Political Blackmail

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people…."

Thus spoke Representative Dennis Kucinich on the House floor last week, quoting Isaiah, as he railed against a cynical attempt by Republicans to attach the first minimum wage increase in nine years (during which time Congress has received EIGHT pay raises, and is scheduled for its ninth), to an estate tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Despite his efforts, on the eve of adjourning on July 29, House Republicans pushed through this controversial bill linking a minimum-wage increase to a package of tax cuts.

At a time when the gap between rich and poor is greater than even during the Gilded Age…at a time of unprecedented tax cuts for the wealthy during the so-called war on terror…at a time of vast cuts in our social service infrastructure...at a time when a federal surplus has been transformed into a soaring deficit....the Republican leadership refused to allow a straight up or down vote on the minimum wage.

"It's political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans," said Senator Edward Kennedy.

"This Republican Bill reeks of cynicism," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer. "It's a political stunt designed to give vulnerable Republicans in tough elections the opportunity to say they voted to raise the minimum wage -- even though they know this bill is going nowhere in the Senate."

Indeed, the bill should reach the Senate floor this week, where Democrats are expected to filibuster the GOP's minimum wage/maximum estate-wealth bill.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the estate tax cut would benefit 8,200 estates with an average tax cut of $1.4 million. For the 6.6 million Americans who would directly benefit from the minimum wage hike, the increase in annual earnings would average $1,200. Of course, even many of the workers' modest gains would be off-set if Republicans pay for their Paris Hilton tax cut -- which will cost $268 billion in lost revenues over the next decade -- by slashing programs like Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps and veterans programs. (Not to mention their complete lack of attention to the rising costs of energy, education, housing, healthcare, childcare and more.)

So, according to the GOP, in order for those Americans who have been doing an honest day's work for $10,700 a year – for 9 years–-- to get a raise, the richest 8,200 families must receive yet another irresponsible, unjust cut that the country cannot afford. Can the Republicans openly reveal their contempt for working people any more clearly? The just response: Vote them out of office this November.

Comments (234)

1. "It's political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans," said Senator Edward Kennedy.

   Sen. Kennedy is a pompous dumbass. Katrina's argument and thinking are completely upside down. You've got to understand that the Katrina's and Kennedy's of the world intrinsicly insult and demean the "working man." To them, the "working shlubs" out there are hardly qualified to wipe their own asses, much less do what it takes to get a raise. In their twisted and contorted view the working man's last great hope is to be saved by them! Well no thanks. I have a hell of a lot more confidence in the average Joe Six Pack than these lofty fucks ever will.

   Posted by Person at 07/31/2006 @ 9:45pm

2. And how does it play in November?

   No, not here....out there?

   Posted by Mask at 07/31/2006 @ 10:02pm

3. MASK,

   It doesn't...my 14 year old makes $9.50 an hour detasseling corn and my 13 year old girl makes $6.50 an hour at the ame job.

   The democratic party took the starch out of that ploy 10 years ago. Most jobs start out at more than min wage and most Americans also realize there is a bigger problem if you are past 30 and still earning min wage....and it ain't the wage.

   That horse won't fly....but the KVH and Teddy still like to believe people are in soup lines...so they parade on and rally their own choirs.

   Most people understand this happens near an election...we will soon here how bad the economy is and how no one has health care, food, good jobs..and how if we elect candiate A, then he will save America...fix all the problems....

   Posted by john maasch at 07/31/2006 @ 10:12pm

4. Many understand that artificial wage increases, not matter what level, usually don't help but rather end up costing jobs in the long run.

   Posted by john maasch at 07/31/2006 @ 10:13pm

5. "So, according to the GOP, in order for those Americans who have been doing an honest day's work for $10,700 a year – for 9 years"

   KVH must be slipping. It looks as if she just tossed the Right a softball with this statement. Although, she probably actually believes that those who were making minimum wage 9 years ago are still doing so. Never mind that research has shown that better than 80-90% (depending on who you read) get their first raise within a year. This is too transparent even for her.

   Posted by usc1 at 07/31/2006 @ 10:46pm

6. The sad thing know one is a Patriot. Patriots do what is right for the Country. Party Loyalist do what is right for the party and the "ME" generation. I can not think of a worse time for Democracy. Who say the Nazi lost the war they just relocated to America.

   Posted by USPatriot at 07/31/2006 @ 11:54pm

7. USPATRIOT,

   THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? I AGREE...SEE THEIR ANTI ISRAEL RANTS FROM THEM...RIGHT OUT OF MINE KAMPF...

   Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 12:03am

8. Geez....a couple posts aside, this reeks of a GOP one-handed party. Boy, when the left outs the GOP for giving the rich tax breaks, the apolgists trip over themselves to profer rationale....

   Posted by leftofcenter at 08/01/2006 @ 12:22am

9. The minimum wage law is nothing but political pandering in its purest form.

   Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 12:16am | ignore this person

   Frei, occasionally your posts come very close to making sense and sometimes your posts are complete nonsense. This one is a clear case of the latter.

   Trying to pass a ban on same sex marriage is political pandering in its purest form.

   Trying to pass a constitutional ammendment banning flag burning is political pandering in its purest form.

   Trying to pass a law locking in a change to the pledge of allegiance that only occurred in 1954 is political pandering in its purest form.

   Trying to cut an estate tax that affects only 8,200 estates (in a population of some 300 million people) is political pandering in its purest form.

   Trying to pass an increase in the minimum wage for the first time in some 9 years in order to help 6.6 million of the "working poor" in this country doesn't even come close.

   Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 01:18am

10. You've got to understand that the Katrina's and Kennedy's of the world intrinsicly insult and demean the "working man."

    Posted by PERSON 07/31/2006 @ 9:45pm | ignore this person

    So trying to raise the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years is to "intrinsicly insult and demean the 'working man'"?!?! And paying an employee a wage that would keep him below the poverty line while working full time isn't?!?!? This is simply bizzare!

    In their twisted and contorted view the working man's last great hope is to be saved by them!

    The Republicans have blocked a minimum wage increase for the past 9 years while people like Sen. Kennedy (and KVH) keep pushing to get a raise for 6.6 million working poor. But according to Person, this is to "insult and demean" them? Talk about a twisted and contorted view!!!!

    Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 01:31am

11. Our politics are not only a reflection of schoolyard rules, they have become as such.

    As "adults " our bully politicians continue to play their game for their own benefit, using fear as their stepping stone. And while they have the numbers to control all of our options, we as citizens have lost our Truth of Logic. Instead we now live in a country where the Truth becomes a Lie and a Lie will become the Truth.

    Unfortunately none of this will change in the near future because the seeds of Power, Hate, and Greed have already formed a deep root.

    And who amongst us would be willing to change the course of our history, as the East Germans did in 1989, or the Ukrainians in their Revolution.

    Our downfall began when we could not even support the will for change in China. Can you remember the soul of courage as he stood before the tank?

    We once tried to export Freedom and Justice. Now we only export Chaos and Injustice. What are we anymore?

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 08/01/2006 @ 01:40am

12. Hey!, What a deal!...The idiot republicans have cooked up a "Summer Sizzler Plan" for all of us!...They will give Hard-Working Americans the Bun and wealthy Americans the meat! The DOG DAYS of Summer are definitely here!...

    Posted by Jrrod8 at 08/01/2006 @ 02:29am

13. ISRAEL BLACKMAILS AMERICA

    NUCLEAR WAR IMMINENT.

    "PURE EVIL" Does A Deal With "THE DEVIL."

    PURE EVIL is Dick Cheney.

    THE DEVIL is Israel's Mossad.

    THE DEAL was 9/11.

    Cheney perceived the perfect partner in the perfect crime to be Israel's Mossad. Cunning, ruthless, skilled, connected, covert - the "False Flag" experts.

    As is now clear and agreed upon by all, the Bush Sr. / Cheney Administration (in which Shrub is merely a spokesperson and useful idiot) adopted the PNAC plan as its own. Cheney found within it the opportunity to capture vast resource-rich territory in a World War blamed on others, and thereby enrich himself and his friends.

    9/11 proved not to be the perfect crime, and the co-conspirators actually got caught, and have been covering up their crime and silencing their "enemies" ever since.

    Israel and Cheney were both caught red-handed on 9/11 itself.

    Cheney was caught when Norm Minetta walked in on him in the midst of barking out the orders that allowed the A3 Skywarrior to strike the Pentagon without being shot down.

    Israel's Mossad was caught when their five agents were arrested after being observed celebrating and filming the impact and subsequent collapse of the Twin Towers. They weren't just arrested, they had with them video taped evidence of themselves celebrating on camera as the towers fell (as would a demolitions team after a successful implosion).

    These events are factual. They occurred.

    The lengths to which the US and Israeli governments have gone to bury these and other historic events are evidence of their complicity in 9/11.

    Cheney was wrong to have selected Israel as any kind of partner in crime. Israel was not going to be content to share the spoils of war, Israel wants ALL the spoils of war, and has at its disposal ALL of the tools and leverage to literally destroy the United States, and is in the midst of doing so right this very moment.

    Why the silence from the Bush Administration with respect to Israel's destruction and acquisition of territory?

    BLACKMAIL - plain and simple.

    Through Abramoff, Franklin, Lieberman, Chertoff and their thousands of moles within the US Government, in concert with their vast network of installed monitoring software, data retrieval and listening devices, Israel has compromised virtually every Administration official AS WELL AS nearly every US Senator and Congressman.

    Israel has evidence of all of them accepting bribes, because Israel was behind the bribes and recorded evidence of all of it. Israel has evidence of sexual escapades out of wedlock, because Israel arranged for it, and documented it. Israel has direct evidence of the Administrations role in 9/11, because Israel partnered in it.

    Israel controls the Mainstream US Media, and the Administration KNOWS IT.

    As we speak, Israel is threatening the administration with the total exposure of their role in 9/11 if they even begin to interfere with Israel's plan to take out not just Lebanon, but also Syria AND Iran, using NUCLEAR WEAPONS - all within the next ten days.

    The bombs that we are rushing to Israel at this very moment...the bunkerbusters to be delivered by the F-15s - are they nuclear?

    If the US had any ACTUAL LEVERAGE or ability to slow down Israel's mad territory grab and death machine, the least they would be doing is holding back delivery of bombs.

    As with EVERY member of the Bush Administration, Condaleeza Rice has no power whatsoever over Israel. They're blackmailing her too.

    Israel has already accomplished its goal. It has completely compromised the integrity and security of the United States Of America. It is in total control of the US Treasury, Defense Department, Congress - every institution and branch of government.

    The culture of corruption in Washington met its match in Israel. The co-conspirators thought they had an equal partner in crime, but they have now come to realize that this was a very long term and elaborate sting - for the ultimate prize - control of the United States Of America and its Nuclear Arsenal.

    This is where we stand today. Literally everyone in Washington knows it. All of the retired Generals and Bush Senior advisors are on highest alert.

    The Bush Administration is in the midst of the biggest disaster ever conceived, and unless they do EVERYTHING that Israel demands, the evidence of their crimes will be plastered across every major newspaper in the United States.

    The Administration knows for a fact that Israel is going to nuke Iran and Syria. The only choice the Administration has to stop Israel from nuking these two countries, is to Nuke Israel itself. Even this though will not prevent the Truth of 9/11 from being revealed.

    CHECKMATE.

    Nuclear war is coming either way, and its coming right now.

    "The Crazies" as Colin Powell referred to the Zionists, have won - and he personally enabled it.

    "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. 'God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan'." "And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq...' And I did.

    Secretary of State Rice's response to the disaster in New Orleans was: "The Lord Jesus Christ is going to come on time." She added: "If we just wait." "On time"? How does Rice know the exact time Armageddon starts? "If we just wait"? That means in her, that is our, lifetime!

    "At Church one day [Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader] listened as the pastor declared that 'the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse.' DeLay rose to speak, not only to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations. 'Ladies and gentlemen,' he said, 'what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God.'"

    LESS THAN ONE MONTH AFTER 9/11:

    "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

    Only by revealing the entire truth and arresting all of the guilty parties can the threat of Blackmail be removed.

    Posted by plunger at 08/01/2006 @ 03:50am

14. Posted by LILLIAN 08/01/2006 @ 01:31am | ignore this person

    You missed the point entirely. I'll bet you $5.15 that you don't have any friends that make minimum wage. How could you with the attitude that they are helpless little trolls?

    Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 06:30am

15. KATRINA

    If you dont want your part of the tax cut, since you yourself are an millionaire heiress, then give it back. Do you? I

    Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 08:23am

16. JRROD

    Go out and become wealthy if that is the only way you see of getting the meat.

    Start a buisness and create jobs for hundreds; in employment, contruction and material supplies.

    Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 08:26am

17. Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 08:23am | ignore this person

    It has never occured to me to consider Katrina's background. I just took a quick look on Wikipedia Link [en.wikipedia.org]. Holly cow! She is the the ruling class incarnate! I promise you her doorman makes three times my salary. The point being that she, personally, is so radically out of touch with the "common boob" it's ridiculous to pretend to speak for them. Katrina and Sen. Kennedy have to search out commoners to have their little brains picked. When you live in a biosphere of wealth and influence your view of the world and of yourself is innately different from those on the other side of the glass.

    Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 08:46am

18. Person,

    All true, but you have to admit...she is hot, thought. That has got to be worth some points, no? A babe with cash? You don't have to listen to her talk , but I bet that voice gets a little shrill at times...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 09:07am

19. PERSON:

    I have friends who make minimum wage. And your presumption that LILLIAN doesn't is ridiculous. I would be willing to bet that most of us, in some form or another know someone who makes minimum wage... whether it's someone's grandfather who bags groceries at the local market to someone's kid working at a local ice cream parlor.

    Here in Pittsburgh, where there is a pretty low cost of living relatively to a lot of places in the US, MANY people here make minimum wage. And it's not nearly enough to live on. All you "family values" conservatives out there talk about caring about the family out of one side of your mouth and out of the other side you are supporting anti-democratic and anti-family policies like keeping the minimum wage low and repealing the estate tax. You're pitiful, and hypocritical.

    PERSON:

    Other than thinking KVH is pretty hot, I honestly don't know much about her other than she's pretty wealthy and politically her views are generally leaning in my direction. My question to you is this. Does her wealth automatically disqualify her from being able to speak articulately and meaningfully on the issue of class and of economic justice? If so, based on your own logic, only poor people can stand up for poor people. And that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. So what if KVH has a ton of cash. If she is well-informed (which she generally is, from what I have read of her posts) and her intentions are good (which, again, they generally are), then why do you lamebrains insist on impugning her? Is it because you feel the need to try to undermine her position because, deep down, you know she's right? Or is it because you are jealous of her wealth, and it's simply sour grapes?

    The point of this is, just as wealth shouldn't guarantee that your voice be heard or your political position be represented, neither should wealth automatically prevent your ideas from being heard. From what I have read of KVH's articles, she is surprisingly in the loop with regards to how things are on the ground in poor regions of this country. And policy-wise, she is spot on. We have had 50 years of corporate political dominance, from both sides of the aisle. I think it's time to kick out the jams and boot EVERYONE from congress who gets a single red cent from corporate donors. And put that into law. Then ,aybe we'll see the interests of the poor and middle class represented, rather than the interests of the plutocracy being shoved down our throats like ball gags.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/01/2006 @ 09:22am

20. I'm out. Gotta go to work.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/01/2006 @ 09:23am

21. The minimum wage hike will only hurt the poor. Think about it. If you run a McDonalds and hire 3 people at 5 dollars an hour, what happens when you suddenly have to pay all your employees 7 dollars an hour? Well, you an either a) take a huge cut in profits, or b) find two better people who can do the work that the three worse people were doing. AKA, low-skilled people will lose jobs. That's the sad reality of it. Lots of teenagers take minimum wage jobs so that they can learn skills that will help them move up the ladder--and most of them do. What the minimum wage hike will do is cut off the bottom few rungs of the ladder. America deserves better.

    Posted by datalcott at 08/01/2006 @ 09:31am

22. Many understand that artificial wage increases, not matter what level, usually don't help but rather end up costing jobs in the long run.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/31/2006 @ 10:13pm

    JOHN, in your post immediately prior to this one, you attack Ted Kennedy and KVH. Here you attack minimum wage increases.

    DO YOU REALIZE THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE PASSED THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED HOUSE?????

    You attack a minimum wage increase, but have NO CRITICISM for any Republican, only more attacks on leftists???

    Still waking up this morning? Brain still foggy? What gives???

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/01/2006 @ 09:42am

23. Help the very very very rich (like all the self-made millionaire Conservatives who post messages here defending George Bush),

    screw the poor (all lazy socialist Liberals on welfare),

    lie, deceive, lie, deceive, & start wars that hurt us - Repeat.

    The Conservative political program.

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 09:53am

24. I understand all the Conservatives here on this board are self made millionaires, please each of you tell us how you personally worked hard - in what field of work did you work hard - and how long did you Conservatives have to work hard to make the millions of dollars that all of you Conservatives here earned.

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 09:59am

25. Monday, July 31, 2006

    This shit's gotta stop

    http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

    Posted by plunger at 08/01/2006 @ 10:10am

26. Many understand that artificial wage increases, not matter what level, usually don't help but rather end up costing jobs in the long run.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/31/2006 @ 10:13pm

    most claiming to "care" about the least fortunate are either oblivious of the actual effect of wage controls, or even worse, if possible, are fully aware of the damaging effects ...

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 12:16am

    Since you make it seem so obvious, I'd like one of you to point me in the direction of some empirical evidence supporting your conclusion.

    I can cite a study done by the Fiscal Policy Institute which concludes the opposite. Among other things, "since 1997, employment growth in states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum has performed as least as favorably as in states where the federal minimum prevails … state minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages have not adversely affected employment growth … when considered in the aggregate, taking all states together in two groups, employment outcomes have generally been more favorable in the higher minimum wage states than in all other states."

    min. wage/jobs [fiscalpolicy.org]

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 10:15am

27. No, having millions doesnt automatically disqualify one from having an opinion on these matters.

    But one has to admit that this issue is unique, in that KATRINA VH, is extraordinairly wealthy and the position she takes are always on behalf on those less fortuante, to the extreme side.

    It is appropiate to question her own personal status, since she goes to great lenghts to champion a neo-socilaists agenda, does she in fact practice what she preaches?

    I mean wouldnt you say the same about a preacher who didnt live by the values he/she preached for all others?

    The truth is that she is another one of those types who are so far up and disconnected from the real applications and effects that her positions strive for. But it makes her feel good at parties.

    Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 10:24am

28. Person, John, Freiheit, Rio

    Here's the question that no one else seems willing to ask any of you, through your ranting about how a minimum wage increase is an insult to the working poor, will cost jobs, is being pushed by rich Democrats (including Katrina), etc., etc. ad infinitum: When was the last time any of you made anything even close to the minimum wage or tried to live on $10,700 a year? Do any of you have a clue what its like to be one of the working poor? Have you ever tried to "get ahead" if you don't happen to have some saleable natural talent or a lucky break or others to aid you outside of the public sector? Somehow I doubt it.

    The problem with too many right-wingers like you is you assume that the advantages or luck that you had is normal and that if someone else isn't as talented or lucky then there must be something wrong with them, that they just aren't trying and therefore deserve their fate of being poor and having to take whatever they get by the largess of those more fortunate than themselves. That is the true arrogance, not that of the few fortunate ones like Katrina who at least recognize that they have been lucky rather than somehow deserving more and try to make up for that by acting to share what they have with the unlucky. The "sink or swim" attitude simply means alot of people sinking despite their vigorous attempts to swim.

    As to the idea that wage increase is inevitably going to lead to job loss, that is a misguided notion. In many cases the jobs need to be done, no matter the wage that must be offered. The example is given above by Datalcott of replacing three workers with two, but that example applies much better to higher paid workers than to minimum wage workers. Why? Because of two things; the substitution can't be made without having to pay the remaining workers overtime (unless you right-wingers are proposing to do away with Federal overtime rules too) and this cuts the potential savings back quite a bit, and minimum wage workers virtually never receive benefits, so there is no savings there as there is with higher paid workers who do. There is also the fact that its not just a simple matter of work hours, but of the volumn of work that needs to be done at a given time. You can't just cut a worker if what you need done (as in the fast food setting) must be done now and required a work volumn that cannot be met by two people. The whole job loss point argument is a red herring to scare the poor away from something that is inherently in their self-interest. You'll have to do better than that if you want to argue that the minimum wage is a bad idea. The problem is, that's the best the right-wing has.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/01/2006 @ 10:25am

29. CPT thanks for admitting KVH worked hard - like you - and made millions. How wonderful it is that you are a self made millionaire, how wonderful it is in America that someone like you could work hard from humble beginnings and achieve great wealth through hard work.

    CPT, What field of work did you work hard in?

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 10:35am

30. All Conservatives here, dont be bashful - what field of work did you work hard in to become a self-made millionaire. Dont be shy - I am not asking what company or what address - just What kind of hard work did you do to become a self-made multi-millionaire? What field of work did you work hard in, to get in that over 300,000$ a year range wherein one gets tax cuts from the Republican congress?

    Simple question -

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 10:38am

31. Congratulations Lvliberty1, for becoming a self-made millionaire. Congratulations, Lvliberty1, for working hard.

    If I may ask - now, not what adddress or what company, but, What field of work, did you work hard in, to become a self-made millionaire. I am sure your taxes are drastically reduced under this Republican Congress. I am sure that you arent complaining about taxes anymore - because this Republican Congress has given you all the tax breaks that someone in your bracket deserves.

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 11:00am

32. F - Why didnt you tell your boss that you didnt deserve that minimum wage, did you drive your boss out of business by taking that minimum wage from your boss - that he couldnt afford to pay?

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 11:05am

33. So here, F - you say that you are not a cold hearted person, you say that not everybody who is against the minimum wage is cold hearted. Why were you so cold-hearted to your boss, that you made him pay you that minimum wage that he couldnt afford to pay. Here you are, driving people out of business, driving small businesses out of business - because of your refusal to stand up and say I dont deserve that much - pay me less under the table. Oh now dont say it would be illegal because you know your boss would've agreed to it - to keep from going out of business. You arent cold-hearted - so you say - you are a warm hearted person who is against the minimum wage because it drives people out of business - and here you admit you took the minimum wage from a poor struggling small business owner - and that isnt cold hearted.

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 11:08am

34. I always ask myself, "What would a good person do".

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 11:12am

35. There are currently 8.9 million people in this country classified as millionaires. I'm sure least 3.3 million are liberals. Why don't they each give $2,400 to these 6.6 million people and they will be happy and liberals will be happy.

    Or maybe the very rich leftist elites like KVH, George Soros, Teddy Kennedy, and the like could each give 10,000 a year to min wage workers and the problem would be solved.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/01/2006 @ 10:46am

    As soon as I can opt out of the taxes I pay that go to wage an illegal war of aggresion

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/01/2006 @ 11:12am

36. Liberty, that sword cuts both ways. Many conservatives are so steadfast behind eliminating an estate tax that will never come close to touching them. You should round up those lower income conservatives to pool together $1.4M for all those affected inheritors. Then the Paris Hiltons of the world will be happy and so will conservatives.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 11:19am

37. Yes, Katrina is very attractive. Like the liberals say, she won life's lottery for sure. You just don't see many babes and hunks in soup lines (Leonardo Dicaprio in Titantic was fiction for sure!).

    What frustrates me about Katrina is that she is obviously a very smart woman. Some of the errors in her thinking are inexplicable.

    Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 11:21am

38. ILP,

    "DO YOU REALIZE THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE PASSED THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED HOUSE????? "

    YES, AND AS I SAID, THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVES THERE.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 11:42am

39. sTRILEY,

    ", will cost jobs, is being pushed by rich Democrats (including Katrina), etc., etc. ad infinitum: When was the last time any of you made anything even close to the minimum wage or tried to live on $10,700 a year"

    Good question..back when I was 22 yeas old working in a liquor store for about $200 a week before taxes...in 1975. I also worked as a day laborer in 1975 for a brick laying crew at $ 6.67 hr...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 11:45am

40. DO YOU REALIZE THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE PASSED THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED HOUSE?????

    You attack a minimum wage increase, but have NO CRITICISM for any Republican, only more attacks on leftists???

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/01/2006 @ 09:42am | ignore this person

    To be clear. Republicans who voted in favor of a minimum wage increase are wrong. In my view they are much worse than Democrats because they are abandoning their good sense and judgement in favor of something that seems mushy and sweet and popular.

    Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 11:46am

41. Conshame,

    "how wonderful it is in America that someone like you could work hard from humble beginnings and achieve great wealth through hard work. "...

    Yes, indeed it is...and I have to work twice as hard to hang on to the fruits of my labor, as so may flies are drawn to it like honey..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 11:47am

42. ...my 14 year old makes $9.50 an hour detasseling corn and my 13 year old girl makes $6.50 an hour at the ame job.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/31/2006 @ 10:12pm | ignore this person

    Many understand that artificial wage increases, not matter what level, usually don't help but rather end up costing jobs in the long run.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/31/2006 @ 10:13pm | ignore this person

    Although, she probably actually believes that those who were making minimum wage 9 years ago are still doing so. Never mind that research has shown that better than 80-90% (depending on who you read) get their first raise within a year.

    Posted by USC1 07/31/2006 @ 10:46pm | ignore this person

    So if people only make minimum wage as an entry level income and then get raises within a year, why not start them out at a higher starting wage? They're going to be making that same amount shortly, aren't they?

    The beauty of this bill by the Repugs is that they've tied the estate tax issue to it so they can continue to pander to the richest people as well. They won't give the working class a higher standard of living if the ultra-rich don't get an even higher one than they could possibly ever need. Fairness is not a word in their playbook.

    Posted by christiandem at 08/01/2006 @ 11:50am

43. I understand all the Conservatives here on this board are self made millionaires, please each of you tell us how you personally worked hard - in what field of work did you work hard - and how long did you Conservatives have to work hard to make the millions of dollars that all of you Conservatives here earned.

    Posted by CONSHAME 08/01/2006 @ 09:59am | ignore this person

    I don't get it? I'm not a millionaire, but I hope to be some day. I haven't made minimum wage since I was 16 years old. I don't recall what it was then. I lived at home and used the money for personal stuff.

    Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 11:57am

44. Maash

    So you worked for $200 a week in 1975. That equates to $752.79 a week in today's dollars. People who are working for minimum wage are making $200 dollars a week now !

    And the $6.67 an hour you worked for back then equates to $25.11 an hour today. But hell John you got your share of the American dream back when this was still a great country. Screw the poor dumb bastards now right ?

    By the way John that comment about "that horse won't fly" was the worst mixed metaphore I've heard in a long while.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/01/2006 @ 12:06pm

45. Lillian

    Your posts are a breath of fresh air.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/01/2006 @ 12:07pm

46. Hey Maash

    Back to spread more of your inept dialogue today. The fact that you point to your children detassling corn speaks volumes.

    First.......as anyone who lives in the midwest knows.......detassling is a job that lasts about a month in the summer. It is some of the shitiest work that has to be done by hand in our country. This work has always been primarily done by high schoolers that are out of school for the summer. To attempt to relate this to any honest discussion of wages is ridiculous. It's a shitty seasonal job that pays well because nobody in their right mind wants to wade into a wet sticky cornfield at five in the morning and pull cornstalks all fucking day in the heat. Your hands end up cut to shit, calloused, and the work is tedious and hard.

    I'm glad that you have been able to be upwardly mobile in our country........it is one of the great things about the US that is disappearing every day. However, do you ever stop to think about how your WHITENESS helped you succeed.........or the fact that you are a male.........or that you got a decent education (I can only assume since you cant spell or give us complete sentences most of the time). Upward class mobility is harder and harder to come by these days.......ask ANYONE on the other side of the equation. You wont find as many to speak with where you are from I'm sure.........Kansas, Iowa, Missouri. Move your thirteen year old girl and your young son to the SOUTH SIDE of CHICAGO.......let them attend those public schools..........paint their faces black for a week and tell them to go find work in that climate.........you dont have a fucking clue how hard it is to get by given those circumstances. If you did, you'd be singing a different tune.

    Instead you will probably tuck your kids in tonight inside your nice middle class house.........and they can go to school tomorrow and learn about intelligent design.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 12:15pm

47. Nice work Neckerson

    Show this self made man what his meager wage would equate to in todays dollars.

    Folks...........the buying power of someone who makes the minimum wage is at it's lowest point in fifty years.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 12:20pm

48. It doesnt bother any of you conservatives that we are currently twenty third in terms of happiness in the United States when compared to other industrialized countries...........when you take into account access to healthcare, work, wages, and the like.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 12:23pm

49. Fre

    Yes 500,000 makes tons of sense.........way to have an honest discussion about this important issue.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 12:24pm

50. Posted by DATALCOTT 08/01/2006 @ 09:31am

    This kind of argument is pure bull shit. Sounds good but is unsupported by facts which show productivity of American workers rising constantly, year after year, while wages stagnate. And not just the minimum wage.

    It is belied also by the fact that there is NO historical link between a raise in the minimum wage and an increase in unemployment. In fact the converse is true.

    Instead of arguing strictly from an idealogical point of view look at the facts once in a while.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/01/2006 @ 12:28pm

51. I love how the conservatives here also feel the need to attack KVH for daring to speak about the poor when she isnt in that social class. How DARE she!

    Excuse me, but doesnt your fearless leader speak about the less fortunate sometimes........but he isnt one of them. He also speaks about democracy........but doesnt cherish it. He speaks about liberty........but doesnt believe in it. He speaks about fairness........but has no idea how to achieve it. Lastly.....he speaks about religion.......but doesnt practice it.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 12:30pm

52. Glad to see you've come to your senses FRE..........that's what we are here for.

    I wasnt attempting to use the happiness index as anything more than a talking point..........it just saddens me when I turn on CNN and hear that americans arent as happy as folks in twenty two other countries.

    I'd personally be willing to bet that KVH would be a fair and honest person if she were the one controlling wages at The Nation, but journalists and college graduates arent who we are talking about here..........its the working poor.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 12:47pm

53. Domestic Staff............Did you already conclude that she employs others to pick up her house........or cook and clean for her. Why.........because she has money........thought you neocons didnt like to generalize.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 12:49pm

54. It's a rare day that the conservative arguments are without exception so abysmally stupid that one cannot even respond rationally.

    My favorite is a) a minimum wage hike will cost jobs vs. b) nobody makes minimum wage anyway.

    A reminder: the original post is actually about our Republican pals disguising another richie tax cut as a minimum wage bill. But that's old hat for these cranks, so I guess we have to talk about something else.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 08/01/2006 @ 12:49pm

55. JPOLSTON

    How does one measure happiness for an entire nation?

    Didnt Europe, which i assume is what you mean by other industrialized nations, have Muslim riots, skyrocketing unemployment, and riots when a law got passed giving bosses the right to fire unproductive workers? Is that the model we should aspire too?

    Europe is falling behind the rest of the world due in large part to a lack of initiative.

    Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 12:49pm

56. Person: Being angry with people who try to help the poor seems odd to me. Why not ease up a bit, consider that despite raises, lots of hard-working folks really don't reap rewards from the big companies that use 'em up and lay 'em off--and others get sick, or get old--survival of the fittest is okay as long as you and everyone you know and love is fit. Read that bit from the Bible that starts the blog here again, eh?

    Posted by jbettis at 08/01/2006 @ 12:55pm

57. STWIRLEY

    Well, i all i can say is that, i have lived at the minimum wage for a time when i was younger. And i do know that i didnt want to stay there, i never wanted to be comfortable to just get by, so i as well as many others worked our collective butts off to climb that ladder.

    On the flip side, saw very many people who were happy to do as little as possible to get by, that to me is the best argument against raising the minimum wage.

    Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 12:58pm

58. Freiheit and Maasch:

    Still waiting for your comments on the study by the Fiscal Policy Institute. I know it's easier to take pot shots at KVH, but is talking about actual figures and evidence too in depth for you? Or is it just easier to keep repeating that increases in the minimum wage will costs jobs will make it true - without anything to back it up?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 1:02pm

59. the idea that a little increase in the minimum wage will lead to the loss of millions of jobs is NOT a certainty, as suggested by those who ascribe to certain economic theories (which are often quite self serving).

    the aspersion to the admittedly hot ms katrina as being either a hypocrite for being wealthy and retaining concern for those less wealthy or being some kind of pandering hypocrite (for what, by the way? is she running for office?) or for being some kind of class traitor reveal the thought processes of those most critical of a small hike in the minimum wage.

    since the lovely ms. katrina is wealthy, she should cease caring for those less fortunate than herself and simply enjoy her millions. any other action is hypocritical and pandering. she has an angle here...

    i dont know what goes on in the sultry ms. vanden huevel's lovely head, but to assume that such concerns as voiced by her in this blog entry must be motivated by something less than sincere desire to better our society and economy smack to me of the mental attitudes of those who criticize her more than any accurate reflection of this lovely, sharp, and talented limosine liberal diva.

    whatever happened to the idea of the patrician reformer? must all brothers gracchi meet bloody ends? must any wealthy who share ms. vanden huevel's sentiments be sneered by the selfishly cynical as "limosine liberal" and panderer extroardinaire? give me a little noblesse oblige any day over nihilistic ayn rand objectivism.

    and conservatives - try to understand other people's motivations in some other way than as a projection of your own...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 1:05pm

60. On the flip side, saw very many people who were happy to do as little as possible to get by, that to me is the best argument against raising the minimum wage.

    Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 12:58am

    And I suppose you never saw any employer who kept people "working their butts off" AT the minimum wage. On the flip side, I know a few people who stand to inherit quite a bit of money who don't do shit with their lives. A pretty good argument for keeping the estate tax, huh?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 1:11pm

61. Freiheit your post:

    "jpolson, $500k base wage for all americans is as honest as using the happiness index as a valid indicator. What number do you propose?"

    There are ways of determining what "number" the minimum wage "should be" that have nothing to do with the oracular pronouncemnts of the all knowing "market". If your question were sincere I'd get into it as I have on other occasions. But don't worry, I won't bore you with it since you have no real interest in the topic and appear to be arguing stricktly for the sake of demonstrating your conservative credentials right now.

    As for your airy dismissal of jpolston's reference to a "happiness index" I find that strange for someone who professes to hold something as intangible as Freiheit in sufficiently high estime as to adopt it for his nom de guerre. What is the point of life and liberty without the right to pursue happiness ?

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/01/2006 @ 1:14pm

62. Freiheit:

    I have a bit of experience in the restaurant biz myself (though not as much as you). I agree labor costs are about equal in percentage to food costs in a typical restaurant's cost of sales - and that a restaurant cannot easily pass these rising costs to diners on the menu.

    However, what excuse is there to keep the minimum wage at its current level, given that inflation has cut that wage in real terms, while restaurants get the benefit of raising prices along with inflation? Seems to me a simple solution at the least would be to work out a current minimum wage level and index it to inflation. Then, we wouldn't all have to sit around and have this debate every two or three or four years.

    Too simple?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 1:27pm

63. The minimum wage increase is an election year ploy used by politicians on both sides of the aisle for their own benefit. It has nothing to do with genuinely doing something for the poor. It is a mandate on strangers telling them how they must compesate their voters, er, I mean employees...

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person

    and doing away with the estate tax is not politicians pandering to wealthy donors and potential donors? nor self serving desire to entrench themselves as some kind of permanant titleless aristocracy? oh yes - please get rid of the inheritance tax! we NEED all the paris hiltons we can get, inheriting vast sums of wealth and using it to create all these jobs. because if u inherit vast sums of money it is an economic certainty u will spend it wisely and everything will be allright...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 1:30pm

64. Con,

    "I always ask myself, "What would a good person do". "

    The real question asked by any one who is running a business is..

    "How can I stay in business today and tomorrow?"

    If you ask your question, then perhaps you should be in social work or the clergy...you should stay away from any business trying to grow or start up or struggling to survive. Toychy feely is for therapy or counselors.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 1:31pm

65. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 08/01/2006 @ 1:05pm |

    Your repeated sexest references to "the admittedly hot ms katrina", "the lovely ms. katrina", "the sultry ms. vanden huevel's lovely head" and most objectionable of all "this lovely, sharp, and talented limosine liberal diva" have offended my deeply held sense of honor as a sothern gentleman, sir. Like ol' what's his name ( you know, the only good Democrat other than Joe Liebermann ? ) I deeply rue and bitterly regret those good ol' days when I could have challenged you to a duel !!!

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/01/2006 @ 1:32pm

66. oh, and by the way....

    look, shed the absolutist fallacy silliness. i dont think that a small raise in the minimum wage will "fix all the problems". nor do i doubt that the desire to get a few votes come november plays into this at least a little. just save any accusations of hypocrisy and pandering unless you can prove your own boys are doing anything different.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 1:34pm

67. Christiandem,

    " They're going to be making that same amount shortly, aren't they?'

    No, only if they are earnig it through productivity or are a valuable employee...they rest quit, get fired for a variety of reasons, and they move on to another min wage job...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 1:35pm

68. Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/01/2006 @ 1:32pm\

    water pistols of paint guns at 20 paces?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 1:35pm

69. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 1:29pm

    Freiheit

    The fact that it is an election year issue is because the Repubs chose to make it so. It had nothing to do with the Dems who have been proposing it practically every year for years now and most recently in April ( or May, don't remember exactly ) of 2005.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/01/2006 @ 1:37pm

70. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 1:38pm

    again - u live in a glass house here, FREI. your boys arent exactly NOT pandering to their wealthiest donors, you know...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 1:40pm

71. Ibbleblibble

    Let's make it water pistols. I just bought brand new tee-shirts.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/01/2006 @ 1:41pm

72. Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/01/2006 @ 1:41pm

    if i were as thin as i was 20 years ago, i'd pull an andrew jackson, wear a big overcoat, twist my torso sidewise, and take your h2o just to the right of my heart, then cooly and calmly proceed to soak your head off...lol

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 1:42pm

    as i've implied before you are not libsux.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 1:47pm

73. No, not too simple.

    Why not eliminate the minimum wage entirely?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 1:38pm

    So, first, I take it if the minimum wage stays, you support increasing it to at least reflect inflation since 1997.

    As far as eliminating it? I do not agree with that. What would a restaurant pay its busboys then do you suppose? My guess, is you'd see drops across the board in unskilled, easily replacible labor jobs. Those people would get killed, but have little else in terms of options.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 1:56pm

74. Why not just eliminate tax shelters, KVH?

    Posted by woodyee at 08/01/2006 @ 2:08pm

75. JP,

    "It doesnt bother any of you conservatives that we are currently twenty third in terms of happiness in the United States when compared to other industrialized countries..........."

    No, not at all,

    I am not responsible for your happiness or anyone else...only you can make you happy..

    we are not a day care...but maybe you should be in one..

    I was told that a happy society increases it population as a sign of contentment...Europe is shrinking in domestic population as the WHITEYS die off and don't have 6 kids anymore, so who is happy? Whitey in Europe or the immigrants who want to live in Europe or America for that matter,?

    As to your other humorous attempt to sound "ejucated",

    "I'm glad that you have been able to be upwardly mobile in our country........it is one of the great things about the US that is disappearing every day. However, do you ever stop to think about how your WHITENESS helped you succeed.........or the fact that you are a male.........or that you got a decent education (I can only assume since you cant spell or give us complete sentences most of the time). Upward class mobility is harder and harder to come by these days.......ask ANYONE on the other side of the equation. You wont find as many to speak with where you are from I'm sure.........Kansas, Iowa, Missouri. Move your thirteen year old girl and your young son to the SOUTH SIDE of CHICAGO.......let them attend those public schools..........paint their faces black for a week and tell them to go find work in that climate.........you dont have a fucking clue how hard it is to get by given those circumstances. If you did, you'd be singing a different tune. "

    First, detasseling is a teen age job since the can not work else where due to their age, however, my boy worked in the lunch rooms, hired himself out for jobs and is trying to comvince the local market to hire him both have found jobs that pay more than $ 5.50 hr...union issues, of course..point being, he is MAKING things happen by his drive and desire..instead of whinning about "unfairness".. fuck fairness..life isn't and never has been fair..and never will be.

    2..."it is one of the great things about the US that is disappearing every day..."

    wrong..again, look at the immigration here...the problem is you are not capable or properly equiped to move upward. You need to address that short coming in yourself and MAKE something happen for yourself. I sense an opportunity opening in Cuba shortly..

    3. ."do you ever stop to think about how your WHITENESS helped you succeed.........or the fact that you are a male.........or that you got a decent education "...

    This is nothing but another excuse for your failures..most of my work is done without my customer ever seeing me..(my boss is black,how do you explain her success(yes, female,too)and she HATES WHINNERS LIKE YOU WHO HAVE A MYRIAD OF REASONS SOMEONE ELSE CAN'T SUCCEED..you offer no reason why you SHOULD succeed. Or how you could..

    As far as an ejucation, I am a victum of the unionized public school systyem, and the I have a degree in Chemistry and Biology from Marquette University...I can't type and never could, so if you could over look my short comings there, I would take it as an attempt..by you to answer the question..."What would a good person do".. regarding my spelling and typing.

    4. .."Move your thirteen year old girl and your young son to the SOUTH SIDE of CHICAGO.."

    My friends sister taught down there in the 80"s ..Blackstone and whatever..

    ah, no, I live near some black people who, by their hard work and efforts, moved out of the South side of Chicago, with their 13 year old children and are succeeding...

    Here is the hard truth..our world is getting smaller and more technical..if you are going to have children at age 17, with no father, no interest or internal desire to educate yourself..then you are doomed in the future..ther is no driving need for millions of under educated in any society.

    5. Question for you..if it is so bad here, why are there so many immigrants from non "WHITEY' nations dying to get in here to get a chance at the better upward mobility you seem to be unable to find? I beleive you are doomed by your own actions, drive, and internal instincts..if you majored in college in ethnic studies, or cultural influences or english, then you may haqve to face the reality that the income potentials for these are are minimal, as ther is no demand. why do I say these things about you? I read your posts and it screams incapable loud and clear.

    In other words, JP, I see you in the same position you are in 10 years from now...where do you se yourself? What is your excuse for future failures?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 2:10pm

76. Hman,

    "Freiheit and Maasch:

    Still waiting for your comments on the study by the Fiscal Policy Institute "

    I haven't read it yet, but I will..

    However, I am sure we can trade dueling studies to back each others points..but I see no..ah, point, in that..rather, I am also looking at past EXPERIENCE while trying to make a payroll...hands on experience trumps all studies...getting ones hands dirty in the fields of life as opposed to sitting on chair telling others how bad it is outside...from the inside...loaded with all the wonderfull studies and ideas on how things should be but never quite are there..

    Incidently, I am not against the min wage or the increases many want...I am just saying it is a political move that has no real practical value for the nation at large. Even McDonalds here in Lincoln was looking for people at over $ 9.00 hr...ENTRY LEVEL..NOT CARRER WAGES

    Hows the baby doing?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 2:16pm

77. Frei,

    When my friends and I got into water pistol fights,it didn't take me long to figure out the garden hose was the best gun of all...see, I was practicing Colen Powells "over whelming force doctorine" even at a young age.. :)

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 2:20pm

78. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/01/2006 @ 2:20pm

    yeah - water hoses beat even super soakers, just limited range of operation...

    Why not just eliminate tax shelters, KVH?

    Posted by WOODYEE 08/01/2006 @ 2:08pm

    damn woddeyee - not such a bad idea. i've even come around to the 15% flat tax idea largely. still would like to see the schmuks get a little pay raise and the paris hiltons give up a little inheritance $ when their mommies and daddies go to the great yacht in the sky, for the greater good of the country...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 2:35pm

79. Red,

    "So you worked for $200 a week in 1975. That equates to $752.79 a week in today's dollars. People who are working for minimum wage are making $200 dollars a week now ! "

    The min wage back then was $ 2.25 or under..the point is I made something else happen..Drive, old sport, Drive...one must have SOME kind of drive even to survive...I would submit to you that given the population walking around today, when placed in a real survial situation, say even 150 years ago, will die of starvation in the middle of a wheat field.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 2:35pm

80. the gnp is not the only way of measuring quality of life. it is infact somewhat flawed, in that high gnp per capita can mask the fact that wealth can be concentrated. the whole mean median average thing.

    i lived in costa rica some years ago. generally they are poor, but as a result of public healthcare and education initiatives, their lifespan and literacy rate is about equal to ours and they seemed to me happier than most of us...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 2:40pm

81. And I suppose you never saw any employer who kept people "working their butts off" AT the minimum wage. On the flip side, I know a few people who stand to inherit quite a bit of money who don't do shit with their lives. A pretty good argument for keeping the estate tax, huh?

    Posted by HMAN23 08/01/2006 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person

    Those who stand to inherit quite a bit of money, are often ones who contribute to the economy by getting that huge and largely unnecessary 6,000 sq ft house or beach house or condo or outrageous sports car. In so doing they quite revenue and jobs in contruction and materials.

    Whereas those who are content to just get by, never use or apply their God-given talents many have, but are never forced to use or explore, mostly because they are too scared to apply themselves to a different venture.

    Fear of failing is a powerful inhibitor, minimum wage enables that to a point, I personally think the working poor are better than that. Dont you?

    Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 2:47pm

82. Replace quite with generate.....ooops touchy mouse

    Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 2:49pm

83. Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 2:47pm

    Those who stand to inherit quite a bit of money, are often ones whose parents have outsourced American jobs to foreign countries

    Posted by nathanhale at 08/01/2006 @ 2:58pm

84. Sure, Maasch, (chuckle) if we are talking about the relationship between minimum wage increases/jobs and you want to draw broad conclusions like you did earlier, what's the point in looking at those darned studies that look at actual evidence across the broad scale you speak about? We'll just use your opinions and your personal experiences as a conclusion to be drawn for the rest of the nation. Nothing wrong with reflecting on personal experiences, but to examine things outside our own little bubble one has to look outside - to things like studies.

    But since you seem to support an increase in the wage that people are talking about, I am not sure why you find it necessary to post as you do on the subject. And now "no practical value?" But earlier it negatively affects jobs? Which is it?

    My baby is doing well thanks ... sitting up this week. And smiling a lot.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 3:21pm

85. Posted by NATHANHALE 08/01/2006 @ 2:58pm

    the outsourcing is a major problem. i once bought into the whole "globalization now!" thing, but i was wrong.

    first they said "american economy is going to be service sector oriented - retrain and educate for a service economy, not a manufacturing economy - dont worry, everything will be ok!" and i still worried a bit. i mean, if we outsource our manufacturing capacityto, say china, what happens when we and china dont see eye to eye, and our military hardware is being manufactured by them? will we "service them" into the ground? but then i said to myself, "relax, 'they' wont let the manufacturing base essential for national defense, at least, get outsourced...and service, sure, service will take up the slack..."

    but...

    now whenever i have a problem with my isp provider and call the helpline, i get something like "yes sir, i can help you with that. please hold while i connect you to someone who can help you with that..." all in an un hideable indian accent from someone supposedly named "jim". in other words, now we are busy outsourcing our service sector jobs...

    so, what remains? i mean, while china makes everything schmuk nation buys in walmart and india steps in to do all our sevice stuff, how ill schmuk nation earn enough money to continue buying the goods and services which enrich the chinese, indians, and our own economic overlords, especially when our economic overlords refuse to share their china and india outsourced treasures with the denigrated schmuks who purchase them?

    the emperor has no clothes in soooo many ways, folks. watch out straw housers - the big bad wolf cometh

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 3:22pm

86. Anyone who thinks money = happiness is destined for unhappiness. Doesn't everyone know that?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 2:48pm

    Well, apparently from his last post, CPT thinks money = relative importance to society.

    Thanks for exposing your colors CPT. And for explaining to us how you assess people who make minimum wage. Spoken like a true conservative.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 3:29pm

87. Hman,

    "My baby is doing well thanks ... sitting up this week. And smiling a lot."

    Enjoy these days Hman, as they will flee faster than your salary...my baby girl is now 13 and she sat up and smiled yesterday with me , too...on her horse...it is sheer pleasure to watch her and her horse. She is an animal lover and I suspect I have a future Vet on my hands.

    My response may seem double handed, but what I mean is this..I have no problem letting someone get an earned raise from the min level, it just that I don't think min helps anyone except politicians,...and if we have to have a min wage, then give them a little bump, but I would like to see it make economic sense, which, none of it does, since most do not stay on entry level..and if one is still on entry level wages say, past year 30..then there is a bigger problem that government can't solve...maybe time for reflection INSIDE oneself and not the evil society for not giving your something you are not entitled..that word, entitled....

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 3:37pm

88. Hman,

    "Spoken like a true conservative."

    No, it is sometimes pragmatic talk that offends, but not defines...conservative or liberal.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 3:39pm

89. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/01/2006 @ 2:10pm

    5. Question for you..if it is so bad here, why are there so many immigrants from non "WHITEY' nations dying to get in here to get a chance at the better upward mobility you seem to be unable to find? I beleive you are doomed by your own actions, drive, and internal instincts..if you majored in college in ethnic studies, or cultural influences or english, then you may haqve to face the reality that the income potentials for these are are minimal, as ther is no demand. why do I say these things about you? I read your posts and it screams incapable loud and clear.

    In other words, JP, I see you in the same position you are in 10 years from now...where do you se yourself? What is your excuse for future failures?

    First of all John.........I never claimed that I haven't been able to find upward social mobility, you chose to assume I haven't. Furthermore, although you sound like you've been educated in the sciences, you must have somehow skipped the required classes in any college in humanities and english. Fortunately for you though, abstract thought must not be a degree requirement at Marquette.

    I'm happy that you dont give a shit that many of your fellow Americans dont seem to be succeeding in the richest country in the world........but I cant help but think we could do better. It isnt all about individual laziness John........the playing field isnt exactly level. I know it sounds idealistic, but couldnt all Americans be educated well, and be able to go to the fucking hospital when they are ill. That's what I meant when I refer to Americans and the recent "twenty third happiest industrialized country" stuff............I cant believe it doesnt bother you at all. You alluded that no one can make anyone else happy, or something like that. While you are right about that one, it is much harder to be happy when you have little money/prospects.......you get the picture. While I didnt choose social work as a career John, I still hurt for those people......the same way I hurt for babies dying of hunger in Africa.......or in NOLA because of inept govt........or in the District of Columbia. You seem heartless, so I dont know why I'm even bothering to appeal to your human side.

    Another commenter seemed to say it best about your attitute: it's like..........fuck everybody else..........I got the american dream already, why care about them? Nice attitude. Where did your money for college come from John..........did you go out and work a minimum wage job for like fifteen years the way it would now to afford college. You do realize that middle class americans are getting priced out of college every day now........right. The gap between the have's and have not's is only getting larger........and self serving assholes like yourself dont seem to give a fuck about those that are getting left behind.

    Sorry.........I do.........and I believe there are alot out there like me John, and given time, there will be fewer and fewer like yourself, as we breed ignorance and hatred out of the human race. As for your question about why immigrants want to move here John........dont bother asking me rhetorical questions while slamming my character and values system. We both know why people even poorer than the poorest americans want to be here.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 4:00pm

90. Well, John, I rarely hear a liberal claim that low wage workers are "content to just get by", lazy and scared. But, that's just me speaking through my bubble. Maybe we should consult a study!

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 4:02pm

91. Arent there any self-made millionaire Conservatives here defending the idiot George Bushs disastrous policies today? What Conservative here, can honestly say that you are getting a well-deserved tax cut for working hard, from this Republican Congerss?

    I seen some cruel Conservatives here admit they took an undeserved minimum wage from "the struggling small businessman". Hey, if you dont want to work hard to earn $5.15 an hour, then I guess get the liberal socialist big government to force "the poor struggling small businessman" - to give it to you.

    Plenty of Republicans here who are glad that this Republican Congress gives tax cuts only to people more hard working than themselves - but no self-made millionaires who can honestly say that you want the tax cut you deserve for working hard? I might well ask why you Conservatives dont work hard.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/01/2006 @ 4:44pm

92. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/01/2006 @ 3:37pm

    the sad truth is JM, that the new "Bush-conomy" is rife with low-paying or PT jobs. Jobs that lack the benefits and perks that you may, and I at one time, enjoy(ed). Thus someone like myself, juggling a couple of "decent" paying PT jobs has significantly less economic power than someone making less but FT w/benefits. Less job security, access to medical, credit issues, quality family time, etc. etc.

    Of course, in some GOP economic report I suppose I count as "job growth" due to having three PT jobs - so happy day!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/01/2006 @ 4:49pm

93. Left of Center,

    I ,too, have worked more than one part time job. I haven't had health care in 20 years and it is not the main factor for me when seeking employment. I have been unemployed many times and have had to eat beans and rice.

    It is just that guys like JP have absolutely no clue...I also care about starving children in African or floods in NO, the diffence is I am not and will not sit around and bitch about level playing fields..christ man, JP, get off your ass and do something then instead of crying about the evil republicans or whatever...

    I have the same sorrows and don't disree with guys like JP, but rather disagree on the SOLUTIONS..

    No one is hard nosed enough to not care..none that I know anyway.

    And another thing..Bush economy, Clinton economy...YOU are the economy and you make it happen..the only thing that can collapse an economy fast is stealing everyones spendable money...

    IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TAX YOUR WAY INTO A HEALTHY ECONOMY OR GROWING ECONOMY. PERIOD.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 5:09pm

94. the question should be:

    can an individual, working 40 hours/per week at minimum wage, survive in the top 25 major US cities? how about the top 50? top 100?

    can they also afford health insurance?

    sticking this wage increase onto the estate tax repeal is simply a disgusting negotiation on the GOP's behalf.....

    and today, i heard some asshole on FOX actually state that the estate tax effects small businesses. it's true, but only those small businesses owned by the richest 8000 individuals in the country.

    so, technically, these businesses ain't "small".

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 5:10pm

95. HMAN23

    Well, apparently from his last post, CPT thinks money = relative importance to society.

    Thanks for exposing your colors CPT. And for explaining to us how you assess people who make minimum wage. Spoken like a true conservative.

    Posted by HMAN23 08/01/2006 @ 3:29pm | ignore this person

    By that knee-jerk reaction and misinterpeting what i said, allow me to play your game.

    Why do you think so lowly of poor people? Why do you want to keep them at the low end of the economic strata? By giving them the table scraps of a living wage, you take away any incentive toward developing skills they might possess.

    The character and intestinal fortitude that one develops thru their own initative in working to achieve their goals is something we should incentivise not inhibit.

    How do we know that this is the case? Look at the number of rag to riches stories from people of all colors that are abundant in this country, there is one common trait that is characteristic in all of them.

    Work ethic, listen to the stories, they all say the same thing, forget the famous stories of the wealthy one, look at the stories of the moderate success stories.

    I recently talked to a girl i went to high school with, many years ago, she dropped out of HS, started working fast food. 15 years later, she is an attornery. When i asked her how? She told me, "I got tired of making minimum wage everywhere i went" And she didnt have any help, working two jobs to support her school tuition and herself.

    And FYI, I didnt say all were content to get by, but many more than you want admit are.

    Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 5:12pm

96. JP,

    "I got the american dream already, why care about them?"

    That describes the limonsine liberal...for me, the American dream is a continum...always there for me to reach up to..I am not a rich multi millionare who is done so fuck everyone else. With that kind of attitude there would be very few millionare who would remain a millionare, if that is their goal....

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 5:13pm

97. maasch, plenty of healthy economies have higher taxes than us. and does anyone really, really care about taxes that much? unless you're extremely greedy, a few dollars here or there makes very little difference in the long term. the only things that matter are food, family, health and home. you don't need much else.

    i've spent a great deal of time in canada, go there 4-5 times a year. people up there have way higher taxes, but in general, they are happier. they are also a lot nicer.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 5:13pm

98. and why is hard work such a great thing?

    i mean, millions of years ago, we did NOTHING except lie around and eat. and fuck.

    sometimes, we hunt.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 5:16pm

99. Darla,

    "can an individual, working 40 hours/per week at minimum wage, survive in the top 25 major US cities? how about the top 50? top 100? "

    The answer is no, they can't. It was never designed for that and can never fill those criteria. The hope is one, with the demanded skills and talents, would rise to a level where those things come into range..but if you aredisabled or ill or totally unable to care for yourself then we as a society help. But if you have placed yourself in a position where you never even took care of your own basic needs(drop out of in school, get pregnant at 16, commit crimes), and the like, why should I be held responsible for your personel choices that you, yourself have choosen which put you in an untenable position?

    We are not talkin about everyone, just the 35 year old unemployable that seems to be everywhere there is free food.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 5:19pm

100. Darla,

     "you don't need much else"..why on the surface that maybe true, I have no right to decide what someone else needs or thinks he needs to be happy.

     As far as taxes, we all have to pay them since we use various services, it is just the model we use to collect them that has many of us upset.

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 5:22pm

101. "we did NOTHING except lie around and eat. and fuck'

     Kinda sounds good...maybe add some beer?

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 5:23pm

102. DARLADOON

     and why is hard work such a great thing?

     mean, millions of years ago, we did NOTHING except lie around and eat. and fuck.

     sometimes, we hunt.

     Posted by DARLADOON 08/01/2006 @ 5:16pm | ignore this person

     Is this a serious question?

     And PS Hunting is extremely hard work, especially a million years ago. Try hunting an elephant today with rocks and stone spears and 10 of your buddies.

     Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 5:23pm

103. OK, CPT, why don't we roll the tape, and you can "interpret" your own words for me.

     First you said:

     On the flip side, saw very many people who were happy to do as little as possible to get by, that to me is the best argument against raising the minimum wage.

     Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 12:58am

     Then, you added:

     Those who stand to inherit quite a bit of money, are often ones who contribute to the economy by getting that huge and largely unnecessary 6,000 sq ft house or beach house or condo or outrageous sports car. In so doing they quite revenue and jobs in contruction and materials.

     Whereas those who are content to just get by, never use or apply their God-given talents many have, but are never forced to use or explore, mostly because they are too scared to apply themselves to a different venture.

     Fear of failing is a powerful inhibitor, minimum wage enables that to a point, I personally think the working poor are better than that. Dont you?

     Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 2:47pm

     Since the subject is minimum wage, I assumed in your second paragraph of the second post you were opining about the characteristics of minimum wage workers. I inferred you saying "never use or apply their God-given talents many have, but are never forced to use or explore" to mean "lazy." The other two were direct quotes. Why don't you tell me what you meant. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

     And in yoru latest, you presume that those working for the minimum wage are somehow content with that. And that getting an extra few thousand a year with a bump in the minimum wage is somehow going to cause anyone who may have been previously working hard at $5.15 an hour to sit back and say, wow, life is now perfect at $6.75, I can coast now.

     Your incentive talk is pure bullshit and you have nothing more to back that up than pointing to a few isolated examples of slackers you claim to see behind a counter. Well, there are slackers at all levels. I see plenty myself. However, most people (at any icome level, including the low end) will ALWAYS seek to improve their economic situation through hard work. Raising the minimum wage will do nothing to change that.

     You'll have to explain to me how my support of an increase in the federal minimum wage translates to me thinking lowly of poor people and desiring to keep them at the "low end of the economic strata" – while you oppose an increase in a minimum wage that has its lowest buying power in 50 years and has almost broken the record for the longest period without an increase.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 5:46pm

104. You've got to understand that the Katrina's and Kennedy's of the world intrinsicly insult and demean the "working man."

     Posted by PERSON 07/31/2006 @ 9:45pm | ignore this person

     So if it's the "Katrina's and Kennedy's of the world who intrinsicly insult and demean the "working man" by trying to give a raise to the working poor, then what exactly do the comments of these folks imply?

     On the flip side, saw very many people who were happy to do as little as possible to get by, that to me is the best argument against raising the minimum wage.

     Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 12:58am | ignore this person

     No, only if they are earnig it through productivity or are a valuable employee...they rest quit, get fired for a variety of reasons, and they move on to another min wage job...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/01/2006 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person

     Here is the hard truth..our world is getting smaller and more technical..if you are going to have children at age 17, with no father, no interest or internal desire to educate yourself..then you are doomed in the future..ther is no driving need for millions of under educated in any society.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/01/2006 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person

     But if you have placed yourself in a position where you never even took care of your own basic needs(drop out of in school, get pregnant at 16, commit crimes), and the like, why should I be held responsible for your personel choices that you, yourself have choosen which put you in an untenable position?

     We are not talkin about everyone, just the 35 year old unemployable that seems to be everywhere there is free food.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/01/2006 @ 5:19pm | ignore this person

     Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 5:59pm

105. according to those on the right: anyone who "works hard" and "pays taxes" and "raises children" and "puts food on the table" is a "good" and "responsible" person. anyone who works "not too hard" and pays "some taxes" and has "no children" or works "part-time" is "lazy" and "irresponsible".

     hard work doesn't matter! it's the type of work you do. it's whether you take care of your personal space. that's about it. i would like to think that we ALL do that, to one degree or another.

     and for those who have found nothing but bad luck? or got the shaft from a very young age? or could never quite get their shit together? well, we should take care of them too, cuz let me tell you, it ain't nothing to be envious of.

     if we did everything that most liberals want (raise the minimum wage, maintain the estate tax, notwithstanding) our economy would still be powerful.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 6:14pm

106. You missed the point entirely. I'll bet you $5.15 that you don't have any friends that make minimum wage. How could you with the attitude that they are helpless little trolls?

     Posted by PERSON 08/01/2006 @ 06:30am | ignore this person

     Actually I understand the 'point' Person is trying to make quite well...I just find it to be incoherent and devoid of anything even approaching logic. I do indeed know several people making minimum wage and NONE of them are doing so because of a lack of drive, will, determination, hard work, or anything else that some of those posting here (John Maasch) are continually trying to portray.

     Those I know who are working for minimum wage have been doing so for a variety of reasons. Some do so because of life circumstances beyond their control, like the loss due to illness or death of a major household breadwinner. Some have had to care for a sick parent or severely disabled child...time which prevents them from going back to school or job training.

     Some are immigrants to this country, both documented and undocumented, who left jobs as teachers, lawyers, even doctors, who came here to escape wars, famine, or other economic hardship only to discover that their lifetime of education and training doesn't "count" to Us employers.

     Some are uneducated and can barely speak the language but are THE hardest working, most driven people I know. They are all, collectively, a far, far cry from the "helpless little trolls" of Person's perception.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 6:20pm

107. Is anyone paying attention to what is being said here. There are two persistant strings here that just do not add up. I am curious why there is so much I am better then the poor my kids can get a better job it is there fault pride going on here. If raising minimum wage is just going to cost small business owners and it the the fualt of the the worker that they have not climbed the ladder the two statements disprove each other.

     If business owners cannot afford to pay more and they need the work done to stay in business and every american were educated and driven to move up the ladder there would still exist these jobs at the bottom and they would still be done by the least qualified workers. So making an argument that it is the workers fault they have not worked hard to move up is a falicy. The prideful assumption is that it is their fault. When the reality of it is you are correct they do not have the skill set to move up compared to those that are. Is there the fault of the worker?

     I do not know about any of you but I learned values and skillsets from my parents that allowed me to move up. I also grew up in a area where anyone that wanted to could move up. The people that are stuck at the bottom are there for many reasons but it is entirely unfair to assume that if we all had enough drive we would all be the millionaires that vote republican to keep our money. They american dream cannot exist for all Americans, it is impossible. With our GDP and our population we have to have people working at the bottom for the few lucky hard workers to crawl to the top. We should thank these workers for still going to work instead of milking welfare by giving them an increase for the work they do. You are correct if they had the skillset they could go out and get a raise. They do not. Lets keep them off of welfare and give them a raise.

     The argument that the rich spend their money and that benefits the economy that has been made is no longer true. This is what we all know as the trickle down effect. The economic numbers show that current politics and economy has benfitted the rich with a loss to the poor. This means that the rich are getting greedy and no longer letting their money trickle down. Yes I can go get all the numbers to support that if you are interested.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 6:21pm

108. here is a republican summed up in one paragraph:

     unless everyone works as hard as me (and dies of heart disease at 58), then they are worthless. i just can't tolerate the idea that other people, who don't work as hard as me (and die of heart disease at 58), are getting free government hand-outs on my dollar. everyone who isn't working is having a huge fucking party, and i'm missing out. and because of it, i'm going to die of heart disease at 58.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 6:21pm

109. BTW, Person, since you lost that bet, you owe me $5.15. Normally, I'd just suggest that you donate the money to the needy but you have made clear that you believe this would be demeaning and/or insulting to them so you can just give the money to the political campaign of your choice...so long as it's a Democratic politician who cares about the working poor as opposed to any of the Republican politicians who's priority would be tax cuts to the rich.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 6:23pm

110. oh i forgot one thing:

     i already have $1 billion. how can i get another $1 billion?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 6:25pm

111. Here are the numbers showning all the gifts the repubicans have given the rich that I would think justify giving the working poor a break. This is why the minimum wage should be increased. I agree that minimum wage increase is not the solution but it is a stop gap. Other things needs to be done like better public schooling, tax cuts for the poor...

     While families work harder, their wages continue to decline. Middle-class families are working harder and earning less today than they were at the start of the Bush Administration.. According to the Wall Street Journal, Since the end of the recession of 2001, a lot of the growth in GDP per person -- that is, productivity -- has gone to profits, not wages. (Wall Street Journal, 3/27/06) Average household income has declined each year during the Bush presidency and median weekly earnings have fallen 0.9 percent since 2001 compared with 7.3 percent growth in the last five years of the Clinton Administration. At the same time that families have seen their real earnings decline, the productivity of the American worker is up 18.4 percent. Therefore, Americans have worked harder - and more productively - over the past five years and received none of the benefits of their hard work.. (U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Joint Economic Committee Democrats, 6/06)

     Earnings for workers with college degrees declining. Wage stagnation, long the bane of blue-collar workers, is now hitting people with bachelor's degrees for the first time in 30 years. Earnings for workers with four-year degrees fell 5.2% from 2000 to 2004 when adjusted for inflation, according to White House economists Not since the 1970s have workers with bachelor's degrees seen a prolonged slump in earnings during a time of economic growth trends for people with master's and other advanced degrees…have found that their inflation-adjusted wages were essentially flat between 2000 and 2004. (Los Angeles Times, 7/24/06)

     Worst job creation record since Hoover Administration. A growing economy should be good news for those seeking jobs. But over the course of President Bush's five years in office, his Administration has the worst overall job creation record since Herbert Hoover more than 70 years ago. (U.S.. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/7/06) Overall non-farm payroll employment has increased by 2.8 million during the Bush presidency compared with 22.7 million during the Clinton presidency. (Joint Economic Committee Democrats, 7/7/06) Overall employment growth has averaged just 42,000 per month under President Bush—much lower than the approximately 150,000 jobs needed each month to keep up with population growth. It was not uncommon to see monthly job gains of 300,000 and even 400,000 during economic expan sions under previous Administrations. (Economic Policy Institute, The Boom That Wasn’t, 12/19/05)

     Private sector job creation has been especially poor during the Bush presidency, with an average annual job growth rate of just 0.3 percent per year since 2001. (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/7/06) Just 1.6 million private sector jobs have been created during the Bush presidency, compared with over 20 million private sector jobs during the Clinton presidency. (Joint Economic Committee Democrats, 7/7/06) The manufacturing sector, often the source of jobs with good pay and benefits, has lost nearly 3 million jobs since the start of the Bush Administration. (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/7/06) Nearly half of the jobs created since 2001 were part-time and freelance positions without benefits. (Los Angeles Times, 7/24/06) This slow pace of private sector job creation is particularly troubling given that we are so far into the economic recovery.

     Unemployment has increased and long-term joblessness has increased by 57 percent. In part because of this failure to create a sufficient number of jobs, the national unemployment rate stands at 4.6 percent which is 10 percent higher than the 4.2 percent rate when President Bush took office. Unfortunately, once unemployed, America's workers also are staying unemployed longer. In June 2006, nearly one in six of the unemployed had been out of work for more than 26 weeks. The number of long-term unemployed has increased 57 percent since President Bush took office. (U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/7/06)

     Bush’s deficit-financed tax cuts have widened the income gap between millionaires and middle-class workers. In his latest testimony before Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned against rising income inequality: to the extent that incomes and wealth are spreading apart, I think that is not a good trend. (Testimony of Ben Bernanke before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 7/19/06) The Wall Street Journal has attributed the widening income gap to President Bush’s tax policies: it appears that the highest-salaried workers -- executives, managers and professionals -- are widening their lead on the typical worker The Bush tax cuts appear to have widened the income gap, according to many analyses. (Wall Street Journal, 3/27/06) President Bush's capital gains and dividends tax cuts wi ll cost $197 billion over ten years, with most of the benefits going to multimillionaires. In an analysis by the New York Times, “Among taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million, the amount by which their investment tax bill was reduced averaged about $500,000 in 2003, and total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million… Those making less than $50,000 saved an average of $10 more because of the investment tax cuts few taxpayers with modest incomes benefited because most of them who own stocks held them in retirement accounts, which are not eligible for the investment income tax cuts. (New York Times, 4/5/06)

     Bush Republicans gave away more special interest tax breaks for Big Oil and multi-millionaire investors at the expense of tax relief for the middle class. The recent Republican tax reconciliation conference report included more expensive tax breaks for Big Oil companies and multi-millionaire investors, but eliminated the college tuition tax deduction, failed to adequately address the Alternative Minimum Tax, and failed to provide middle-class families relief from the rising costs of tuition, gas prices, and health care. Republican lawmakers, facing the prospect that their power to cut taxes may soon be curbed, plan to extend breaks that mostly benefit the wealthy and Wall Street at the expense of reductions for middle-income households. (Bloomberg, Republicans Set Aside Middle-Income Tax Cuts to Focus on Rich, 5/8/06)

     More American families and children face severe financial problems. The number of Americans who are living in poverty has increased each year of the Bush Administration and is now nearly 17 percent higher today than in 2000. Thirty-seven million Americans were living in poverty at the end of 2004, an increase of 5.4 million over the 2000 level. Poverty has hit America's children particularly hard. According to a UNICEF report on child poverty rates in 2005, more than one in five children in the United States live in 'relative' poverty. (U.S. Census Bureau)

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 6:31pm

112. It is just that guys like JP have absolutely no clue...I also care about starving children in African or floods in NO, the diffence is I am not and will not sit around and bitch about level playing fields..christ man, JP, get off your ass and do something then instead of crying about the evil republicans or whatever...

     John.........for your information........I do plenty for the same plight that I am speaking of.......the poor. That you have the balls to insinuate that I dont, with no idea one way or the other is ridiculous. You have contradicted yourself so many times on this thread that it has become comical. I'm curious what you think I'm clueless about? Am I clueless that low income housing in Canada looks like our suburbs........or that folks in almost every developed country in the world besides ours are moving toward healthcare and education for all.

     I have the same sorrows and don't disree with guys like JP, but rather disagree on the SOLUTIONS..

     Really John........I've been reading your posts here for quite some time, and you usually offer no solutions........only Limbaugh-esqe rhetoric and complaints about liberals ruining america. What solutions would you like to propose about the poor in our country besides your previously mentioned GET OFF YOUR ASS AND WORD philosophy. Plenty of folks in this country work very hard and are being bankrupted by the basic costs of living in our "democratic" society. What are these solutions Maasch?

     IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TAX YOUR WAY INTO A HEALTHY ECONOMY OR GROWING ECONOMY. PERIOD.

     John...........really..........are you a master economist now too, as well as a biologist and a chemist. You are living the dream........you must be the most ejucated (as you spell it) person on this entire site. Look to the more socialist countries in the world and tell me that they havent taxed their way into pretty beautiful lifestyles. Wanna know what they dont have that we do..............like ninety of the top one hundred wealthiest cats in the world living within their borders..........wanna know why..........they prefer to live here because they can keep all their wealth and take advantage of the greatest free market system in the world. This is why a progressive tax makes sense in this country...........the people that benefit disproportionately need to pay their share and more, they are the one's that are getting INSANELY wealthy off our system. They dont live in Europe and Canada and the like because they would be taxed.........and the uber rich hate taxes more than you and I combined. The estate tax is another perfect example of a system that makes sense: tax super rich dead americans.........why do their heirs deserve to inherit BILLIONS when it is the principles of OUR economic system that allowed them to become that wealthy.

     What incentive do you have to be an apologist for the rich and greedy John.........I dont get it.........youre not one of them and never will be..........why does the other ninety nine point nine percent of america have to suffer in the least.........because the rich control the airwaves, the news, and the minds of the ignorant like yourself.........wake up and smell what you are shoveling!

     Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 6:33pm

113. "What I find interesting is that most people I know left and right have been ALL of those people at some time in their lives. By the way, if you love what you do, it isn't work. Money happens, but doesn't appear to be the prime motivator for financially successful people I know."

     these are contradictory statements: if it's true that if one loves what one does, then it isn't work; then what exactly is it that motivates the financially successful people you know, if not their work?

     would it be.........money?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 6:36pm

114. and you know who is behind the 'abolish the estate tax' PR machine?

     THOSE 7500 FAMILIES WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM IT!

     and do you think they make huge campaign contributions to the politicians who support it? hmmmmmm.......

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 6:39pm

115. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 6:38pm

     Why are we back to this lets pick a number argument again. Did you miss my post about how the business owners are making more money and the workers are making less? This is not a matter of people not working hard it is a matter of high unemployment allowing businesses to gouge workers cause someone else will work for minimum wage if they will not. Minimum wage is going to get so low with inflation that there will be no incentive to these working poor without the skillset to move up to stay off of welfare and then we are truly in trouble.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 6:42pm

116. you know, i've just made up my mind:

     those 7500 families who are pushing for this bill can burn in hell.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 6:45pm

117. I have always failed to understand why someone who has millions has somehow earned the right to pay a lower percentage tax then those who are not so fortunate. Lets change this discussion from minimum wage and lets come up with one single reason that the rich should get tax breaks that the poor do not get.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 6:46pm

118. I have always failed to understand why someone who has millions has somehow earned the right to pay a lower percentage tax then those who are not so fortunate. Lets change this discussion from minimum wage and lets come up with one single reason that the rich should get tax breaks that the poor do not get.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 6:47pm

119. i agree sensible. it's just totally outrageous that those who make more than 300 million annually (and many of those 7500 families make more ) actually want even more money for themselves. it's extraordinary. most americans cannot even imagine what a day in the life of one of these people is actually like. all of these people have private jets, multiple estates, hundreds of employees, etc.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 6:51pm

120. like i said, these people are scum and can burn in hell.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 6:52pm

121. Posted by DARLADOON 08/01/2006 @ 6:39pm | ignore this person

     Intersting article on the front page of my newspaper today Darla. Talks about a Senate report that found how 7 cents of every tax dollar owed NEVER gets collected because the uber-rich have figured out so many tax evasion schemes. And now, they want to eliminate the estate tax so they can pass along ALL of their 'never-taxed' wealth to their 'never-worked' children. According to the report, two of the billionaires cited in these schemes, Charles and Sam Wyly, were, in 2000, "the ninth-largest contibutors to President Bush."

     Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 6:52pm

122. HMAN23

     You want a govt sponsored solutions, i dont. Simple.

     SENSIBLE

     Interesting math, 4.2 unemployment to 4.6 is a 10 percent increase?

     Sorry you lost me after that.

     Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 6:59pm

123. lillian--

     and that's scraping the very tip of the iceberg of evil. these people are on fucking neptune, as far as wealth is concerned.

     and it's astonishing to imagine that these very same people are worried about......liberal bias in schools and in the media??

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 6:59pm

124. Let us make this real easy. Tie minimum wages to an index. If I was a minimum wage earner I would want it tied to CEO pay. Or index it to congressional pay raises, or inflation or the CPI. Pick one. Better yet, Tie it to the increases of Gasoline, natural gas and electricity. Watching the National debt raises of the last 5 years is deplorable to me. Do any of you like paying interest on "Nothing"? Of course some would argue that all our tax cuts were in fact worth the increase in our national debt. I would rather have 350 refineries and 20 or 30 oil companies competing, like we had in the sixties, and $1.25 gasoline and $3.00 natural gas, rather than 5 controlling supply. As far as the estate taxes go I think our forefathers had it right, we do not want "Lords" in America. Of course there are so, so, so many loopholes in estate planning that only fools of great wealth would be subject to it. I would like to see the assets of farms and business exempt from the estate tax, but if the heirs sell it, it should be totally considered a capital gain, therefore they pay 15%! Arguments?

     Posted by was at 08/01/2006 @ 7:00pm

125. LILLIAN

     It is all a massive and wickedly concieved plot by the CIA. To ensure the uber-rich get their pedicures done by laotian girls.

     Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 7:02pm

126. i don't give a flying fuck about taxes or money. i say, raise them. and raise them higher as you get richer.

     money does = happiness.

     food + sex = happiness.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 7:03pm

127. sorry, money does not = happiness

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 7:03pm

128. Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 6:59pm "Interesting math, 4.2 unemployment to 4.6 is a 10 percent increase?"

     Where did you go to school. Here is a basic math lesson for you... 4.2 X .10 = .42 (.10 is the same as 10%) 4.2 + .42 = 4.62 (rounds to 4.6) So if you go from 4.2% to 4.6% there was a 10% increase in the number of unemployed workers.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:04pm

129. Posted by WAS 08/01/2006 @ 7:00pm Agreed lets tie it to an index. Why not make it inflation or cost of living. It can adjust on an annual basis. Question does it only go up or does it go down as well? I would think it would have to go down if the index does this would ensure constant profitability for the business. If we tied it to inflation then a business owner would have to do what they are already doing if they are a good business owner and they would have to adjust the cost of what they are selling with inflation. This would be just plain good sense and as said earlier would end the every few year review.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:08pm

130. Schooling isnt CPT's best subject sensible............he's better at ranting and raving, but I'm certain he'll come up with a tremendous reason why he doesnt understand.

     Must be that darned FUNNY MATH thing again......another GWB classic!

     Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 7:09pm

131. How about setting it up that all workers are paid at least $20 an hour. Does that seem fair? Clearly, America can afford it, right? I mean, Congress has given itself a ton of raises lately.

     It's unfair that americans haven't gotten a raise! I say make it $20 and hour. Minimum. That just feels right.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 6:38pm | ignore this person

     You know, doesn't the NBA, MLB and the NFL have minimum salaries? We can role model that!

     Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 6:41pm | ignore this person

     It seems that,when people try to set up lame straw men like this, it's invariably because they are working fevorishly to ignore the 'actual' facts.

     Just to be clear, nobody (except Frie) has proposed setting the federal MINIMUM wage (which has been around since 1938) at a level to make everyone to whom it applies a millionaire. It's a MINIMUM, OK? The vast majority of developed, industrialized countries in the world have a MINIMUM wage. In the US, while inflation has risen virtually evry year, the MINIMUM wage has not risen in 9 years...such that, the real value (buying power) of that wage is now at the lowest point in over 50 years. It's time to raise the MINIMUM and peg future increases to inflation.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 7:10pm

132. Money does not equal happiness but try being happy without it. If we are going to go down the happy path again then someone put thier money were their mouth is and give away their money. Try to find a computer in a year that you can use and let me know how happy you are.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:11pm

133. That darned math thing CPT...........is this the reason you attacked me so callously last week with the military dropping it's recruiting standards argument. Were you one of those that got in because they lowered the qualifying score on the math portion of the exam.

     Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 7:12pm

134. There are a lot of things that lead to happiness however I am sure a full stomach and some water (which cost money) are at least minimal requirements.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:14pm

135. Or do you just recruit those types for our armed services because they wont question those in authority.

     Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 7:14pm

136. LILLIAN

     It is all a massive and wickedly concieved plot by the CIA. To ensure the uber-rich get their pedicures done by laotian girls.

     Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person

     Like I said earlier, when people try to craft arguements based on their own fantasies, it's invariably because they've lost touch with reality. In this case, I'm sure it's based on the stress of sending young people off to kill or die for a war based on lies.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 7:17pm

137. sensible---

     nobody is suggesting going WITHOUT money. just a lot LESS money. don't go to the other extreme to make your point. stick to this issue here.

     and furthermore, you do NOT need money to eat. you need labor and time to grow it. that's it.

     water, too.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 7:18pm

138. CPT, is there something I missed... Is this not the USA. Aren't Loatians just as capable of being millinaires as everyone else? Wait.. Actually I know some Loatian millionaires, who does the CIA want to so pedicures? Just curious what ignorant race comment you will make next.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:20pm

139. from media matters:

     In reporting on the House Republicans' move to allow a vote on legislation that would increase the federal minimum wage before Congress adjourns for the summer, The New York Times and The Washington Post credited GOP "moderates" with forcing the Republican leadership to allow the vote and buried the fact that Democrats have been pushing for years to increase the minimum wage. Also, the Times and the Post uncritically repeated the argument, often put forth by opponents of a wage increase, that a higher minimum wage will result in job losses and discourage job creation. Research has shown that increasing the minimum wage does not result in job loss or negatively affect employment.

     On June 21, the GOP-controlled Senate defeated an amendment, proposed by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) to a defense bill, calling for a minimum-wage increase -- to $7.25 per hour from the current $5.15 per hour, where it has remained since 1997. No Democrats voted against the amendment (Kennedy's amendment was actually agreed to by the Senate in a 52-46 vote, but due to Senate procedural rules, the amendment was withdrawn when it did not receive the support of three-fifths of the Senate). CNN congressional producer Ted Barrett wrote in a June 28 article on CNN.com: "During the past nine years ... Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to increase the minimum wage."

     But in his July 28 article, Post staff writer Jonathan Weisman credited "politically embattled [GOP] moderates" with forcing the Republican leadership's hand, writing:

     House Republican leaders, bowing to pressure from their politically embattled moderates, agreed to seek a vote on raising the minimum wage, but House and Senate negotiations on a broad overhaul of the nation's private pension laws broke up last night in intraparty acrimony.

     It was not until the ninth paragraph (out of 21) that Weisman acknowledged the strong support among Democrats for the minimum-wage increase: "Democrats and some Republicans have been pushing an increase from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, but most Republicans oppose it, as do small-business groups."

     In his July 28 article, headlined "G.O.P. Nears Vote to Increase U.S. Wage," Times reporter Carl Hulse similarly credited the Republican "moderate wing" and quoted Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), noting that Boehlert "has been clamoring for a wage vote." Hulse wrote:

     Under intense pressure from their moderate wing, House Republican leaders moved on Thursday toward allowing a vote Friday on an increase in the minimum wage before sending anxious lawmakers home for a month of campaigning in the battle for control of Congress.

     House Republicans were still assembling a proposal Thursday night. But the momentum had clearly shifted in favor of considering an increase of at least $2 in the $5.15 an hour minimum wage, despite strong resistance from conservative Republicans and the party's allies in the business community.

     ''I have a high degree of confidence that we are going to have a package presented tomorrow,'' said Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Republican of New York and a centrist who has been clamoring for a wage vote, as he left a meeting on Thursday in the office of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.

     Mr. Boehlert and others have argued that Republican support for an increase in the federal wage is essential to shore up the party's strength among blue-collar and low-income workers who could decide critical House contests in the Northeast and Midwest.

     However, it was not until the seventh paragraph (out of 14) that Hulse noted: "Democrats have been trying to highlight the issue for months, accusing Republicans of blocking an increase while allowing Congressional pay to rise steadily. And they warned that Republicans might try to tie the increase to an unacceptable piece of legislation on taxes or health care as a 'poison pill' to drive off Democrats and make certain the increase could not clear the Senate or become law."

     Additionally, both Weisman and Hulse uncritically repeated the argument, advanced by Republicans and "small business groups," that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. Weisman reported that "small business groups ... say such a hike [in the minimum wage] would throw many low-wage employees out of work."

     Similarly, Hulse wrote:

     Many House Republicans have for years opposed bringing a wage measure to the floor, saying it was not the government's role to set pay rates and that requiring a higher minimum wage would discourage employers from creating new jobs. They have been backed by lobbying groups like the National Restaurant Association and the National Federation of Independent Business.

     In fact, a 1998 Economic Policy Institute (EPI) study of the impact of the two most recent increases in the federal minimum wage found that the effect on employment was "economically small and statistically insignificant ... [and] almost as likely to be positive as negative." The study, which analyzed the effects of the October 1, 1996, minimum wage increase -- from $4.25 to $4.75 per hour -- and the September 1, 1997, minimum wage increase to $5.15 per hour, used "[f]our different tests of the two increases' employment impact -- applied to a large number of demographic groups whose wages are sensitive to the minimum wage" and "fail[ed] to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 increases."

     Additionally, as the weblog Think Progress noted in a July 24 entry, a 1995 study by Princeton University economists David Card and Alan B. Krueger found that increases in state and federal minimum wages led "to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs." Think Progress also noted that a report from the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development found that the state's 2005 wage increase "produced $175 million in additional payroll and a $3 million boost in state tax revenue.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 7:22pm

140. DARLADOON,

     Agreed I did go to the other extreme... It does take money however as you need to own land to grow this food on. I am pretty sure that Alaska was the last state that allowed homesteading and they stopped that a few years ago. My point was that at some point minimum wage will be low enough that the basic neccesities, food water and shelter will not be affordable and you really do need those to be alive which is a basic requirement for happiness at least in this life.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:23pm

141. Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 6:59pm

     Uh...yeah CPT. Do the math soldier... 4.6 - 4.2 = 0.4 and 0.4 is "about" 10% of 4.2 (actually 0.42 is 10%...0.4 is 9.5% of 4.2)

     They don't have you like aiming things that blow up, right? I mean, that kinda takes math....which apparently you are a bit light on.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/01/2006 @ 7:27pm

142. sensible--

     you still don't need MONEY to eat or drink, though. that's my point.

     you only need LABOR. you can trade labor, or trade something else.

     money isn't necessary in this equation.

     i have a friend who hasn't bought food or clothing in 15 years....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 7:29pm

143. again, freiheit dodging and evading the issue:

     and that is, can one afford to live relatively well on 5.15 an hour?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 7:30pm

144. Posted by DARLADOON 08/01/2006 @ 7:22pm

     i like moderate to conservative republicans - spectre and company would garner my vote were i from their states. spectre has an ax to grind with bushco. he is a decent man.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 7:32pm

145. Darladoon

     You have just made my point. Money (wages) is a system for exchanging labor for goods. These people are doing the labor. They are then exchanging it for goods through the novel invention of money. If we do not raise the minimum wage then the labor will eventually (if not already there) no longer net enough money to trade for food, water, and shelter. Of course I think we see mostly eye to eye on most issues. I just hate the money is not happiness argument especially when we are talking about the working poor. For them more money can go along way towards providing the necesities that lead to happiness. As adults we get to make decisions and find our own happiness. Unfortunatly the kids of these working poor do not get to choose where they are in life. I am pretty sure that it is hard to be happy if you are going to school without a decent meal. I was just trying to get the happiness statements away from this discussion cause they only apply to people that have the ability to trade for their basic needs. Since money is our established means for trade we need to ensure that the reward given for work is equitable.

     If an employer has a business model where an employee is not making them enough money for them to pay a higher minimum wage then the employer needs to create a better business model.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:42pm

146. Posted by DARLADOON 08/01/2006 @ 7:22pm

     "They have been backed by lobbying groups like the National Restaurant Association....."

     Why is the Restaurant Association backing the resistance to minimum wage increases? Restaurants only need ensure that the wages after tips are higher then minimum wage. Tips do not come out of their pockets and if an employee is not making enough tips to get to this point then they need to pursue something different.

     Granted food prep folks do not get tips, however, this cost in the restuarants worried about minimum wage is a small percent of their business and the increase to wages should have little to no impact on their bottom line.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:47pm

147. I feel better already knowing that poor families will live better lives because I supported the government in telling strangers how to properly allocate their money.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 7:29pm | ignore this person

     Well apparently Frei, you have no problem with the government telling people who they can marry, how their children can properly recite the pledge to their government, and whether or not they can burn an image of the US flag. All of these are 'most pressing issues' in your book and none even come close to the political pandering represented by trying to help the working poor, which in your words, "in the pandaring dept, the farce that is the minimum wage stands at the top of the podium", right?

     Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 7:50pm

148. Funny thing here, although misdirection is common among the GOP, how did we get to discussing whether or not minimum wage increases were a good thing when this was started as a discussion about "Political Blackmail" that the GOP is using to get their breaks through. It would have been fun to get into a discussion about multiple issues going through on the same bill. Seems that allowing this is what allows the blackmail. Maybe we need some reform on how bills are passed.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:52pm

149. Posted by SENSIBLE 08/01/2006 @ 7:52pm | ignore this person

     Amen to that!!

     Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 7:53pm

150. sensible, i agree with your main point about my happiness statement being naive, i was only trying to make the point to maasch et al that "hard work" does not necessarily mean "success", at least as far as the success they are talking about.

     it's funny how none of these "hard workers" ever mentions something called "luck". the vast majority of these 7500 wealthy families are so-called 'landed gentry', they have had the money for generations, and some of them can be traced to pre-revolutionary royalty.

     i have no idea why these republicans on this forum simply trust these people to look out for their interests, by releasing these pathetic talking points via the press......points like "it would hurt small businesses"

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 7:54pm

151. I can understand why multiple things have become part of the same bill. It would be hard to get much done if every little thing had to be voted on. However, allowing unrelated things to be part of the same bill just opens the door for blackmail. You can argue it is negotiation, left will give the right x in exchange for the right giving the left y. This practive however is what has led to the corruption that exists in our government. This is what has given special interest groups the ability to have any power at all. The question I have is if bills were only allowed to have one issue would the lack of ability to blackmail or negotiate stalemate progress?

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 7:58pm

152. Posted by DARLADOON 08/01/2006 @ 7:54pm

     The points like it would hurt small business are my favorite. Taxes hurt small business more than anything and the republicans are not interested in giving breaks to the small businesses. They want the breaks for the rich.

     Republicans do not trust that their party is making good choices for our economy. They trust that God will do that. If we only can make sure that our kids can pray in school, and gays do not marry then God will rain down economic growth on our country. At least that is the only explaination I can think of for why folks that are not in the category to benefit from these wonderful tax benefits for the rich would vote republican.

     Posted by sensible at 08/01/2006 @ 8:03pm

153. Lets change this discussion from minimum wage and lets come up with one single reason that the rich should get tax breaks that the poor do not get.

     Posted by SENSIBLE 08/01/2006 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person

     Changing the topic is poor etiquette in this forum, but this is a good - and related - question. Let's keep it simple. First I want to define words:

     fair;

     adj 1: free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; or conforming with established standards or rules; "a fair referee"; "fair deal"; "on a fair footing"; "a fair fight"; "by fair means or foul" [syn: just] [ant: unfair] 2: showing lack of favoritism; "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" [syn: impartial]

     According to my understanding of our language the most fair system of taxation would treat all tax payers the same. It is unfair, or partial, or showing favoritism, to burden one person more than another. Our income tax system unfairly burdens high income earners, while favoring low income earners. The income tax should be as impartial as the sales tax. Flat across the board.

     Here's a fact: If you want to suppress something, tax it. Think tariff, think "sin tax," think tobacco. Now why in the world do we want to suppress the creation of wealth? You may think it's a joke, but I shit you not, graduated income taxes suppresses wealth production and that is a bad thing for society, rich and poor alike.

     Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 8:04pm

154. Does that include your right wing blood Frank?

     Never say never.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/01/2006 @ 8:17pm

155. What about your right wing friends?

     You are so shallow, your mind and soul have run a ground.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/01/2006 @ 8:21pm

156. "Why is the minimum wage the top of the podium in my opinion? Because it gives false promise and hope to those who least understand how they're bein exploited for votes. It is the actions of politicians to reap goodwill at absolutely no risk or expense to themselves. It gives a bunch of people the good feeling that they care, when in reality, even the wage hikes proposed do little to effectively reduce poverty (and an argument can be made it costs jobs for the least skilled amongst us). I don't like the government involved in wage or price controls at all. The only special interest served by the minimum wage is the politician's own reelection."

     according to this logic, frei, the congress should have no right to give themselves a raise.

     and also, person, you actually think the uber-wealthy are "unfairly burdened"? to what, make another billion?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 8:24pm

157. Thought number two:

     Why do we need a minimum wage at all? What do you suppose would happen if the minimum wage were repealed?

     Here's my prediction: It would have no effect on employees currently making above minimum wage. An employer simply would not pay someone more than the minimum wage if they weren't worth it. For minimum wage employers, starting wages would fall. Surely employers who employ at the minimim wage level would attempt to attract employees at a lower wage. They may find people to do the work, they may not. They may find that they have to hire two workers at less than minimum wage to create the same production as one worker at the former minimum wage. They may not, in which case they will discover that the minimum wage was, indeed, artificial for certain jobs. Eventually a ballance will occur. Employer's overall labor expenses will remain constant. The labor force will be reshaped. The labor force will gain flexibility, it will become less viscous. Opportunities will increase for the least experienced workers.

     Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 8:24pm

158. JP,

     "Look to the more socialist countries in the world and tell me that they havent taxed their way into pretty beautiful lifestyles"

     They haven't taxed their way into beautiful life styles..

     ".like ninety of the top one hundred wealthiest cats in the world living within their borders.........."

     But their money is not in Europe, but off shore banks between England and France or off China, where most weathly Americans stash their cash, too...Where do you think people like STREISAND AND KATRINA HERE KEEP THEIR MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS? In a place where someone like you can tax their ass into your properity?

     Hell, your entire post ..JPOLSTON 08/01/2006 @ 6:33pm

     Is testsment that you have no clue..and it is in your own words.

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 8:26pm

159. and also, person, you actually think the uber-wealthy are "unfairly burdened"? to what, make another billion?

     Posted by DARLADOON 08/01/2006 @ 8:24pm | ignore this person

     An income tax is just that, a tax on income earned. It is not a tax on wealth. Those who are currently wealthy, like the Kennedy's and the vanden Heuvels, have their wealth. It's theirs. The government is not (yet) in the business of confiscating existing wealth -- not considering property taxes, in which case if you don't pay what the government says, they confiscate your personal property. But this applies to all levels of wealth and not just the upper end. If someone has the ability to earn a billion dollars, they deserve it, and they should be taxed at the same rate as some who earns a buck. Income is income. Fair is fair.

     This is all academic anyway, I'm sorry to say. The tax system is not going to change in any meaningful way in our lifetimes. If it does, I'll have a heart attack and die on the spot.

     Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 8:40pm

160. Maasch..........of course you're right.........I'm clueless.

     ".like ninety of the top one hundred wealthiest cats in the world living within their borders.........."

     Read the sentence before this one too Maasch, I was saying they dont have all the rich folks..........they live here because of the obvious advantages of our system to their wealth. You cant even read properly.........much less spell.

     But their money is not in Europe, but off shore banks between England and France or off China, where most weathly Americans stash their cash, too...Where do you think people like STREISAND AND KATRINA HERE KEEP THEIR MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS? In a place where someone like you can tax their ass into your properity?

     Why dont you actually read my post carefully before you critisize. I'm tired of talking to a wall, so I think it's time to end this conversation, as if it were really ever one to begin with. You've neither listened or made any kind of convincing argument in this entire thread. Reread my post idiot.......I wasnt saying that rich americans were moving money to socialist countries like Europe........where did I ever say that? Why would they.........yes they live here and put their money in dummy corporations in place like the strait of gibraltar.......where there are no taxes. I already know all this John..........and it is what pisses me off..........we all know these coporations and uber rich americans arent even paying the taxes they are supposed to........why dont they........because they are allowed to live outside the rules, and can afford to hire the best tax attorneys to shield their wealth from even the taxes they are supposed to pay.

     Reread my previous post John..........then comment when you have actually thought about it before you go on the attack.........your comments on this thread have make you look less and less ejucated (couldnt help it.......love your spelling).

     Posted by jpolston at 08/01/2006 @ 8:45pm

161. "If someone has the ability to earn a billion dollars, they deserve it, and they should be taxed at the same rate as some who earns a buck. Income is income. Fair is fair."

     that is NOT fair! are you out of your friggin' mind?!

     i don't even have the time to go into how ridiculous this statement is....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 8:54pm

162. "according to this logic, frei, the congress should have no right to give themselves a raise."

     Well, Darladoon, do you think Congress should be able to give themselves a raise?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 08/01/2006 @ 8:29pm | ignore this person

     I would be 100% in favor of raising the pay of federal legislators to $10,000,000 a year. That would cost the nation $5,350,000,000 (5.35 billion). This amounts to approximately 0.22% of the federal budget ($2.4 trillion). So long as the sons of bitches acted in the best interest of the nation and forgot about pandering to the emotion du jour. If they acted like responsible stewards of a precious and irreplaceable country, and held true to the vision and intent of the founding fathers...if they did all that I might even go as high as $100 million each!

     Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 8:56pm

163. and i'm sick and tired of people saying that the only reason the Dems are doing this is to get votes.......

     who cares?! does that mean that raising wages is a bad idea, just because they want votes?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 8:56pm

164. there is NO need to give congressional figures MORE money. they're already filthy rich, all of them.

     in order to be a part of this elite club, you need at least $50 million to run a campaign....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 8:58pm

165. "If someone has the ability to earn a billion dollars, they deserve it, and they should be taxed at the same rate as some who earns a buck. Income is income. Fair is fair."

     that is NOT fair! are you out of your friggin' mind?!

     i don't even have the time to go into how ridiculous this statement is....

     Posted by DARLADOON 08/01/2006 @ 8:54pm | ignore this person

     Please take the time and explain your thought.

     Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 8:59pm

166. ".......I wasnt saying that rich americans were moving money to socialist countries like Europe........"

     Neither did I..

     What upsets you more, that people work hard to become rich? or that people actually become rich? what is rich to you? Would you be surprisd that many "rich" people get rich but it is not the drive for money? or is it you don't like how much government takes away form them? Why are you so concerned with other peoples money? Or is it my spelling?

     IT IS THEIRS AND THEY EARNED IT.

     You want to fix and end the tax issue once and for all?..let all people keep all of their paycheck..no withholdings and tax consumption. End of 99% of "Wwawawa..he doesn't pay emough...wawawa", and envy and arguements about greed...maybe end of certain politicians who make livings on manipulating an 80 lb tax code.

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 9:01pm

167. "I have always failed to understand why someone who has millions has somehow earned the right to pay a lower percentage tax then those who are not so fortunate.'

     I have always wondered why someone who makes alot of money is forced to pay a higher rate than everyone else?

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 9:02pm

168. raising wages is a great idea

     people have more money in their pockets, they go out and by more stuff creating demand, businesses hire more people to meet the demand.

     producers sell more stuff becise of increased demand thus raising their bottom line...

     it's a great idea... demand side economics

     for what good is supply side economics if people don't have the cash to buy some of the supply?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/01/2006 @ 9:03pm

169. Darla,

     " most americans cannot even imagine what a day in the life of one of these people is actually like. all of these people have private jets, multiple estates, hundreds of employees, etc. "

     Sure they can...just go to LA and see what the lib movie stars live like...you have just described it to a tee.

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 9:04pm

170. Sensible,

     "Here is a basic math lesson for you"..note..

     ..4.6% unemployment rates..best in the world..we can't even see # 2. Great economy, envy of EVERY NATION ON EARTH ..with the exception of frustrated socialists here in the US..

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 9:08pm

171. and did I mention that increased wages lead to more income tax revenue and buget surplusses as far as the eye can see

     we could invest in public schools, stem cell research, renewable energy, cutting edge science....

     Posted by Will C. at 08/01/2006 @ 9:09pm

172. and best of all we could start acting like a country again

     rather than a collection of greedy little cowards

     Posted by Will C. at 08/01/2006 @ 9:12pm

173. You want to fix and end the tax issue once and for all?..let all people keep all of their paycheck..no withholdings and tax consumption.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/01/2006 @ 9:01pm | ignore this person

     Something similar to this is one thing that would have a huge impact on people's tax awareness, regardless of your tax bracket. It would be a dream come true for me if the withholding tax were repealed. Keep everything else about the tax code exactly the same. All the rates stay the same, all deductibles, everything else stays exactly the same. But, every three months each tax payer has to actually write a check to Uncle Sam. Treat it like any other bill. As sure as I'm typing this now, tax revolts would spring up so goddamn fast your head would spin!

     Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 9:13pm

174. Speaking of "schlubs who couldn't wipe their own" butts, let's hear it for our very own (p)resident. GWB has failed at every job he's ever had, and probably wouldn't last a week at an Arby's or any other of this great nation's fast food chains. The Republican Party leadership should be tried collectively for treason for offering this inept as a candidate in the first place. Now, he and his minions, of which I imagine several of our rabid posters proudly number themselves, are sabotaging this nation's greatness and our standing in the international community.

     Re the minimum wage increase: if a person works full time in this, the greatest and most affluent country in the history of greatness and affluency, he/she should be able to get some decent grub and shelter and perhaps a little medical attention.

     Posted by flockofdoug at 08/01/2006 @ 9:22pm

175. Posted by FLOCKOFDOUG 08/01/2006 @ 9:22pm | ignore this person

     I guess I'm sitting at the computer a little more than usuall tonight. But in response to this...Whewy! What can I say? This post is complete void of any reason or intellect, which is pretty representative of the mid to far left as a whole. Do we not all see the same thing in this post? Pure, unadulterated emotional vitriol. If you're going to go down this road, then keep it simple. Don't stray too far from the basic, underlying principles and driving forces. Just say, "Bush is evil", "Bush is bad", and leave it at that. The more you try to justify the basic premise, the further you get from your point.

     Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 9:33pm

176. ok, fine, let's have it precisely how the republicans want it:

     no taxes no safety net no social programs no research no health insurance

     got it?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 9:44pm

177. oh, oh, but what about the military??

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 9:44pm

178. there should be salary caps:

     nobody makes more than 50 million a year.....and if they do, it all goes back to the govt.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 9:45pm

179. i mean, come on people, this is about the estate tax and blackmail.

     it is an undeniable fact that this tax only benefits the richest of the super rich. 7500 families are behind the lobbying. they want more money. that's it. they could give a flying fuck about anyone else except their interbred, waspy asses.

     and as for the minimum wage: i am no economist, but i am willing to flatly state, that raising the minimum wage a couple of dollars will make little difference to those in power. on the other hand, it will make enormous amounts of difference to those living week to week, month to month, check to check.

     and the other issue, related to taxes, is the national debt: has any republican ever balanced the budget since 1980? and has any republican admitted that GOP tax-cutting philosophy simply doesn't balance the budget? it's fiscal insanity with these guys!

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 9:55pm

180. Every Conservative here is just as poor and lazy as the liberal socialists they complain about. Some of the Conservatives here have even admitted to extracting the minimum wage from poor struggling small business owners - for work deserving of less pay - they took it because the liberal socialist big federal govt made the poor small businessman give it to them.

     Not one Conservative here feels they are hard working enough to deserve a tax cut from this Republican Congress. This Republican Congress hasnt given any of them a tax cut, and none of them thinks they deserve one, because they are so dammn lazy.

     Only people making over 300,000$ a year have taxes any lower under this Republican Congress.

     Posted by LiberalPride at 08/01/2006 @ 10:13pm

181. My challenge (Conshame's challenge) stands: will 1 single Conservative here tell us what line of work they worked hard at to become a self made millionaire . This challenge will not be met because all Conservatives here are as lazy as the liberal socialist minimum wage earners they complain about.

     Posted by LiberalPride at 08/01/2006 @ 10:14pm

182. Darla,

     "ok, fine, let's have it precisely how the republicans want it:

     no taxes no safety net no social programs no research no health insurance

     got it?"

     No one is saying this ..just change the method of taxing...not eliminate taxing...drop all income and go to consumption, with exemptions...the treasury would actually bring in more dollars than now..

     If you are truely intetested, read a book called , "The Far Tax'

     fast and compelling from all points of veiw.

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 10:15pm

183. Liberal,

     Your question is a little silly..millionares are made everyday. My grandmothers friend became a millionare by saving and investing her poor meager salary for years in the stock market. Do you realize that if you put away $500 a month for 4 years in a row,at the age of 21, then stop saving anymore, that by the time you were 65 you would have more than a million dollars?

     Stop sounding so foolish as if earning a milion dollars is impossible. Check the IRS web site to see how many millionares are created every year here..

     get a book called the "Millionare Next Door" and you will be surprised who the millionares are..and you might be surprised at which party gets more of their contributions from millionares..

     I know my plumer is a millinare from his years of working and growing, and all he does is work on homes, not contracters.

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 10:22pm

184. the other question is: if they abolish the estate tax, how will they replace the money?

     and maasch, no one is saying this? are you fucking joking?

     read bill frist's latest comments, dude...

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 10:24pm

185. sure, just put away $500 a month.

     sure, no problem, maasch, you wing nut!

     most people have a choice between food or health care, dude.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2006 @ 10:25pm

186. Liberal,

     "Only people making over 300,000$ a year have taxes any lower under this Republican Congress."

     This statement alone screams out that you don't make any money. Everyone who paid taxes received a cut. If you had a combined income with a spouse and you made $ 150,000 a year you saw a huge savings..as per my neighbor.

     I will not divulge my income to you, as you will not understand...

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 10:26pm

187. Darla,

     Forget Frist, estate tax and all the others cuts...

     I used the example of $ 500. because, when my son was in the Navy, I tried to get him to do that for the duration of his tour, but he partied it away.

     The Fair Tax book makes a case for taxing consumption and not income. One could eliminate all taxes and fees now being taken in...it works..

     As far as the present..eliminate estate tax...the treasury is taking in more than at anytime in history, the problem isn't that we don't have enough money coming in, it is we are spending to much going out..across the board. With all the built in increases given everyone from entitlements to military..we always over draw..all surpluses and deficits are all paper approximations and not real dollars in the hand..mirrors, so to speak..

     Posted by john maasch at 08/01/2006 @ 10:32pm

188. My challenge (Conshame's challenge) stands: will 1 single Conservative here tell us what line of work they worked hard at to become a self made millionaire . This challenge will not be met because all Conservatives here are as lazy as the liberal socialist minimum wage earners they complain about.

     Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 08/01/2006 @ 10:14pm | ignore this person

     This was asked some pages back. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. When was it ever said that minimum wage earners are socialist? The socialist are the elite Katrinas who gaze down on the unwashed masses from their vaulted Manhattan homes. The socialist consider themselves to be anointed with wisdom and intelligence far beyond the reach of the lowly plebe on the street.

     Posted by Person at 08/01/2006 @ 10:32pm

189. the unwashed masses?

     you think the masses are unwashed?

     what a snob

     Posted by Will C. at 08/01/2006 @ 10:44pm

190. Count me in support of raising the federal minimum wage AND against pork for the eight thousand heirs. Here's where line item veto power in the hands of a publically accountable chief executive (obviously NOT "Shrub" or his criminal handler(s) Cheyney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Robertson, et al) is appealing.

     Fantasy and hope aside, let's tip our hats to the various states, like Florida, who've raised their minimum wage laws unilaterally.

     Posted by lewwelge at 08/01/2006 @ 10:58pm

191. A few points:

     First, if we are to be honest, we need to admit that minimum wage jobs are not meant to provide a "living wage," for lack of a better word. These jobs for the most part are nothing more than opportunities for those with little education or marketable skills to get their foot in the door to the world of employment. They are not the type of jobs people use to "support a family of four." They are opportunities for employees to learn basic job skills that are integral to success: punctuality, teamwork, enthusiasm, etc. If an employee is adept at showcasing those traits, he likely will not be earning minimum wage for long.

     Second, I think most employers understand that paying a fair wage (whatever that is) is necessary for a productive, efficient, and loyal work force. However, employers also understand that wages must first be earned, which is why, as I stated early on in this thread, those who perform well are rewarded within a year with a raise. Henry Ford understood this, which is why he paid his employees better than most, yet was quick to terminate the "uninspired" so to speak.

     Third, I have read where some folks here complain that many manufacturing jobs are shipped overseas because of the cheaper labor. Yet, on this thread they advance the claim that increasing wages increases employment. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

     Fourth, to whomever stated that the current economy is producing low-paying and PT jobs, I should remind you that the exact same thing was said about the Clinton economy. Did you agree with the assessment then?

     Last, and this is just a pet peeve of mine, the "American Dream" in the traditional sense is not to become a gazillionaire, although I'm sure none of us would mind that. The American Dream is simply to enjoy our God-given freedoms and earn a living for ourselves and families without oppression from government. When you distort the "Dream" and attach it to material wealth, you give it a "consumerist spin" that perpetutates the myth that we must get rich to be successful.

     Posted by usc1 at 08/01/2006 @ 10:59pm

192. If you are truely intetested, read a book called , "The Far Tax'

     fast and compelling from all points of veiw.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/01/2006 @ 10:15pm | ignore this person

     Yes John, it's a truely moronic book, written not by an economist or anyone with a background of any kind in economics but rather, by Neal Boortz, a right-wing RADIO TALK SHOW HOST who has written other lovely tomes such as "The Terrible Truth About Liberals".

     Actually, I can see why Boortz's idea has such appeal to people like John. It is utterly simplistic in its view and reduces all of the complex issues of taxation and social responsibility down to simple catch phrases like "we can eliminate the IRS" and "you get to keep all your money".

     Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 11:11pm

193. Third, I have read where some folks here complain that many manufacturing jobs are shipped overseas because of the cheaper labor. Yet, on this thread they advance the claim that increasing wages increases employment. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

     Posted by USC1 08/01/2006 @ 10:59pm

     Who's having it both ways? We are a service sector economy now thanks to you hamsters. And from personal experience, the service sector bases there manpower on the number of dollars going through the till. More dollars... more manpower

     Increased wages also give people more affluence, allowing then to buy specialty goods that aren't necessarily better produced in the sweat shops of the various slave wage countries.

     By the way… Nice attempt at trying to link manufacturing jobs with all jobs

     Too bad it didn't work for you

     Posted by Will C. at 08/01/2006 @ 11:18pm

194. Second, I think most employers understand that paying a fair wage (whatever that is) is necessary for a productive, efficient, and loyal work force. However, employers also understand that wages must first be earned, which is why, as I stated early on in this thread, those who perform well are rewarded within a year with a raise. Henry Ford understood this, which is why he paid his employees better than most, yet was quick to terminate the "uninspired" so to speak.

     Posted by USC1 08/01/2006 @ 10:59pm

     I used to work for the home depot. They used to pay 15 to 20 bucks an hour. Their store managers are now tasked to drive that down to 9 to 12 bucks a hour.

     and it was all in response to the reduced taxes on dividends

     it doesn't matter how hard you work at the home depot, you'll get a 2 percent raise each year... period

     your sweat is going to the major share holders in the form of low tax dividends

     Posted by Will C. at 08/01/2006 @ 11:25pm

195. Fourth, to whomever stated that the current economy is producing low-paying and PT jobs, I should remind you that the exact same thing was said about the Clinton economy. Did you agree with the assessment then?

     Posted by USC1 08/01/2006 @ 10:59pm

     during the clinton administration we had competition for labor.. that drove wages up

     then you hamsters stopped guarding our southern border

     that drove wages down

     oh and we also had dollar gas in 99

     Posted by Will C. at 08/01/2006 @ 11:29pm

196. First, if we are to be honest, we need to admit that minimum wage jobs are not meant to provide a "living wage," for lack of a better word. These jobs for the most part are nothing more than opportunities for those with little education or marketable skills to get their foot in the door to the world of employment. They are not the type of jobs people use to "support a family of four." They are opportunities for employees to learn basic job skills that are integral to success: punctuality, teamwork, enthusiasm, etc. If an employee is adept at showcasing those traits, he likely will not be earning minimum wage for long.

     Posted by USC1 08/01/2006 @ 10:59pm

     punctuality, teamwork, enthusiasm, etc...

     aren't going to get you a living wage if you are one of the people you speak about above

     and that begs the question, if they are doing an honest days work

     why can't they support a family of four?

     my father supported a family of six... and he never graduated high school

     Posted by Will C. at 08/01/2006 @ 11:33pm

197. Checking back in, I'm just happy to see that Freiheit has come down from a $500,000 yearly wage to $20 an hour.

     Now, if he could just take a couple steps more towards the current reality of what is being proposed . . .

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/01/2006 @ 11:38pm

198. cavuto interviewing bush on the estate tax today was PATHETIC:

     Cavuto also repeatedly called the estate tax the "death tax," a term used by estate tax repeal supporters. In fact, according to the IRS, only 1.17 percent of 2002 adult deaths had estates large enough to owe tax; according to projections by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, under current law, 0.5 percent of estates will owe any estate tax in 2007.

     When Bush asserted, in order to support his view that the estate tax should be repealed, that "it's unfair to tax somebody's assets twice," Cavuto failed to challenge this argument, even though he had previously noted, on the June 7 edition of Your World, that a substantial proportion of the assets in a large estate consist of unrealized (and therefore untaxed) capital gains.

     comments from the wing nuts?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2006 @ 12:41am

199. Typical Conservative Writes:

     "Dear Republican Congress, Thank you for not significantly lowering my federal taxes. As you know, I dont deserve a tax cut, because I dont work hard enough to deserve one. Thanks for keeping my taxes as high as they were before. Please give the very deserving and hard working upper crust folk who make over 300,000$ a year - they deserve it for working hard.

     Posted by conshame at 08/02/2006 @ 12:46am

200. Lil,

     "by Neal Boortz, a right-wing RADIO TALK SHOW HOST "

     You didn't read it. I can tell by the above line..it was written by a congressman along with Boortz...and if you had read the book and listened to the talk on it you would understand.

     Too bad, it is a simple NONPOLITICAL suggestion on how to make our system better for all of us.. do you only view life from a liberal/conservative point of view? You must have a boring existance.

     Try the book, my 15 year old got the ideas in an instant. There are some issues that need addressed, but they are far more workable than the mes of an IRS we have now..

     Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 01:09am

201. "it doesn't matter how hard you work at the home depot, you'll get a 2 percent raise each year... period "

     Like a union job then..

     Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 01:11am

202. i am starting to think that the uber-rich are pathologically insane. could you imagine deciding which bottle of vintage french pinot noir to open each night? or, how about which $5,000 an hour las vegas prostitute to hire?

     and before you say, "rich liberals do the same,", think again. those rich liberals aren't the ones pushing for this. rich liberals wouldn't use neil cavuto and fox news as their vehicle.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2006 @ 01:12am

203. yeah, union jobs at wal-mart!

     maasch, the uber-fuck wad.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2006 @ 01:13am

204. Posted by CONSHAME 08/02/2006 @ 12:46am | ignore this person

     Was this a comedy post?

     Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 01:13am

205. USC!,

     Excellant post and true enough.

     Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 01:14am

206. sorry,

     at home depot, same thing....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2006 @ 01:14am

207. Darla,

     Who cares how another spends his money on what or how much he makes? It is all part of his pursuit of happiness..his fredom to do so...Why focus on the pay check of the guy next to you? When you say he gets a tax cut, what you are really saying is that the tax man is not going to take out more this year than last year. Why is so hard for you to let people keep their own money?

     Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 01:18am

208. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/01/2006 @ 2:35pm

     "The min wage back then was $ 2.25 or under..the point is I made something else happen..Drive, old sport, Drive...one must have SOME kind of drive even to survive...I would submit to you that given the population walking around today, when placed in a real survial situation, say even 150 years ago, will die of starvation in the middle of a wheat field."

     I conceed your point. You apparently were ( and probably still are ) a vastly superior human being replete with "drive" as you put it. Perhaps even "over drive". Howsomeever consider this: the minimum wage is a sort of basement. As such it effects all other wages at any given time which in turn are structured up from there. You were making $200 a week in '75. this equates to 2.38 times the prevailing minimum wage at the time ( which was $2.10 then ). This corelates nicely with data in the State of Working America according to which the minimum wage in the mid 70's was about 45% of what the average worker earned per hour. ( Very impresive for a young man just starting out ! Sure you weren't working for daddy John ? ) In any case if the minimum wage today was the same as it was in '75, adjusted for inflation it would come to $316 a week. Now 2.38 times $316 ( are you still with me ? ) equals $752 dollars a week or just over 39K a year.

     Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think many clerks in licquor stores pull down 39K a year today. In fact according to the latest edition of the State of Working America 2004/2005 the minimum wage in 2003 ( last year of record ) was about 34% of what the average worker earned per hour. So taking 2.94 the recipricol of .34 ( still with me ) x $5.15 time 2080 hrs. per year comes to $31.5K.

     In short forget the minimum wage worker John. You were making almost 24% more back then in inflation adjusted dollars than the AVERAGE worker makes today.

     Conclusion ? In '75 you were benefiting from a society which valued and rewarded labor much more highly than today's society. You benefited from a society which valued the minimum wage worker about 53% higher and the average worker almost 16% higher than today's. As a comfortable card carrying member of the bourgeoisie the stingyness of today seems a good thing to you now. But try to remember the young John Maash just about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting world.

     There's an old saw that says "if you're not liberal when you're young it's because you have no heart. If you're not conservative when you're old it's because you have no brain." I like to think if you are conservative when you're old it's because you have no memory.

     Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/02/2006 @ 02:06am

209. Why won't republicans admit that welfare is a two party affair?

     Welfare for the Rich = estate tax breaks and school vouchers to mention only two.

     Republicans = Welfare for the Rich

     Posted by skyreader7 at 08/02/2006 @ 08:24am

210. Prejudice is better applied selectively than indescriminately Frei! Generalized prejudice is just misanthropy and hatefullness.

     The key and logical distinction is between shamefully bigotted prejudices against our fellow Americans/humans who have no/few opportunities to exercise real/effective choices in many/most circumstances (read: impoverished children as the prime example) and ALL and EACH of OUR rights to exercise PREFERENCE(S).

     A woman's perogative to change our minds, i.e. rectify situations, for even we Martians, eh Darladoon?

     And I like your posts as well. Thanks.

     Posted by lewwelge at 08/02/2006 @ 08:32am

211. Although it's no one's PREROGATIVE to purposefully misspell/err and then to knowingly/intentionally leave it uncorrected/unremedied. This is, essentially, what makes me such an individualistic socialist, IMHO.

     Posted by lewwelge at 08/02/2006 @ 09:44am

212. Pretend you dont know what I'm needling you about, Conservatives. Not one of the Conservatives here worked as hard as Katrina Vanden Heuvel - or KVH. Here you Conservatives whine, whine, whine, KVH - oh shes so rich - oh she works so much harder than me - oh she deserves a tax cut and I dont.

     You Conservatives here - not one of you worked hard and got rich - as you say KVH has done. You come up here one after another and say how glad you are that the Republican Congress hasnt given you a tax cut. "Please keep my taxes high - I dont deserve a tax cut" - which this Republican Congress has done. "Please give a tax cut to the rich upper crust folk who make $300,000 a year" - which this Republican Congress has done again and again.

     Now, retreat, pretend you dont know what I'm getting at. My point is so dammn simple, I keep making this point because all you Conservatives do is pretend you dont get it, ha ha - just a joke, ha ha - Katrina Vanden Heuvel worked hard and got rich and I didnt. I personally dont know if KVH is as rich as you claim - maybe those more obsessed with the lovely lady would know better. I dont find it hard to believe that KVH worked harder than the lazy Conservatives here.

     Posted by conshame at 08/02/2006 @ 10:03am

213. Posted by PERSON 08/01/2006 @ 9:33pm

     "Just say, "Bush is evil", "Bush is bad", and leave it at that."

     Of course you are aware that such succinctness, while admirable, makes an insufficient argument in and of itself.

     Besides it's so much more fun to bash the poor little bastard !

     Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/02/2006 @ 10:17am

214. Red Neckerson,

     A well written post, indeed..

     "Conclusion ? In '75 you were benefiting from a society which valued and rewarded labor much more highly than today's society. You benefited from a society which valued the minimum wage worker about 53% higher and the average worker almost 16% higher than today's. As a comfortable card carrying member of the bourgeoisie the stingyness of today seems a good thing to you now. But try to remember the young John Maash just about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting world."

     I do disagree mildly on a few points, but in general your best and non emotional rantless post ever :)

     I never worked for my Dad as he was ill most of his life..he did very well, but never up to his potential...I grew up in a very affluent area but was not even close to "rich"..the only area of disagreement are in your conclusion..I don't think society valued the min wage worker, since that very worker was expected to work for that wage as an ENTRY LEVEL position, almost looked at as a "dues" paying job while being EXPECTED to rise above that level in due course..while one can site percentages in comparing the past but one has to be careful, as it cuts both ways..

     Our population has grown immensely since then and we are seeing more numbers of people using and demanding more food, gas, clothes, all products at a greater rate, yet the real prices are cheaper than they were then..although gas is $3.00 a gallon,the real cost to you and me is less than it was in the embargo days of the late 70's and 80's...people didn't spend $ 5.00 for a cup of coffee..$ 40,000 for a Ford of Chevolet, 3% interest on a home loan,.... and one wasn't expected to feed a famly of 4 on min wage..or stay on it for years..a living wage was what one earned after paying ones dues to a degree...as far as my wages, yeah, they were higher than my friends at the time and I admit they were summer jobs to a degree(went to part time in college),but I also worked 60 hr a week. I worked Sat and Sundays for a construction guy after putting 50 hours as a brick laborer crew..it is still what one expects of himself that can make a difference.

     In college I worked as a bar tender,not in a college bar where tips do not exist, but in a hotel bar where I made $ 100 a night...in 1975...my share of rent was $ 75 a month, a dump for sure, but a stepping stone on my way to better times...I should point out I wqas robbed in 1990 and lost everything I had built up except my wife..and had to start over with no help, no banks would touch me, no credit cards..zip...beans and rice..income went from $ 18,000 a month to $1,500 as month....sold everything ..

     Ah, sorry to babble on..

     Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 10:24am

215. I reserve my sympathies for the innocents, especially the children, caught up in the geopolitics (WAR) of keeping the SUV gravy trains running full bore, Red.

     And thanks Conshame for your words/sentiments. It's galled me that the word/name "conservative" has now denigrated the concept of conservation to such a 180 degree Orwellian tragi-farce.

     Posted by lewwelge at 08/02/2006 @ 10:31am

216. Oh yeah, you cant criticize the Commander in Chief, cant criticize the Commander in Chief, this is a time of war, time of war, time of war. You have to respect the Office of the President. Respect the Office - it has lovely drapes.

     No you don't have to respect the Office of the President, Yes you should criticize the Commander in Chief. Republicans think we forgot how they went after a blowjob, and say you have to respect the President - dont call the President a murderer, dont call him a torturer, dont call him a killer, dont call him a War Profiteer.

     If anything is un-American, it is not wanting anyone to ever criticize the Commander in Chief.

     Posted by conshame at 08/02/2006 @ 10:51am

217. um freiheit---

     my anger at the super rich is perfectly justifiable. these people have so much money that they're not even human anymore. so inhuman, or subhuman in fact, that they have actually spent time and energy on a grotesque and massively misinformed lobbying campaign to convince not only congress, but everyone else, that this is good for america. that's how greedy these people are!

     they want even MORE money for themselves. they don't care about anyone except themselves. and they could care less how the government will survive without that missing tax revenue.

     like i said, food, home and family. perhaps a hobby or two. what else does one need to survive?

     and this is why i think that these people are pathologically insane: they are seemingly unable to survive without, say, a $1000 bottle of champagne every night.

     you know, you wack job conservatives like to say that we support terrorists, that we're rooting them on. that, if we really got to know some, they'd probably kill us and our families.

     well, i'll flip that coin and say that it's the same with you and rich people: if you actually met one of these rich families behind this estate tax repeat, they would probably eat you for breakfast!

     Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2006 @ 11:07am

218. ???

     Righties accuse lefties of hating rich people,

     then they accuse Katrina of being rich and out of touch.

     Criticizing anyone for caring about poor people is misguided.

     Criticizing wealthy people for caring about those with less is just fucking stupid.

     Posted by drhammer at 08/02/2006 @ 11:09am

219. SENSIBLE/LEFTOCENTER/JPOLSTON

     SENSIBLE

     I was mocking your carefully constructed and highly complex argument in which you attempted to portray the economy in a negative light and the length to which you went to do it.

     It illustrates just how far certain liberals will go to make an obvious positive into a seemingly negative.

     But i know how the enlightened class views such criticisms, those who do not agree are simpletons and naifs, devoid of any redeeming value, yet the seem to win moreso than not.

     I grant you sarcasm is something pretty difficult to get across on a thread.

     Also,

     I love the way it seems guys like JPOLSTONs and others feel the need to HIGHLIGHT my profession as a Soldier as a negative to be mocked and ridiculed.

     FYI, guys dont waste your time, heard it all, been there and got two T-shirts from: Professors, HS counselors, parents, hippies in airports, Principles, administrators, activists, preachers and people on the street...mainly liberals, (who identify themselves as such).

     So if you want to waste your time on silly stereotypical insults about Soldiers, go ahead, but it is nothing new, at least try to come up with new material.

     Posted by CPT at 08/02/2006 @ 11:19am

220. Whatever they may think about the true ramifications of raising the minimum wage, the greedy cocksuckers in the House, in doing the bidding of the even greedier cocksuckers in the wealthiest 2%, will trade off the minimum wage for the abolition of the estate tax, making that 2% even wealthier, and our nation hundreds of billions of tax dollars poorer.

     For too long our "representatives" have been in place for what would seem to be the sole purpose of redistributing our nation's wealth upward, but they have done it in a more subtle, behind-the-scenes fashion.

     With this latest bill, it becomes blatant, in-your-face, fuck-the-little-guy blackmail.

     And what drives the apologists, (who I will presume are not part of either the minimum wage class, or the wealthiest 2%), to place their sympathies with those who already have more than they will ever need?

     Posted by drhammer at 08/02/2006 @ 11:30am

221. caring about something or someone must extend beyond mere words, or even deeds.

     if you accumulate wealth only for yourself, you are ultimately hurting yourself and others.

     this is a timeless buddhist precept. it is one of the first and most significant, as well.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2006 @ 11:30am

222. DARLA

     You do realize that even those who accumalete great wealth do pay the majority of the taxes in this country.

     The TOP 1% pays roughly a third of all federal taxes

     The TOP 50% pays pays 96% of all federal taxes....what more do you want?

     According to the IRS.

     Posted by CPT at 08/02/2006 @ 11:37am

223. The professional soldier earns exemption from the decalogue's prohibition against killing, by risking forfeiture of their lives. Thus does civilian diplomacy and the rule of law trump force of arms in our government's founding, inverting social Darwinism's "might makes right," CPT. And thank you for your service.

     And Darladoon, "them that has gets," is played out in trumping spades by the neo-conservative party whose mouthpiece, shrub, read the lines written for him himself: "we're the party of the 'haves' and the 'have mores.'"

     Of course the joke is: the person who said money can't buy happiness didn't know where to shop. The deeper meaning, however, is more closely aligned to French saying, "happiness cannot be pursued, it must ensue."

     Posted by lewwelge at 08/02/2006 @ 11:54am

224. CPT--

     why shouldn't someone who has more pie pay more taxes?

     why should those with a lot less pie (and i mean A LOT LESS PIE) pay more taxes?

     it simply makes no sense to burden those with less.

     look, this is about a tax that makes perfect sense, and that generates a lot of revenue.

     if republicans are so fiscally intelligent, then why haven't they balanced a budget in over 30 years?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2006 @ 12:24pm

225. Yeah, Frei, the Buddha (enlightened one) was an aristocrat, Prince Siddhartha Guatama, in an agrarian society who perceived the folly in attempting to find fulfillment through materialism. After an initial period of self-abnegation and asceticism, he became "enlightened" to the "middle way" of "desirelessness" whilst in seated meditation beneath a tree emblematic of the multifareous distractions to which the mind is prone, if not properly disciplined. In this sense, any true discipline is a means to enlightenment. Ironic, eh, the over-controller's obsession with the word discipline, whose root word is "disciple"?

     Posted by lewwelge at 08/02/2006 @ 1:20pm

226. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/02/2006 @ 10:24am

     "I don't think society valued the min wage worker, since that very worker was expected to work for that wage as an ENTRY LEVEL position, almost looked at as a "dues" paying job while being EXPECTED to rise above that level in due course..".

     This is one of the principle rationales I hear from the Right now. But how do you explain the fact that the AVERAGE worker today is "valued", if you want to look at it that way, at 16% less than he was in '75 in terms of real wages ? Are they expected to "rise above their level in due course" ? If so will we eventually end up with a society that is a sort of macrocosm of Lake Woebegone where everyone is above average ?

     "...in general your best and non emotional rantless post ever"

     Damn ! Sorry John ! It was late and I was feeling mellow at the time. I'm back in form now.

     Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/02/2006 @ 1:21pm

227. "Yeah, Frei, the Buddha (enlightened one) was an aristocrat, Prince Siddhartha Guatama, in an agrarian society who perceived the folly in attempting to find fulfillment through materialism. After an initial period of self-abnegation and asceticism, he became "enlightened" to the "middle way" of "desirelessness" whilst in seated meditation beneath a tree emblematic of the multifareous distractions to which the mind is prone, if not properly disciplined. In this sense, any true discipline is a means to enlightenment. Ironic, eh, the over-controller's obsession with the word discipline, whose root word is "disciple"?"

     actually, meditation is a practice, and not a discipline. in fact, out of all the "religions", buddhism especially zen buddhism, is easily the most non-disciplinary. the only requirement is to zazen.

     that's it. everything comes from zazen.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2006 @ 1:31pm

228. Posted by DRHAMMER 08/02/2006 @ 11:30am

     "With this latest bill, it becomes blatant, in-your-face, fuck-the-little-guy blackmail."

     Exactly. People, if your state is blessed with exclusive representation by Republican Senators, as mine is, check to see how your Senators voted on the attempt to raise the minimum wage last year. Here's a hint: as I remember only three Repubs voted for it. Then write the editors of your local papers and point out exactly what a shamefacedly hypocritical act it will be if they vote for it now the only difference between last year's vote and this one being the Paris Hilton rider.

     If people understood this issue it would backfire big time on the Repubs. Write a letter to the editorial page of your local newspaper. Even zealots like my two lovelies, McCain and Kyl, read those letters in an election year. Or so I'm told.

     Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/02/2006 @ 1:41pm

229. thanks for wasting your time lvliberty! cuz none of us are going to read this horse shit....

     especially when you begin "capitalism offers more opportunity than....."

     than what? socialism? oh yeah, we're ALL socialists lvliberty!! thanks for pointing that one out, cuz i didn't even know that i was a socialist.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/02/2006 @ 2:46pm

230. Darla

     Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and why?

     Posted by usc1 at 08/02/2006 @ 4:35pm

231. Thanks Darladoon for cutting through the bounty of blather up thread.

     Regarding Zazen: call it practice, discipline or heightened awareness, it's something one does to attain or remain in the "here and now," not too cerebral, not too sensorial; in and of the gift of the present moment.

     Good-bye.

     Posted by lewwelge at 08/02/2006 @ 5:18pm

232. Like a union job then..

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/02/2006 @ 01:11a

     your kidding right?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/02/2006 @ 8:51pm

233. Hmm, seems my ignore list is working in reverse this evening. Or else only the right wing nut jobs are adding their 2 cents to this subject. Someone once said a rising tide raises all boats.

     Posted by tomearnist at 08/03/2006 @ 03:26am

234. The last minimum wage increase helped to foster the greatest encomic boom that this country experienced in the last 50 years. Also, this bill prohibits states from having a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage requirement. I just didn't realize that so many of your readers would benefit from the estate tax reduction, especially the one reader whose children are making $6.50 and 11.50 per hour already.

     Posted by predator at 08/03/2006 @ 2:03pm