Posted on 10/20/2005 8:14:03 PM PDT by NapkinUser
WASHINGTON -- Senate proposals to raise the minimum wage were rejected Wednesday, making it unlikely that the lowest allowable wage, $5.15 an hour since 1997, will rise in the foreseeable future.
A labor-backed measure by Sen. Edward Kennedy would have raised the minimum to $6.25 over an 18-month period.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
I would refer you to a supply and demand curve.
Socialists, will not agree or beieve in it.
Heh heh heh... I joined good company! Reminds of that old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is a friend." Not that the poster is an enemy... Well, he is an enemy of freedom...
I thought that was the democRats' job. We certainly don't need two Big Stupid Government parties.
Unemployment and it's consequences are not imaginary problems. And the minimum wage law causes unemployment.
So eliminate the minimum wage, right? Fine by me. The trouble is that 90% of the people out there demand that there be a minimum wage. If the Republicans were to eliminate it, they would certainly be called villains. They would not stay in power.
You don't want that, do you?
Okay. So how do you get rid of the minimum wage without pissing off 90% of the public? I offered a way - a way that doesn't cause the unemployment of minimum wage and spreads the burden around instead of saddling just businesses with it.
What I'm suggesting is changing the form of "government meddling" so that creates less problems. Is that really that bad?
That's a red herring. The issue isn't whether it is possible to make ends meet on $5/hour; it's whether a minimum wage makes any economic sense at all, even for people at the bottom of the income scale. If you think people have a problem surviving on $5/hour, give them a little welfare; that's what you're doing in effect anyway. Welfare, at least when it's properly done (which it rarely is), doesn't distort the market the way a minimum wage does.
>>The trouble is that 90% of the people out there demand that there be a minimum wage.<<
Can you source this silly assertion?
In reality, 90% don't care.
Then I commented on your obvious lack of intelligence.
You made a moronic statement, and I called you on it.
If you honestly feel that it's the FedGovs place to 'guarantee' that you maintain a certain standard of living you're in the wrong place.
Try DemocraticUnderground. What they call 'thinking' seems to track a lot more closely to yours than anyone around here.
L
If you're too stupid to earn more than the minimum wage (assuming you're not just a kid starting out), then why would you assume you're smart enough to have kids, or even be married with any responsibilities at all?
If you're making minimum wage, you're not good enough to support a family. Period.
I'm not interested in keeping Republicans in power; look what they do with it. I'm interested in strangling government and restoring more individual liberties.
Yes, welcome. I can't agree with the posters who want the government to force employers to pay for redistribution of wealth. I know ted "the diver" kennedy would love to see this since he doesn't produce one consumer item that would cost more when minimum forced wage control is foisted upon employers. I guess that I'll have to go to church twice next week to gain forgiveness for my biases, bigotry etc.
Between big spending, anti immigratiion control, unknown nominees for SC, Campaign Reform APPROVAL, etc, it's harder and harder to fight with my ultra liberal relatives. I will still pull the GOP lever at the national level elections because I could never vote for communist/anti Americans that control the dimocRat party. (I'll have to hold my nose when I vote for some of our spineless Repubs)
(you bigoted, evil conservative)
I am sure you meant (you bigoted, evil Capitalist)
Then you're helping to perpetuate the problem - that's what the Republicans expect of you . . . blind loyalty no matter what they do to you.
There are more parties than just the 'Rats and the 'Rats-lite. Consider that next time you're tempted to hold your nose. And remember, you don't have to vote - not for the lesser of two evils (still evil), not for anyone. If you have principles, don't vote for those who don't.
OK I'll compromise, you bigoted, evil conservative capitalist. :>)
I have never missed voting in an election (even when overseas in the Army) because I believe that if you don't vote, you forfeit your right to bitch. I understand your reasoning but I feel I have to vote against those who hate our Constitution, our Country etc. I can always disagree with FRiends without fear of losing their respect for my views.
That being said, I've only missed a primary here and there - there's always the Constitution and Libertarian parties when the Republican sucks . . . which lately is most of the time.
That being said, I've only missed a primary here and there - there's always the Constitution and Libertarian parties when the Republican sucks . . . which lately is most of the time.
That is why voting in the primary is SO important. We need to get the best candidate elected. Not the most electable.
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.