Posted on 07/28/2006 7:10:44 AM PDT by Solow591
Makes you a fool.
By your logic, since there's always going to be rape, everyone might as well go out and commit a bunch of rapes.
You'd've made a great collaborateur in Vichy France.
I'd be surprised too, but Havoc is very interested in the minimum wage lately.
If you had the power, where would you set the minimum wage? Do you think the minimum should enable 1 person to support a family of 4?
Paraphrasing: Powers not delegated to the Federal Government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the several states, are reserved to the several States and to the people.
Exact quote: Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The power to set minimum wage rates for workers was not delegated to the United States (federal government). Therefore the federal government has no such power over this matter.
Article 1, Section 10 contains limits on the several states: No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
There is nothing in Art 1. Sec. 10., prohibiting States from setting a State minimum wage, but that doesn't imply that the states are free to do this. There might be the little matter of people being free to contract freely. That is, letting the parties to contract negotiate their own rates. If the market doesn't want to pay me minimum wage to sweep the floor, why should someone be forced to? Even more, why should the federal government interfere, when they were delegated no such authority? Sheeple tolerate the usurpations of the federal government and that is why freedom and liberty is slipping away.
How ironic that Dims try to act like Republicans to fool folks into voting for them, and Republicans turn around and try to act like Dims for supposedly the same reason.
Keep in mind that I am not an economic/pro business conservative, in this area I am a moderate. I am a social conservative. And the question still stands, do you think that a raise will not ever happen. Keep in mind this is the world as it is not as some policy wonk says it should be.
No I would increase the minimum wage by .25 cents a year or the rate of inflation which ever is higher. A slow steady cost of living increase. Also it has the advantage of removing a democratic party issue they use every election year.
I would like to see the federal government stop suppressing market wages by inviting illegal labor into the country, and by incorrectly blaming inflation on higher wages.
That's the point of referring to you as a French collaborateur: you can decide that something is eventually going to happen and throw up your hands in defeat, or you can decide that something is eventually going to happen and resist it so that it is delayed and minimized as much as possible.
Resist or collaborate, it's your choice.
Of course, resistance presumes one thinks it is a bad idea. In your case, I think you consider it a good idea, and this whole "inevitability" gambit is B.S.
"Keep in mind that I am not an economic/pro business conservative"
That says it all.
You're incredibly naive. It would remove NOTHING. If you concede two bits, they'll demand four. Don't be such a sucker.
Yes they would, but it would blunt the issue with the voters.
I think we are better off with the position that it is very bad policy than to side with the democrats. That has been our position in the past and it has not hurt us. In short, I don't think it is an issue with most voters, or at least with the ones who will vote Republican. The democrats think it is an issue, but it is not.
It's a simple question of surrender or fight. I think you understand it just fine, but because you want to maintain the illusion of some kind of opposition--any kind--to increasing the minimum wage, you feign confusion.
LOL
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
I bet you have a quitclaim deed for the Brooklyn Bridge, don't you?
I take it back. It very well could be Havoc.
You maybe right in one respect many who are teh republican base care not for this. But there are many that do. And I have always thought it best to put forth good policies that benefit the majority of Americans as a primary goal of both parties. Sadly in is often the case, on both sides of the isle. But I still think that my Idea is the best solution for the minimum wage issue.
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.