TJones Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 BLAH BLAH BLAH.!You guys really crack me up. So, if the Dems. were all about "raising the minimum wage" then why did they vote down the Rep. proposal ? It had the same wage increase. They are just as guilty.Red, you didn't answer my question again, is it not ok for the small business owner to recieve a tax break, or do you think this is another Rep. agenda piece to help only the rich ? You were a small business owner, wouldn't you have appreciated any tax break to help your business ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Paying WORKING people below the federal poverty line is a moral issue plain and simple.Taxing WORKING people at any level of income for the purposes of redistribution of wealth is also a moral issue plain and simple. If you're willing to embrace the tenets of relativism, you'll find that morality is rarely an effective argument.Btw, Republicans proposed $7.25 per hour as the minimum wage, not $6.00. Please get your facts straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 If the Republicans really wanted to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 then it would have happened. But, you know as well as I do that they didn't want that, so they loaded their bill with all sorts of contigencies that they knew would never fly.Also, I didn't mention a damn thing about taxes. This debate is about the minimum wage which has very little to do with the redistribution of wealth. The minimum wage is about paying people a LIVING wage for the work they do that is so vital to our national economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 If the Republicans really wanted to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 then it would have happened. But, you know as well as I do that they didn't want that, so they loaded their bill with all sorts of contigencies that they knew would never fly.Also, I didn't mention a damn thing about taxes. This debate is about the minimum wage which has very little to do with the redistribution of wealth. The minimum wage is about paying people a LIVING wage for the work they do that is so vital to our national economy.The only contengencies were that it gave tax breaks to the small business owners that would be paying the minimum wage hike. It wasn't set up for big corporations like McDonald's and Burger King. Like I asked, why couldn't 8 Democrat Sen. vote it in. Hell, we only needed 3 of your party's Sen. to make it happen and not ONE Dem. Sen. stepped up to the plate. Hypocrites. The Republican proposal threw in an amendment to help struggling business owners be able to afford a mandatory pay raise, why does this compassion for the business owners escape you people. Isn't your party supposed to be the compassionate ones, oops, I forgot, if we cut taxes, then the drunken Democrat sailors won't have more money to pour into welfare programs. The thing is, that it is a wash, because if more people have more money to spend, especially in the tax bracket we are talking about here. Then they will more than likely spend it, which in turn replenishes the tax breaks that have been given to the ones who are actually providing the jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmm Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I wonder if they would reject raising their own pay raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Interesting. It seems that many states have already done what the Republicans will not allow.Map of States With Higher Minimum Wage18 states, covering 45% of US citizens already require a higher minimum wage. Many of these states also happen to have the highest per capita incomes. I don't know if that is considered a good thing, but I know that high per capita income is often touted by people in this forum as a sign of a healthy economy. If raising the minimum wage is so bad for the economy, why hasn't it shown up in these states?Of course, then there's Kansa, with a minimum wage of $2.65 per hourBTW, TJ, the Dems voted against the Republican bill because it would take away a lot of overtime rules, not because of tax breaks. But, overtime is anti-business too, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 Interesting. It seems that many states have already done what the Republicans will not allow.Map of States With Higher Minimum Wagewow, thanks for posting that...interesting that san francisco has a special ordinance within the california rates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 BTW, TJ, the Dems voted against the Republican bill because it would take away a lot of overtime rules, not because of tax breaks. But, overtime is anti-business too, isn't it?If you take out the overtime, what does that force people to do ? Hire more people that you only have to pay the straight minimum wage and not time and a half. LOOK, we just put another highschool drop out into the workforce, and got them off of welfare.Point is the Dems. had an option and didn't take it. Same pay raise, but the game wasn't being played their way. Again, the Rep. proposal got more votes, and your boys failed to see that your "down-trodden" get their money. You can hide behind Teddy's statements that "the Republican bill would effect 10 hours of overtime every 2 weeks, and will hurt restaurant workers and the like who rely on TIPS as part of their income." The Republican bill in no way effects cash wages (TIPS) earned by minimum wage workers. I don't know who is reading these proposals for Teddy, but he better hire somebody new. Senator Kennedy claims that his plan of raising minimum wage would help 7.3 million people. He also claims that the Republican plan only helps 1.8 million, referring to the business owners. Well, teddy, if you pass a bill that raises the same amount of minimum wage, aren't you gonna help the same 7.3 million that were in your plan ? PLUS, the 1.8 million small business owners.BTW, it has nothing to do with "overtime". It is because the amendment was added to the Bankruptcy Bill, which the Democrats hate, because it makes it tougher for their base to claim bankruptcy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Also, I didn't mention a damn thing about taxes. This debate is about the minimum wage which has very little to do with the redistribution of wealth. The minimum wage is about paying people a LIVING wage for the work they do that is so vital to our national economy.Taxes come in many different forms, and I use the word loosely. In my book, if you force a businessowner to take money out of his pocket and give it to an employee even though that employee has not obtained the necessary skill set to deserve it within the marketplace, then it is simply a transfer payment where the government acts as an overseer but not as an intermediary (as in the welfare system). Same effect, though.The notion of a "living wage" is bull. When was the last time you heard of a psychologically-intact person starving to death while living on minimum wage? This isn't the Sudan.I think you really should use the term "fair"...except that fairness is relative and really doesn't apply well to just about any circumstances. Frankly, the only time fairness matters in the real world is when a politician is looking to buy off a constituency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 BTW, it has nothing to do with "overtime". It is because the amendment was added to the Bankruptcy Bill, which the Democrats hate, because it makes it tougher for their base to claim bankruptcy.TJ, the Bankruptcy bill was passed a year ago, and is widely considered by ALL scholars (not just liberals) as the worst legislation passed in the last 50 years. It is terrible for consumers, which is why the Dems opposed it, but not the consumers that you are thinking of. Consumers who make less than the median state income are not affected. In Texas, that is all people making less than about $39,000, and families up to about $60,000. The people it screwed are those making over the state median income. People like you. People who often vote Republican. People who use their credit too much, like suburbanites.Much as you may not like the thought, the Dems fought the Bankruptcy bill because it hurt people like you. The Republicans pushed it to help the banks. I don't particularly care who you support. But, I thought you might like to know a few details about this bill.I used to practice Bankruptcy law before the new bill passed. Virtually every client I had were middle to upper middle class suburbanites, making from $60,000 to $120,000 a year. I haven't had a client qualify for Bankruptcy since the law went into effect. Very few of those clients sounded like Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I apologize Red, you are right . the breakdown of the Minimum wage proposals I was reading were the same ones that were shown on Wednesday, but they were also the same ones proposed a year ago, and apparently the Republican proposal was attached to that Bankruptcy Bill last year, but was amended off of it, so that the Bill could pass last year. So, I need to find a more recent proposal.Teddy's remarks about "overtime" and "hurting restaurant workers" or TIP earners is still hogwash, the Republican proposal in no way affects cash wages. It goes deeper than just "overtime". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.