDelete
  48. You see Volt the reich wingnut christians supposedly voted because they want the kind of earth Christ preaxched about...but then why do the people they support not do as Christ commanded we do?

    ReplyDelete
  49. So if we wer going to do as Jesus commanded us to do we would make sure everyone had enough to live on and not have scores of homeless..and hungry children would we?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Because we know that is what HE preached about...not gay marriage...or burning a colored piece of cloth

    ReplyDelete
  51. Like I said before clif,

    No more than they need for infrastructure and defense.

    Anything else can come from:

    1. Famillies
    2. Charities
    3. Religeous Foundations
    4. Government
    (as a last resort only, and only for provable life sustaining needs.)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Volt said " guess by what you're trying to tell me here is that I don't have to worry about doing good works because my government is doing them for me with my money? How gracious of them."

    now your starting to scare me buddy if your saying the bush admin is cdoing good.

    ReplyDelete
  53. And Christ called for providing for the wodows and orphins...but we need not worry about that as a country just your tax rates and safety right volt?

    ReplyDelete
  54. clif,

    It's up them or us to make the earth Christ preached about.

    It's not up to the government.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Too bad that your list leaves so much out given tha fact that most poor people do nat make enough to provide for their childrens education...and the list is smallest ability to affect the problems first and the one with the greatset ability only last..just so Volt can be greedy right volt?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Volt said "clif,

    It's up them or us to make the earth Christ preached about.

    It's not up to the government.'

    thats rich coming from a guy who supports everything the Bush administration does as well as exterminating or converting and "deprogramming"=tortureing close to 2 billion people to say its up to us to make the eaarth Christ preached about.

    I dont think thats anywhere near the earth he preached about.

    ReplyDelete
  57. VOLT we are the government or we are supposed to be.....you reichwingnuts like to divide everything so you can throw away everything that does not directally benefit you

    ReplyDelete
  58. When it comes to "helping people" it doesn't matter if it's Republicans OR Democrats.

    It's NOT the governments job.
    (and if it WAS, how many cents on the dollar do you think ACTUALLY goes to helping anyone?)

    We as individuals can take care of our brethren and famillies better than a politician. Just leave us the money to do it with.

    And Mike? How about a "consumption tax"? Like a sales tax for instance. The rich, making larger and more purchases would pay more in taxes.

    But you HAVE to abolish the income tax first or they'd just end up taking BOTH.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Volt you are about as regressive as they come...it is about what you have to give up not what others need...and you look for the extremes...not the family where both parents work for minimun wage and what that does to them and their children...keep being so glutonous it be fits your repug troll statusof prewar poverty to help create the post war boom...but governments can never do anything right only private corporations like Enron...Worldcom...Tyco....et al...

    ReplyDelete
  60. Volt the compusion tax would become regressive because the poor spend most of their income on comsumption and the rich can spend theirs on ivnestments which would be declared exempt from the consumption tax since they are investments...another way to pass the burden to the poor the plan Bush has been using

    ReplyDelete
  61. The repugs lied about the estate tax...calling it a death tax...and lied about dividends taxes...the people getting the dividends NEVER paid any tax on them....but it is always about finding a way for the richest amoung us a way to avoid paying very much....none of them carry the tax burden that those making 25,000-80,000 have as a percentage of income...but they cry the loudest

    ReplyDelete
  62. They cry about their inbcome taxes...and never admit as a percentage the lower middle class pay MUCH more ...but they NEED that new vacation house...or fifth car...or extra long vacation instead of carrying the same share of the tax burden, as the less well off do....

    ReplyDelete
  63. Damn! You guys REALLY ARE afraid someone might just be able to take care of themselves...

    It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with "greed". The government is neither efficient nor wise about where or how they spend money. And as long as it's availible they'll keep spending it.
    And if it isn't theirs, they don't really care if they get the best returns on it.

    YOU or I can give to our famillies, friends and even donate to charities for needy strangers. And if they spend it foolishly, we can take that money away and give it to another person or charity who uses it more wisely.

    The government NEVER has nor shows that it EVER WILL. Matter of fact if one of their programs doesn't get a good return on the money they just RAISE their budget!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous7:58 PM

    THERE ARE 2.5 MORE CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY IN AMERICA THAN THERE WERE 4 YEARS AGO.

    ReplyDelete
  65. But they do have rush and Mann to spew lies in their behalf and politicians like cunningham..delay...noe et al to bribe to get what they want...they just call it campaign donations not bribes....

    ReplyDelete
  66. Yes clif, and they'd pay a pretty big sales tax on that second house or fifth car too....

    ReplyDelete
  67. I dont think you can do either or with the consumption tax Volt, aside from a few big purchases like a yacht or plane or house, what do the rich buy that the poor dont, think of it like a car or motorcycle, they all both have the same essential components like an engine and a frame and tires, just like the rich and poor both must buy the essentials like food, clothing, shelter, gas, heat etc... what i'm saying is aside from a few big purchases here and there, proportionaly the rich dont spend that much more than the poor.

    Also what happens if the rich make all or most of their major purchases like yachts, planes, cars etc.. overseas to avoid the consumption tax.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous8:03 PM

    Churches are not providing enough in tithes.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Volt the government could be made to be more effecient if the repugs wanted to...but they want to do as Grover Norquist said to starve it until he could dround it in a bathtub...given the size of the government it could be much more effecient...thaty is the corporate mantra...size creates effecientcy...and if the repugs were more concerned about actually solving problems like ppoverty and educating the people thery would work to create effecient programs instead of creating situations l;ike defense contractors who get overpaid and starving programs that do not haver large political donators

    ReplyDelete
  70. Volt said ". The government is neither efficient nor wise about where or how they spend money. And as long as it's availible they'll keep spending it.

    This at least I agree with, particularly regarding the Bush Administration.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I really don't know how to argue with people who think bloated inefficient government bureacracies can spend their money better than they themselves can.

    This basically boils down to a cynical pessimistic view of humanity. Not to mention what it says about YOU.

    You think if people actually got to keep their money they'd just blow it all on themselves without another thought to anyone else.

    Because you KNOW that's what YOU'D do.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Volt only large entities can get at root causes of extreme poverty like Lyndon Johnson saw in Appalachia in 1964...where corporate mining companies kept the miners in poverty levelk conditions...or what is happening with outsourcing where major companies leave for lower wage countries and nothinbg exists except for government services...but continue to believe that the problem is small enough to be dealt with a good brother or local church

    ReplyDelete
  73. So much for your "christlike" example.

    ReplyDelete
  74. If you want to believe that corporateions are the model of effeciently and government is never it make me believe you think that only good people go to the private sector..and bad to government..at least that is the jist of what you have been arguing

    ReplyDelete
  75. Well then clif, LETS create a large entity OUTSIDE of the government that we can donate to.
    One that WE control, one that doesn't have to worry about electioneering or politics.

    Let's make donations volutary instead of under threat of prison at the end of a 1040.
    That way WE have the satisfaction of giving and knowing we have made a difference rather than wondering what the hell the government is doing with all our money.

    ReplyDelete
  76. People make up both the corporate world and government

    Cheney was in government for a long time and haliburton for a short time before running as Bush #2

    McNamara was at Ford before sec def for kennedy and johnson and the world bank

    O Neil was at alcola..Snow CSX...the new sec of treasury at goldman sacks

    wonder what happens when the go from the corporate world to government service...do they unlearn everything or do they have to take a special; secret oath to not be effecient? can you tell me volt?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Volt said;

    Well, it's $5.15 everywhere now. You want to make it different from state to state? Or even area to area

    Actually thats exactly what they should do. After all, 40,000 per year will go a lot farther in Rural Indiana than it will in Central LA, or Washington DC.

    A lot further. In fact, if we had an exchange rate, it would be like 3 to 1.

    So a sliding scale based on geographic regions is not a bad idea.

    We just need to make sure someone that knows something about median incomes in the US needs to be designating the area boundaries.

    And bi yearly reviews would be pivotal.

    ReplyDelete
  78. How about the American Red Cross?
    How many hundreds of millions did they raise after 9/11?

    Only make it more transparent and answerable to US. Maybe make it mandatory that the leadership change every year so no one person can corrupt it for his or her own personal gain.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Problem with that volt is who gets to decide how to spend the money...who regulates how much must be provided to the problem and how much to "overhead".

    And what problems do they have to continue year after yerar not to leave anybody lost like thge repugs love to do by slashing programs for the poor to give more tax breaks for thr richest

    ReplyDelete
  80. Why does it have to be "either" government or corporate? How about charitable organizations?

    ReplyDelete
  81. here's my solution volt, think of all the money that could have been saved if we had never gone into iraq volt, why they could have cut the deficit, maybe even continued the surplus, they could have helped the poor etc....

    ReplyDelete
  82. Or at least every 3 years. The reviews would cost money, but not if they just get someone to take the data from, oh say a Newsweek cost of living article and go from their. You know. The 50 most expensive cities in the US.

    Hell they could get Ralph Nader to do the salary comparisons. Thats right up his ally.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Volt the problems of the poor will take much more money than the "charitable" can gather even in good times...and in poor economic times they are needed more as contributions slow down...not a good formula for sucess

    ReplyDelete
  84. Clif, do you HONESTLY THINK that charity is the government taking your money under threat?

    Isn't charity something PERSONAL that an individual should do?

    And stop with the republicans crap. BOTH parties do it.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Sorry. I'm kinda out of step here.

    ReplyDelete
  86. and what if the greedy dont fund those organizations adaquately then the poor suffer as well as socirty due to increased crime and violence, see the poor wonr appease you by dying to decrease the surplus pooulation, they will rob and murder and riot etc.... the rich will pay a price as well as the poor for neglecting those cin need.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Worf, read my earlier post here it is

    like I said before it should not be up to congress to raise the minimum wage every 5-10 years all big increases like that do is trigger inflation and increased unemployment and it doesnt help the very people it was designed to help, they need to set a living wage then index it to inflation (CPI) annually so people can not lose ground to inflation.

    ReplyDelete
  88. NO Volt you idiot the government is making sure there is enough money like when Roosevelt and Johnson started the programs because the charties couldnot do enough with the ptiiance they had....you are so stupid or your a paid stooge...because the private solutions were tried before and found wanting...and human nature has not changed...people will never voluntarily give enough to solve problems year after year..and the poor will bve the ones left holding the short end of the stick...but at least Volt gets to be greedy which is what you are crying about you do not get to keep enough andf let others pay for it...as long as your fat ass is not involved

    ReplyDelete
  89. Voltair Your a greedy repug troll enough said

    ReplyDelete
  90. see adjusting the minimum wage every 5-10 years with a big increase is a shock to the economy and doesnt help the very people it is intended to help, the poor and the lower middle class actually lose ground economically because employers pass on the wage increases by raising prices and inflation makes the wage gains moot, in fact most of the time the poor and lower middle class actually lose ground when wages are adjusted for inflation in big jumps like that, and thats not even factoring in the increased layoffs and unemployment as a result of the higher minimum wage.

    They need to automatically index the minimum wage to the annual CPI rate just like social security and raise it anually the same percentace as the CPI increases annually so the poor keep pace with inflation instead of losing ground.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Clif,

    This is simple math. Yes the middle class pays MORE in taxes in total dollars because there are more of them.
    And they got MORE in total dollars in their refund because there are more of them. It just got divided into the much larger number of them resulting in LESS per person.

    The "rich" pay a much higher percentage. Therefore even though they actually got back LESS in total dollars than the middle class, it was divided up by the fewer number of them and was MORE per person.

    What was REALLY amusing was when Daschle and Gephardt had their little press conference holding up a muffler and telling everyone that the rich got back a Lexus and the middle class got back a muffler.

    What they neglected to mention is the rich PAID about 5 Lexus'es, Lexi, Lexies, ah whatever, you get my drift....

    And the poor are getting tax refunds although they pay no taxes. How do you REFUND something you never got in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Why do those wonderful members of Congress, the Senate and our "Compassionate Conservative" leader, who are each wealthy beyond measure, deny giving America's poorest working people a raise?

    These wonderful elected representatives, spend more on drinks at the Congressional hangout, than those on minumum wage earn in a year.

    These wonderful elected representatives, spend more on the beauty parlor for their wives and mistresses, than minimum wage workers make in a year.

    What kind of America do we now have? It is an America that allows its elected leaders to care more about how much they have to spend, instead of how a single mother can pay the rent on minimum wage.

    This type of America is exactly what Bush and the Republicans have dreamed of for years.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Volt idiot I said as a precentage not actual dollars...thus as a percentage the lower middle class pay more in total tax rates Income plus SS than any millionair ever does...and those facts can not be denied

    ReplyDelete
  94. my last post for the night,

    "Voltaire said...

    I really don't know how to argue with people who think bloated inefficient government bureacracies can spend their money better than they themselves can.

    This basically boils down to a cynical pessimistic view of humanity. Not to mention what it says about YOU.

    You think if people actually got to keep their money they'd just blow it all on themselves without another thought to anyone else.

    Because you KNOW that's what YOU'D do.

    8:07 PM

    ReplyDelete
  95. Voltaire what about the rich only paying social security on the first $94,000 of income while the middle class and poor pay SS on their entire salary, are you telling me it would be a hardship for Bill gates to pay SS on his entire income just like Joe Shmoe making minimum wage and trying to raise a family of five does.

    ReplyDelete
  96. yeah volt conviently left social security out of the equation.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Voltaire said...

    Mikey, I gave up debating.
    You neo-hippies don't care about facts anyway. You just spit out crap to try to twist the knife you put in your country's back anyway.

    I quit posting for quite awhile because you all disgusted me so much with your anti-american BS.

    I just came back to make fun of you for pure entertainments sake...

    which is what you have been doing all night right numbnuts

    ReplyDelete
  98. volt said"You think if people actually got to keep their money they'd just blow it all on themselves without another thought to anyone else.

    Because you KNOW that's what YOU'D do.



    no actually I know thats what you'd do.

    ReplyDelete
  99. OK, I lied.

    One more thought...

    Don't tell ME about Christ.

    I don't think CHRIST would bless you as being charitable and generous because your government was taking your money from you under threat of prison and giving a tiny bit to the needy.

    If there's a blessing for generousity and charity it'd ONLY be for freely giving PERSONALLY from the heart.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Mike he also leaves out the fact that everytime the repugs cut some program the replacement by the private sector costs the poor more than the program cut did...and the money is now collecting in the pockets of somebody who will use money to get the government to keep the new status quo

    ReplyDelete
  101. Mike,

    The poor and middle class only have to pay SS on the first $94,000 of THEIR income too...

    ReplyDelete
  102. you clowns arent qualified to run a lemonade stand, unfortunately we are stuck with you running our country for 8 years, 14 years if you count congress and believe me our country has paid the price for your incompetence.

    ReplyDelete
  103. How'd that welfare reform go?

    You know, the one Hillary brags her husband was responsible for?

    I haven't heard much about how Clinton increased the poverty level...

    ReplyDelete
  104. Volt it is not the government that I raised the questions about Christ ...but those who claim to operate in his name who actually do not do as he said....like putting care for the poor above their money...because he did say what you do to the least of these you do to me....thus with their zelous lock on gathering more and more money in the tax cuts and cutting programs for the poor they are in effect doing that to the least of us thus HIM......

    ReplyDelete
  105. And your wonderboy Clinton RAISED the taxes on the poor!

    ReplyDelete
  106. The Senators and members of Congress have no problem arranging for airline tickets at taxpayers expense.

    These same officials have no problem getting food allowances for themselves at taxpayers expense.

    These same elected officials have no problem allowing taxpayers to pay for dinner and a few drinks for themselves and their "companions".

    These same elected officials have a problem forcing businesses, to pay their workers more money so they can pay for the higher cost of living.

    Isn't there something wrong with this picture of Bush's America?

    ReplyDelete
  107. It's voltairs vision of America too just look at his posts

    ReplyDelete
  108. I STILL say it is NOT the governments job to care for the poor or needy. It's done to get votes, and it's a subversion of the constitution.
    You want corruption out of government? Get the MONEY out of government.

    That's FDR's legacy.

    They're supposed to provide for the "General" welfare...ie: infrastructure.

    Not the SPECIFIC welfare of old Mrs. Brown nextdoor. That's her family, friends, neighbors, or churches responsibility. ie: The Individual

    ReplyDelete
  109. Voltair give it up your way was tried for over 100 years in this country and found wanting....but continue to bloviate on your greed

    ReplyDelete
  110. Hey Larry,

    Would you rather have them making minimum wage or unemployed?

    Or perhaps we could have the government force employers to keep them on as well. Then when the employers go broke, we the taxpayers can be forced to support a business thats no longer profitable...

    ReplyDelete
  111. Volt the government enforces many regulations on everybody..because some people do not do that which is right like Bush's buddies at Enron..(you know the guys who loaned georgie their corporate plane before he declared and couldn't use it any more)

    Or like GM the company that invented the air bag but let thousands die needlessly until the government mandated it to be installed in cars....GM was worried about the costs or the airbag

    ReplyDelete
  112. Kinda like ol "gray out Davis" did with the power companies in Cali...

    First, you libs demanded no new power plants be built. (why that'd destroy the environment) Then you put a cap on how much power companies can charge customers, but you can't cap what they have to pay THEIR suppliers. Then when they can't pay THEIR bills anymore the lights go out.

    But you can sure bitch when they do ....LOL

    ReplyDelete
  113. The 1990's under Clinton were the only decade the poor's real wages adjusted for inflation increased since the 1960's if you are attacking how the poor faired under Clinton, then you are a fool Voltaire.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Oh, airbags... Are those the explosive devices which kill children and petite women in crashes?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Or those polluters at Love canal that got the superfund strarted...or the cigarette industry which lied for years, and now even repugs cry when somebody sues the ghouls there because .."everybody knew" but up to thje tobbacco settlement the tobbacco lobby denied any connection...and now some of the same scientists run a site called "junk science" pimping themselves in the global warming debate....the only junk science is what they are paid to declare....

    but only the gopvernment is bad RIGHT? Because you have to contribute along with the rest of us.....

    ReplyDelete
  116. Actually Mike, the poor did pretty good under Reagan as well.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

    ReplyDelete
  117. Voltair airbages have saved many more people but do find every exception so you can look stupider than you do right now...

    ReplyDelete
  118. Poor poor voltair troll reduced to attempting to mock that which he can not actually openly debate.....and use repug smear tactics to belittle people you disagree with

    ReplyDelete
  119. Oh, Steve Milloy's site. Brilliant man.

    ReplyDelete
  120. OK, OK, You're right. Only big government can save us. Hell if we're gonna save the world we'll need an even bigger one. How about just turning the whole thing over to the UN right now?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Volty using an article from the middle of Clinton's years that leave off the best years good troll tactic...but DISHONEST

    ReplyDelete
  122. There was a thing going on awhile back where the UN was wanting to tax US citizens too...Man that'd be heaven on earth wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  123. October 22, 1996

    Clinton had 4 more years...and if I obmitted reragans last 4 years he would not even look as good as they tried to make him

    ReplyDelete
  124. We could just turn EVERYTHING over to the government, that'd be just like...a....a

    COMMUNISM?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Volt using a troll reich wingnut tactic statistics that are cherry picked wonder where he learned that

    ReplyDelete
  126. It wasn't ABOUT CLINTOON jerkwad. It was ABOUT Reagan.....

    I'm sorry, I guess EVERYTHING has to be about the second coming...I mean Clinton of course....

    ReplyDelete
  127. And the article COMBINES bush 41 with Clinton to bring Clinton's stats down...but Cato would not be dishomnnest would they

    ReplyDelete
  128. I'm bored. You one world government types tire me. GOODNIGHT.

    ReplyDelete
  129. No IDIOT it was the fact that you claimed something which is slanted because the historical cut off points makes reagan look better...by cutting off Clintons best economic years and combining Bush abnd Clinton and also combining Ford with carter...good troll tactic

    ReplyDelete
  130. Don't go away mad troll boy just go away

    ReplyDelete
  131. 1996-2000 was among the highest economic growth and lowest inflation we have ever had in the post WW2 USA, funny how that study convieniently left that out.

    I've read numerous books and articles that stated that the 1990's were the best decade for the poor since the 1960's and the only decade since then the poor had real wage gains when adjusted for inflation.

    ReplyDelete
  132. And Idiot I never said anything about ONE world government YOU did all the posting about that I was for the US government helping solve US citizens problems givenm the fact that the economy is changing faste4r than local entities both private and government can handle...but you expolaite everything to fit your talking points or spin to make you look like you know anything

    ReplyDelete
  133. Voltair lost the debate so he changes what he posts about and claim we are for it....good troll boy KKKarl will let you use your knee pads...instead of analmouse boy

    ReplyDelete
  134. that study was slanted to make reagan look like a hero, now i'm not saying reagan was a bad president , but I find it interesting how repugs try to portray him as the a hero and there best president ever, but I guess with some of your other shining stars like GWB, and nixon and Bush senior he would look like a saint and hero, when the bar is so low that your comparing a decent average president to slimy criminals I guess he does deserve to be on a pedastal when the bar is that low.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Mile long after bush either one is gone they will be praising the senile depends guy

    ReplyDelete
  136. Mike. I see your point, but what I am referring to is a sliding scale minimum wage.

    The review I am talking about is a review to benchmark and gauge the median incomes and cost of living factors in a given area, not to increase the wage every two years. In fact you might lower it, based on the analysis findings. In most cases there will likely be no change on that frequent of a basis.

    The reason I stress the reviews is that it is common to base poverty levels and such based on outdated or non pertinent data due to geographic variables.

    Now understand. I am not talking about a simple system. I am talking about a system that sets the minimum wage for an area based on a variety of factors.

    A simple example would go something like this.

    If a middle class house in suburban Virginia costs an average of $475,000 and the average cost of the same home in Pocatello Idaho is only 68,000 dollars, then obviously someone making minimum wage in Idaho does not need to make the same amount per hour to enjoy the same standard of living as a person in Virginia would.

    Now that is the base of the idea only. My plan would include several variable factors that would go into the calculations for a region, including average prices of automobiles, gasoline, rents, and the median salary for the area in various industries.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Worfeus the government already does this with the cost of living adjustments that they pay to military members doing usually recruiting duty who can not live on base...they have already figured the seperate cost of living for every area of the country and pay an adjustment for the higher cost areas right now

    ReplyDelete
  138. Now if it sounds like it would be too complicated, in practice I do not think so.

    This data is already available in the public medium, and vehicles can be put in place to gather this data, much of it automatically.

    The calculations themselves would be provided by software, which would not be a major issue to develop.

    This would result, in a guy in Pocatater Idaho making 6.50 per hour at Burger King, and guy doing the same Job in Mclean Virginia making 17.50 per hour.

    Keep in mind that this would mean a change from the businesses themselves, in their own cost structures. A cheesburger in Pocatello should not cost what a cheeseburger in Arlington Virgina costs. (actually the price structures already vary in some Franchises, but this might need to be increased to offset wage variables).

    Now of course no one working at Burger King should expect to be living in a Split Level in the burbs, which is why I also endorse the idea of factoring in age groups into the equation. A 17 year old zit faced kid would not need to earn the same as a 35 year old women. The 35 year old has greater needs, and should recieve higher wages. This factor will also serve to offset the cost increases for businesses.

    Federal law would have to set standards, that also take into consideration the nature of a business to determine the age diversity of their employment base.

    Standards would not have to be rigid, but certainly defining, in order to ensure businesses don't run out older employees in favor of younger, cheaper labor, which of course is being done today by companies like Walmart.

    I know it all sounds like a lot, but believe me its doable.

    ReplyDelete
  139. clif said...
    Worfeus the government already does this with the cost of living adjustments that they pay to military members doing usually recruiting duty who can not live on base...they have already figured the seperate cost of living for every area of the country and pay an adjustment for the higher cost areas right now


    See? There you go.

    Once again the military is a step ahead.

    That means the data is already there, not just in the public sector like I was saying, but in the Military and therefore the government has access to it.

    Maybe they should use it?

    ReplyDelete
  140. ballplayer said "Minimum wage jobs virtually never include health insurance coverage (as noted here and here), although that is changing in some parts of the USA where the cost of living is high, such as California, and at some companies."

    ballplayer, I just noticed you brought up the healthcare issue even before I addressed it, that is an excellent point, and one that should be focussed on just as much if not more than the minimum wage. The minimum wage should not be left to congress to decide, it should automatically be adjusted annually according to the CPI just as social security is, further congress's raises should be tied to the CPI as well and adjusted annually and they should not have a special retirement, they should have social security and a regular pension just like other government employees.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Do you like this idea Clif?

    I'm just curious.

    I think its really the best way to go. As we balance out the economy, and spread the wealth out, watch the crime rates drop, and society flourish.

    I believe it could work.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Mike I just read your 6:46 post and it seems like were on very close pages?

    ReplyDelete
  143. Healthcare is important to, but personally I don't think about it as much.

    I think affordable housing, which means a commensurate wage, would stop more crime.

    When a man has a home, he tends to be more responsible, and a better, happier citizen.

    No American should not have a home, or apartment.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Worfeus I will go you one better...Walmart does not charge the same in everyone of their stores...I have been to several around KY and have noticed the different prices for the same items...asked somebody and they told me Walmart prices based on the local economy which is the same as pricing based on a cola....(Cost of living adjustment)...so if wally world can do it the government does it seems they could do it for the cost of living for the poor

    ReplyDelete
  145. Worfeus, what you say seems to make sense, however my question is if that were the case I could see a lot of companies employing low wage manufacturing and service people moving to the town or city next door that has a lower wage, like take Santa Fe for instance, I could see lots of manufacturing and service jobs moving to another small city in New Mexico ot Texas where the minimum wage is $7 an hour instead of $10.

    See right now alot of high cost of living cities like Santa Fe or many cities in South Florida pay way over the current minimum to get workers because they need to with the high cost of living, that being said i'm sure there are plenty of cities that should be paying higher minimum wages but wont unless forced to.

    I would like to see an independent unbiased study to see which system would prove superior and what the repercussions and side effects of each plan would be to real inflation adjusted wages as well as the local economy.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Mike said...
    Worfeus, what you say seems to make sense, however my question is if that were the case I could see a lot of companies employing low wage manufacturing and service people moving to the town or city next door that has a lower wage, like take Santa Fe for instance, I could see lots of manufacturing and service jobs moving to another small city in New Mexico ot Texas where the minimum wage is $7 an hour instead of $10


    Well that might not be such a bad thing.

    After all, right now they're going to Pakistan and Brazil to do the same thing. At least we'd put a stop to the "outsourcing of America", not to mention stimulating the economy in those smaller, poorer towns where a middle aged moderalty skilled worker hasn't a prayer in hell of doing anything other than living in his Mother in Laws basement and suplementing his income by mowing lawns.

    Spread the wealth out. Spread the population out.

    We've got too many people crammed into the big city regions now.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Found this on a web site a comparison of the democrats plan and repug plan

    The democrats;


    -to raise the minimum wage to $7.25
    -to make college tuition tax deductible
    -to cut the interest rates of student loans by 50%
    -to eliminate subsidies to oil and gas companies
    -to impose lobbying restrictions
    -to negotiate lower drug prices in the Medicare prescription plan
    -to maintain social security
    -to increase funding for stem-cell research
    -to restore the pay-as-you-go policy for federal budgets
    -to reduce oil consumption 25% by 2020 through development of fuel alternatives
    -to help millions of illegal immigrants work towards U.S. citizenship
    -to shore up homeland security
    -to bring the troops home from Iraq "at the earliest practicable time"

    The repugs;

    to keep the minimum wage at $5.15 for another ten years
    -to continue giving fat tax breaks to their oil company pals
    -to destroy social security
    -to reduce funding for health, education and social services across-the-board
    -to continue spending like drunken sailors in a whorehouse
    -to restrict spending on stem-cell research
    -to continue allowing the drug and oil companies to make federal policy
    -to continue giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers
    -to eliminate the estate tax (and $1 trillion in revenue in the process)
    -to deny homosexuals the right to marry
    -to send illegal immigrants to jail
    -to make sure that "English is the official language of the United States"
    -to outlaw flag-burning
    -to continue sending troops to die in an unjust war, squandering precious military and financial resources that could be used to hunt down and fight our real enemy, Al Qaeda.


    But they have the better ideas..just ask them...

    http://www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com/#62006

    ReplyDelete
  148. Mike

    I would like to see an independent unbiased study to see which system would prove superior and what the repercussions and side effects of each plan would be to real inflation adjusted wages as well as the local economy.

    Obviously you don't live in DC, or you'd know the best way to kill a good plan, is to launch a study.

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  149. Uhhh Clif?

    I'll take PLAN A.

    ReplyDelete
  150. I'm just kidding Mike.

    Actually they could base a progression model on a computer program, and demonstrate possible scenarios.

    But all of it would be speculation until we see how people react, and how well we can enforce it.

    But thats "MY" plan anyway.

    I'm still waiting for Bush's plan.

    Oh wait. He already offered his plan. He gave us all 300 bucks each back in 01. That was his idea.

    ReplyDelete
  151. FLAVIUS WORFEUS said...

    Uhhh Clif?

    I'll take PLAN A.

    Worf so would the vast majority of regular americans if they would put the two lists side by side...but Rove is trying to make the war the story claiming if we do not stay the course then we have lost the money we already lost and all those deaths would be in vain...

    like the deaths would mean more if we get more soldiers and marines killed?

    But KKkarl is pushing for the repugs to run their campaign on the war and he is traveling the country making his chicken-hawk speeches...same for rush the anal cyst reject or good ole dead eye 5 deferments...they know that the war has been very good for their spin machine and are trying for the third time to use it to buffalo the base

    ReplyDelete
  152. What I'm afraid of Clif is that Al Qauida is going to launch a massive attack of some sort, even lots of IEDS or suicide trucks and take out a large number of soldiers and possibly higher ups, to show the power of the new leader who replaced Zarqawi and show us they are alive and well.

    I am worried it is going to take something like that to get the momentum going to act now, and bring our guys home.

    And it really sucks if thats what it takes, and we have to wait until a large number die before Bush sees the light.

    Like I said almost a year ago now, the only way the President knows to honor the sacrifice of our troops, is to sacrifice more troops.

    ReplyDelete
  153. yeah, i'm sure giving $300 to Bill gates, Warren Buffett, Dick Cheney, Or Don Rumsfeld really made a difference in their lives and did wonders for the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  154. but Clif, thats what the democrats need to do if they want to take back congres and the presidency, they need to frame the issues like that and come up with coherent arguments and debating points, and when the repug troll machine tries to paint them into a corner or make em look stupid, they need to hit them back hard with everything they got and show how empty and weak the repg arguments and talking points really are.

    ReplyDelete
  155. And we need to fire all the BUMS who voted against the Kerry Feingold ammendment today, and Fire anyone voting for Bush.

    Like Lieberman.

    Everytime the Dems get a little momentum, one of the Democrats has to step up and throw a wrench in it.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I think the minimum wage should be $99 per hour. This would give everyone a "living wage" of at least $200,000 per year. Anything less would be inhumane. Think of the poor children, then vote your conscience you eevil Congress persons. What would Jesus do?

    /channelling bonehead, bleeding heart libs who think "economics" has something to do with baking cakes and such

    ReplyDelete
  157. FF how is the view with your head shoved so far up your a$$

    ReplyDelete
  158. Worfeus what I fear is repeats of the kidnapping and killing of the Two US troops...they planned the move to capture troops and they suceeded this time...they will not stop...and the troops who man the checkpoints can be overwhelmed by eight or ten insurgents, either they will be killed in the initial raid...or worse if they survive the capture

    But the neo-con idiots don't think about troops...Tony Snow said it...it is just a number to them

    ReplyDelete
  159. Hey Clif! I can see your house from here!

    ReplyDelete
  160. How about the fact that Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman said, "We regard the minimum wage as one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books." Friedman and the overwhelming majority of economists say that minimum-wage laws hurt the very people that proponents seek to help -- minorities, teenagers and female heads of families.

    Or how about the 1987 New York Times editorial, "The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00"? The editorial in the liberal paper urged the abolition of the minimum wage, arguing, "An increase in the minimum wage ... would increase employers' incentive to evade the law, expanding the underground economy. More important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers, and fewer will be hired."

    How about the unemployment rate for black teens, age 16 to 19, which now stands at 30.1 percent? Before minimum-wage laws, the black and white teenage employment rates were about the same. After minimum-wage laws, however, black teens experienced greater unemployment than white teens.

    Or how about when Congress raised the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $4.75 an hour? From third quarter 1996 to first quarter 1997 (when the rate kicked in), teenagers, blacks and women heading families all experienced greater unemployment. And this during a period of over-all job growth! Allen Reynolds, director of economic research at the Hudson Institute, writes, "Such a sudden rise in the national unemployment rate would be front-page news. But when only teens, blacks and single moms are affected, it apparently does not attract much attention or sympathy."

    For over 30 years, my dad ran a cafe near downtown Los Angeles. Whenever Congress hiked the minimum wage, I watched my parents sit at the kitchen table with pen and pad and make decisions. The goal of hiring a new dishwasher? Not now. Raises for the waitresses? Postponed. Prices? Must raise them, even though this always triggered several weeks of business falloff.

    Studies show that most people hired at the minimum wage get increases within a matter of months. Many fast food executives started out flipping burgers. And the image of a guy with a family of four working a minimum-wage job? It is just that -- an image. Most minimum-wage earners are teens and secondary household wage earners.

    -Larry Elder

    ReplyDelete
  161. Minimum wage laws are enacted by liberal politicians to buy the votes of folks capable of feeling a great deal of "compassion".

    However such folks either lack a fundamental understanding, or carry a deep distrust, of the awesome power of a free market economy.

    For you libs, please answer this question: Why do the vast majority of folks earn far above the minimum wage?

    Minimum wage laws create unemployment. It is no accident that Europe has an abundance of both.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Who Wins With a Higher Minimum Wage

    by Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and Edith Rasell

    In spite of the growing economy of the 1990s, the squeeze on family incomes that began in the 1980s has been made even tighter. According to the latest data, the only families able to achieve any income growth between 1989 and 1993 were the best-off 5% of families. Moreover, median family income fell four years in a row after 1989, the longest income decline in the post-war period. The years 1991-93 also marked the first time that incomes declined during the first two years of an economic recovery (Mishel and Bernstein 1994). It is highly unlikely that middle-class incomes rose much, or at all, between 1993 and 1994 since the median weekly wages of full-time workers, both men and women, failed to keep up with inflation.

    This persistent economic squeeze on families is the consequence of the continuing deterioration of real wages for the vast majority of workers and the dramatic growth in the wage gap between high-wage workers and those earning middle or low wages. Not surprisingly, economic policy debates have centered on what, if anything, government can do to reverse these adverse trends. An interest in higher wages has also been generated by the need to "make work pay" so that welfare recipients can be shifted into jobs.



    Minimum-wage earners are primarily women (57.9%), have full-time jobs (47.2%) or work between 20 and 35 hours weekly (33.3%), are disproportionately black (15%) or Hispanic (13.8%), and are concentrated in the low-wage retail sector (44.3%).
    Minimum-wage earners are frequently the only earner in their family (38.8%) and, on average, contribute half of their family's earnings.
    Only 11.7% of the beneficiaries of a higher minimum wage are teenagers in families with above-average incomes.
    The Clinton administration proposal only partially restores the deterioration in the minimum wage since 1979: in 1996, after two $.45 increases, the minimum wage would still be 14% below its purchasing power in 1979.
    A higher minimum wage will help reverse the growth of wage inequality that occured over the 1979-93 period, especially among women.

    ReplyDelete
  163. FACT SHEET ON MINIMUM WAGE

    Business and Professional Women/USA has been a strong advocate in the legislative battle to increase the federal minimum wage. At the current level, established in 1996, workingwomen bringing home a minimum wage salary do not have the resources to provide for their families, and 60.9% of workers earning between $5.15 and $7.00 per hour are women.

    MINIMUM WAGE AND WORKING FAMILIES

    • In 2002, approximately 2.6 million full-time, year-round workers lived in poverty.

    • A full-time worker on minimum wage earns approximately $10,712 a year, $1,778 below the 2004 poverty line for a family of two, $4,958 below the poverty line for a family of three, and $8,138 below the poverty line for a family of four.

    • Nearly 75% of all minimum wage earners are adults (20 years and older).

    • 40% of minimum wage earners are the sole breadwinners in their families.

    • Nearly 50% of minimum wage earners work full time.

    • The real value of today’s minimum wage is 44% below its peak in 1968 due to inflation.

    • Raising the minimum wage to $7.00 would put more than $3,800 a year in the pockets of full-time, year-round workers, increasing their income by 36%. It would also raise the wages of 7.4 million workers, or 5.9% of the workforce.

    DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

    • The United States now has the most uneven distribution of income and wealth of any industrialized nation.

    • In the past 20 years, 80 percent of the income increase in the United States has gone to the top 20 percent – most of it to the top one percent.

    • The average CEO in the United States makes $5,300 an hour – more than 1000 times the hourly minimum wage.

    • In 1998, the average-paid CEO earned in two hours the amount a minimum wage worker earns in an entire year.

    • If the average minimum wage had grown as much as the average CEO salary over the past five years, the minimum wage would now be $23 per hour.

    MINIMUM WAGE AND THE ECONOMY

    • The low-wage workers most affected by the minimum wage increase are consumers who are more likely than higher-wage workers to spend their additional earnings on necessary goods and services.

    • Adjusted for inflation, the stock market has gone up by over 150 percent since 1968 – while the purchasing power of the minimum wage has declined by 30 percent.

    • Full-time workers increased productivity by 20 percent since 1978, but are getting 8.6 percent less compensation.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Nice try Freedom Fool but your statement that most minimum wage earners are teens is garbage,you didnt even post a link to support your bogus statement, you trolls are really getting kinda lazy, all lies and propaganda.

    facts to repugs are like kryptonite to superman.

    ReplyDelete
  165. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  166. FF said "Minimum wage laws create unemployment. It is no accident that Europe has an abundance of both."

    It is also no accident that Europe has far fewer poor and working poor than we do, and a far smaller disproportionate gap between the ultra wealthy and the poor. In Europe Ceo's dont make 400-1000 times what the common worker makes. thats a diservice to sharholders that wealthy investors are up in arms over as well, these Ceo's and executives are picking the shareholders pockets just as they are their rank and file workers, the pie is not just for the elite few FF.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Clif said;


    Worfeus what I fear is repeats of the kidnapping and killing of the Two US troops


    I know there will be more.

    Why?

    Cause I know what I'd to to an invading armies soldiers that invaded Virginia and took over our government.

    I'd kill them ANY way I could.

    I'd burn them alive in their own tanks.

    So if I'D do that, imagine what these people will do.

    ReplyDelete
  168. I fear something terrible is going to happen, I look at the alleged terrorist plot to blow up the sears tower that was supposedly foiled and what happened last week like Clif said, and my gut tells me something terrible is going to happen to justify some part of the repug agenda they want to push through and to put the focus on fear of terrorism for the elections.

    This sounds crazy, but I had a terrible and bizaire dream last night, and I never dream more than a few times a year, I just FEEL something bad is going to happen even if its behind the scenes and we dont know about it.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Well that sears tower thing sounds like another Red Herring to me.

    I know what you mean about dreams though Mike.

    I think something big is going to happen in Iraq. I'm not sure what, but I can't see this new leader coming in like a mouse. I think he will try to establish himself as a lion.

    ReplyDelete
  170. But what you are talking about, the "inside job".

    That ones got my attention.

    ReplyDelete
  171. A Look at Republican Priorities: Afflicting the Afflicted

    At the same time that Republicans are fighting to exempt the richest estates from taxes, they are blocking a raise for the nation's poorest workers.

    Senate Democrats tried unsuccessfully this week to raise the federal minimum wage, which stands at just $5.15 an hour. It has not been increased in nearly a decade, and at its current stingy level, the rate flies in the face of Americans' belief that those who work hard and play by the rules will be rewarded. A minimum-wage worker earns just $10,700 a year, nearly $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. Since the minimum wage was first adopted, there has been a long tradition of bipartisan support for regular raises. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush all signed increases into law. Americans across the political spectrum strongly support the minimum wage, and believe it should be significantly higher. A recent poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 83 percent of Americans favored increasing the minimum wage by $2.

    Nevertheless, since 1997 minimum-wage increases have regularly been blocked in Congress. The restaurant industry and other low-wage employers that make heavy campaign contributions have thrown their weight around with great success. A bill sponsored by Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to increase the minimum wage by $2.10 over two years drew the support this week of 52 senators, including eight Republicans, but Republican leaders threw up procedural barriers. And in the House, Republican leaders are not letting a minimum-wage increase come to a vote, apparently because it would pass.

    Just 23 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll. These dismal ratings are no surprise when Congress's highest economic priority is handing out tax cuts to millionaires and oil companies, and its one point of fiscal restraint is protecting employers from having to pay a decent wage to factory workers and waiters.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/opinion/23fri2.html?th&emc=th

    ReplyDelete
  172. 83 % of Americans approve of raising the minimum wage...it would pass if the repugs did for legislation that which they cry for bush's cronyism appointments...bring it to an up or down vote....but the repugs NEVER are about democracy.

    They steal the vote from tens of thousands of people...they lie and distort facts to convince their Base to vote against their best interests...they deny the actual message of Jesus to enrich the richest among us....but they know best just ask them...and they will LIE to you too

    ReplyDelete
  173. BTW FF if you think you can see Kentucky from California with or without you head up your anus you are more delusional than you spout here....

    ReplyDelete
  174. Worf said"But what you are talking about, the "inside job".

    That ones got my attention."

    I found it curious that Alberto Gonzalez was all over our tv screens today taking credit for catching the terrorist, (why Gonzalez and not Bush or Cheney or Rummy?????) my gut tells me he's trying to push through another piece of Nazi legislation like The Patriot Act behind the scenes to help his people seize and stay in power and my gut also tells me something terrible is going to happen domestically like 9/11 to justify and enable the Bush Administration to push through their agenda. Fear has been this administrations tool and rallying cry from day one and you can see them starting to get momentum going for the elections with the same tired fear tactics and phony patriotism, first it was with killing Zarquai then it was with allegedly foiling a terrorist attempt on the Sears Tower, i can see them using another tragedy like 9/11 to inspire fear to steal the elections and push through more legislation to take away more of our freedoms to further their power.

    ReplyDelete
  175. All they have is fear.

    They draw it like a gun.

    I'm on to the New Thread.

    ReplyDelete
  176. this is the new thread isnt it?????????

    ReplyDelete
  177. No.

    Bruce Springsteen is the new one Mike.

    Hey Mike. Listen to this next quote.

    You're gonna love it.

    ReplyDelete
  178. I think the war was a mistake,”

    I would get out of Iraq as soon as possible consistent with the practicalities of a bad situation.

    It’s being held together by sugar candy. No matter what happens, I believe Iraq will fall again.


    DONALD TRUMP

    ReplyDelete
  179. yeah I saw that at TP.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Anonymous1:40 AM

    You can run but you can not hide......the truth always floats to the top for all to see. The more you lie and cheat the harder it to cover up. The best legacy's we leave our children are "Good Examples". Honesty is the best policy. Don't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  181. I believe communists throw people in jail for simply having a hunch......no evidence needed.

    Long live Democracy!

    ReplyDelete
  182. Anonymous said

    "Honesty is the best policy. Don't you agree?"

    Sometimes the red pill hurts thus some people invent illusion and scenarios to avoid the real truth, nevertheless, I do agree with you.

    ReplyDelete