Posted on 12/28/2015 12:39:07 PM PST by massmike
I’d much rather see that sign than see an illegal alien making $14,000 a year, collecting $40,000 more in benefits, and having two or three anchor babies so he can bring in his entire extended family.
I acknowledge always having a softness for the idea of a minimum wage (suspending ideology, yes)... but each time the minimum is raised there are less and less jobs
raising the minimum wage now... when there are 104,000,000 working-age Americans without employment.. is deplorable...imho.
perhaps if we can recover someday from the “Great Obama Depression”...and there are jobs again for people...then raising the minimum wage might be ok.
So, all I’m saying is ...that IF we are to have a minimum wage, that THIS is a particularly awful time to raise it.
All this shows is the utter contempt certain politicians have for poor people and people who want (or need) to get started in life
Leader Obama has spoken. You are a useless eater.
You make excellent points, and I enjoyed reading through. Here's the problem: raising MW to $15 an hour would, indeed, do away with welfare assistance, as the enrollees are then making too much money. In fact, this has been the case in a # of areas where former welfare recipients are now COMPLAINING that the higher MW is now making them inelgible for assistance.
But let's boil it down, shall we? Someone making $15/hour grosses $1200 every 2 weeks ($15 x 80). After taxes, take home pay is likely to be somewhere around $800, so effectively, they are now making $1600 in "take home". In Denver (and comparable cities), rent for a simple 2 bedroom place is extremely high, approximately $1200+ per month. So, NOW they are screaming because they no longer get those welfare benefits, AND the rental market is continues to out price these "low income" types.
The result? How long before poverty rates are jacked up, and folks making $15+ per hour are once again eligible for housing and food stamp assistance, thus being funded once again, by us taxpayers?
Yeah. But F him. I have a “victory” garden.
How ‘bout we follow the Constitution for a change, THEN see what ‘problems’ remain and deal with those?
You point out the problem (govt), yet concede ‘only if...’.
Following the 4, 5, 9, 10th and 13th would knock out - unions (talk about conflict of interest), SS, welfare, crony capitalism, illegals/refugees (see welfare), etc.
Man, could you imagine the return of the markets to HCare, education, trash, fire/police, etc.?! Talk about a BOON.
Get govt out of where they don’t belong and, hey, restoration of the Free Market and the return of true CHARITY!!
Colorado is only going to follow the consumer price index to set the minimum wage yearly. That may mean a Colorado minimum wage of only $8.31 per hour on the 1st.
http://www.coloradorestaurant.com/news/Minimum-Wage-Increase-January-1—2016
Some folks mentioned Social Security vs. minimum wages.
OpenSecrets.org
National Cmte to Preserve Social Security
2014 PAC Contribution Data
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list recipients)
(99% to Democrats, 1% to Republicans) $302,691
Contributions to this PAC from individual donors of $200 or more ( list donors)
Alaska ain’t there yet!
We are fiercely independent, if anything. Also too many lefties are moving to Anchorage and they have the population to frustrate many of the rest of us.
Actually, very few government assistance programs simply cut you off if you work. If you make more money, you’d get less money from the government, but your net takehome pay would still be more.
Of course, you pretty much don’t qualify for anything if both parents are married and thus have their incomes added together for means testing. So relying on better wages rather than federal assistance will also have the added benefit of saving the institution of marriage, and all the social stability factors it brings into play.
>> How ‘bout we follow the Constitution for a change, THEN see what ‘problems’ remain and deal with those? <<
The 9th and 10th amendments don’t come into play, because we’re talking STATE minimum wage laws. I can’t even guess how you bring the 4th, 5th or 13th amendments into play. Cruel and unusual punishments for criminals? Excessive bail? Unreasonable search and seizure? Due process of criminal proceedings?
Are you presuming the States are not also bound by the 1st-8th?
How do the Amendments I site pertain?
4th - “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...”
5th - “No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
13th - “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Whereas A1S8 specifically exempts Congress from imposing ANY ‘min. wage’, A1S10C1 “No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...”, IMO, drives the point home vs. States.
Lastly, again, IMO, the 16th is null/void as it contains no over-riding verbiage to the above Amendments; let alone requiring one to ‘voluntarily’ sign away their 4th/5th A. Rights in filing all tax returns (red flag anyone?).
Though, I’m just a simply educated serf reading plain English...Hope that waylays your confusion.
You consider that a minimum wage requirement constitutes involuntary servitude? Unreasonable search and seizure by the government? Deprivation of due process? That’s just plain bizarre. We’ll have a much better go at the prudential argument than your uh, minority interpretation.
And just exactly how does Art 1 Sect 8 specifically exempt Congress from imposing any minimum wage? (You put that in quotes, as if you’re quoting the Constitution, but plainly there’s no mention of minimum wage in the text.)
As to the 16th Amdt, even if there was some legal need to include redundant language for repeal, so what? Minimum wage requirements have nothing to do with income taxes.
I’ll type real slow...
Min. wage is govt interfering with contracts. Min. wage NOT voluntary. It’s not govt property (aka $$) to dictate terms, minimums, constraints....NOTHING. Min. wage is a TAKING (anti-5th). If person A is worth $X, govt mandates/demands, regardless of worth, A is paid $Y (a taking of $Y - $X [plus the mandated 50% of SS, HCare costs, mandatory min. ‘leave’ time, etc. etc.] PER EMPLOYEE).
Civics 101: The Constitution doesn’t grant Rights (which are inalienable ONLY to We the People, from our Creator). It specifically states what powers are given, by the will/consent of the governed (the People); it does not restrict We the People.
Q: “How does Art 1 Sect 8 specifically exempt Congress from imposing any minimum wage?”
A: A1S8 doesn’t list many things, one of them being min. wage. Hence, Congress has NO authority/power in the matter.
Welfare, EITC, MediXYZ, school grants, foreign aid, etc. IS involuntary servitude. They are $$, given to one group from the pocket(s) of others. Try not paying your taxes and see the deadly force of govt, regardless that those taxes are unlawful to begin.
Ditto that!!
“With the exception of Arkansas - all these are liberal states.”
Alaska, Colorado, Nebraska ??
The 5th amendment doesn’t prohibit taking. It prohibits taking without due process; taxation is taking which is explicitly permitted.
A: A1S8 doesn’t list many things, one of them being min. wage. Hence, Congress has NO authority/power in the matter.
So you’re going back to the 9th/10th amendments (which I agree were implicit in A1S8). Your problem is that A1S8 explicitly refers to CONGRESS. Trying to extend the silence of A1S8 to the states by means of A1S10 expressly contradicts the 9th and 10th amendments which reserves those powers to the states.
Taxation is not involuntary servitude.
It boils down to this: if you try to assert that these programs were forbidden by the letter of the Constitution, you lose. No court is going to side with you, and no electorate is going to accept your authority. It’s far better to argue that these programs are imprudent, and would have been recognized as imprudent by our founding fathers for undermining what they were trying to achieve.
Once you do that, you’re also not restrained by the need for absolute ideological purity; you can dismantle the system of injustices by where the injustices are most acute and where they create the greatest dependencies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.