Cliff LyonProof Most Senate Republican’s SUCK!!!!
I’m so goddamned disgusted with Republicans I could spit. Bunch’o rich white ASSHOLES!
I’ve never seen Ted so pissed. Go Ted!
What is it with Republicans and their refusal to help the working class?
“Do you have such disdain for hard-working Americans that you want to pile all your amendments on this? Why don’t you just hold your amendments until other pieces of legislation? Why this volume of amendments on just the issue to try and raise the minimum wage? What is it about it that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it? Something. Something! What is the price that the workers have to pay to get an increase? What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?”
Warning:If anyone comes on this blog and makes ANY argument against raising the minimum wage, you will probably be moderated for being a giant asshole.
January 26th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Cliff,
Speaking of Repug assholes, they’re spouting again over at ASP, and this time threatening to kill you. What a bunch of loser wannabe sompin’ anythins!
“Frankly, I think we should be authorized to kill/capture ANYONE in Iraq instigating unrest whether they be Iranian, German, American, Antarctican or a Cliffion.”
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2007/01/26/root-of-iraq-evil/
January 26th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Cliff,
Thanks for the articulate, thoughtful and concise comments. It makes me proud to be a progressive. After reading these comments, I just don’t understand why there aren’t more people joining our cause.
January 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Dear ME,
Your progressive credential are questionable at best. I read your previous post - talking points, trickle down bullshit.
If you are looking to join a our club, you’re missing the point. We are not a club, we are thinkers and we care about people and fairness and FACT!
January 26th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Thanks for the heads up Nephi.
No surprise however, killing is the only thing they know. They are the our “proud” killers.
I’m certain after this whole Bush Iraq era is over, the democrats will instigate forced sterilization for people who supported the war as of January 1st 2007.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Me, I say,the bulk is socially challenged.
They know not, simple minds they, whence the Trojan horse commeth, and will not recognize its implications as they foist themselves in their revelry upon one another in glee. So for them, I have what is old, from me, dressed in words, gift unto thee.
I know me now, the Trojan Way
to enter in stealth, no matter what they say
do men really think, that in lies they can slink
without someone ready, stopping to blink?
So…my enemy of Truth
subvert I, your will, with nary your sooth
and someday, when you are drunk and at play
those who love Truth, will blow you away.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Yup. Great idea. Raise federal minimum wage so I have to raise prizes on my products. I do have to pay the 16 year old stock boy, after all, then feed the wife and two kids. Stupid fucking Democrats. Don’t you see this is going to put small businesses like me OUT OF GODDAMN BUSINESS?
January 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
I think the minimum wage argument is a red herring. We have the “federal minimum wage” and we have the “effective minimum wage”. Right now the effective minimum wage in this country is much higher than the FMW. If you look at want ads in Utah there are virtually no jobs even offered lower than $7 an hour, except for maybe those that work for tips or commissions. Unless the FMW is raised higher than the EMW then it is not going to make much difference.
I am not against having a minimum wage. They say it costs jobs, and raises prices, but I haven’t ever seen any real proof. It may lead more companies to go over seas for slave labor but they are doing that anyway, regardless of what Congress does with the minimum wage.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Cliff,
I’ve done some study this evening, because I guess I didn’t know what I really thought about the Min Wage–I mean there are the platitudes, and then there are the practicalities. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need to have minimum wage laws (heck I guess we wouldn’t have to have any laws, for that matter). But I guess our economy is much like our health care system–probably not very normal right now. But I do have a couple of observations and suggestions (I have given more detail to these thoughts on Simple Utah Mormon Politics.):
The first important issue to consider is whether raising the minimum wage would have any negative effects. The most likely is that those who aren’t worth the new minimum wage will be out of a job, especially youth who, in the absence of a job, would be prone to join gangs and engage in other destructive activities.
There are better ways, such as tax credits and eliminating sales tax on food, to help poor families. Nationally, nearly 85% of those making the minimum wage live in families that are far above anything considered poor. Earned income tax credits reduce or eliminate the tax burden of low-income families. They can even be structured such that they become a subsidy to low-income workers.
Very few Utahns as a percentage earn the minimum wage. Only 9% of the Utahns who make the minimum wage are sole wage earners in their families. If we really want to help them, and I think we do, an earned-income tax credit seems to be the best way to go.
January 27th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Exactly Small Biz Owner, what exactly is it that they don’t understand. Minimum wage is for MINIMUM work. If I have to raise my employees wages I will have to give them less hours which is less money in their pockets or get rid of them entirely and/or raise my prices, which could put me out of business. That will surely help them. PALEEZE wake up. What it’s all really about is taxes. More $ for the democrats to handout like candy. At least the Senate Republicans and holding it because they want to help the small businesses with a tax benefit. Ted Kennedy is an idiot and doesn’t know a damn thing about small businesses.
January 27th, 2007 at 12:16 am
And another thing, why do you think that Republicans are rich and white? Just because I have my own business doesn’t make me rich. How much is Kennedy worth, or Kerry or Pelosi, I could go on and on.
January 27th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Hey now, all this whining about raising the minimum wage guys - much ado about nothing.
They want to bring it to $7.25 an hour? Big deal. To say you’ll have to raise your prices and all that crap is just a bunch of platitude to excuse you for being greedy.
I pay my employees well above the minimum wage and I have happy, dedicated, and committed workers. On this one point I agree with Frank — it really is too bad we need a law to make people do the right thing for the people who make their businesses what they are.
Just today I was riding in a brand new vehicle owned by a rich and white republican. Person paid cash for the fancy new 2007 Expedition, and person doesn’t want a minimum wage increase … because paying an employee an extra 40 bucks is going to hurt this person’s business somehow?
Give me a break. As I sat in the 2007 Expedition with leather seats and ass warmers, it dawned on me that our priorities are totally screwed up.
January 27th, 2007 at 5:42 am
First, I have no problem with the Minimum Wage resolution they are trying to get through. It’s a moot point in Massachusetts, we bumped to $7.50 01 JAN 2007. Although a tax credit for smaller employers would be nice. But the whole Republican-thug-thing……two words…..American….Samoa. Gosh those words make me smile an evil little smile.
To the SBO commenter above. Hey now! It’s 9 degrees here in Massachusetts right now…….seat warmers are a good thing.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:47 am
All CEOs should be given the minimum wage. Then check thier performance. Up is down, right is wrong and Repubs are kind.
January 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am
What an enlightening discussion- NOT. Since the labor market is at the point where few jobs are offered at $5.15 an hour, then raising the minimum wage to $7.15 over a period of two years is highly unlikely to put anybody out of business.
The argument that few minimum wage earners have a family to support is irrelevant because one person can’t live on that income unless they’re homeless. Last night, there was a news story about a community of homeless people in Florida who have built shacks for themselves– almost everybody living there is employed full time.
As for the earned-income tax credit dodge, it doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t file an income tax return, how do you get a tax credit?
According to one poll, 83 percent of Americans are in favor of a minimum wage increase to $7.15. The Republicans ought to wake up or they will be toast in the 2008 election.
January 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Richard,
I’m sorry you don’t think the discussion has been enlightening. I do. I think you bring up good points–the fact that the Fed min wage has not been raised for so long makes more moot the point this time around that very few people will lose jobs, because they already make more than the new minimum.
However, you lost me with most of the rest of your argument. The problem of the homeless people in Florida would be solved with a properly structured Earned Income Tax Credit.
If you work, you can file an income tax return. If you don’t, you don’t qualify for minimum wage anyway, but rather (more likely) for a welfare check.
If you file an income tax return as a low-income worker, you are likely eligible for earned income tax credit. As I said before, in some states (I don’t know details, but I would support such an EITC structure in Utah) EITC “also frequently operates as a wage subsidy for low-income workers”.
So yes, the EITC, structured properly, if you have to pick one solution only, is a much better solution, because it targets those who really need the help.
Workers are entitled to a fair wage for the labor they perform. If they don’t have skills, they can be trained to get those skills. Employers are dumb not to pay a wage that their employees are worth. But it is debatable whether they should be forced to pay employees more than they are worth. Raising a minimum wage is not a panacea, as some people think, because they don’t think of the problems that are caused as a result.
It doesn’t do a whole lot of good to get empassioned about issues when it causes one not to take a serious look at good alternatives. The fact that the issue is so emotionally charged likely explains the difference in opinion between the American public and the Congress. Congress is (should be) paid to look at the alternatives, unswayed by blinded passion.
Perhaps the ultimate solution is a combination of increasing minimum wage and modifying EITC. But perhaps most of the rest of you already have your minds made up.
January 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Frank, I’m surprised you would advocate for a complicated gov’t solution like Earned Income Tax Credit over a simple principle of fairness. (big gov’t solution)
There has never and will never exist a purely free market economy that does not self-destruct under the its own weight because such systems allow for exploitation.
This is an historical fact. Left alone markets create and exploited class. A livable minimum wage level is the simplest protection. This also allows people to live in some semblance of dignity instead of starving their children while waiting for an annual tax credit (if they even file for it)
January 27th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
The Earned Income Tax Credit reduces the amount of income tax owed. If you don’t owe any income tax, then it doesn’t help you. I must admit my observation comes from years ago, when as a minimum wage worker making $3.35 an hour I was exempt from income tax.
Now, a full time minimum wage job pays $10,712 a year in annual gross income. According to the 2006 tax table, you have to pay $1,229.30 in income tax even though you don’t make a living wage. That in itself is so stupid I can hardly believe it. But your EITC on that is $94– don’t spend it all in one place! No wonder 25 percent of those eligible don’t bother.
Could say this better myself, so I quote Jack Z. Smith, a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
“Every time that Democrats suggest a minimum-wage increase, Republicans pitch a hissy fit. The GOP hand wringers invariably claim that an increase in the floor wage would result in widespread layoffs of low-income workers, bring on a rash of small-business failures and fan a sharp rise in inflation.
How come none of these things happened after the last minimum-wage increase in 1997? Indeed, the late 1990s were marked by strong job growth and a booming stock market.
… Taxpayers who bemoan the cost of social programs to help the poor should realize that higher working-class wages reduce the need for Medicaid, food stamps and government housing subsidies.”
January 27th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
With the exception that people can lie on their tax forms and perhaps not get audited, I think EITC is simpler. It is not a blanket solution that “benefits” those, such as second breadwinners and dependents, who do not need the benefit.
EITC works with those who really do need it, and it doesn’t cause nearly the unforeseen problems that a blanket raise of the min wage would cost.
I agree that free markets are prone to exploitation, and thus government regulation is necessary. “If men were angels” as the Federalist stated, we wouldn’t need any government at all. Because of man’s nature to exploit, we do need to protect those who are exploited, but I think your and my fundamental disagreement is how that is to be done.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Richard,
I didn’t refresh my page before I responded to Cliff…
Seeing your facts and figures, I can now see where you’re coming from. But I still would rather restructure the EITC rules (to include subsidies) than give a blanket min wage increase.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Frank, did you mean to say that a single person making $10,712 a year ($9,483 after taxes) doesn’t really need any help? I guess living in a cardboard box isn’t all that bad.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Frank, I got my numbers wrong (not doing this on TurboTax). Minimum wage gross income is $10,712 but minus the personal exemption the taxable income is $7,412. It’s mind-boggling that anyone could owe tax on that, but Uncle Sam wants 10 percent. The EITC (PDF file) on $741 is a whopping $55.
January 27th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Richard,
No. They need a lot of help. They could hardly buy an apartment at that income. My point was intended to be that it would be better to structure the Earned Income Credit so that they get the same effect as a minimum wage increase, but as I said before, the bulk of min wage earners who are not poor (who live in moderate-or-well-to-do families) would not get the EITC.
January 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Frank, years ago in New York (where I grew up) satirist Jean Shepherd said it best: “Let’em eat twinkies.” To get the EITC you have to pay taxes– to pay taxes you have to earn money. If you don’t earn money, the EITC can’t help you.
January 27th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Richard,
Apparently we’re talking past each other.
January 27th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Once again, folks, I’d like to shine the light on Dick Cheney’ retirement fund, the war and the deficit, the cost of repairing all the needless damage and of course, trying the perps in a court of law. At one time there was plenty of $ to go around, now if a fellah wants a job, he better be ready to heave the armaments.
January 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Fucking Welfare Queens meet the American Dream
Minimum wage is a all the rage, gotta get paid
but its not fit for anything but a slave
in this day and age now we scoff at the sage
but when the preachers prays we obey
and when boss comes we stand at attention
mind races with fears I can’t even mention
masses bound by the spectacle of all this contention
the people must learn to act by abstention
nothin’ here’s new it’s just the living extension
of a timeless, spaceless and universal invention
The 4 Horses and Henchman have fate to meet
For the cirlce unbroken they cannot defeat
Consumed in the flames of their own searing heat
There never came something so justly complete.
“Pride Goeth Before the Fall”
- Shakespeare
January 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Frank,
The EITC is a good thing, but it’s still not really equal to a living wage. I’ve been uneconmically advantaged enough for the past 12 years to qualify for it every year, to greater or lesser degrees.
While I was a single parent I used my EITC as a sort of savings plan I couldn’t dig into until it was tax refund time, and then I used it to try and chip away at my debts and pay for major expenses that popped up during the year, like car repairs, insurance and inspection and renewal fees. If I was lucky, I might be able to save a couple hundred as an emergency fund, which would usually end up getting used pretty quickly. That left me with nothing for emergencies the rest of the year other than to frequent payday lenders, which was not only humiliating, but difficult to get out from under, as you can probably imagine.
Most of the money I earned was used for bills, debts and everyday living expenses. I spent very little on going out (I actually got pretty creative on finding entertainment-type things to do for free or next to free, but that’s another post) and less on “things” for myself and my daughter. We would have gone without on many things if it hadn’t been for supportive friends and family giving us hand-me down clothes and used bits of furniture and other household items that we needed over the years.
Just about any item I bought for my own personal enjoyment I paid for by more than just money — there was guilt, and then there was the falling behind on other things because I bought (to give a couple of actual examples) that book or maybe the bra that actually gave support and was comfortable, but wasn’t as cheap as the useless flimsy ones. My finances were so precariously balanced for so many years that the depravation really got to me, and I’m not an overly materialistic person.
I support raising the minimum wage, and I support giving small businesses some tax breaks to help them absorb the new expense a little easier. Since small business owners can’t contribute as much to politicians as large corps can, they’ll never get as many breaks as the big guys get.
January 27th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Yes Jenni
I narrowly missed abject poverity with it for many years working at $7 and $8 jobs with a family.
What some fail to remember is that small resturaunts, hospitality, farm workers and the like have had exemption from FMW since the start.
Second,
Major national/mulinational companies like the following pay their so-called associates $5.15 per hr in Utah Sears Grand and Circuit City among them. You can outsell and outhustle your fellow worker to make more than the base $5.15 FMW rate. If you do that you get paid your commission amount.
I wonder how many 16 yr old stock boys work there?
At least wal-mart starts cashiers at $7.50 around here. Great fer welfare queens.
January 29th, 2007 at 4:53 am
If you depend on slave labor than you fuckers should go out of business!
January 29th, 2007 at 8:14 am
When the value of your money is decided by the whims of other nations, and their banks, due to profligate spending and staggering debt, we are all slaves.
When you have not planned for a demographic future where the old and boomers eat their young to finance their “retirements”, we are all slaves.
Just those that are “pleasin” slaves will have a little better perch, when the Army of Justice makes its March to the Sea.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Jenni (and Nate):
Thanks for sharing your stories. I get a better perspective of it all, and probably also of what Richard is talking about. I guess the reality of the EITC is different than what I am proposing.
I especially liked Jenni’s last paragraph:
I think “giving small businesses some tax breaks” is the essence of many of the amendments the Republicans are currently proposing in Congress. I think giving tax breaks to small businesses is a good approach as well.
Here’s an example of what I was suggesting for the EITC, however, keeping in mind that it would be a distinct subsidy to some, and it sounds like it’s very different than what occurs today. Using the numbers 52 weeks * 40 hours per week * $7.25 per hour, a person could earn $15,080 per year. The government would set this as the EITC baseline. For the purposes of this example, let’s assume that a single breadwinner could provide for their family with that income (they probably can’t really). My proposal, then is that if someone worked at a job that paid, say $4 per hour (where he or she would earn $8320 in a year), the EITC would compensate for the earning shortfall by paying the taxpayer $6760, so that this particular breadwinner meets the government-established baseline.
Hopefully that’s more clearly stated.
January 30th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Interestingly enough, the Repugs in the legislature almost unanimously oppose ethics reform, campaign finance reform or most “good government” efforts. The three who had some forms of watered down efforts were asked if they wanted to participate with Minority Leader Ralph Becker (D-SLC), Minority Assistant Whip Rep. Carol Spackman Moss (D-Holladay), and Rep. Roz McGee to help make this a “Bipartisan” effort, they would refuse and say “I can’t do that. I can’t be invovled in this” and asked to have their names removed from anything having to do with our “bipartisan” effort toward ethics reform. You would think ethics were partisan or something…. than again, seeing how it’s done in Utah and Washington, I guess it is.
January 30th, 2007 at 1:43 am
I forgot to mention, the Ds will hold a press conference on ethics and good government on Wednesday morning on the hill, led by Rep. Ralph Becker. Watch the news for it. It was intended to be a “Bipartisan” press conference but since no R wanted to participate, it’s a totally D effort. More powere to Ds!! More power for ethics!