It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Dems seek to rally base over GOP's block of minimum wage bill

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:15 AM
The Democrats had complete control of the Senate, House, and White House for what, two years back around 2009? They didn't raise minimum wage, they didn't pass amnesty, they didn't do any sweeping legislation on gay marriage. They wouldn't even pass a simple budget (which was required by law). Now that Democrats know minimum wage won't pass they are forcing a vote on it. Why? Pure politics. If they wanted these things done they would have when they had complete power. These issues are only being used as a tool to try to win elections.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:35 AM
I think the middle class and poor Republicans are starting to realize that voting Republican is against their better interest.

Of course the Dems are going to take advantage of the fact that the GOP votes against a living wage, PLUS, they vote against food stamps and other help. When the Dems do something stupid, the GOP takes advantage of it politically. That's the game.

What are people supposed to do if they can't make a living wage? They get food stamps (which the GOP also hates). It's obvious the GOP wants to give up on the poor.

If the minimum wage was raised, fewer people would qualify for food stamps and those numbers would go down...

The GOP doesn't seem to know what they want. It's like the issue of birth control and abortion. They want to outlaw both. I don't think they've thought through the consequences. More babies born into homes that cannot afford them.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:45 AM

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

If the minimum wage was raised, fewer people would qualify for food stamps and those numbers would go down...

They just get shifted around to another demographic:

During the 2002-2007 period when the minimum wage was $5.15 per hour, teenage unemployment exceeded the national jobless rate by about 11% on average. Each of the three minimum wage increases was accompanied by a 2 percentage point increase in the amount that the teenage jobless rate exceeded the overall rate, from 11 to 13% after the 2007 increase from $5.15 to $5.85 per hour, from 13% to 15% following the second hike to $6.55 per hour, and from 15% to 17% following the last increase to $7.25. The 17.5% “excess teen unemployment” in October 2009 was the highest on record, going back to at least 1972, and was almost 5 percent higher than the peak teen jobless rate gap following the last recession (12.7% in June 2003).

We've been through this before. Nothing will change for anyone. The numbers just get moved from one column to another and in a year after the hike (if there is one) the same groups comprised of slightly different people will be chanting "raise the minimum!"

This "solution" is no solution. It hasnt ever been one before and it will never be one.

The ratio increased in both the “unaffected” states (blue series) and the affected states (solid red series). As we know from the national seasonally adjusted data, the ratio did not increase nationally, so seasonality tended to increase both series. My claim is not that the federal increase would halt seasonality, but merely that it would put the ratio lower in the affected states than it would have been.

The red series for the affected states is below the blue series for the unaffected states four out of five months, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the federal increase caused part-time job losses in the affected states, but not in the others.

With all of this recession’s significant labor market problems, and the expensive federal efforts to offset them, it’s too bad that the minimum-wage law added so many people to the list of those who today cannot find jobs.
2010 last time we did this song and dance
edit on 1-5-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:10 AM
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

1. We're not talking about teenagers. Many adults with children are working for minimum wage. The economy is different now than it was in 2002-2007.

2. I can find many links that have a positive bent on raising the minimum wage.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:16 AM
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sure, we can play dueling reports if you want. It'll be about as productive as raising the minimum wage. Which is my point.

This is not a solution. It's just a political ball to pass around. It was in 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1990, 1991, 1996, 1997, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Dept of Labor

Each time it was raised it was still a problem. Each time is wasnt raised it was still a problem.

Protip = playing with the minimum wage does nothing to relieve the problem

Unless of course the problem is how to convince a bunch of morons to vote for you.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 12:13 PM

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
It's all a show. It's the Federal Reserve Bank that doesn't want the minimum wage increase.

Otherwise, Republicans could propose raising the minimum wage to $100 an hour, and then let the Democrats oppose it. Then they could say that the Democrats hate poor people.

Thats not what happened. So since the republicans did block it they hate poor people?

The excellent posts by thisguyrighthere and tridentblue make my reply redundant, but I'll make it anyway.

Neither Republicans or Democrats are all that keen on poor people until elections roll around. Raising the minimum wage does not solve the problem, if it did, we wouldn't need to keep doing it. It's like adding a quart of oil to your engine every week.

Republicans blocking a wage hike is just an illusion. The Democrats could push it through if they really wanted to. There are numerous recent examples of this. What you need to look at is, why are they trying to do this now? Why not last year? Or the year before that? Or the year before that? You answered that question in your original post: to shift attention away from Obamacare. Neither side wants Obamacare to be an issue.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really care about the minimum wage. It's not like they are getting paid minimum wage, after all. So, who would really be opposed to increasing the minimum wage? Go back to the $100/hr example. Increase the minimum wage to $100/hr, and prices and wage will increase proportionally to the point where $100/hr is still poverty wages. So, we're back where we started, right? Well, yeah except for one glaring exception: existing debt.

People would be able to pay off mortgages, student loans, etc. in no time. The money the banks would be getting as payment on those loans would be worth far less than the original debt. In short, bankers lose money. They are not going to let that happen, hence the dog and pony show we have now.

Democrats have to propose a wage increase now to deflect attention away from things like Obamacare and NSA spying. Republicans have to appear to oppose it, otherwise the legislation would pass and cost banks money. Democrats won't fight too hard to pass the legislation, because they work for the banks, too. But the Democrats don't need to pass the legislation, they just need to tell voters in November that they tried.

The people remain divided, and they still have the illusion of representation in Congress. The Fed, Republicans, and Democrats remain united against the people. Mission accomplished.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 01:45 PM
a reply to: LDragonFire


Details or it never happened.

I bet there were more sneaky issues at stake.

Hidden wicked things inserted.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 02:06 PM
a reply to: beezzer

Those are very few and scares and you have to work on salary for that, now as for the minimum wages no only will increase more illegal immigration, but I guess the Dems wants people to be able to afford ACA, he,he

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 07:07 PM
From what I’ve read, there’s no consensus amongst economists regarding truly significant effects on the economy by raising the minimum wage. Some will say that X number of people will lose their jobs. Mostly it would affect low-skilled jobs held by young people. Others will say that the increased demand due to the extra money circulating will tend to offset the job losses because other companies will need to hire more workers to satisfy it. Then there’s all kinds of research/data that breaks down, and attempts to place a value on, the type of workers being affected by a wage increase. For instance, does a family of 4 making minimum wage deserve greater consideration than a high school kid flipping burgers part-time after school? In other words, which is more important? Providing a living wage (above poverty level) to the family of 4 by increasing the minimum wage, or making sure the kid keeps his part-time job after school at slave rates? And then there are thousands of other studies breaking things down even further.

Bottom line is, if our best economists can’t agree on a “best solution”, then I damn well can’t. But, I do have a gut feeling about it, and I’m with the 75% of Americans who think there should be a minimum wage increase. Of the other developed countries in the world, who also each have a minimum wage, the US ranked down near the bottom of the list for minimum/median wages in 2012. Our standard of living in the US was once amongst the best in the world - not anymore.

Now, I don’t know how many members of ATS are included in the top 1% of wage earners, (cough, cough), but to read the replies to this OP, and many, many others, it would seem clear that most of you are. Either that, or you’ve been so brainwashed as to support everything that’s not in your best interest. I mean, how obvious does it have to be for people to realize that the fat cats and corporations are completely in control here? That we are no longer a democracy, and that this country is being auctioned off lock, stock and barrell, while the rich are raking in the dough and the rest of us are fighting over the scraps? I’m afraid if current trends continue, and I think they will, we will soon pass the point of no return and go into history as just a failed experiment with democracy. You don’t have to be a genius to figure that out; just read the writing on the wall.

I know that many ATSers are still at a ripe and tender age, and I try to take that into consideration when reading many of these posts. So, for those of you who fall into that category, I just want you to know that America was not always as it is today. We were once a great and properous nation, envied by the world, and respected for our vision, know-how and winning spirit. It used to be that a single income family lived in relative comfort, able to own a home, buy a new car from time to time and send the kids to college. We were a proud nation with a strong middle class and the American Dream was alive. Our founding fathers would’ve been proud. Now fast forward and look at us now. Hmmm.

I’m not going to get into a big debate over this issue. I’ve already stated that I don’t know the best solution. I do know, however, that it’s obscene that a person can work a 40hr week in this country and still be considered under the poverty level. That’s just not right - it’s immoral. The elite need to stop hoarding all the resources and contribute to the stability of this society. It’s part of the cost of living in a civilized nation. And don’t tell me the rich are being taxed to death - that’s not true. I don’t care what they say on Fox News. The rich and corporations are enjoying some of the lowest taxes in history. General Electric didn’t even have a tax bill last year. Did you?


posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:08 PM

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
a reply to: LDragonFire

How so? Its not the job of the Federal Government to dictate your private contracts in regards to work. Lobby your State if you want, but a blanket approach of placing the Federal Minimum Wage above any known state's is just strong arm tactics yet again by an ever growing Federal Government.

It is governments place to look out for the welfare of it's citizens...Shall we abolish federal Child Labor Laws, OSHA et al. as well?

And what you are suggesting is a race to the bottom of the barrel...which state is willing to go low enough to be a mini-China here in the states? How many governors and state lawmakers will be immediately purchased by industry lobbyists to that profitable end?

Scary world some of you would have us live in.

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:24 PM

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I think the middle class and poor Republicans are starting to realize that voting Republican is against their better interest.

It is inevitable...

The Middle Class slides into the working poor...

The wealthy get wealthier through non-growth investments aka unearned income.

The GOP struggles to please their financial backers while their voting base shrinks due to economics.

The wealthy and the GOP try to hold onto power via redistricting, voter suppression, relaxed campaign finance laws,

and illogical propagandist arguments that a portion of their base will be gullible enough to believe

(Xenophobia - tried and true method..."Raising the minimum wage will increase illegal immigration!)
Gotta love it! Yes...if we make the USA someplace worth living...more people might want to come here!!!

(Money - raising the minimum wage will make employers hire less and you will lose your job to a robot!)
Right - Cuz any job that can be done by a robot hasn't already been turned over to a robot or is about to be?

The GOP will deny climate change until the weather systems are so effed up it is undeniable and the public as a whole abandons them, then and only then, when the wealthy energy barons have squeezed every penny out of polluting and it is undeniable will they stop denying.

Ditto with the minimum wage...but pretty soon the working poor will reach critical mass...until then the GOP and their masters will exploit the poor as long as they can get away with it.

It is not a question of IF we raise the minimum wage, it is WHEN...and how many Billions can be made off the backs of the working poor until then. Deny and propagandize until you can't deny anymore.
edit on 2-5-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:44 PM
Big surprise there. I guess they thought they should raise the min wage so fewer people would be exempt from the individual mandate as a result of low income. How precious!

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:00 PM

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The Democrats had complete control of the Senate, House, and White House for what, two years back around 2009? They didn't raise minimum wage, they didn't pass amnesty, they didn't do any sweeping legislation on gay marriage. They wouldn't even pass a simple budget (which was required by law). Now that Democrats know minimum wage won't pass they are forcing a vote on it. Why? Pure politics. If they wanted these things done they would have when they had complete power. These issues are only being used as a tool to try to win elections.

I'm going to get a little technical with this, the GOP filibustered nearly every attempt that the Dems tried to put forth in...anything. The Dems had a supermajority (complete power) for about two months in 2009. Anything that was passed by the house would be filibustered by the minority in the senate, whether it was a standard political appointment or an entire budget.

There were 58 Dems and 41 GOP in January 2009. Arlen Specter switched parties in April, putting it 59-40. Senator Byrd was hospitalized in May, putting the number at 58-40. Al Franken was sworn-in in July, putting the number at 59-40. Ted Kennedy died in August, bringing the number to 58-40 again. Paul Kirk was selected for Massachusetts in September, bringing the number to 59-40, you can count Byrd if you want to give it 60-40...but Byrd was hospitalized the entire time and had little effect on voting. Scott Brown was elected in January 2010 to replace Paul Kirk bringing the final number to 59-41(Counting Byrd).

So no, the Dems couldn't do whatever they wanted with the minority filibustering everything under the sun. It's a downright miracle that we got Obamacare to pass at all.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in