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
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
ReplyDeleteYes voltair a wage that they can raise a family on
ReplyDeleteyou know family values until it costs anything ...right?
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
ReplyDeleteNo 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....
ReplyDeleteLydia 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?
ReplyDeleteNow 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteVoltair 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
ReplyDeleteNot 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?
ReplyDeleteVolt, 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.
ReplyDeletewe need some programs to help them get those skills and experience and become productive members of the work force.
Thus the MINIMUN wage should rise voltair it should be the miniumun one can live on
ReplyDeleteGood 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.
ReplyDeleteI'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????
ReplyDeleteVolt 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
ReplyDeleteBTW 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?
ReplyDeleteMight 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
ReplyDeleteAnd when repugs get control like they did in the 20's or now they break the bank and ruin the economy
ReplyDeleteThe repugs only see their little world and worry about their bank accouynts not others like Christ TELLS them to
ReplyDeleteNo 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.
ReplyDeleteBut this is not a Christ like nation it is a modern repug christofascist serve money not God nation
ReplyDeleteBTW voltaire why are you so against taxes going up for the top wage earners???, your not even in the top bracket anyway.
ReplyDeleteWJD 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
ReplyDeletepeople 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.
ReplyDeleteVolt you throw so many bullsh*t norquist talking points...everything is the governments fault according to your point...but the facts belie you.
ReplyDeleteso are you saying reduce taxes or eliminate taxes????
ReplyDeleteand 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.
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?
ReplyDeleteAnd 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?
ReplyDeleteNot the government but the repug voters who support it...why are they crying about Money issues but not the issues that Jesus talked about?
ReplyDeleteYou 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?
ReplyDeleteSo 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?
ReplyDeleteBecause we know that is what HE preached about...not gay marriage...or burning a colored piece of cloth
ReplyDeleteVolt 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."
ReplyDeletenow your starting to scare me buddy if your saying the bush admin is cdoing good.
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?
ReplyDeleteToo 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?
ReplyDeleteVolt said "clif,
ReplyDeleteIt'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.
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
ReplyDeleteVolt 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...
ReplyDeleteVolt 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
ReplyDeleteThe 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
ReplyDeleteThey 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....
ReplyDeleteTHERE ARE 2.5 MORE CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY IN AMERICA THAN THERE WERE 4 YEARS AGO.
ReplyDeleteBut 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....
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteAlso what happens if the rich make all or most of their major purchases like yachts, planes, cars etc.. overseas to avoid the consumption tax.
Churches are not providing enough in tithes.
ReplyDeleteVolt 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
ReplyDeleteVolt 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.
ReplyDeleteThis at least I agree with, particularly regarding the Bush Administration.
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
ReplyDeleteIf 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
ReplyDeletePeople make up both the corporate world and government
ReplyDeleteCheney 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?
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".
ReplyDeleteAnd 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
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....
ReplyDeleteVolt 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
ReplyDeleteand 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.
ReplyDeleteWorf, read my earlier post here it is
ReplyDeletelike 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.
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
ReplyDeleteVoltair Your a greedy repug troll enough said
ReplyDeletesee 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.
ReplyDeleteThey 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.
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?
ReplyDeleteThese 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.
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
ReplyDeleteVoltaire 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.
ReplyDeleteyeah volt conviently left social security out of the equation.
ReplyDeleteVoltaire said...
ReplyDeleteMikey, 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
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.
ReplyDeleteBecause you KNOW that's what YOU'D do.
no actually I know thats what you'd do.
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
ReplyDeleteyou 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.
ReplyDeleteVolt 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......
ReplyDeleteThe Senators and members of Congress have no problem arranging for airline tickets at taxpayers expense.
ReplyDeleteThese 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?
It's voltairs vision of America too just look at his posts
ReplyDeleteVoltair give it up your way was tried for over 100 years in this country and found wanting....but continue to bloviate on your greed
ReplyDeleteVolt 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)
ReplyDeleteOr 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
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.
ReplyDeleteOr 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....
ReplyDeletebut only the gopvernment is bad RIGHT? Because you have to contribute along with the rest of us.....
Voltair airbages have saved many more people but do find every exception so you can look stupider than you do right now...
ReplyDeletePoor 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
ReplyDeleteVolty using an article from the middle of Clinton's years that leave off the best years good troll tactic...but DISHONEST
ReplyDeleteOctober 22, 1996
ReplyDeleteClinton 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
Volt using a troll reich wingnut tactic statistics that are cherry picked wonder where he learned that
ReplyDeleteAnd the article COMBINES bush 41 with Clinton to bring Clinton's stats down...but Cato would not be dishomnnest would they
ReplyDeleteNo 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
ReplyDeleteDon't go away mad troll boy just go away
ReplyDelete1996-2000 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.
ReplyDeleteI'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.
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
ReplyDeleteVoltair 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
ReplyDeletethat 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.
ReplyDeleteMile long after bush either one is gone they will be praising the senile depends guy
ReplyDeleteWorfeus 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
ReplyDeleteballplayer 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."
ReplyDeleteballplayer, 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.
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
ReplyDeleteWorfeus, 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.
ReplyDeleteSee 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.
Found this on a web site a comparison of the democrats plan and repug plan
ReplyDeleteThe 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
FLAVIUS WORFEUS said...
ReplyDeleteUhhh 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
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.
ReplyDeletebut 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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?
ReplyDelete/channelling bonehead, bleeding heart libs who think "economics" has something to do with baking cakes and such
FF how is the view with your head shoved so far up your a$$
ReplyDeleteWorfeus 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
ReplyDeleteBut the neo-con idiots don't think about troops...Tony Snow said it...it is just a number to them
Hey Clif! I can see your house from here!
ReplyDeleteHow 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.
ReplyDeleteOr 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
Minimum wage laws are enacted by liberal politicians to buy the votes of folks capable of feeling a great deal of "compassion".
ReplyDeleteHowever 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.
Who Wins With a Higher Minimum Wage
ReplyDeleteby 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.
FACT SHEET ON MINIMUM WAGE
ReplyDeleteBusiness 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.
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.
ReplyDeletefacts to repugs are like kryptonite to superman.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFF said "Minimum wage laws create unemployment. It is no accident that Europe has an abundance of both."
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
A Look at Republican Priorities: Afflicting the Afflicted
ReplyDeleteAt 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
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.
ReplyDeleteThey 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
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....
ReplyDeleteWorf said"But what you are talking about, the "inside job".
ReplyDeleteThat 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.
this is the new thread isnt it?????????
ReplyDeleteyeah I saw that at TP.
ReplyDeleteYou 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?
ReplyDeleteI believe communists throw people in jail for simply having a hunch......no evidence needed.
ReplyDeleteLong live Democracy!
Anonymous said
ReplyDelete"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.