Senate Multimillionares Vote To Block Minimum Wage Hike
Senate Multimillionares Vote To Block Minimum Wage Hike
After repeated delays by conservatives, the Senate voted 87-10 today to end debate on legislation that will raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 to $7.25. The bill will move to a full vote in the next several days.
Ten right-wing senators stuck together and voted to further delay raising the minimum wage:
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
As ThinkProgress detailed in a report last year, at least two of those 10 senators — Gregg and Isakson — are multimillionaires with a combined fortune of up to $35.5 million. Despite their enormous personal wealth, they refuse to grant even a small raise to the nearly 8 million Americans who live on $5.15 an hour:
 |
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $3,402,000 and $10,055,000 HIGHLIGHTS: In Oct. 2005, Gregg won $853,000 in the Powerball lottery. He owns between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in Fleet Bank, as well as between $250,000 and $500,000 in Bristol Myers stock and between $50,000 and $100,000 in Exxon and Verizon stock. KEY QUOTE: “If you start losing jobs because you raise minimum wage too quickly, too fast that small employers can’t afford it, that’s going to have an effect on peoples’ opportunity to work.” [Gregg, 6/21/06] |
 |
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $7,631,000 and $25,515,000 HIGHLIGHTS: Isakson owns between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in both Wachovia and Riverside Bank stock. He also holds 12 acres of Georgia real estate valued between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. KEY QUOTE: “Robert Reich, once observed ‘most minimum wage workers aren’t poor.’ He is right.” [Isakson, 6/20/06] |
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’d call these clowns callous, but they’d just look at their right palm…
January 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pmIs anyone surprised by this? Its just another example of compassionate conservatism.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:15 pmRebublican Motto, I have mine, piss on you!
January 30th, 2007 at 3:18 pmWe really need to bump the marginal rate back up to 90%. Teach the pseudo-aristocrats their place in a Republic.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pmReally gross. I hope God shows them this Think Progress posting when they reach the pearly gates and asks them to explain. I’d really like to hear their rational for such cruelty.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:20 pmWhy are these millionairs representing the people who are trying hardly to survive…?!! whose fault is it? …the represented who casted his vote, or the representative who used THE VOTE to gain his power; or is it simply the voting system needs fixing?!!
January 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pmthis is how it should be. You hire a person to do a job. Then if they do a good job, that person earns a raise. See how that works. Government shouldn’t be involved at all. No one is forced to work for minimum wage. If you want to make more than the minimum you do more or better work.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pmAnd we are surprised how?
They pushed their tax cuts into this thing, so they REALLY stuck it to the people again by giving their rich cronies more incentives to cheat they system…
Nothing changes with these guys and the sad fact is that you have a bunch of callous red-necks that vote for these people time and time again…
And they say racism and prejudice have passed us by…
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!
January 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pmThese pigs are feeding at the public trough, earning salaries as in the last Congress for doing little or nothing, and adding to their personal wealth. People who work hard and for below average wages are struggling to make ends meet, and often going into debt. These asshats should be ashamed to show their faces in public. They are not because they are devoid of consciences. I would hope the day would come for each of them when they lose it all and end up in the gutter where they belong.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pmso what? rich people can still have the opinion that a minimum wage increase kills jobs.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pmand have a point. the point here is that they don’t have one.
if you have a minimum wage(and don’t have substantial negative income tax) it guidelines the economy. so when it’s ridicilously low you have to either abolish it or increase it.
but being rich is not much of an argument to vote for an increase.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12272006/news/nationalnews/estate_of_denial_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm
How about John Edwards who is worth almost $30,000,000 and is building a new $6 million compound in NC? Which, by the way, is the equivalent of working 582 YEARS AT MINIMUM WAGE. Oh, wait, I forgot. He supports taking other people’s money and redistributing it, so he’s OK.
Which one of the two America does he live in again?
And the real question of the day…
How many FEMA trailers do you think he could fit in his 100-acre yard?
Probably not enough to make him not look like a hypocrite.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pmWho made this statement in March 1996?
“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well, “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.â€
A) Al Franken
B) Bill Clinton
C) Dick Cheney
Answer (C) Dick Cheney!!!
January 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pmNext: “Whew… that was tough work. We’d better vote for raise for ourselves since we have to work two days a week.”
January 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pmThe above link only quoted the value of the compound at $3.1 million as-is, however, the quote in this article from the County Tax Assessor says that he estimates the tax value of the compound to be over $6 million when completed.
But even if the tax assessment is halved, 3 million is only 290 years of working at miminum wage. Not bad. Really.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pmAwwww…C’mon Rob?
Damn, this IDIOT does not get it does he?
Did EDWARDS vote against minimum wage? (Yes or No) ONLY!!!!
So your point is mute, because we are talking about members IN Congress…not personal net worths here!!!
Stay on point, IDIOT!!!
January 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pmJanuary 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“Robert Reich, once observed ‘most minimum wage workers aren’t poor.’ He is right.†[Isakson, 6/20/06]
No. They are dirt poor.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pm#12
January 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pmLarry from C,
Of course he made sense. He was looking to get elected then. Now that he’s in power he has shown his true self.
And I ask myself who are the employers who think that a hard work day doesn’t deserve MORE than the minimum wage?
I’ll say you who: the ones too greedy, lazy and ignorant to enhance his bussiness to the point that permits them pay a decent wage to their workers and have a benefit.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pmWhen Bushco begins its war with Iran please remember this:
…Sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company.
Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.
Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.†But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.†Moreover mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.
If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future, Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame.
But this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Halliburton’s business activities over the past decade. The company has a long, documented history of violating U.S. sanctions and conducting business with so-called rogue nations.
No, what’s disturbing about these facts is how little attention it has received from the mainstream media. But the public record speaks for itself, as do the thousands of pages of documents obtained by various federal agencies that show how Halliburton’s business dealings in Iran helped fund terrorist activities there—including the country’s nuclear enrichment program.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pmWith one exception, what we have is a group of very rich white southerners.
Why does this not surprise me?
January 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pmSix out of the ten nay voters listed above have first names that start with J. They are all (R)epublicans. J – R……JR……JR Ewing…..Texas oilman…..It’s all about the oil.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:45 pmthis is how it should be. You hire a person to do a job. Then if they do a good job, that person earns a raise. See how that works.
Comment by Kevin — January 30, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
You would think this would be the case, but it is not, therefore the government is stepping in.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:45 pmAnd without any doubt these Senators use Christian Conservatism as a tool to get them votes….People should be remind about how religious these people are when it comes to the little guy… and when election time arrives.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:45 pmThese millionaires are repulsive and it is absolutely “amoral” to allow them to amass these great financial empires while people are still displaced by Katrina and/or starving in this country. Bush’s cabal has absolutely enabled these greedy individuals to create an economic “caste system” in this country by the total destruction of the middle class in this country. Appalling & Amoral!
January 30th, 2007 at 3:46 pmAnybody else notice that specific trolls show up for specific topics? Anytime we have a thread about minimum wage, Kevin shows up. I think the trolls are hired by Rove to cover specific topics. They are handed a list of talking points, then told to go out onto the Internet and find any blogs that are covering the topic to which they are assigned.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:46 pmNOTICE HOW THEY’RE ALL RETHUGS, TOO! Time for an investigation of their wealth; after all, the WH is illegally looking at our bank accounts – so why not them??
January 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pmJohn Edwards isn’t blocking the minimum wage increase moron. This sin’t about how much they make, it is about people who make a lot and are blocking a minimum wage increase for those that don’t. Reading comprehension helps.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pmDid EDWARDS vote against minimum wage? (Yes or No) ONLY!!!!
So your point is mute, because we are talking about members IN Congress…not personal net worths here!!!
Stay on point, IDIOT!!!
Comment by IraqVet — January 30, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
You are quite correct, my point is making no sound at all. It is, therefore, mute.
However, it may not be “moot” since we are talking about hypocrites who are worth a ton of money and won’t vote to make an employer give an employee a raise. We are discussing people with a lot of money who (I guess) proclaim that they are trying to help people, and really not. And, what figures was the post referring to, if not personal net worth?
But wait, you say. John Edwards really does help people. He hangs out in people’s backyards in New Orleans to use the poor people there as a political prop in his soon-to-be-over bid for the White House. Then he retreats to NC and his 100-acre estate to get away from them where he can teach his kids to make fun of other children who have to buy clothes from Wal-Mart.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pmCheney – Iran Enabler! Halliburton/Cheney connection still is intact despite his claims to the contrary. Wait until this gets out – couple that along with “treason” in the intentional outing of a covert CIA agent, and Cheney’s totally “cooked”. What are the punishments for selling weapons to a hostile nation? What is the punishment for the treasonous outing of a covert agent?
January 30th, 2007 at 3:49 pmIt’s perfectly obvious to me that these guys have no need of thier testicular apparatus. They should be castrated and have thier gonads made into drop-earings to wear at the next Senate forum. They would look absolutely mah-velous, dah’lin.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pmHenry VIII “played the religion card” each time he couldn’t get his way legitimately – first he was a catholic and Papist while married to Catherine of Aragon (Spanish Catholic princess) but to thrust her aside without the approval of the pope, he declared himself Supreme Rule of the Church in England….sounding a bit familiar? History repeating itself?
January 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pmJohn Edwards isn’t blocking the minimum wage increase moron. This sin’t about how much they make, it is about people who make a lot and are blocking a minimum wage increase for those that don’t. Reading comprehension helps.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — January 30, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Sorry, I missed the ‘blatant hypocricy by people who TP supports’ post. I’ll go back and look for it so we can discuss it there.
Then when I can’t find it, I’ll come back here and remind you that he is running for President and his house cost 582 year’s worth of minimum wages to build. Just because people like to use those comparisons so much. How very progressive. I can tell he shares the same values as you. Because if you had that much money you would build a $6 million house too. Screw poor people, they look good on TV when he needs their help, but they don’t need $6 million.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:53 pm30: What are the punishments for selling weapons to a hostile nation? What is the punishment for the treasonous outing of a covert agent?
Hopefully, rotting in hell.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:54 pmHowever, it may not be “moot†since we are talking about hypocrites who are worth a ton of money and won’t vote to make an employer give an employee a [fair wage].
Comment by rob — January 30, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
This is exactly what we’re talking about.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pmHi, Stefan
January 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pmI don’t know much about economies or related social theories, and would like to learn more. If you have any good resources off hand, would you mind posting some links here about how minimum wage relates to the bigger picture? Just try to get myself some free education here :). Thank you much in advance.
But wait, you say. John Edwards really does help people. He hangs out in people’s backyards in New Orleans to use the poor people there as a political prop in his soon-to-be-over bid for the White House.
Comment by rob — January 30, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
I disagree.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:57 pmWell since you can’t take anything with you when you die these guys will have alot of friends in hell. A lot of the White House will be in hell wondering how they got there and Satan will say you followed our born again Devil George W. Bush and the chief evidoer Dick Cheney. There offices are to the right in this hell hold.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:57 pmWho names their kid “Saxby”?!?
January 30th, 2007 at 3:58 pmThen when I can’t find it, I’ll come back here and remind you that he is running for President and his house cost 582 year’s worth of minimum wages to build. Just because people like to use those comparisons so much. How very progressive. I can tell he shares the same values as you. Because if you had that much money you would build a $6 million house too. Screw poor people, they look good on TV when he needs their help, but they don’t need $6 million.
Comment by rob — January 30, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Our tax dollars should be going to help them.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:01 pmIs this a Republican tactic to delay voting on anti-escalation bills? Why do Republicans hate working Americans, why do they hate the troops?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pmHe hangs out in people’s backyards in New Orleans to use the poor people there as a political prop in his soon-to-be-over bid for the White House.
Comment by rob
Yeah I remember when he made that speech in fornt of that church all lit up and I even read that they switched on the electricity in the area for his speech and then turned it off when he left. He tried to make himself look so concerned about the state of N.O. What a jackass…..wait a sec…no…that was Bush…
January 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm#15. It’s “moot”. not “mute”
January 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pmThese men are a disgrace to the human race. They are using their supposed resistance to a non-binding resolution to stop the Iraq war as an excuse to deny working Americans a pay raise – must be coming out of their own pockets. I wish we could take a few of their last raises out of their pockets.
Here is the truth about Republicans: They recruit young people from the ranks of the poor to throw into their army, then fight any attempt to equip them as they should be, then when they get home they cut funding for the Va hospitals. We had a young man in Minnesota who went into their meat grinder and came home troubled and unable to cope. He went to the VA and they told him they didn’t have room for him so he went back home, a few days late he called and again the VA said we don’t have a bed for you – you are about 18 down on the list. He is not a problem for the VA anymore, he killed himself.
I guess these guys would consider him an real obliging fellow – saved them a few bucks.
The Republican party has nothing but contempt for the American working class.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pmThese rich guys are in the wrong. But they’d be in the wrong for voting against a raise in the minimum wage even if they weren’t millionaires…
January 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pmput this in your google search bar:
Robert Reich, “most minimum wage workers aren’t poor”
lots of references to that quote, but when exactly did he say that?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pmAm I missing something here, but aren’t we talking about politicians who either pass or defeat pending legislation?
Yes John Edwards is trying to run for President, but he isn’t blocking this legislation. If you’re going to go there, why don’t we start talking about Bill Gates, Oprah or all of the other billionaires out there? If this was a discussion about Presidential candidates, then it’s fair game. Other than that, it just appears that folks are trying to divert attention by pointing out what others are doing or not doing. I would also question their sincerity.
Why not do a little research? Rather than using “trickle down economics” which admittedly DON’T work, look up what happens every time the minimum wage is raised. You are going to be surprised.
Beyond that, it truly is amazing how some of you can overlook things such as the Lawrence, MA strikes and their causes. Ever hear of child labor laws?
Given the chance, how many of the Republicans in the article above do you think would repeal those laws, if given the chance?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pmWhat will the United States be remembered for when she’s gone?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:14 pmAnd I ask myself who are the employers who think that a hard work day doesn’t deserve MORE than the minimum wage?
I’ll say you who: the ones too greedy, lazy and ignorant to enhance his bussiness to the point that permits them pay a decent wage to their workers and have a benefit.
Comment by Evil Spaniard
I agree. If you can’t run a business that pays workers well, then quit and leave it to others who are better at business administration. And if you run a business using cohersion or intimidation (including economic) of any kind, you should lose your business license.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:15 pmAnd I will once again point out that you are a moron and off topic. So, we’re even.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:15 pmDoug has a point, but I think he is trying to use it to support a conservative viewpoint; which is quaint and silly.
Doug bringing up John Edwards leads us to the fact that most of us already realize: very few politicians are NOT part of a political elite who profit from war, oil and the sweat of working people. But that is a discussion for a different TP post which will rad something like: “Dems and Reps have net wroth averaging over $1,000,000″.
ANd to bring us back to the point Doug; minimum wage will help millions of poor workers. Bringing up that Dem politicians are rich too is a pretty weak argument and off point.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:23 pm#28 Comment by Spudge_Boy — January 30, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Hate to burst your babble, but I’m not working for any political party. I am a free thinking, hard working, and American adult. I also have worked for the minimum wage. And worked my self up from it. But you think that people can’t make decisions for themselves unless they agree with you or getting “talking points†from the party line. I strongly disagree with the minimum wage increases.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pmThey do not represent the people, they do represent a few corporations.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:31 pmKevin,
Should minimum wage ever be increased again?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:32 pmI also have worked for the minimum wage. And worked my self up from it.
I strongly disagree with the minimum wage increases.
Comment by Kevin
What year did you work for minimum wage and how much did you get?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pmRob, a pretty pathetic effort put forth to blindly defned these clowns. Are you a millionaire?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:39 pmKevin, why do you disagree with a minimum wage increase? Do you think EVERYONE in minimum wage jobs shares access to the oppurtunities you have had? What would you say if someone had a HARDER time working themselves up from a minimum wage job? Should their next job be better paying than yours? What’s your real problem with the increase? Why do you hate the poor?
Jesus was poor. Do you hate Jesus?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:42 pm#54.Comment by ForTruth — January 30, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Shouldn’t be a minimum wage.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pmI also have worked for the minimum wage. And worked my self up from it.
I strongly disagree with the minimum wage increases.
Shouldn’t be a minimum wage.
Comment by Kevin
As long as you got yours.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:47 pmthis is how it should be. You hire a person to do a job. Then if they do a good job, that person earns a raise. See how that works. – Kevin
And if you (and do I detect a bias here … not that there’s anything wrong with that) don’t give that person a raise, what’ll happen? Is the person necessarily gonna be able to find a job that’ll provide him/her with the wage s/he ‘deserves’ for doing “a good job”? You can say “well, the free market’ll take care of it — supply and demand, you know”, but the supply of labor is rather inelastic*: except for the rich trust-fund-types (who hence don’t quite get that the supply of labor is rather inelastic or many other things about actual economies for that matter) who seem to control our national discourse on economic matters, most people have to work to eat.
*Actually, from a free-market/capitalist point of view, there should indeed be no minimum wage; however, in order to keep the labor market elastic, government should then provide everyone with a certain minimum standard of living — i.e. welfare on steroids!
January 30th, 2007 at 4:47 pmKevin,
You are welcome to your opinion, but I do have to take issue with your comment about why increasing the minimum wage is not necessary. If you have other points, I’d be interested in hearing them.
That being said, the main opposition that you appeared to express was
- People aren’t forced to work for the minimum wage
- Government shouldn’t be involved
- Do more, or better work
- People aren’t forced . . . Really? Then why is it that you have people working for the minimum wage? They have to eat. For some people there isn’t much of an alternative. I used to manage a factory near Cabrini Green (infamous Chicago housing project). Most of the people at that factory were always going to work at minimum wage jobs for all of their lives. Most hadn’t finished high school, etc. Minimum wage or welfare, what would you like them to do?
- Government shouldn’t be involved. Really? There are all sorts of labor laws where we need government involvement. Anything from child labor laws to safety laws. If it wasn’t for government involvement we’d be back in the 1880s and those horrors. That’s exactly the type of thing that many Republicans would love. Eliminate all government regulation and just let us run things the way that we want. We’ve been there.
- Do more or better work. I currently have my own business and happy with it. It took me a lot to get here. At the same time there are many people who haven’t had, or been able to take advantage of the American system. What do with these folks? Give up on them? What do you want to say to an 18 year old ghetto kid who doesn’t have a high school education? It’s great to tell them to go back and get their MBA. Realistically it isn’t going to happen.
So what other reasons are you against a minimum wage increase?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:48 pmWas my post swallowed? It doesn’t seem to have come up. Anyway, if it wasn’t, sorry for the duplicate post:
this is how it should be. You hire a person to do a job. Then if they do a good job, that person earns a raise. See how that works. – Kevin
And if you (and do I detect a bias here … not that there’s anything wrong with that) don’t give that person a raise, what’ll happen? Is the person necessarily gonna be able to find a job that’ll provide him/her with the wage s/he ‘deserves’ for doing “a good job”? You can say “well, the free market’ll take care of it — supply and demand, you know”, but the supply of labor is rather inelastic*: except for the rich trust-fund-types (who hence don’t quite get that the supply of labor is rather inelastic or many other things about actual economies for that matter) who seem to control our national discourse on economic matters, most people have to work to eat.
*Actually, from a free-market/capitalist point of view, there should indeed be no minimum wage; however, in order to keep the labor market elastic, government should then provide everyone with a certain minimum standard of living — i.e. welfare on steroids!
January 30th, 2007 at 4:49 pmIf you want to make more than the minimum you do more or better work.
Comment by Kevin
Is it then fair for me to start a shipping business and pay people 15 cents an hour to load boxes onto trucks? If they do a good job, next year they might make 17 cents an hour? If yes, who will pay if they need health care? What about if they have kids and can’t afford to feed them? Should they turn down the job because the pay is too low? What if there are no other jobs available, (millions of people are unemployed today)? Now… see if you can answer these same questions as a Christian would.
One more question: Based on your statement above, do the Representatives deserve a raise and, if so, should they be the sole arbiters of their salaries?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pmKevin do you have kids?
If so, would you like them to start thier first jobs at a dollar an hour? If there was no minimum wage, that’s what they would get paid.
You don’t act like you have kids. You are too selfish.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pmJohn Edwards grew up in a lower middle class household, studied hard in school and is very successful. He is now working to make sure the path he took to success stays open for all. Johnny Isakson inherited Northside Realty from his dad and is working to maintain his unearned place in the social pecking order.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:53 pmNickel & Dime Nazi’s!! No raise for you, America!! now, back to the important business of giving ourselves a raise!
January 30th, 2007 at 4:54 pmComment #58 from Kevin
I guess that if there is no minimum wage then employers can decide to pay people even less than $5.15 an hour. Since a person on welfare can easily make this much I guess we could expect the number of people on welfare to increase when they quit their jobs. Therefore, I can only assume that you (Kevin) do not have any issues with Welfare or do you just not care about the poor at all and would be happy if they just went away.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pmI believe that every American has the same opportunity I did. I have worked for minimum wage. I’ve worked for places that would not give me a raise after I felt I earned it. I soon left that company and now work for a company that has no problem with paying me what I earn. If you stop assuming people can’t do anything without the government and encourage people to do there best, amazing things can and do happen.
I don’t hate poor people, I believe in them.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:06 pmHow strange Bush cultists are. Rob evidently can’t see the difference between a rich man who champions a raise in the minimum wage and rich men who are blocking a raise in the minimum wage. Strange. And, in spite of overwhelming evidence which shows states with higher minimum wages have better economies, Kevin just flat-out rejects it. It’s a matter of principle for Kevin, you see. Very, very strange.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:07 pmMy friends Doug and Kevin have it almost right. There should be no minimum wage. The modern CEO should be free to be like the Plantation Owners of old. Some of these so called American people are just a step up from farm animals, some not even as skilled or as smart. Not only should the CEO be able to pay them next to nothing, they should be able to own them and actually pay them nothing. Free enterprise, no government interference, and capitalism at its best.
/sarcasm off and none too soon, because I nearly vomited on the keyboard.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:08 pmI notice with interest and approval that the two Oklahoma senators, Coburn and Inhofe, voted against consideration of the so-called ‘mininum wage.’ If justication is needed, I want to ask, What did the poor ever do for them? Aside, that is, from giving the state an awful reputation because of those Route 66, Steinbeckian, Mother Roadhogging excursions that took them down paths to the enriching, quarter-dollar-a-day lettuce fields in the San Juaquin Valley.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:14 pmFor the life of me, I can’t underside why the impoverished, dirty fingernails and all, can’t see that opportunity lurks and why they don’t seek better jobs. They’re everywhere—like the one at CBS to replace Couric and it will pay $17 million a year, with appropriate raises as the ratings become respectable and top management can lunch again without fear of daylight ridicule at the Four Seasons.
I don’t hate poor people, I believe in them.
Comment by Kevin
Too bad your belief in them doesn’t help you realize that a federal minimum wage is needed to provide them with the same opportunities that were provided to you.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pm“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. â€
–Thomas Jefferson
Kevin, if Jefferson were alive today, he would view you as just another unfortunate self-loathing mouthpiece for a corporate aristocracy.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pmKevin, Based on your comment in #68, is it safe to say that you are anti-union ? Unions negotiate higher pay rates for their employees. If there were no unions then the employer could pay what he wanted and not what the union demands right.. ? If you are not against unions then you are a hypocrit for not wanting the government to negotiate pay rates for those who otherwise have no voice.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pm#68 Kevin
You truly show how sheltered you are.
So a kid growing up in Watts, East LA, a small Mississippi farm, Cabrini Green, etc. has had the same opportunities as you? Give me a break.
Let’s start with schools. Your schooling was the same underfunded, life threatening experience as some of the people that I mentioned? Right?
You apparently have NO idea of what the world is like outside of your little bubble. Ever serve in the military? (I’m not saying this that you should enlist.) Ever meet a kid from the south who never wore shoes, had dental care, etc. until he got into the service?
I have a lot of friends who manage construction jobs. No government involvement? Even with the labor laws that we have now, we get a lot of deaths because contractors circumvent the laws they are supposed to abide by. These are people who are part of a union making $30.00/hour. They still get caught up in this nonsense.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pmUm, poster #5, you do know Jesus once said “Its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven” right? Even if they’re hard-core christians, they ain’t getting there if they’re rich, it says so in the bible clear as day.
And who… thank goodness its finally being pushed through. To the 87 of them who pushed it through: Thanks. Now vote on it 50-49 (or greater) and pass it!
January 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pmI believe that every American has the same opportunity I did.
I’m throwing the big yellow BS flag on this one!
If you are white, male, heterosexual, from a middle class family, free from mental illness in yourself and in your parents, of average intelligence, free from physical disability, free from experiencing significant trauma such as abuse or having gunshots go through your bedroom wall, good public schools to attend, neighbors and friends who were positive role models for adulthood, and have parents who raised you to be self sufficient and confident then, yes, you’ve had lots of opportunities. That, by the way, describes me. The difference between us is I see those factors as GIFTS which allowed me to benefit from my efforts, gifts that I did not earn, gifts for which I owe God and society some measure of payment in return. Taxes, paying a bit more for products and services so every worker gets a minimum wage, charity work and donations, are a few of those payments. If you don’t see that you are selfish, self-centered, aristocratic, narcissistic, and self-righteous.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:20 pmSen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
And yet the idiots here continue to vote for these gluttons…
January 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pmIf minimum wage hikes lead to higher prices, prices should have been steady for the last 10 years since it’s been that long since it has been raised. If minimum wage hikes caused more unemployment, there would have been a record of that happening by now since the wage has been raised many times. But there is no data to support that argument.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:25 pmI am Elmer J. Fudd Millionaire, I Own a Mansion and a Yacht.
I am Geroge W. Bush Millionaire, I Own a Mansion and a Yacht.
I am Dick Cheney Millionaire, I Own a Mansion and a Yacht.
I am a U.S. Senator Millionaire, I Own a Mansion and a Yacht.
I am CEO Millionaire, I Own a Mansion and a Yacht.
I am Joe Taxpayer, I Own a Mortgage and a debt.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pmRob is a laughable dittohead troll. Get your talking points from Rush Limballs? Sadly your a one dimensional fool as evident. You cannot have it both ways fool, you cannot pray to the corporate gods axhalting money and prosperity as an indicator of self worth and chastise Edwards for being successful. In your tiny dichotomous brain you cannot calculate that there are liberal people, like myself, whom are wealthy and assist others out of the generosity of their heart.
It is the deeds that speak for the man and on this position your drivel falls apart as moot. You tactfullly avoid defending these spiritually bankrupt Rape-Public-Cans and instead rely on lame ad-hominem attacks against Edwards. Edwards like Carter and others actually walk the talk. These courageous men assist their fellow man, your greed idols take from the poor for their own. Tell us when did your last moral fiber die and why do you hate the Christian principles?
January 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pmI don’t hate poor people, I believe in them.
Comment by Kevin — January 30, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
You believe in them? What like you believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and your big Sky Daddy? LOL
January 30th, 2007 at 5:30 pmKevin is an elitist a$$wipe. He comes on every minimum wage thread and spreads the same hate of poor people.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pmhttp://isakson.senate.gov/floor/2006/062006wage.htm
U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Floor Statement on Minimum Wage
Remarks as Delivered on the Senate Floor
Mr. President, I want to talk about the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. I want to specifically commend the Senator for his passion and enthusiasm. But it reminds me of a line in an old country song: “You only hurt the ones you love.”
The graphs that we were shown were macro graphs about all economies and all unemployment in the country. The people on minimum wage, which this is designed to help, are those at the lowest end of the skill level and the beginning level of employment.
When the distinguished Senator from New Jersey referred to the 15 million Americans who were on the minimum wage 15 years ago as if they were still on it today, it was deceiving and misleading. Those are not the same 15 million people. They are 15 million new people who are getting a foothold in the joy that is America by beginning on the ladder of employment.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly cautioned the Congress on this very subject and against raising the minimum wage for that reason. The Chairman pointed out that such a move “increases unemployment and, indeed, prevents people who are at the early stages of their careers from getting a foothold in the ladder of promotions.”
The Federal Government can dictate what anybody pays anybody, but we cannot dictate who is hired. If we raise the component cost of employment–as the bill of the Senator from Massachusetts would–29 percent, it stands to reason that you put at risk 29 percent of those who are employed at the lowest level. What happens is that people seek a more efficient worker at the detriment of the least skilled and the least qualified.
One year after the first minimum wage was established, Franklin Roosevelt’s own Department of Labor made the following observation:
In a number of instances, there have been reports that workers who had been receiving less than [the new minimum wage] had been laid off, and replaced by more efficient workers.
The marketplace will drive employment, and when we in Government infuse ourselves into an issue and make an arbitrary adjustment, then the marketplace will make the adjustment for the business community and the more efficient worker will be employed.
When the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts referred to the tremendous job growth and creation between the next-to-the-last increase in the minimum wage and the last increase in the minimum wage, again it was a macro graph. The fact is that while employment skyrocketed during the dot-com era, those were high-technology, high-end jobs. The reality was that, as a result of the Congressionally-mandated increase in the minimum wage, technology replaced a lot of those minimum wage, low-skilled jobs, and actually unemployment increased at the lowest end. It is only right to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
It is interesting that researchers at the University of Wisconsin did a study not too long ago to determine what the minimum wage did to welfare mothers, that I give you, Mr. President, as an example. The study revealed that welfare mothers in States that raised their respective minimum wages remained on public assistance 44 percent longer than those in States where the minimum wage was not raised, making the point I made earlier; that is, getting a foothold on the ladder of success in America means getting in the employment chain. And the more we put pressure on how much it costs to bring someone into that chain, the more it punishes or penalizes someone who is not in it.
There is another deception which goes on in this argument, and that is that everybody who is on the low end of the chain and a minimum wage earner is at the bottom of the scale in life.
President Clinton’s first Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, once observed “most minimum wage workers aren’t poor.” He is right. Today, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the average family income of a minimum wage worker is above $43,000 a year–well above the national average. There are reasons for that.
Accordingly, minimum wage increases are inefficiently targeted to help poor workers since fully 85 percent of minimum wage earners live with their parents, have a working spouse, or are living alone without children. In fact, when Congress last raised the minimum wage in 1997, only 17 percent of the benefits of that increase went to families living below the poverty level. For comparison, over 33 percent of the benefits went to the richest two-fifths of all families, which is another secret to raising the minimum wage.
It is not just at the lowest end of employment or the beginning level, but there are contracts in America that are indexed to the minimum wage. If the United States of America and this Congress force an increase in the minimum wage, then it very well could trigger, in a labor contract, in a labor organization with a company, an automatic increase in the pay scale for people far and above the minimum wage. Once again, it has an arbitrary effect on the marketplace that the marketplace will adjust, and when it adjusts, someone will lose a job or find it harder to get a job.
The University of Georgia in my home State recently did a study. The economist who did that study was Joseph J. Sabia, a Ph.D. graduate in economics from none less than Cornell University. He used Government data from January of 1979 until December of 2004. This is a 25-year longitudinal study, and in sum, Dr. Sabia found that a 10-percent increase in the minimum wages causes a nine-tenths of 1 percent to a 1.1 percent decrease in retail employment, and an eight-tenths of 1 percent to a 1.2 percent decrease in small business employment. Dr. Sabia’s research confirmed yet again that low-skilled workers is the group that is most likely to be most negatively impacted by the minimum wage hike.
The study also reiterated minimum wage hikes are not an effective means of reducing poverty among working poor because most minimum wage workers are second or third earners in a family–teens or dependents–and most workers in poor households earn more than the minimum wage.
But the best study I refer to most often is the study I conducted during 33 years in the private sector employing hundreds of individuals in a real estate company. I knew what competitive marketplace factors were, and I knew how, when we brought people in–and I had some jobs in my company that were at the lower end, minimum wage to start. They may have been in maintenance, may have been in building upkeep, may have been operators on the night desk. But I always found myself being pressured by the market, not the Government, to raise the wage of the good worker because the good workers, as they improved and gained their self-confidence, shopped around.
In most of the years I worked, we were in the type of economy we are today. We were in full employment where you are competing for the best and the brightest. Those who are motivated, those who enter the system, those who are at minimum wage to start with will quickly rise as they gain skills, confidence, and self-esteem.
If we think an arbitrary, mandatory 29-percent increase in somebody’s wages is going to solve poverty, improve their self-esteem or, in fact, solve the problem the Senator from Massachusetts intends it to solve, we are wrong. Instead, it is probably going to deny about 29 percent of those starting at that level an opportunity early on. It probably, as President Roosevelt’s Administration found in 1939, is going to cause some people to actually lose their jobs. And worst of all, it is a feel-good amendment whose intention ends up having the absolute opposite result.
I care deeply for everybody in my State, everybody in this country, and for everybody entering the workplace. I believe the minimum wage is appropriate, but I believe to take a time of full employment, a time of a vibrant economy, a time when study after study indicates the exact opposite of what the distinguished Senator said, would be sending the absolute worst signal.
I believe in the empowerment of our workers, not in the slavery of our workers. I don’t believe Government should arbitrarily try to fix something that, in fact, the marketplace fixes day in and day out 365 days a year.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to not try to fix something that is not broken. I will oppose the Kennedy amendment.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:50 pm@79, of course there is data that high minimum wages kills jobs.
I can’t provide it for the US though, there were not enough substantial changes recently you could get good data from.
the point is, you got to have some system for low wage workers.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:51 pmi.e. one or more of: minimum wage, negative income tax, subsidized health insurance, etc.
there’ll always be workers whose work doesn’t have the value of their cost of living.
I guess if you insist on solving the problem with the minimum wage alone, you need it and you have to increase it.
but this does cause problems. imho the best solution is a substantial negative income tax. you don’t disturb the market incentives that way, you don’t end up with “socialized medicine” and wages are up the market without generating poverty.
enable someone to buy free-market health insurance even if it is by tax money is much better than government organized medicine.
and giving someone tax money(in a way that he’s always left with more money if he earns 1$ more himself) is better than giving tax breaks to employers and force him to pay more money for work than the work is worth.
But there is no data to support that argument.
Comment by Bluedog49
Thats all corporations BS. They say: Oh, no. We cant give them a raise cuz then we are broke. Pure crap. So what now, Wal-Mart´s owners and CEOs are not earning money? The problem is that they will earn less money, thats right. And they are expecting a nice ski vacations in Piamonte. Then they tell the government: No raises, please. And you can have my diesel BMW. And as we all know, corporations own governments.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:52 pmbtw, what I described in comment 85 is part of the agenda of the _liberal_ party of the country I currently live in.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:00 pmwhich comes from the opposite direction than the US: high minimum wages(through laws supporting unions) and socialized medicine.
this isn’t where you want to be, either.
the US democratic party should be more open to that kind of solutions. forcing 3rd parties(like employers) to pay for poor people does cause problems.
Stefan: “of course there is data that high minimum wages kills jobs.
I can’t provide it for the US though…”
You can’t provide the data because there is none. The minimum wage has been raised many times here in America and there is not one example of unemployment or prices rising as a result.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pmStefan, you keep mentioning “socialized medicine” as if that’s on the table. The most radical of Democrats favor a single-payer health plan which is not socialized medicine. Our Veterans Administration is an example of socialized medicine. Our Medicare program is an example of single-payer.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:11 pmWhy isn’t Corporate Welfare part of the national debate? Why the f*k are we always debating a rather obvious increase to an incredibly low minium wage? They’re so angry when the government is asked to step in and help the poorest workers but are dead-silent when the government helps them line their pockets. For once lets have a national debate about how the government rewrote all the laws to benefit the ultra-rich. For example:
Should corporations be allowed to set up manufacturing plants (slave camps) in poor countries with no labor rights to save billions? NAFTA and CAFTA. Sounds like the rich like government help!
Should medicaid be allowed to use its buying power to negotiate lower drug prices? Drug companies used their influence to get the government to help them with this billion $$ assist!
Should corporations who pollute the environment be forced to pay for the cleanup or should they be allowed to pass the cost on to the consumer? Gee, I wonder if the government helped the corporations get this disgusting legislation passed?!
January 30th, 2007 at 6:15 pmof course there is data that high minimum wages kills jobs.
-No it doesn’t
there’ll always be workers whose work doesn’t have the value of their cost of living.
-We’re attempting to fix that.
enable someone to buy free-market health insurance even if it is by tax money is much better than government organized medicine.
- Conservatives don’t support this.
- How will the poor buy insurance?
Comment by Stefan — January 30, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
January 30th, 2007 at 6:17 pmLarry: “Why isn’t Corporate Welfare part of the national debate?”
Because any discussion of corporate welfare naturally leads a thinking person to conclude that we should have public financing of all federal elections. This would not be good for corporate media, which makes billions in political ad dollars on every election cycle.
Damn good question, though. And, there are other answers as well.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:22 pmBy the way, up until the late 1800’s, it was a criminal offense for any corporation to give money to any campaign. A CRIMINAL offense…
January 30th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI would say that I’m pissed off, but these jokers do nothing that surprises me anymore.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:26 pm@88:
>You can’t provide the data because there is none. The minimum wages has been raised many times here in America and there is not one example of unemployment or prices rising as a result.
there only have been increases because of inflation.
there were no substantial increases or even changes from no minimum wage to a substantial minimum wage.
there have been in other countries.(see eastern europe)
so yes, there is no such data for the US as far as I know. doesn’t mean anything.
@89:
> Stefan, you keep mentioning “socialized medicine†as if that’s on the table. The most radical of Democrats favor a single-payer health plan which is not socialized medicine.
what’s a “single-payer health plan”? free insurance for wife and kids?
I know that there are not many(no?) demoracts who openly support socialized medicine. but there is almost no democrat who openly supports anything regarding health insurance.
so I suggest coming forward with a plan so the fear among republicans that they are for socialized medicine will go away.
(btw, I’m against free insurance for wife/kidskids. I’m for mandatory health insurance which everyone has to buy and a sufficient negative income tax(also for kids) so everyone can. but everyone can still choose what to buy.)
@91:
> there’ll always be workers whose work doesn’t have the value of their cost of living.
-We’re attempting to fix that.
good luck. also try fixing gravitation.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pmminimum wage increase btw is not “fixing that”. it’s forcing employers to pay more that the value of the work.
which I support in the US under the current situation. it’s not a solution to the problem though, see above.
92, The real reason Corporate Welfare isn’t part of the national debate is that Corporations own almost all the media. And they aren’t going to start a discussion that’d put them in the crosshairs.
Public Financing of Campaigns is a WONDERFUL idea that’d solve many of our current problems. It’d open a world of ideas that never get heard in the political discussion. It’d allow the candidate with the best ideas to win, not the candidate with the most money (Dennis Kucinch would be so far in front of Hillary Clinton she wouldn’t be able to see him!)
January 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pmShame on them.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:42 pm@96, can you provide a link for “public financing of campaigns”?
January 30th, 2007 at 6:51 pmthe only type I’m aware of in other countries is xy cents for each vote a party got at an election. couldn’t work in the US because of personal campaigns and voting for specific persons instead of party lists.
so is there a plan? can everyone who joins a presidential campaign expect millions of tax funds?
if so I hope that system is in place when I turn 35 ;)
It really simple……all congress has to do to pass a clean minimum wage
bill, is to attach it to every military bill until it passes……
Unless their chicken………….
Salmon Dave
January 30th, 2007 at 6:54 pmMendocino, CA
Stefan: “what’s a “single-payer health planâ€? free insurance for wife and kids?
Eh, no. A single-payer plan is where doctors, hospitals and pharmacies are paid by the government, cutting out the middle-man. Why do you insist on a profit-based middleman between citizens and their healthcare? That’s what I’d like to know. Do you work for the insurance industry?
January 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pmgood luck. also try fixing gravitation.
What, you don’t like it.
minimum wage increase btw is not “fixing thatâ€. it’s forcing employers to pay more that the value of the work.
-An increase in the minimum wage is just the beginning of “fixing that”.
-I look at it as forcing employers to pay a fair wage instead of a slave wage.
so I suggest coming forward with a plan so the fear among republicans that they are for socialized medicine will go away.
Comment by Stefan — January 30, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
-Those who are against a national health care system are on the fringes.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:10 pmStefan, there are so many sites that discuss public financing of elections, all you need to do is google it. Use “Advanced Search.” Type in elections in the top line and “public financing” on the second line. You’ll get what you need. The point is that if you take big corporate money out of elections, you’ll get a government that’s less likely to work only for large corporations.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:11 pmHere’s a plan, Stefan: Medicare for everyone! See. Wasn’t that easy? And, so efficient. Medicare has an overhead of 3%. The current insurance-based system has overheads ranging from 15 to 30%. That’s why we pay more per capita for our healthcare than anyone else in the industrialized world.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:13 pm98: Al Franken talks about Public Financing of Campaigns often. That’s where I’ve gotten much of my info.
Yes, Public Financing means that we pay for it but in the long run its a huge savings. When politicians get their campign funding from the private sector they OWE the private sector favors when they assume office. Think of the favors politicans have given the oil, pharmaceutical and defense companies and tell me if this is more efficient then the pittance that public financing would cost?
Dennis Kucinch regarding Public Financing:
Public financing of campaigns is essential. Public financing yields to public control. Private financing of campaigns makes for private control. Private interests control our government today. All federal candidates should participate in the matching funds program as a first step of indicating their solidarity with public control of elections. Many in Congress are captive to the current system in which corporations have enormous influence.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:16 pm#39 – Xenon,.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:16 pmA mother.
@100, “Eh, no. A single-payer plan is where doctors, hospitals and pharmacies are paid by the government, cutting out the middle-man.”
what’s the difference to socialized medicine? if I understand you correctly this is exactly what the UK has. have a look at how well that works there!
January 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pmcutting out the middle-man? I don’t consider myself a “middle-man” when it comes to my health.
the free market works. that’s the simple answer to your question. if you don’t agree with that statement I don’t think we come to an agreement.
if you can’t earn enough to pay for health care yourself you need government support – I’m not a libertarian. but YOU need the support, and you decide how to use it, so it’s still a health market.
a government paying doctors directly, and thus removing your interest in efficient and cheap medicine, has proven not to work in multiple countries.
Hey rob,
So you think that liberal Democrats are the only ones that redistribute tax money? Man has the talking point machine made a monkey out of you.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:18 pm@103, it’s easy to critisize your own system when you only know the disadvantages of your system. have a look around. the world is full of countries.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:20 pmyou don’t want government organized medicine. and you don’t want government to pay directly for medicine. (that’s an open invitation for cooperations to make very much money. just buy some politicians and have access to billions.)
Stephan, socialized medicine is like our Veterans Administration, where the government owns the hospitals and facilities and employs the doctors and nurses. Single payer is where everything stays exactly the same except that the government pays the bills. The insurance industry is the middle man here. It provides no service — in fact it actively works to eliminate people from the system — and simply syphons off money in the middle. Citizens have total choice under single-payer. They can go anywhere they want. And, if it’s such a bad idea, why are we the only industrialized society that doesn’t do it? I’ve got news for you: 99% of the people in Britian would never trade their health system for ours.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:24 pm@96, can you provide a link for “public financing of campaigns�
the only type I’m aware of in other countries is xy cents for each vote a party got at an election. couldn’t work in the US because of personal campaigns and voting for specific persons instead of party lists.
so is there a plan? can everyone who joins a presidential campaign expect millions of tax funds?
if so I hope that system is in place when I turn 35 ;)
Comment by Stefan — January 30, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
In Maine and Arizona, a candidate qualifies for public financing if he/she can demonstrate they have a certain amount (determined by the state) of community support.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:27 pmStefan, you’re not making sense. You asked for a plan. I said “medicare for all.” I, of course, meant medicare for all Americans. 46 million of us are uninsured. This actually costs the taxpayer more than it would by addressing their needs with a single-payer plan. We pay, on the average, 30% more than the rest of the world per capita for our healthcare and yet our system is not as effective as scores of other countries. What’s the difference? Simple: here, we let a profit-based industry act as a middle-man between citizens and healthcare.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:29 pm“I hope God shows them this Think Progress posting when they reach the pearly gates and asks them to explain. I’d really like to hear their rational for such cruelty”
We don’t have to wait that long. I’ll tell you their reasoning. Raising the minimum wage eliminates entry level jobs and drives them offshore. Why do you think membership in unions has fallen off so dramatically in the last decade. Why pay someone $30/hr to fasten a bumper to a car when you can find someone in Mexico to do it for $10/hr?
January 30th, 2007 at 7:31 pmthe free market works
Comment by Stefan — January 30, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
There’s no such thing as a free market. The market is either regulated in favor corporations or regulated in favor of labor.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm@109, so I guess “socialized medicine” is not very well defined, because I’d call government paying for all bills exactly that. I’m not aware of a industrialized society that really owns all hospitals publicly.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:34 pmhowever, I happen to currently live in a country which kind of has that. I could tell a lot of stories, but long story short, the system is collapsing. there are private insurance companies and everyone who can buys a health insurance there.
I wouldn’t want to trade that system with no system at all(->US) but it’s still not working, costs rising each year AND service getting worse. most of doctors couldn’t survive without patients who have private insurance.
solution see above.
a government paying doctors directly, and thus removing your interest in efficient and cheap medicine, has proven not to work in multiple countries.
Comment by Stefan — January 30, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
You can have a national health care system and still have the well-off buying private insurance in addition to it.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pm#90, amen, Larry from C,
It’s just being mean spirited. I have this argument all the time with my conservative friends. It’s convenient to have someone to hate for your own failings and the poor are obvious targets, you have to dig to find the facts about corporate welfare and who has time for that. So lets just hate the poor that are given a leg up.
God help the U.S. of A. from the morons
January 30th, 2007 at 7:40 pm#11 – rob
John Edwards is no longer in Congress. He’s not blocking anything.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:41 pm“You can have a national health care system”
Who’s going to pay for it?
January 30th, 2007 at 7:42 pmWhy pay someone $30/hr to fasten a bumper to a car when you can find someone in Mexico to do it for $10/hr?
Comment by michael — January 30, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
You think Mexicans get paid $10/hr? Try $2/hr or less.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pmWho’s going to pay for it?
Comment by michael — January 30, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Don’t play dumb.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:44 pmhttp://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/8/4/124650/7768
Millionaire Repub. Senators hate the working poor
Despite the fact that the minimum wage bill that didn’t pass the cloture vote was due to the fact that it was tied directly to a massive rollback of the estate tax and $38 billion in other tax breaks, we are going to get a barrage of the “democrats are filibustering the minimum wage hike” nonsense.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:45 pm@113, a free market is regulated by definition. otherwise you’d just kill the guy who you owe money.
@111, I know the problems.
I have described a way to solve the “uninsuranced-problem”.
a profit-based industry is not a bad thing in itself. you are profit based. you want to pay as little as possible. and need an insurance company because health costs vary widely. no problem here.
paying much for health as a society also is not a problem in itself and not a good indicator for inefficiency.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:47 pmthe US has lots of rich people paying much for high quality medicine. and 40 millions who don’t have access to any medicine.
that can be more expensive as a whole than the low quality other societies offer for all of their people. and the overall health measured by the UN or whoever can be higher.
it may be better than the current system but such a system collapses over time because the government medicine is dominated by cooperate interests.
it’s amazing for what bs the government pays for just because it’s always been that way. drug prices are waaay higher than in countries with a drug market.
#116, The Iraq War/Occupation IMO has been nothing more then one of the greatest acts of Corporate Welfare the world has ever seen. It is simply a transfer of taxes from our pockets to Multinational Corporations. I can’t see that it has any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:48 pmWho’s going to pay for it?
Comment by michael — January 30, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Don’t play dumb.
Comment by Nat
Uh? Nat?
Who says he`s playing. This is as good as it gets with him.
He isn`t playing. He is naturally that way.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:48 pm“Who’s going to pay for it?
Comment by michael — January 30, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Don’t play dumb.
Comment by Nat — January 30, 2007 @ 7:44 pm”
My son isn’t playing, it’s a ‘congenital’ condition. Right mikey? Hey, you haven’t told them yet why you spent the entire Vietnam War hiding under your desk in the pentagon, while John Kerry and Al Gore were in Vietnam? You always were a cowardly, selfish and petty little brat – some things never change.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:49 pmthis is how it should be. You hire a person to do a job. Then if they do a good job, that person earns a raise. See how that works. Government shouldn’t be involved at all. No one is forced to work for minimum wage. If you want to make more than the minimum you do more or better work.
Comment by Kevin — January 30, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
That only works in John Galt world. In real world (non Bush) controls/regulations are required. Kevin just an example, what does a person earn born with severe handicaps ? Don’t bother to answer your a waste of time.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:51 pm@113, a free market is regulated by definition. otherwise you’d just kill the guy who you owe money.
Comment by Stefan — January 30, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
No, a free market has no regulations. What you’re in favor of is fascism (the merger of state and corporate interests).
January 30th, 2007 at 7:55 pmStefan: “a free market is regulated by definition”
Stefan, WTF are you talking about?
January 30th, 2007 at 8:01 pm> No, a free market has no regulations.
I suggest reading a book about (economic) liberalism.
free market -> free decisions inside the boundaries of regulations.
> What you’re in favor of is fascism (the merger of state and corporate interests).
hah! from what exactly do you draw that conclusion?
January 30th, 2007 at 8:02 pmeven your premise(”merger of state and corpoerate interests”) is totally wrong.
Oh really, Stefan. Hmmm. The definition of modern fascism is a merging of large corporate interests and money with government power.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:05 pm@128, corporations especially in the US have abused the terms of econimic liberalism for their own advantage. a free market as originally defined e.g. has involved strong anti-trust regulations from the beginning.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:07 pmsuggest reading a book about (economic) liberalism.
free market -> free decisions inside the boundaries of regulations.
-It’s not a free market.
hah! from what exactly do you draw that conclusion?
even your premise(â€merger of state and corpoerate interestsâ€) is totally wrong.
Comment by Stefan — January 30, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
-This is what Mussolini called fascism.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:07 pm@130, though I’m not sure about that definition, I have not disputed that. I said your premise is wrong.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:09 pm@128, corporations especially in the US have abused the terms of econimic liberalism for their own advantage. a free market as originally defined e.g. has involved strong anti-trust regulations from the beginning.
Comment by Stefan — January 30, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
What we have right now is a market regulated in favor corporations. We’re trying to change it to a market regulated in favor of labor.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:14 pmDon’t play dumb.
Comment by Nat
He ain’t playing.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:17 pmSerious question: What is it about this site that attracts such (and so many) moronic trolls?
January 30th, 2007 at 8:40 pmOne thing I am taking away from all of this, regarding those who are arguing against a minimum raise or increase in same:
Too. Stupid. To. Breathe.
Oh, and Mr. Tirebiter, sir? The site attracts trolls because there is no membership feature. A fact that may, or may not, be a Good Thing. That and the fact that frother sites and squawking heads takl about this site a lot and thus, they are kinda “sent over here”.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:56 pmWho is John Gault?
January 30th, 2007 at 9:11 pmSorry, even though the book was c$%^, i couldn’t resist.
See how crackers your senators are?
January 30th, 2007 at 9:57 pmDid you notice that these guys look like the Emperor from Starwars? That’s there for a reason.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:04 pmThe Republicans whine, the Republicans bitch:
January 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pmThe rich are too poor, and the poor are too rich!
Then maybe you can explain to all of us who will pay for universal health Joannie?
Comment by michael
Why, the universal inhabitants of our planet Michael. First things first however. The healthcare monopolies have to be broken up first. The healthcare monopolies are the pharmaceutical industries, the chemical suppliers to pharma, and the corporate owned
” hospital condos ” industry.
Everyone pays in and everyone benefits. Employers benefit with healthy workers. The nation benefits with a healthier populace. Hospitals benefit from a decreased workload, which also helps with the national nursing shortage crisis.
Even if you can`t afford to pay in, you still get the same treatment as everyone else.
Why? We are Americans. We`ll find a way. It`s what we do.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:26 amMichael,
Why don`t you slap your obnoxious self into the next room for me and let someone else type for a while huh?
January 30th, 2007 at 10:29 pmI’ve got an idea, let’s do away with the 40 hour work week, the minimum wage and go back to 19th century Europe where you were either a prince or a pauper. Great idea if you are a prince….kind of sucks if you have not been one of the lucky few to win the genetic lottery at birth. My guess is most of these people who do not want to raise the minimum wage were born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple.
The middle class is what makes this the greatest country in the world and setting certain standards of living like the 40 hour work week and a minimum wage help to ensure that we don’t fall back to those times where your boss forced you to work 7 days a week for pennies an hour. Yes, lots of smart, hard working people were forced to work for sh1t wages in the past. Hard to believe, huh? What makes America great is that if you are ambitious and want/are able to work more you will excel, make more $$ and have a better quality of life. But for those who can’t work as smart because of their physical/mental capacity we as a society have established a benchmark for a minimum standard of living. For examples of countries that do not follow this model check out the people living in shanty towns in India, Mexico, parts of China.
Last time I checked gas cost more than it did 10 years ago, a gallon of milk cost more, healthcare, etc all cost more than in 1996. Every year I get at minimum a 3-4% cost of living increase at my job, so do all of our elected officials (sometimes more) and I would bet most of the people reading this do too. So why in the fu*k are so many against affording our fellow Americans the same cost of living increase that we all have become accustomed to?
Do these people not deserve to make enough to support themselves – not to mention a family? In a lot of cases these are the working poor. Hard working people that work 2 jobs but still can’t make ends meet. They are holding up their end of the social contract, doing what you ask, NOT just taking a free handout and falling back on social services. So let’s give these people a break. An extra $1 or $2 an hour won’t mean a lot to you or me but it will to someone making $6.15/hour cleaning houses. Let’s do what’s right, cut these people some slack. God bless!
January 30th, 2007 at 10:45 pmMUST watch , No law in the constitution to pay income tax!!!
January 31st, 2007 at 3:00 amhttp://www.jewwatch.com/
Rob @3:30 jan 30,
January 31st, 2007 at 7:32 amEdwards earned his money the old-fashioned way,by working for,not by inheriting it! Aren’t you sorry you wasted your time,with such a lackluster try, to spread some BS like Hannity does!!
michael,
Constipation of the mind, diarrhea of the mouth.
What has the talking points crowd told you to think today?
January 31st, 2007 at 9:20 amthese guys shouldn’t get another salary hike for 50 years! instead, they get them regularly… not so for the Average Joe…
January 31st, 2007 at 10:03 amPS: interesting, these names are all Republicant…
January 31st, 2007 at 10:04 amJust jumping in…It’s scary to think people wouldnot support a minimum wage based on inflation and basic standards of living. But I’m from Canada and can’t imagine it..it’s just so selfish. Our minimum wage was just increased to $8.80 an hour, and that’s still very low if you have to pay rent/mortgage..bills etc… I see the numbers that the corporations make in yearly profits. It’s OBSCENE. There is no sane reason why any company should make 300 billion profit a year and still not want to pay it’s employess what they deserve FOR HELPING THEM MAKE SAID PROFIT. Sad. As for Health care I have always had “free” healthcare. I can see any doctor in Canada, provided he/she is taking new patients. The Government doesn’t tell me where to go or who to consult. I can walk into a myriad of after hours clinics if I come down with the Flu…I can take my Daughter to a doctor whenever she needs care…and thankfully, even in times when I’ve been betwen jobs or when I didn’t make enough to afford it..it was always there for me and my family. The Canadian Health Sysytem has some problems but all in all I have had excellent health care my entire life. My stepfather had serious heart problems and Cancer in his last years and we were able to get him the care he needed, which if my mother had had to pay for would not have been available, considering they were on a Veterans pension (Thank goodness for them also as they provided prescription coverage) My husband is American..and I am amazed at the lack of healthcare he has lived with. I hope all Americans will see the wisdom of having at least basic healthcare for all of it’s citizens. People who are healthy are more productive and much happier. If you know your loved ones will be taken care of in illness and injury it makes the whole family and community stronger.
Peace.
January 31st, 2007 at 12:43 pmI realize that people who’re against the minimum wage increase don’t hold that position because they have something against people who make the minimum wage, but I have a sort of weird question I’d like to ask people who are against the increase:
What is the minimum obligation an employer owes one of his full time employees? If an employee who, because of his work, doesn’t have the time to make money outside of his job, why doesn’t the employer have a responsibility to give the employee enough to meet his most basic needs?
Maybe a more basic question should be, “Can people survive in the US on the current minimum wage?”
February 1st, 2007 at 8:10 amI read today that Sen. Leiberman says we now need a “war on terrorism tax”. What the hell man, with the propaganda machine working over time trying to scare the hell out of everyone – I hope people dont fall for this shit – tax us for our own good. I am more frightnened by our own damn government than some people in a cave half way around the world, I sure wish America would wake up to these basturds.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pmthey’re not being considerate of the mothers and fathers making minium wage that’s trying to support others off 5.15. The nay sayers do not care about the lower class–!!! This nation is not as united as we ought to be!!!
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 am