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.

 

POLITICS: Senate Defeats Minimum Wage Increase

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by National Security Agency
This is gonna kick some Republican arse in the next election. HIP HIP HOORAY!!! This will be used against Republicans.

You do realize that neither party expected either of the dual increase bills to pass right? THe democrats had a 2 dollar version, it was supported by the dems rejected by the repubs and the repubs had a one dollar version supported by them and rejected by the dems. The democrats aren't going to be able to use this 'against' the republicans in the next elections. Neither party actually thought that either bill would actually pass.
Don't you just love political posturing? Both of these bills were for show, and the republicrats know this. It's fracking ridiculous.




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
$2.10?

... $2.10!?!?

Holy .. that..

I get paid 8.05 Canadian, and Canadian min. is 7.15 - It's going up to 7.45 next year.
.............


i don't think you understand what is being said in here. The bill was to increase minimum wage by $2.10. The minimum wage in the US is not $2.10, last time I checked it in Florida it was $6.15, but it changes from state to state.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
It seems we debated this last year as well. The increased cost of labor due to a higher minimum wage is passed onto you, the consumer. Who makes minimum wage? An employee at your local fast food restaurant likely does. Are you going to pay $4.00 for that Big Mac, or $6 or $7 for that value meal? Most likely not as often as you would at today's prices. If consumption decreases due to higher product cost then resource needs shrink and those workers who once made $2.10 more per hour now make $0 per hour. So who truly wins?



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Increasing the minimum wage will only slow the economy and cause inflation. It shouldn't be raised.


Amen! And the result of raising the minimun wage affects no one more than those who make the minimum wage. When I was getting my education and was making at or near minimum wage, I hated it when the wage was raised because I knew that the price of everything would go up and in the long haul my dollar would buy less.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Again also for those of you who read my intial post: The market can and does dictate wages based on area.

SF Bay Area... Palo Alto to be exact:

Starbucks Barrista: 13.00 an hour
Cleanup guy at In-n-Out Burger (CA Chain) 9.65 an hour

In this case the market has dictated a higher wage.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I think this issue speaks volumes about who is the real patriot and who is the closet elitist in our country.I don't see many republicans complaining about the continuous increase in gas prices per gallon the past few years and it's impact on the economy,but sure are quick to parrot the same partyline crap about how this mere $2.10 increase in wages per hour for the lowest on the totem pole,even after 8 that's EIGHT friggin years PEOPLE, will have unacceptable drastic effects.By defeating this bill in the face of an increasingly expensive economy,in all actuality, it really is in fact lowering the minimum wage.I find it a disgrace that many of these hard workers in our society have been,and NOW with this latest bleak development have to continually bust their behinds the first hour of every working day just to pay for the gas it costs to get to & from their job(s)..For the hypocritical kleptocrats it's business as usual.


The 46-49 roll call by which the Senate voted to voted Monday to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's amendment to raise the hourly minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to accept the amendment and a "no" vote was a vote to reject it.

Voting "yes" were 41 Democrats and 4 Republicans and 1 Independent.

Voting "no" were 0 Democrats and 49 Republicans.

Democrats Yes

Akaka, Hawaii; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats No = 0

Democrats Not Voting

Baucus, Mont.; Conrad, N.D.; Mikulski, Md.

Republicans Yes = 4

Chafee, R.I.; Coleman, Minn.; DeWine, Ohio; Domenici, N.M.

Republicans No

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Burr, N.C.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; Dole, N.C.; Enzi, Wyo.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans Not Voting = 2

Ensign, Nev.; Specter, Pa.

Others Yes = 1

Jeffords, Vt.


Minimum Wage Defeated, Locked In Time Capsule

From Ralph Nader in back 1997:


Members of Congress are public servants. They are trustees of the public purse. Their job is -- in part -- to safeguard the taxpayers' money from raids by the greedy, the self-serving, and the undeserving. Our federal government is more than $5 trillion in debt. With such an enormous debt, it is fitting that members of Congress should decline to raise their pay.

Sadly, [itoo many members of Congress have wished to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. Consequently, members of Congress now earn $133,600 per year -- many multiples of the median annual individual income in the United States. They receive generous perquisites, many of which detract from the dignity of the Congress. Many members of Congress will be pension millionaires when they retire.



Members of Congress have repeatedly voted themselves generous pay raises, while many Americans have not received a real raise in a generation or more. Just over ten years ago, in January 1987, members of Congress were paid $77,400 per year. Since then, members of Congress have voted themselves a real salary increase of $22,000 above inflation, in 1997 dollars. House members have enjoyed five pay raises, and senators six since then.

Compare that to other Americans. Adjusted for inflation, the median male income for full-time year-round workers was higher in 1969 than it was in 1995. For women, median full-time year-round income was higher in 1986 than it was in 1995.

Members of Congress are paid too much, and receive too many emoluments from the taxpayers -- the vast majority of whom earn far less than members of Congress. One small step towards restoring humility and moral authority to our Congress would be to forsake this inappropriate pay raise.


1997 Nader Letter Opposing Congressional Pay Raise


During the Clinton years, a period when we are often reminded by the political right, morality in politics was at an all-time low, President Clinton ended the practice of paying cash bonuses to political appointees working in federal agencies. Mr. Clinton probably thought that smacked of cronyism and hurt morale among career employees. He ended the practice shortly after the first President Bush left office, who, in his final days, had rewarded political appointees with $400,000 in bonuses that were not paid to career employees.

The political appointees got their appointments because they were wealthy and could make large contributions to Mr. Bush when he was seeking the presidency. Mr. Bush, in turn, showed his gratitude by giving them government jobs for which they might or might not be qualified and paying them bonuses to make it all worthwhile. The recipients did not need the bonuses, but it was the thought that counted, and a lovely way for Mr. Bush to thank his cronies for their good work in his behalf. Career employees who had done nothing to deserve bonuses other than perform their jobs understood, and did not resent even for a moment, the fact that this occurred. Early in his administration, Mr. Bush realized that such rewards were necessary and reinstated the practice that had been followed by his father.

Also unaffected by the belt tightening are members of Congress. As of this writing, it is not clear Mr. Bush's frugality on behalf of career employees will carry the day. Members of Congress have provided annual pay raises for themselves in the bill that is now in the legislative process. If the legislation is approved by both houses and signed by the president, salaries for members of Congress will go from $154,700 to $158,000. That represents a modest 2.2 percent raise in pay. Under the house bill, civilian employees would receive a 4.1 percent raise in pay, notwithstanding the president's desire to let them participate in the patriotic exercise of receiving a much more modest raise.

If the congressional raise goes through, it will be the fifth straight year that members of Congress have included themselves in the bill that authorizes pay raises for federal employees.



The salaries that are now paid to members of Congress place them among the top 5 percent of the people living in this country in terms of pay.


From Lawyer & Knight Ridder columnist Christopher Brauchli's 2003 article

Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own pay. Prior to 1969, Congress did so by enacting stand-alone legislation.
Stand-alone legislation may still be used to raise Member pay,...but two other methods are now also available, an automatic annual adjustment procedure and a commission process.

The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustment is determined for Members and other senior officials, based on a formula using changes in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index.Since 1997 under this revised method, annual adjustments have been accepted seven times: 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,2004,and present 2005 and denied only twice in 1997 and 1999.



A similar increase in presidential salary was rejected by Congress in 1999.
Effective Jan. 1, 2001, the salary of the president of the United States was increased to $390,000 per year including a $50,000 expense account. Any unused amount of the $50,000 expense account is returned to the Treasury.
The salary of the vice president also increased to $186,300, up from $175,400.



    Year/ Congressional Salary/ Minimum Wage


    1997 $133,600 (No Pay Raise) $5.15


    1998 $136,700 $5.15


    1999 No Pay Raise $5.15


    2000 $141,300 $5.15


    2001 $145,100 $5.15


    2002 $150,000 $5.15


    2003 $154,700 $5.15


    2004 $158,100 $5.15


    2005 *$162,100 $5.15



*In January 2005, Members are scheduled to receive yet another increase,this time a 2.5% increase under the automatic annual adjustment procedure, increasing their salary to $162,100!

Source PDF


    Year/ G.W. Bush's Salary/ Cheney's/ Cabinet/ Minimum Wage

    2001 $400,000 $175,400 $161,200 $5.15


    2002 No Pay Raise No Pay Raise No Pay Raise? $5.15


    2003 No Pay Raise $198,600 $171,900 $5.15


    2004 No Pay Raise $202,900 ? $5.15


    2005 ? ? ? $5.15






Source PDF

So while an overwhelming majority of Republican senators like:
Alexander, Tenn.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Burns, Mont.; Burr, N.C.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; Dole, N.C.; Enzi, Wyo.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz. yes as in John ; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Santorum, Pa.; Shelby, Ala.; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.
want to keep the Minimum Wage FROZEN based in a mid-1990's economy, they happily continue to engage in duplicity by zealously supporting consecutive self-interest based automatic annual adjustment increases for themselves.


For those minimum wagers & low-income families out there struggling to stay alive,currently existing in your respective states, please be sure to remind these senators what they're worth to you come re-election time.

Since Congress has now spoken showing where it stands on truly improving the lives of the poor and borderline destitute,I think a stricter check on the ability of Congress to allow its own increases is long overdue and needs to be implemented immediately.

The 27th Amendment to the Constitution reads:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives has intervened.

But unfortunately and unsurprisingly in this kleptocracy, a court ruling that each annual COLA is not the result of a new law effectively gutted the intent of this Amendment.


























[edit on 8-3-2005 by Vajrayana]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
They can give bush 81 BILLION $ FOR WAR, NO DOUBT!!! But can't help the people.



[edit on 8-3-2005 by ADVISOR]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vajrayana
I think this issue speaks volumes about who is the real patriot and who is the closet elitist in our country.I don't see many republicans complaining about the continuous increase in gas prices per gallon the past few years and it's impact on the economy,but sure are quick to parrot the same partyline crap about how this mere $2.10 increase in wages per hour


I would like to point out that the Democrats voted against the 1.10 increase over 18 months as well. That being said, as I have stated before, in most areas the local cost of living dictates the wages people recieve. See my post above for some examples.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Yes, giving people money for working is going to kill the economy. How dare they want money to buy food, water, electrcity, heat, gas, house, you know, frivilous things like that. Republican senators need the money to buy a new BMW, Mansion, Jet Plane.....



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Yes, giving people money for working is going to kill the economy. How dare they want money to buy food, water, electrcity, heat, gas, house, you know, frivilous things like that. Republican senators need the money to buy a new BMW, Mansion, Jet Plane.....


James I love you. You may rant endlessly about Bush and the Republicans, but at least you are consistent about it.

Who exactly do you think this wage hits? GE?, Intel?, Microsoft? Do you know anybody who has a small business? Most do not live the BMW, Mansion, Jet Plane lifestyle and they are hit the hardest by this.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Yes, I am sure the oil people who charge a dollar and a half more for a liter of petrol then what it costs to make a whole 55 liter drum are going to be hit hard. Or Mr. Gates charging how much for a pc? I was able to make a computer by buying seperate parts and putting them together for 229 dollars, Dell, Intel, whoever, charge over a thousand dollars for the same thing. I am sure this will completely clean them out.

Also, I know I am consistent, I don't flip flop like a politician. Except guns, give me guns or give me ammunition.


Also, if people have money, they will spend it. So, normally these 500,000 people won't buy Product X, Y, and Z. But with more money they go out and buy those products, and then some. If you make a product no one can buy, you don't make money. If you make it so people can buy it, you make money. Gas costs 60 dollars, guess what? No cars, no gas, no mowers, nothing that uses gas will be sold, unless you up the money people are making. If people make enough money to afford 60$ gas, then cars, mowers, so forth will be sold. So, right now people don't make enough money, they are poor, using welfare just to get by, they aren't buying anything but the essentials, meaning that new fancy tv, microwave, car, whatever, isn't being bought. If not bought, no profit. I got a B- in economics, but I know if nobody has money, you are going to sell things. People need money to spend it.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Bravo James!

I'm giving you a "way above". Everything you've posted I agree with.
I think a minimum wage increase is way overdue.
It's too bad that this congress does'nt think so...but then again I am absolutely NOT surprised that they're against a wage increase.

Not with the administration that's in now. If they had voted it in I would've fainted from the shock of it.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
To the pro-increase people: I know it's everyone's wish to increase their earnings, even if it's a modest one. But let's look at the big picture.

1. Increasing a person's minimum wage gives them less incentive to get an education to where they'll be qualified to make more money.

2. Increasing the minimum wage means higher labor costs which is passed on to the consumer.

3. With higher costs, people making above minimum wages will also demand higher wages to offset the higher cost of living.

4. With the minimum wage, skilled-labor and professional wages all at a higher level, that can only mean that the price of everything will have to go up.

5. So in the long run, any increase in the minimum wage has effected everyone and everything else. Things will be back to square 1 and it hasn't helped anyone.

I'm always looking forward to a salary increase also. I work hard, gain experience, hone my skills and expext to be compensated on merit. I'm not a believer of recieving something that's not deserved and a minimum wage increase is not deserved. If people want to make more money, they should study the job market, see where the better salaries are and study for the positions that pay what they desire. Not be a dead-brained, hamburger flipper.

Just my opinions and I'm stickng to them!

BTW, people with a lower income have a better chance on getting aid to a higher education. Much better than I do!



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
But if people don't have money, they aren't buying things. When I have little money I buy Big K Lemon Lime instead of Mountain Dew. When I have money I buy Mountain Dew. Now, say if a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew costs 10 dollars, while Big K costs 1 dollar(actually it costs 89cents for a 2 liter) and I am only making 6.50 an hour, not gonna buy MD. But if I make 11.50 an hour, I am going to buy MD. See? when I don't have money, I don't buy things, if I make money, I buy things. So, if people don't have the money to buy things, the company loses money.

Gee, again, gas costs 60$, NO ONE BUYS IT! THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT! But if you make 65$ an hour, you can afford it, so you can buy it. Along with a car, mower, gas powered blender(damn those things are powerful) so forth. What makes you more money? paying 5.15 an hour and sell your product for 1,000$, don't sell any because no one can afford it, or pay 6.50 and sell it for 100$ and people buy it by the millions. What makes you more money???



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
When are people going to come to their senses? Minimum wage laws are BoBo because companies do not sit around with huge sums of money. They reinvest them into their business not into paychecks. They are in business to make money too, remember? We're all in the same boat.

Minimum wage is also the cause of job exportation. Why pay a guy $13 per hr. (5.25 in NC, need to get out of here) when you can pay him $2? This however is not just a problem in the US. The union soaked job markets of Europe are suffering from minimum wage laws too. Companies won't even go over there anymore. A good example is GE. They had to build a manufacturing facility in Europe to sell their product over there and then the unions demanded minimun wage and 6 weeks vacation along with sick days and holidays, which there are too many of in Europe. GE pulled out in 9 months and still had to pay the workers after they left. How wonderful the socialist economies are? Maybe that's why Germany has a 12% unemployment rate.

Lastly, Political Parties are BOBO! Republicans and Democrats pretend to hate each other but it's like during the Cold War when USSR and China would have squabbles. Both parties run on the same agenda. People vote straight ticket and yet do not understand what these parties stand for. Heck people think Bush is conservative because he is a republican and as a True Republican I am ashamed to associated with him. Bush belongs to a group called NEO-Conservatives. They are republican only by name and do not represent true conservatism at all. Most mainstream political parties are moderate groups and are basically the same thing.

If you looked at the Kerry and Bush agenda's of the 2004 election side by side, you would have thought you had double vision. They were the same candidate. I obstained and caught flak for it. "That's a wasted vote (whines the bandwagonist)" A wasted vote is voting for something you don't believe in. I give props to the senators that stopped this bill because a Majority party in the legislature and executive breaks down the system of checks and balances. Any republican legislation is sure to be rubber stamped...oh where did the days go of Clinton versus Gingrich? We need a shut down of government....what fun Politics at work!



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
if they paid them .01 cents, they wouldn't die, they would just go on to the federal programs, and the taxpayer will pay the tab.....


What country do you live in? Just because you do not have money, or a place to live, or a job, does not get you welfare in the USA.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
BUT IF NO ONE HAS THE MONEY TO BUY THE PRODUCT, YOU LOSE MONEY!!!!!

I own a McDonalds, every employee in the state is paid 2$ a hour. I charge 50$ for a burger. I SHOULD be making billions according to republicans, right? But guess what? I make no money cause no one will buy my burgers. Now, if everyone made 55$ a hour and I charge 50$, I will make money! Piles of money, Olympic Size Pool of money.

Or same situation, I pay my employees 2$ and hour and charge 10$ a burger. The Burger King next door pays 6$ an hour and charges 1$ a burger, guess who makes more money?

You see how the economy works? If people have money, they will spend it. If they don't have money, they can't spend it! I love that logic, if we don't pay people to work, our economy will grow! HOW!!!!! If people can't buy your product, you can't make money......



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Socialism at work...no matter how many government programs you have people will always slip through the cracks. If I were athiest I would like religion for the one reason that they are charitable. It's the job of the people to help each other not the government. Remember what Kennedy said?: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!" I don't think he meant the US as a whole but rather to help your fellow man. As my mother always said: "Charity starts at home"



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
IT'S NOT CHARITY! Paying people for working is called the world. What? we should all be slaves? Chained to the office, working for nothing? You do have money, right? When you work, you expect to be paid, right? Now, what can you afford? What can't you afford? If you can't afford the product, then how does the company make money? If I make a million cars, and sell them at 5,000,000 a piece, I won't make money, for no one will pay 5,000,000 for a car, unless they have the money! Reason rich people buy cars for 5mil is because they can afford it.

So, you think slavery should be brough back? that the 97% of the people should be slaves to the 3%? We should work for no money huh?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
IT'S NOT CHARITY! Paying people for working is called the world. What? we should all be slaves? Chained to the office, working for nothing? You do have money, right? When you work, you expect to be paid, right? Now, what can you afford? What can't you afford? If you can't afford the product, then how does the company make money? If I make a million cars, and sell them at 5,000,000 a piece, I won't make money, for no one will pay 5,000,000 for a car, unless they have the money! Reason rich people buy cars for 5mil is because they can afford it.

So, you think slavery should be brough back? that the 97% of the people should be slaves to the 3%? We should work for no money huh?



Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Socialism at work...no matter how many government programs you have people will always slip through the cracks. If I were athiest I would like religion for the one reason that they are charitable. It's the job of the people to help each other not the government. Remember what Kennedy said?: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!" I don't think he meant the US as a whole but rather to help your fellow man. As my mother always said: "Charity starts at home"


My comments were in regard to an earlier post by GroinGrinder:


quote: Originally posted by dawnstar
if they paid them .01 cents, they wouldn't die, they would just go on to the federal programs, and the taxpayer will pay the tab.....




What country do you live in? Just because you do not have money, or a place to live, or a job, does not get you welfare in the USA.


I am anti-welfare. I am pro-capitalism. Government regulation and control with means to the economy. I am very antislavery and I wish you would read other posts before you respond. I am in no way for the destruction of the private sector. I'm actually border line Objectivist. No hard feelings, easy mistake.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join