Democrats vow to block pay raises until minimum wage increased
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A week after the GOP-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Senate Democrats on Tuesday vowed to block pay raises for members of Congress until the minimum wage is increased.

"We're going to do anything it takes to stop the congressional pay raise this year, and we're not going to settle for this year alone," Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said at a Capitol news conference.

"They can play all the games the want," Reid said derisively of the Republicans who control the chamber. "They can deal with gay marriage, estate tax, flag burning, all these issues and avoid issues like the prices of gasoline, sending your kid to college. But we're going to do everything to stop the congressional pay raise." YES - SOMEONE SAID IT!!!

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Democrats want to raise it to $7.25. During the past nine years, as Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to increase the minimum wage, members of Congress have voted to give themselves pay raises -- technically "cost of living increases" -- totaling $31,600, or more than $15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

In floor debate last week Republicans argued the raise for low-income workers would hurt small businesses. They offered an alternative measure to raise the minimum wage that was tied to tax breaks for small businesses.

The main proposal fell eight votes short of the 60 it needed to pass with 46 opposing; the alternative measure mustered only 45 votes in favor, while 53 senators opposed.

Reid wouldn't spell out the specific tactics he would employ to block the congressional pay raise -- which is triggered each year with the passage of an appropriations bill not by a vote on a stand alone bill to increase pay for members.

But he warned, "I know procedure's around here fairly well."

Question: How can they possibly justify raising their own pay $30,000 and not a single penny for those making minimum wage?

Answer: Minimum wage earners do not contribute to republican election campaigns. However, big companies that pay miminum wage to their numerous employees donate hundreds of millions of dollars to republicans, to get them elected, so they can vote down raises to the minimum wage that would cost their huge corporations a lot more money than the campaign contributions they gave to the republicans in the first place.

In other words, republican politicians are whores who fuck the american public for money, and then feel they've done such a good job of fucking America, they give themselves raises every year as a pat on the back.

Or another way of putting it is that its a lot cheaper to buy a republican whore politician than it is to pay your employees enough for them to feed AND provide medicine for their children.

"Democrats want it raised to $7.25 an hour.."

Are they FUCKING KIDDING ME????? I would say $6.00 is fine, but that's just too much in one shot.

The Dems are playing used car salesman, here.

"Democrats want it raised to $7.25 an hour.."

Are they FUCKING KIDDING ME????? I would say $6.00 is fine, but that's just too much in one shot.

The Dems are playing used car salesman, here.
then workout compromise. dont just not raise it. then raise it for your homies. fuck that man. this isnt all or nothing. if they were being real, they would say "7.25 is too much maybe something little lower" like you did, but instead its "no, and lets move on".


i'd take a used car salesman over a guy who just says yes or no based on how he sees fit.

"Democrats want it raised to $7.25 an hour.."

Are they FUCKING KIDDING ME????? I would say $6.00 is fine, but that's just too much in one shot.

The Dems are playing used car salesman, here.
It wasn't in one shot:

In the Senate, two amendments to the Defense Appropriations Bill were defeated that would have raised the minimum wage. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) offered an amendment that would have raised the minimum wage from the current $5.15 to $7.25 over two years: it would have gone from $5.15 to $5.85 beginning 60 days after the legislation was enacted; to $6.55 one year later; and to $7.25 a year after that. The amendment, which needed 60 votes for passage, was defeated 52-46 on Jun. 21.

The other amendment, offered by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), would have increased the minimum wage to $6.25 over 18 months and was bundled with a number of other provisions affecting the Fair Labor Standards Act. The amendment was defeated 52-46 and again failed to garner the requisite 60 votes.

Mxy, can you list the numbers of republicans and democrats who voted for each?

I'd like everyone here to see which party wants the bulk of the country to be poor, stupid, and in poor health.

I don't have the figures on hand -- that was a super-quick Google News search. I'm on the road this week (maybe longer) and my connectivity is spotty and slow.

"Democrats want it raised to $7.25 an hour.."

Are they FUCKING KIDDING ME????? I would say $6.00 is fine, but that's just too much in one shot.

The Dems are playing used car salesman, here.

Min. wage is $7.50 over here and it's great. Maybe America should get back on track.

Unibomber,

What's it like to live in a progressive state?

Must be nice.

If Dick DeVos takes over Michigan, I may think about moving.

Half the states have minimum wage laws that require getting paid more than 5.15 an hour anyway.

States should decide this, not the Feds.

Noone is FORCED to work in a min. wage job. Why should someone get more than 5.15/hr to mop a floor? Companies can determine what they think they want to pay for that job. If they aren't paying enough, noone will work it, and they'll be forced to pay more.

If you raise min. wage, that'll just mean the people who work harder, who are worth more than they are paid will be kept, and others will be fired.

Why is it always someone else's fault with you guys (the left)???

Noone is FORCED to work in a min. wage job.
Thats a very odd world you live in. Actually most people working minimum or close to that jobs arent doing it as one of many options. Funny that you said floor moppers don't deserve much more? what percentage of people making 5.15 phr are floor moppers man? You're reaching there. Janitors arent dominating the minimum wage market, in fact are somehow some are making more than that(not much more of course). Probally a bad example. I'm not totally against states deciding the wage. But your reasoning didn't make a good case for it IMO.

Nevertheless Democratic psycho Taymelo will be happy to have a conservative to battle with since Gecko took a vacation this offseason.

Half the states have minimum wage laws that require getting paid more than 5.15 an hour anyway.

States should decide this, not the Feds.
That's how it works in Canadian provinces these days, now that every province has a minimum wage.


Noone is FORCED to work in a min. wage job. Why should someone get more than 5.15/hr to mop a floor? Companies can determine what they think they want to pay for that job. If they aren't paying enough, noone will work it, and they'll be forced to pay more.
People who are capable of working don't generally eat and have shelter without performing some sort of labor. Companies can easily collude to pay shit wages in an isolated area or field if left to their own devices. By setting a baseline, we avoid sweatshops, exploitation, combative disruptive unions, etc., and that's deemed to be a good thing.


If you raise min. wage, that'll just mean the people who work harder, who are worth more than they are paid will be kept, and others will be fired.
Really? Prove it.

Thus far, increased unemployment hasn't generally been an impact of "cost of living" raising of minimum wages in places that have such things in place. So, why would it be any different now?

Yeah, increased unemployment happens when establishing the minimum wage. In the U.S., that impact was felt almost entirely along racial lines and we bit that bullet 70-80 years ago.

One other thing to note: The tax base is really important when talking about this stuff. It takes resources our taxes pay for to provide infrastructure atop which businesses can establish jobs -- roads, tariffs, etc. Less wages tends to mean less taxes, and often less taxes are used to attract business. Below a certain average wage, it's worthwhile for us tax paying citizens to not pour money into regions that pay low because the rate of return is insufficient. In some cases, it may even make sense to pay people not to work (much as we pay subsidies to farmers).

States should decide this, not the Feds.

Do you feel that way about gay marriage, flag burning, etc?

Noone is forced into those jobs...I haven't had a min. wage job since I was 13, and I've got no college degree. That's 13 years of no min. wage, all you have to do to not make at least 7$/hr is not be a criminal or a total asshole who can speak English fluently.

States should decide this, not the Feds.

Do you feel that way about gay marriage, flag burning, etc?


Bump.

I could give a shit less about gay marriage, flag burning is wholly disrespectful, and if my kids aren't allowed to wear a christian tee shirt to a public school, then I don't think anyone should be allowed to burn a flag in a public place.

I could give a shit less about gay marriage, flag burning is wholly disrespectful, and if my kids aren't allowed to wear a christian tee shirt to a public school, then I don't think anyone should be allowed to burn a flag in a public place.
whats the connection bewteen flag burning and christian t-shirts? either way both are allowed. If your school doesnt allow christian t-shirts, i was right about you living in a fucked up place. both should be allowed and both are in most places i've seen.

I could give a shit less about gay marriage, flag burning is wholly disrespectful, and if my kids aren't allowed to wear a christian tee shirt to a public school, then I don't think anyone should be allowed to burn a flag in a public place.

JESUS.

Answer the QUESTION.

How do you feel about FEDERAL REGULATION of gay marriage, flag burning, etc.?

Jesus, like I said, I DON'T CARE ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE. It's a non issue to me, if fags want to marry each other, let them. I say there should be no regulation, let the fags marry.

Flag burning I'm a little less enthused about. It's kind of a treasonous act, IMO...

And while it wouldn't happen to my kids, (these kids are theoretical of coarse), my kids will go to a private school, there have been NUMEROUS court decisions saying that kids wearing christian tee shirts or whatever violates seperation of church and state, clearly abusing that ruling.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand he misses the question again.

I'll ask it more directly.

Yes or no - Do you support a federal law banning flag burning?

Please provide a one word response, with that word being either "yes" or "no".

Thanks.

And while it wouldn't happen to my kids, (these kids are theoretical of coarse), my kids will go to a private school, there have been NUMEROUS court decisions saying that kids wearing christian tee shirts or whatever violates seperation of church and state, clearly abusing that ruling.

Up until the past 10 years or so, Professor Teachout says, schools felt that if they allowed religious speech on school grounds it would constitute an impermissible "establishment" of religion.

"But then, in a series of cases, the current Supreme Court ... said, 'No, you can't use that concern about avoiding establishment as a grounds for discriminating against religious speech as compared with other kinds of speech,' " says Teachout.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p11s01-lire.html

seems that you're child's private school is a little behind on the curve.

Flag burning I'm a little less enthused about. It's kind of a treasonous act, IMO...
I disagree. I think of treason as being about overthrowing the government. I think about most acts of flag burning as simple protest.

The reason that flag burning requires a constitutional amendment is because, according to the Supreme Court, flag burning is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Specifically: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

To me, the real questions are:

1) Why are we talking about flag burning? Aren't there more important things for our legislators to be doing? Is there a flag burning epidemic? Wouldn't making such an amendment just cause more people around the world to burn our flag than they would otherwise? I just don't get it at all.

2) What makes flag burning any different than other iconography that is routinely abused? I just saw a kid put quarters and a penny in a metal pressing gizmo and his loose change molded into a medallion of a fish. I routinely hear our national anthem massacred by a public who'd rather sing America The Beautiful.