It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oklahoma bans local minimum wage hikes

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: CB328

Do you know what I find odd about this?

Why is it that minimum wage ONLY comes up right before an election?

If this was truly a cause that the Democrats believe in, why do they wait until an election to start talking about it?

You and I both know why!



Are you saying Democrats force Republicans to consistently block minimum wage legislation?

How do Democrats do that?


Obama had Democrat control of Congress for his first two years.

Was anything passed then ?

Hmmm.



Albert Einstein.

You do realize that thanks to BUSH the economy was in the toilet for years and employers were firing half a million people a month?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh that! OHHHHH you must of forgotten that little detail


Did you really just pull the BUSH card almost 8 years after hes gone? Seriously? give me a break......that card has been burned a long long time ago man.......get off that band wagon




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
There's always voting the evil greedy people out of office.

2nd


For the life of me....I can't remember when that has ever happened!



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: CB328

Do you know what I find odd about this?

Why is it that minimum wage ONLY comes up right before an election?

If this was truly a cause that the Democrats believe in, why do they wait until an election to start talking about it?

You and I both know why!



Indeed if they actually gave a damn about it why didn't they do something about it when they held house, and senate ?

They really didn't give a damn.

Healthcare was 'more important''

Until the next election comes around.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: CB328

Do you know what I find odd about this?

Why is it that minimum wage ONLY comes up right before an election?

If this was truly a cause that the Democrats believe in, why do they wait until an election to start talking about it?

You and I both know why!



Are you saying Democrats force Republicans to consistently block minimum wage legislation?

How do Democrats do that?


Obama had Democrat control of Congress for his first two years.

Was anything passed then ?

Hmmm.



Albert Einstein.

You do realize that thanks to BUSH the economy was in the toilet for years and employers were firing half a million people a month?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh that! OHHHHH you must of forgotten that little detail


Ahk how dumb of me.

I forgot they had to pass the PPACA first so they could read it later.

That actually put the net minimum wage down a notch or two.

All part of their plan.


edit on Apr-18-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: CB328

Do you know what I find odd about this?

Why is it that minimum wage ONLY comes up right before an election?

If this was truly a cause that the Democrats believe in, why do they wait until an election to start talking about it?

You and I both know why!



Are you saying Democrats force Republicans to consistently block minimum wage legislation?

How do Democrats do that?


Obama had Democrat control of Congress for his first two years.

Was anything passed then ?

Hmmm.



Read this: No! Obama Did Not Control Congress His First Two Years!


Can we, once and for all, put that lie to rest? People I actually like and respect heard this on Fox (to be precise, you probably heard it the last time on “Morning Joe” with Joe Scarborough in mid-April of this year) and keep repeating it. But I don’t care if you heard it in Sunday School (and in Kansas… you may have) – it’s a lie.

Before I accuse anybody of being unbelievably forgetful, I will admit that I can’t remember what I had for breakfast today. Being forgetful is not a crime. Lying is sometimes a crime, but when you lie on internet political blogs, that’s not a crime. However, it should tug at your conscience a bit. Let’s take a trip back to 2008. And let’s brush up on some basics.

First, did you forget that the President needed 60 votes to pass legislation? The healthcare bill is a good example of that. There were NOT 60 Democrats in the Senate. Remember that? So there had to be reconciliation. What about the Stimulus? Again, there was NOT 60 Democratic votes to pass it. Reconciliation did not work. It was blocked by the Republicans, and Obama traded job-creating for tax cuts. Remember those tax cuts he let go on? Yep, traded for job creation - which it did accomplish as much as the baby stimulus that he was able to get would allow.

Is it all coming back to you now? How about this: It was Obama’s inaugural dinner. Senator Kennedy suffered a seizure. It’s kind of hard to work when you’ve had a seizure. He went back to Massachusetts. Old news is so much fun to go back and read about. Here’s one I had forgotten, too. Al Franken had not yet been seated because the previous senator had challenged the election. Mein Gott, that went on forever with no way for him to vote in the Senate. With Kennedy in Massachusetts and Franken in purgatory, awaiting his chance in the hell that is Congress, that left just 58 votes in the Senate.

Memory Refresher: It took 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. The Republicans were already playing dirty politics and would not work across the aisle with the Democrats. By the way, that was 56 Democrats and 2 Democratically-minded Independents. Not 58 Democrats. Then, in April 2009 – good news. Republican Arlen Spector switched to Democrat. That gave the Democrats 60 seats with which to discourage a Republican filibuster (their most prized procedure at the time). But… oh no… we forgot, Al Franken was still in Purgatory out there in election recount turmoil. So… back to 59 votes.

We can pause here to lovingly remember the filibuster I just mentioned. Republicans made history during that time by using it more than any time ever before. Reminder (because this can get confusing): It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. The Democrats only had 59 at this point… technically.

One of those votes was the very ill, Senator Kennedy. He did cast one vote during that time. Then, Senator Byrd was admitted to the hospital. Then Al Franken was sworn in but Byrd was still in the hospital and Kennedy was too sick to ever vote again. Senator Byrd finally returned, but Kennedy did not. It wasn’t until August- 2009 that Senator Kirk was appointed to Kennedy’s seat, and finally they had the 60 votes.

That filibuster-proof 60 votes lasted exactly 4 months – Not 2 years. Not 1 year. Not 6 months. Just 4 months – from August 2009 to February 2010 - when Scott Brown was sworn in. But here’s a fact that nobody can deny: Republicans had the presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2001 – 2007.

For six years, Republicans had total and complete and undeniably absolute control over everything. And how did that work out in the final analysis? It doesn’t bear repeating. You know the answer to that as well as I do. Six years to screw up the whole country – nay, the entire damned world! And you whine because Obama could not fix it all in four months? Alright, I expect you to whine. But from this point on there is no excuse for lying. Not now that you know the truth.


So on topic you asked what bills Obama passed in his first two years? Well here you go.

link to easier to read list.

January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2 February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Re-authorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3 February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5 March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-8 March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11 April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13 May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21 May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22 May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23 May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24 June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31 June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32 October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84 November 6, 2009: Worker, Home ownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92 February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139 March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145 March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147 March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148 March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152 May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163 July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195 July 21, 2010: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203 August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act, Pub.L. 111-223 September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240 December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291, H.R. 4783 December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296, S. 3307 December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Re-authorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853 December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965 January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-347, H.R. 847


Does your rabid hate of Obama really allow you to believe half the stuff you say? Blind hate is a bad thing
edit on 18-4-2014 by Mamatus because: added content.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   


Anyone who has ANY understanding of economics would know a minimum wage hike is NOT a good thing


If you did know anything about economics you would know that 2/3 of economic activity is consumer spending, thus when workers make more money they spend more and boost the economies.

Besides studies show that minimum wage has very little job loss, but often has benefits.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It should. And the smaller the percentage difference between the highest paid and lowest employee should determine the taxes on profits of the company.

Say the CEO makes $1 million, in total compensation And his lowest paid employee makes $40,000. That's 25 times the lowest wage earner.
We make a scale (numbers are being made-up by me as I type, as an example):
Top earners make no more than 20 times the lowest paid; the company only pays 15% in taxes on its profits.
The top earner gets paid 21-30 times as much as the receptionist; the company pays 25% in taxes.
The boss makes 60 times as much as his janitor; the company pays 40% on its gains.
You get the idea...

Anyway, that's my contribution to incentivize higher minimum salaries.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Mamatus

Seriously ?

SERIOUSLY ?

The Democrats took power in the House in Senate in 2006 to 2010.

Obama did not control the congress during his first two years ?

YES HE DID.

And in 2010 quite a few people got sick and tired of the 'Yes men' , and changed that to it's current makeup.
edit on 18-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Mamatus

LOL

The 111th Congress had a Democrat majority on the Senate (D-59, R-41) and the House (D-255, R-179) and the Executive Branch.

111th United States Congress



The One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011. It began during the last two weeks of the George W. Bush administration, with the remainder spanning the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency.




Good Gawd !!





posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Good God indeed !

The 110th and 111th congress's.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You obviously did not read the entire post. These are not my "opinions" they are facts. Facts that are written and provable.

Of course the facts will never stop the rabid Republican haters of all things Obama.

BTW I have serious issues with this President. However they are rooted in facts, not delusions.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Mamatus

Oh.

And the PPACA (aka Obama.Care) passed with zero Republican votes.

Yes votes Senate --
Dem - 58
Ind - 2
R - 0

Yes votes House --
Dem - 219
R - 0
PPACA passes.

PPACA



edit on Apr-18-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Mamatus

The FACTS say the Democrats held the House from 2007 to 2009.

They maintained control until 2010.

So the FACTS CLEARLY SAY the DEMOCRATS HELD all 3 until 2010


edit on 18-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I won't debate anything with anyone that will ignore readily provable facts. When someones beliefs override known and provable facts it becomes quite clear that I am not having a debate with a reasonable human.

I am not an Obama fan, I am a fan of logic and truth, both of which a Rabid Republican O'hater will toss out the window and attempt to obfuscate the truths told they do not agree with.

Now don't you have more important things to do like maybe go look for Obamas birth certificate?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Mamatus

And I was worried for a second or two.

Plus it's too off topic.

On Topic:

Can somebody put up the actual legislation text to this Oklahoma thing?

Maybe we should look it over before jumping to wild conclusions eh.




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


It isn't a "wage cap". It stops small pockets of democrats, in counties/cities, from using a MANDATORY wage increase as a political tool just before an election.

Ohh… Minimum wage in and of itself is really a "maximum wage" or didn't you know?

Its the least they can do.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Back on topic regarding Okalahoma: It is Oklahoma, need any more be said?

Oh wait if you have never been there it is an absolute pit. Despite it being a highly right winged, primarily Republican family values State it also has the single largest Escort section I have ever seen in a cities Yellow pages... No joke it was a huge section, larger than Los Angeles or New York.

Don't you just love hypocrites?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Who wants to bet that the guys who voted for this are the same guys constantly complaining about interference from Washington in their internal matters? They probably go on and on about how congress should respect their states rights and keep out of their business.

Then, they go and pass this bill from on-high, forbidding localities from setting their own minimum wages. So much for federalism. Say goodbye to subsidiarity.

What a bunch of hypocrites.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

Right, that way if the company wants to pay their employees as little as possible then that applies to all of its employees. If the company wants to give huge and pay rates to its executives, then its grunts need to be paid handsomely as well. Can't have it both ways.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



Anyone who has ANY understanding of economics would know a minimum wage hike is NOT a good thing


If you did know anything about economics you would know that 2/3 of economic activity is consumer spending, thus when workers make more money they spend more and boost the economies.

Besides studies show that minimum wage has very little job loss, but often has benefits.


except the fact that goods and services get hiked too to compensate for that.......you dont think they magically come up with the extra income to do this do you?

When consumers have to pay MORE for the services and products they buy, what does that lead to? oh.....wait...less consumer spending.....

You dont have to be an economist to figure that out........just common sense




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join