For Dems only.

[kapkomet]

If you make the COLA a hard 3%, you have the same problem. Any COLA needs to be pegged to a dynamic, realistic market basket measure that closely mirrors inflation. That way, increases are market-natural, and is a real minimum wage.

Actually an index is a better way to say it then COLA.

 

Rex, I agree with your point - to tell you the truth, that's where a lot of people get stuck is in that bucket 20% above the minimum, and that's where the stagnation occurs. It's darn hard to live off of $400 a week, especially with health care costs going like they are.

 

But in no way does it effect the minimums - which was more my point - whatever my point was, hell I don't know anymore what I was trying to say.

[Balta1701]

Actually an index is a better way to say it then COLA.

 

Rex, I agree with your point - to tell you the truth, that's where a lot of people get stuck is in that bucket 20% above the minimum, and that's where the stagnation occurs. It's darn hard to live off of $400 a week, especially with health care costs going like they are.

 

But in no way does it effect the minimums - which was more my point - whatever my point was, hell I don't know anymore what I was trying to say.

I would counter that raising the minimum wage certainly does effect the bucket 20% above the minimum wage, because if you increase the minimum wage by 20%, either those workers are now sitting at the minimum wage (and therefore have every reason to consider finding another job at 20% above the new minimum wage) or their employer will consider giving them a raise so that the position stays competitive with the people on minimum wage.

[kapkomet]

I would counter that raising the minimum wage certainly does effect the bucket 20% above the minimum wage, because if you increase the minimum wage by 20%, either those workers are now sitting at the minimum wage (and therefore have every reason to consider finding another job at 20% above the new minimum wage) or their employer will consider giving them a raise so that the position stays competitive with the people on minimum wage.

I see your point, but disagree. So now, people making $10 will get a 20% raise, only because the floor was lifted? I doubt it. If that's the case, me at $100 an hour, should now get paid $120 an hour.

 

[Balta1701]

I see your point, but disagree. So now, people making $10 will get a 20% raise, only because the floor was lifted? I doubt it. If that's the case, me at $100 an hour, should now get paid $120 an hour.

 

Well, that depends...as you go to higher and higher income levels, the impact of a minimum wage increase should go towards zero, because those jobs become less and less competitive with yours.

 

The way to think about it to my eyes is this...imagine yourself stuck in the worst job in the world. Shoveling elephant dung or something like that, take your own pick. But you're getting paid $8 an hour right now, and you don't have the experience to find anything better. You could apply at the McDonalds, but you'd go back to making $5.15, and you can't afford that, so those jobs are not competitive with yours. But then the minimum wage raises to $7.25. Suddenly that McDonalds job looks a lot more promising, so the person employing you has a choice...lose you as a worker and try to find someone else who will do the job at $8 an hour (often an expensive proposition just with training), or give you a raise to $8.50 or $9 to keep you.

 

But as you go up in income, the impact should be less. If you were making $10 an hour, a job below you that jumps from $8 to $9 might or might not seem appealing to you. If you were making $12 an hour, probably even less.

[kapkomet]

Yea, I agree, again only to a point. To me, there should be incentive to better yourself from shoveling elephant dung. There's always room to improve, if you have the heart to do so.

[Balta1701]

House again passes bill repealing Mr. Bush's stem cell research limitations, but fails to achieve a veto-proof majority. Vote was 253 to 174.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2007 -> 07:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

However, I just wish they would do a COLA on the minimum wage so we wouldn't have to debate how cruel the EVVVVIIIIIIIIIL Republicans are for not passing wage hikes "for the poorest of the poor".

How many people making minimum wage or around it live in section 8 housing or use link cards?

They shouldn't get COLA if they're getting a price break on rent and food.

[kapkomet]

How many people making minimum wage or around it live in section 8 housing or use link cards?

They shouldn't get COLA if they're getting a price break on rent and food.

That's a thought I hadn't even gone down... a lot of people CHOOSE to stay where they are in wage brackets, etc. so they can get handouts.

[NorthSideSox72]

How many people making minimum wage or around it live in section 8 housing or use link cards?

They shouldn't get COLA if they're getting a price break on rent and food.

 

Elaborate, please. I see no connection between a cost of living adjustment pegged to inflation (vis a vis the cost of goods), and whether or not they receive assistance.

 

That's a thought I hadn't even gone down... a lot of people CHOOSE to stay where they are in wage brackets, etc. so they can get handouts.

 

Handout? Minimum wage doesn't mean wage everyone earns for breathing. It means minimum wage for working. How on earth is that a hand-out?

 

And I doubt that there is any incentive in housing, transit or free lunches large enough to motivate people to live in poverty. That just doesnt make any sense.

[kapkomet]

Elaborate, please. I see no connection between a cost of living adjustment pegged to inflation (vis a vis the cost of goods), and whether or not they receive assistance.

Handout? Minimum wage doesn't mean wage everyone earns for breathing. It means minimum wage for working. How on earth is that a hand-out?

 

And I doubt that there is any incentive in housing, transit or free lunches large enough to motivate people to live in poverty. That just doesnt make any sense.

I'll say it another way. Some people choose to continue to make only minumum wage and bounce around from one minimum wage job to another so that they can stay on the "handout" rolls.

[Texsox]

I'll say it another way. Some people choose to continue to make only minumum wage and bounce around from one minimum wage job to another so that they can stay on the "handout" rolls.

 

And some don't.

[kapkomet]

And some don't.

And your point is?

 

Most people can continue to move up the wage ranks from a minimum wage job if they choose to.

[Rex Kickass]

I'll say it another way. Some people choose to continue to make only minumum wage and bounce around from one minimum wage job to another so that they can stay on the "handout" rolls.

 

Could you show me some statistics on that? Exactly where are these people who do this? Otherwise, its just a lame straw man defense.

[Balta1701]

Yesterday, Harry Reid surprised a few folks by suddenly launching a tough fight for a watered-down version of the ethics reform legislation in the Senate. The original plan as I understood it was to pass a rule similar to the one in the House, forcing the Government to acknowledge who was asking for and getting what earmarks. Reid suddenly came in yesterday and threw his weight behind a version that would still allow significant quantities of earmarks to go un-sourced.

 

Happily, it appears that Reid has lost this fight, and the tougher rules will prevail.

 

Harry, we're watching you, stop the B.S.

[kapkomet]

Could you show me some statistics on that? Exactly where are these people who do this? Otherwise, its just a lame straw man defense.

SOME PEOPLE do this. I didn't say all, I didn't say MOST people. Some people will take advantage of every "break" they can get from the government because it's all they know how to do, rather than better themselves and get out of a "minimum wage" situation. That's a fact. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?

[Rex Kickass]

Some people will take advantage of every loophole the government offers. I'd rather it would be the low income scammers rather than the high income ones myself....

[kapkomet]

Some people will take advantage of every loophole the government offers. I'd rather it would be the low income scammers rather than the high income ones myself....

 

We need to get the rich. The egotistical bastards.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm just sayin....

 

I'd rather let the scammers who cost less get by, if we're gonna focus our energy on just gettin one group of scammers.

[kapkomet]

I'm just sayin....

 

I'd rather let the scammers who cost less get by, if we're gonna focus our energy on just gettin one group of scammers.

They all cost plenty. That was more my point before it got side-tracked.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yesterday, Harry Reid surprised a few folks by suddenly launching a tough fight for a watered-down version of the ethics reform legislation in the Senate. The original plan as I understood it was to pass a rule similar to the one in the House, forcing the Government to acknowledge who was asking for and getting what earmarks. Reid suddenly came in yesterday and threw his weight behind a version that would still allow significant quantities of earmarks to go un-sourced.

 

Happily, it appears that Reid has lost this fight, and the tougher rules will prevail.

 

Harry, we're watching you, stop the B.S.

Reid was sooooooooo the wrong choice for the Dems to lead the Senate.

[Balta1701]

House passes Medicare drug package reform bill, giving Medicare the right to negotiate lower prices with drug companies. Again, not a veto-proof majority, but a solid one. Link.

 

Check what is this, 5, 6 now?

[Balta1701]

"My Fox guys, I love every single one of them."

Condi Rice

[santo=dorf]

How is it democrats want minimum wage higher and don't want to boot aliens working here for less than minimum wage yet republicans don't want a hike in minimum wage and want undocumented workers making less booted out of the country?

 

Why can you guys be like me and pay both americans and aliens cheaply?

[Balta1701]

Joe Lieberman...Screwing over America like no other Senator could.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush’s new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

 

Lieberman’s reversal underscores the new role that he is seeking to play in the Senate as the leading apostle of bipartisanship, especially on national-security issues. On Wednesday night, Bush conspicuously cited Lieberman’s advice as being the inspiration for creating a new “bipartisan working group” on Capitol Hill that he said will “help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror.”

 

But the decision by Lieberman, the new chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, to back away from the committee's Katrina probe is already dismaying public-interest groups and others who hoped the Democratic victory in November would lead to more aggressive investigations of one of the White House’s most spectacular foul-ups.

 

Last year, when he was running for re-election in Connecticut, Lieberman was a vocal critic of the administration’s handling of Katrina. He was especially dismayed by its failure to turn over key records that could have shed light on internal White House deliberations about the hurricane, including those involving President Bush.

 

Asserting that there were “too many important questions that cannot be answered,” Lieberman and other committee Democrats complained in a statement last year that the panel “did not receive information or documents showing what actually was going on in the White House.”

Shorter Joe Lieberman: Hey Connecticut voters, hey Americans...SCREW YOU!! WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Chet Lemon]

I saw some of Lieberman on MTP this morning w/ Dodd, Kyl and Hagel. He was justifying his support for the escalation to Russert by explaining that U.S. soldiers are fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11. Hearing that from an average citizen makes me sad, but from a U.S. Senator who is chairman of Homeland Security, I don't even know anymore.