NationStates Jolt Archive

Legislation passed today would repeal subsidies to oil and gas companies and creates a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve to invest in clean, renewable energy resources. Thirty-six Republicans voted with the Dems.

So, let's recap the first 42 hours(less than half the announced time): in addition to today's bill, the House passed legislation that would implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, increase the minimum wage for the first time sice I joined the work force, expand stem cell research, without the "moral ambiguities" that were a convenient excuse the first time, lower prescription drug costs by forcing big pharma to negotiate with the government, and cut student loan interest rates in half over the next five years. All this AND changing the lobbying rules the repubs loved so dearly. What's next? My bet is that it'll be good.

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0009) (oil subsidies)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0004) (9/11 commission reccommendations)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0005) (minimum wage)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0006) (stem cell research)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0007) (proscription drugs)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0008) (student loans)

Legislation passed today would repeal subsidies to oil and gas companies

Why not repeal all subsidies? :(

because some subsidies are protectionist, such as the farm subsidies. If we give up our food production, we'll get sideswiped by some third world country when they decide food actually has value. Or farmers will start growing crops that make real money instead of what we need to eat. Or they'll sell out to interests that are wililng to abuse us in other ways, because there is no money in it. Same for airlines, and military weapons producers...In theory.

I'll say this congress seems to have jumped off the mark. Let's hope they have some wind as well.

because some subsidies are protectionist

Exactly. Protectionism is utterly immoral and stupid. Read here. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard125.html)

Exactly. Protectionism is utterly immoral and stupid. Read here. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard125.html)

You're against subsidies. Good for you. Take it to some economic theory thread.

You're against subsidies. Good for you. Take it to some economic theory thread.

*does so*

Exactly. Protectionism is utterly immoral and stupid. Read here. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard125.html)

sure. I agree taht we should give up our arms industry and our farms and our airlines and all the other thiungs we charge protectionist tarrifs and give subsidies to. Then when our country falls apart, well, at least we did the honorable thing:rolleyes:


You're against subsidies. Good for you. Take it to some economic theory thread.


damn girl! you ate your wheaties this morning eh?

I'm very skeptical about the minimum wage laws, especially in how Democrats described a change in minimum wage of little consequence to the American economy. Honestly... wage increase =/= raise in price? hmm...

fishy stuff...

We just got raised in california from 6.75 to 7.50 an hour. Our economy doesn't seem to be plummeting. Some prices got raised, but its not the end of the world.

And Rooseveldt, I'm a guy. I really don't know why people keep thinking I'm a girl :(

http://a478.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/7/l_7ff335d4a4997cdb863bf91e4326387d.jpg

I'm very skeptical about the minimum wage laws, especially in how Democrats described a change in minimum wage of little consequence to the American economy. Honestly... wage increase =/= raise in price? hmm...

fishy stuff...

Uber Spamgirl


erm chellis...sorry dude :D You should work at changing your custom title there :eek:


hey, where in Cali? So Cal or No Cal? 7.50 down here won't buy you a park bench at night. And San Francisco to SAnta CRuz is even worse...I am thinking we should be thinking of other solutions than a minimum wage......

Its now January 19th... when was the last time an economy collapsed in 19 days?

not only will it negatively effect the economy, it will negatively effect the teen job market as well. low-pay companies are more willing to pay older employees the same price as younger employees would make.

We've been above the national average for a while though. We're doing just fine out here, economically.

Its now January 19th... when was the last time an economy collapsed in 19 days?

not only will it negatively effect the economy, it will negatively effect the teen job market as well. low-pay companies are more willing to pay older employees the same price as younger employees would make.


Dude, no adult would accept a job that pays that little. Well, maybe I would at a bookstore or something. But in general it won't change much. It certainly won't cause an "economic collapse". At most it will raise prices in some things a bit, and it'll hit the middle class a bit more, and low class will still starve.:rolleyes:

We just got raised in california from 6.75 to 7.50 an hour. Our economy doesn't seem to be plummeting. Some prices got raised, but its not the end of the world.

And Rooseveldt, I'm a guy. I really don't know why people keep thinking I'm a girl :(

http://a478.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/7/l_7ff335d4a4997cdb863bf91e4326387d.jpg

Its now January 19th... when was the last time an economy collapsed in 19 days?

not only will it negatively effect the economy, it will negatively effect the teen job market as well. low-pay companies are more willing to pay older employees the same price as younger employees would make.

We've been above the national average for a while though. We're doing just fine out here, economically.

By law, or by market? If your market wage is more than the minimum wage, the law isn't going to have an effect; in fact, in most of the country the unskilled labor market wage is higher than the minimum wage because the economy is in good shape and demand for jobs is high.

In reality, the number of people affected by that legislation is going to be minimal at best; of course, there's a good chance that some of those people will lost their jobs, but it looks good. The minimum wage is really just a political ploy.

Really, the Democrats deserve credit for the alternative energy bill, stem cell research, student loans and eliminating oil subsidies. Those are truly good ideas, and I hope it's a sign of things to come.

Its now January 19th... when was the last time an economy collapsed in 19 days?

not only will it negatively effect the economy, it will negatively effect the teen job market as well. low-pay companies are more willing to pay older employees the same price as younger employees would make.

Why is that there's always a contingent of people who claim disater for the economy when they raise the minimum wage, when history shows us that things always get better when that heppens? To some employers, the real deffinition of "minimum wage" is, "if I could pay you less, I would." [/Chris Rock]

What is it about poor people that screams to individuals like yourself "please, stomp on me!"

I'm very skeptical about the minimum wage laws, especially in how Democrats described a change in minimum wage of little consequence to the American economy. Honestly... wage increase =/= raise in price? hmm...

fishy stuff...As long as the raises aren't too drastic, the net effect is that prices might go up a little, but the increase in wages is larger, so there's a net gain. Also, since the minimum goes up, that increases pressure on other wages to go up, and the people at the bottom of the economic scale spend all their money, so that turns into a boost in economic growth. There is a point where minimum wages can start to harm the economy, but we're nowhere near that point right now.

There is a point where minimum wages can start to harm the economy, but we're nowhere near that point right now.

That would occur at the point where the minimum wage is higher than the market wage; of course, since almost no one in the country earns the minimum wage, it doesn't really affect a whole lot of people to raise it slightly over time.

That would occur at the point where the minimum wage is higher than the market wage; of course, since almost no one in the country earns the minimum wage, it doesn't really affect a whole lot of people to raise it slightly over time.

It does if you factor in everyone down at that end of the wage scale who gets a little bump because of the pressure from the increased minimum wage. Plus, you get the boost from the extra money coming into the economy from the bottom--you affect a lot more people's spending habits with a minimum wage increase than you do with a tax cut to the wealthy.

Here's the part I like. The Democrats are all for reducing dependence on Arab oil, so what do they do? Tax domestically produced oil. Fees are taxes, by the way.

From the bill (http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/HR6.pdf)...

(b) CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES FEES.—
15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after
16 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
17 the Interior by regulation shall establish–
18 (A) a conservation of resources fee for pro
19 ducing Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of
20 Mexico

By law, or by market? If your market wage is more than the minimum wage, the law isn't going to have an effect; in fact, in most of the country the unskilled labor market wage is higher than the minimum wage because the economy is in good shape and demand for jobs is high.

In reality, the number of people affected by that legislation is going to be minimal at best; of course, there's a good chance that some of those people will lost their jobs, but it looks good. The minimum wage is really just a political ploy.

Really, the Democrats deserve credit for the alternative energy bill, stem cell research, student loans and eliminating oil subsidies. Those are truly good ideas, and I hope it's a sign of things to come.

Someone I hear on NPR made an interesting point I thouth. Increasing the minimum wage doesnt help those who really need it. Instead if they focus on yearly income and adjust the Earned Income Credit instead, it would help the low wage earners directly since kids who are well off will be having those low wage jobs while in high school/college or whatever.

How do you feel about this?

It seems to me though that a rich kid working part time will still have his income dealt with individually right? He isnt going to report all the money mommy and daddy give him. Still it did seem like a good idea to look into.

Someone I hear on NPR made an interesting point I thouth. Increasing the minimum wage doesnt help those who really need it. Instead if they focus on yearly income and adjust the Earned Income Credit instead, it would help the low wage earners directly since kids who are well off will be having those low wage jobs while in high school/college or whatever.

How do you feel about this?

It seems to me though that a rich kid working part time will still have his income dealt with individually right? He isnt going to report all the money mommy and daddy give him. Still it did seem like a good idea to look into.

It's a better idea, but the "rich kid" you speak of wouldn't be eligible for EIC unless he was at least 25 (which by then you shouldn't have mom and dad giving you an allowance) or has a kid (which also probably negates the mom and dad giving you an allowance)

It's a better idea, but the "rich kid" you speak of wouldn't be eligible for EIC unless he was at least 25 (which by then you shouldn't have mom and dad giving you an allowance) or has a kid (which also probably negates the mom and dad giving you an allowance)

I see... well then, I think it's an idea worth looking into then.

Someone I hear on NPR made an interesting point I thouth. Increasing the minimum wage doesnt help those who really need it. Instead if they focus on yearly income and adjust the Earned Income Credit instead, it would help the low wage earners directly since kids who are well off will be having those low wage jobs while in high school/college or whatever.

I bet that if a conservative had made that assertion, you would say it was completely false.

I bet that if a conservative had made that assertion, you would say it was completely false.

I had the impression that the women on NPR was conservative. I just looked at the idea and felt it had some merit.

I see... well then, I think it's an idea worth looking into then.

the EIC is one of those tax things that gets tweaked every year for inflation and the like anyway, but the income levels for eligibility were increase under Bush's tax plan, and now even more families who are living with very little are eligible for the credit.

the EIC is one of those tax things that gets tweaked every year for inflation and the like anyway, but the income levels for eligibility were increase under Bush's tax plan, and now even more families who are living with very little are eligible for the credit.


Marvelous!

Efficient government?? Democrats prove it can be done
Are you getting paid by the Democrats to post here? I'm as happy as anyone to see the end of the Republican majority, but your lack of cynicism and unshakeable adoration for the Democrats is juvenile.

They have shown they can efficiently screw up.

By agreeing to attach line item veto to the minimum wage, they have taken a big shit on the checks and balances that are very important to a limited executive in order to say that they supported and passed a decidedly populist but decidedly ineffective bill.

No democracy is efficient. The democrat's haste on this issue will be more than made up for with their footdragging on others...

I bet that if a conservative had made that assertion, you would say it was completely false.

Do you have a dent in your forehead from throwing up your wrist in these 'woe is me' routines?

They have shown they can efficiently screw up.

By agreeing to attach line item veto to the minimum wage, they have taken a big shit on the checks and balances that are very important to a limited executive in order to say that they supported and passed a decidedly populist but decidedly ineffective bill.Except that they didn't. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/senate-ethics-impasse-may-be-broken/)
Update at 9:15 p.m. or so: The Senate passes ethics bill, 96-2.
An amendment to create an independent office of Public integrity was defeated.
This is without the amendment Republican Senator Judd Gregg and other G.O.P. senators wanted that would have given a president veto power over line items. Under an agreement reached earlier tonight, that will come up next week with the minimum wage legislation.

For all those of you who are crowing for the wonderful success of minimum wage increase remember one thing.....people who serve you at restaurants when you eat out. Already they make less then min. because tips are supposed to make the difference..... in most states when min goes up the servers pay does not...... the theory is that diners will continue to make up the difference. Too bad it never happens.....I have in the past worked as a server.....and here in MI it is about half of what min wage was....we recently had a min wage increase, but talking to my friends who are servers theirs is still the same...state wide, and the truly sad thing is people do not tip any better then they did before the increase, and some still tip as crappy as ever. So the next time you eat out and you watch your server running all over helping everyone out....think about how it might be for you to try to raise a family on submin wages Also think about it next time the cook might over do your steak or even under cook it...and you take it out on the servers tip.....she did not make your food, and the cooks don't care because they are getting a decent hourly wage.

Those small price in creases you say do not harm the economy....it may be true.....but it does harm those who do not get raises no matter what the law says.

For all those of you who are crowing for the wonderful success of minimum wage increase remember one thing.....people who serve you at restaurants when you eat out. Already they make less then min. because tips are supposed to make the difference..... in most states when min goes up the servers pay does not...... the theory is that diners will continue to make up the difference. Too bad it never happens.....I have in the past worked as a server.....and here in MI it is about half of what min wage was....we recently had a min wage increase, but talking to my friends who are servers theirs is still the same...state wide, and the truly sad thing is people do not tip any better then they did before the increase, and some still tip as crappy as ever. So the next time you eat out and you watch your server running all over helping everyone out....think about how it might be for you to try to raise a family on submin wages Also think about it next time the cook might over do your steak or even under cook it...and you take it out on the servers tip.....she did not make your food, and the cooks don't care because they are getting a decent hourly wage.

Those small price in creases you say do not harm the economy....it may be true.....but it does harm those who do not get raises no matter what the law says.
It doesn't harm you, it just doesn't change your shitty situation. And that is a shitty ass set up, I've always thought that that was bullshit. "Here, you pay my waitstaff." Fuck that, they're your employees, you fucking pay them-if I give them a tip (and I do, and big so that the next scruffy slacker that comes in my get good service because I hardly ever do because they're sure I'm going to stiff them, but anyway...) it's something extra I am giving them for hooking me up, not me 'deciding' to pay them or not for hustling around my food for me. Fucking asshole system...

Except that they didn't. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/senate-ethics-impasse-may-be-broken/)

So they pushed back discussion.

What are they going to push back the discussion onto this time?

So they pushed back discussion.

What are they going to push back the discussion onto this time?

According to that piece, it'll come up for debate next week on the minimum wage bill, where the Democrats feel sure it will be defeated.

What's next?

I'm guessing that they'll set up a giant sheild around the earth to protect us from meteorites, abolish poverty, rebuild the ozone, and dance the night away.

(or they could just get sucked into some stupid flag burning debate)

Oh just wait, they'll be porkaliscious by the middle of this year.

Time Warp +1

For all those of you who are crowing for the wonderful success of minimum wage increase remember one thing.....people who serve you at restaurants when you eat out. Already they make less then min. because tips are supposed to make the difference..... in most states when min goes up the servers pay does not...... the theory is that diners will continue to make up the difference. Too bad it never happens.....I have in the past worked as a server.....and here in MI it is about half of what min wage was....we recently had a min wage increase, but talking to my friends who are servers theirs is still the same...state wide, and the truly sad thing is people do not tip any better then they did before the increase, and some still tip as crappy as ever. So the next time you eat out and you watch your server running all over helping everyone out....think about how it might be for you to try to raise a family on submin wages Also think about it next time the cook might over do your steak or even under cook it...and you take it out on the servers tip.....she did not make your food, and the cooks don't care because they are getting a decent hourly wage.

Those small price in creases you say do not harm the economy....it may be true.....but it does harm those who do not get raises no matter what the law says.
You should.....lay off.......the period key.....makes your posts......choppy......

According to that piece, it'll come up for debate next week on the minimum wage bill, where the Democrats feel sure it will be defeated.

I understand that.

I said that they were attaching it to the minimum wage bill, when I guess they are merely discussing it with the minimum wage bill. However, the idea that the Republicans would merely roll over and die on it is ludicrous. There is obviously a very good chance that this will be attached to the minimum wage bill, especially considering all of the provisions that the two party's disagree on already.

You should.....lay off.......the period key.....makes your posts......choppy......

my posts are choppy.:headbang:

It doesn't harm you, it just doesn't change your shitty situation. And that is a shitty ass set up, I've always thought that that was bullshit. "Here, you pay my waitstaff." Fuck that, they're your employees, you fucking pay them-if I give them a tip (and I do, and big so that the next scruffy slacker that comes in my get good service because I hardly ever do because they're sure I'm going to stiff them, but anyway...) it's something extra I am giving them for hooking me up, not me 'deciding' to pay them or not for hustling around my food for me. Fucking asshole system...

:rolleyes: does not affect me I left all that for a better job while I am finishing college in between deployments but it pisses me off to see people get screwed. And I agree with you that tips should be something extra not their pay. But hey you and I can not change it, that is up to the system.

I understand that.

I said that they were attaching it to the minimum wage bill, when I guess they are merely discussing it with the minimum wage bill. However, the idea that the Republicans would merely roll over and die on it is ludicrous. There is obviously a very good chance that this will be attached to the minimum wage bill, especially considering all of the provisions that the two party's disagree on already.

sounds like the republicans are doing to the democrats what was done to them when they were the majority party. add on , add on, add on. Then blame someone else when it fails.

I understand that.

I said that they were attaching it to the minimum wage bill, when I guess they are merely discussing it with the minimum wage bill. However, the idea that the Republicans would merely roll over and die on it is ludicrous. There is obviously a very good chance that this will be attached to the minimum wage bill, especially considering all of the provisions that the two party's disagree on already.
My guess is that it'll be harder for the Republicans to filibuster the minimum wage bill, so there's less objection to the attempt to attach it to that bill. Better chance of killing the line item veto on that bill than on the ethics bill.

Are you getting paid by the Democrats to post here? I'm as happy as anyone to see the end of the Republican majority, but your lack of cynicism and unshakeable adoration for the Democrats is juvenile.

No, what's juvenile is acting like a total jerk when it's not called for, which you in particular are exceedingly good at BTW. But, my bet is that you ARE a juvenile, at least in mental capacity, if not in physical age. Don't shoot the messenger. Your guys couldn't get it done, don't be jealous.

Legislation passed today would repeal subsidies to oil and gas companies and creates a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve to invest in clean, renewable energy resources. Thirty-six Republicans voted with the Dems.

So, let's recap the first 42 hours(less than half the announced time): in addition to today's bill, the House passed legislation that would implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, increase the minimum wage for the first time sice I joined the work force, expand stem cell research, without the "moral ambiguities" that were a convenient excuse the first time, lower prescription drug costs by forcing big pharma to negotiate with the government, and cut student loan interest rates in half over the next five years. All this AND changing the lobbying rules the repubs loved so dearly. What's next? My bet is that it'll be good.

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0009) (oil subsidies)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0004) (9/11 commission reccommendations)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0005) (minimum wage)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0006) (stem cell research)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0007) (proscription drugs)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0008) (student loans)

Erm, I don't wish too anger anyone, but won't all this come at the cost of a tax raise, too some degree? As for the federal minimum wage increase, lets see how that works out, it can be good for the workforce, or it can cause layoffs and lack of hiring incentives with employers. As for stem cell research, lets see if anything FINALLY comes out of that, in the quaint form of definitive results. I like the energy proposal as this is an imperitive step towards securing our nations energy needs in the future. Overall, i'll give the democrats a good job rating.

No, what's juvenile is acting like a total jerk when it's not called for, which you in particular are exceedingly good at BTW. But, my bet is that you ARE a juvenile, at least in mental capacity, if not in physical age. Don't shoot the messenger. Your guys couldn't get it done, don't be jealous.

"You guys?" From what i've read hes not much of a republican sympathizer... In your defense, you probably are happy with the democrats course of action, so it's not so much juvenille of you, more....admiring a parties actions...quite too be expected really...

My guess is that it'll be harder for the Republicans to filibuster the minimum wage bill, so there's less objection to the attempt to attach it to that bill. Better chance of killing the line item veto on that bill than on the ethics bill.

I hope, but I will believe it when I see it.

I hope, but I will believe it when I see it.

Well the Democrats have no desire to give Bush a real line item veto, even if it's only for the next year and a half, but what's more important is that an actual line item veto has been declared unconstitutional recently. What's being suggested is a hybrid--POTUS could line item veto, but Congress gets to vote on it again, though I'm not sure what the deal is with overturning the veto. Either way, I don't like it, and it's pretty clear that the Democratic leadership doesn't either, and that in conference it'll be stripped out.

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0009) (oil subsidies)

It should be noted that, while this may accelerate the research of alternate energy sources (simply cutting off subsidies and forcing oil companies to actually face the situation would work fine), this funnelling of billions into this R&D will ensure that big oil will be making record profits long after oil has been made obsolete. We'll just be referring to all of those companies that were "big oil" as "big corn".

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0005) (minimum wage)

Very few Americans make $7.25 as it is, and you pretty much can't make a living off of anything under $10-$12 an hour, depending on where you live.

So democrats have efficiently done nothing.

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0006) (stem cell research)

link (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0007) (proscription drugs)

If big oil isn't making record profits, then big pharmaceutical will be.


Have any of these other than the ethics bill been approved by congress?

It should be noted that, while this may accelerate the research of alternate energy sources (simply cutting off subsidies and forcing oil companies to actually face the situation would work fine), this funnelling of billions into this R&D will ensure that big oil will be making record profits long after oil has been made obsolete. We'll just be referring to all of those companies that were "big oil" as "big corn".



Very few Americans make $7.25 as it is, and you pretty much can't make a living off of anything under $10-$12 an hour, depending on where you live.

So democrats have efficiently done nothing.



If big oil isn't making record profits, then big pharmaceutical will be.


Have any of these other than the ethics bill been approved by congress?


They've all passed the house, as promised. Now they're moving to the senate, where I expect they'll pass barring any infantile repub action.

By law, or by market? If your market wage is more than the minimum wage, the law isn't going to have an effect; in fact, in most of the country the unskilled labor market wage is higher than the minimum wage because the economy is in good shape and demand for jobs is high.

In reality, the number of people affected by that legislation is going to be minimal at best; of course, there's a good chance that some of those people will lost their jobs, but it looks good. The minimum wage is really just a political ploy.

Really, the Democrats deserve credit for the alternative energy bill, stem cell research, student loans and eliminating oil subsidies. Those are truly good ideas, and I hope it's a sign of things to come.

By law. Our minimum wage was 6.75, over the national 5.75, by law. We're now up to 7.50, which raised me 50 cents.

*looks at post 45*

*Conspicuous cough*

Thirty-six Republicans voted with the Dems.


Whoa...they really must be on the run after that last election.

Erm, I don't wish too anger anyone, but won't all this come at the cost of a tax raise, too some degree?
With such huge debt, it's inevitable that we'll have high taxes sometimes in the future.

As for the federal minimum wage increase, lets see how that works out, it can be good for the workforce, or it can cause layoffs and lack of hiring incentives with employers. I'm worried that it means companies will hire illegals on the side who won't complain about not getting minimium wage for fear of getting deported.

As for stem cell research, lets see if anything FINALLY comes out of that, in the quaint form of definitive results. We can hope.

I like the energy proposal as this is an imperitive step towards securing our nations energy needs in the future. Indeed, this will be needed in the future as well.

Overall, i'll give the democrats a good job rating.
Nice.

It should be noted that, while this may accelerate the research of alternate energy sources (simply cutting off subsidies and forcing oil companies to actually face the situation would work fine), this funnelling of billions into this R&D will ensure that big oil will be making record profits long after oil has been made obsolete. We'll just be referring to all of those companies that were "big oil" as "big corn". If big oil doesn't have a piece of it, they will shut it down instead. With all the political and money power they have, if they don't have a chance of being part of "Big Corn" they will make sure that nobody will.


Very few Americans make $7.25 as it is, and you pretty much can't make a living off of anything under $10-$12 an hour, depending on where you live.
[Quote] It means they only have to work 2 hours overtime instead of 4.


[Quote]
If big oil isn't making record profits, then big pharmaceutical will be.
Why I wish the government would get into the medicine racket. (Not socialized for Free I mean government makes and sells Generic brand types)
They get the profits instead.
Government income = Less taxes

The government needs alternate means of getting money aside from taxes and Bonds to China. Especially now that we're wayyyyy below being broke.

This may be a stupid question and I'm sure it's been asked already but won't employers simply raise the prices of the products they sell to compensate for the raise in the minimum wage so that they may maintain their profit margin thus driving up the cost of living?

This may be a stupid question and I'm sure it's been asked already but won't employers simply raise the prices of the products they sell to compensate for the raise in the minimum wage so that they may maintain their profit margin thus driving up the cost of living?

There may be a slight price increase, but it won't be enough to eat up the gains the workers at that level of income make, at least if previous increases in the minimum wage are any indication. After all, it's not like we've never gone down this road before.

If big oil doesn't have a piece of it, they will shut it down instead. With all the political and money power they have, if they don't have a chance of being part of "Big Corn" they will make sure that nobody will.

How is that a good argument? That is the exact problem with modern liberal cartelization. They want to improve conditions through government action, but then they realize that big business pays out the government so they simply pay off big business to get what they want. They get what they want but big business controls that much more. Eventually you aren't going to be able to buy off big business.

If government cannot break away from Big Oil, then we fire every single member of congress and every single executive office holder. We don't placate them by lining both of their purses that much more.

It means they only have to work 2 hours overtime instead of 4.

People who make minimum wage are very seldom or never able to work overtime.

Minimum wage = Part-time help.

Why I wish the government would get into the medicine racket. (Not socialized for Free I mean government makes and sells Generic brand types)
They get the profits instead.
Government income = Less taxes

Or get government out of the medicine racket, that is allow companies to freely make generic drugs and get rid of the mountainous process of achieving an FDA approval.

Less government = less taxes

The government needs alternate means of getting money aside from taxes and Bonds to China. Especially now that we're wayyyyy below being broke.

Or they could spend less.

Or get government out of the medicine racket, that is allow companies to freely make generic drugs and get rid of the mountainous process of achieving an FDA approval.

Less government = less taxes

We need MORE FDA approval. Especially when it comes to herbal remedies and Kevin Trudeau types.

No, what's juvenile is acting like a total jerk when it's not called for, which you in particular are exceedingly good at BTW. But, my bet is that you ARE a juvenile, at least in mental capacity, if not in physical age. Don't shoot the messenger. Your guys couldn't get it done, don't be jealous.
Who are my guys? Are you actually so unobservant as to believe me to be a Republican?

I'm not acting like a jerk, I'm just calling you out for being a partisan hack of the kind we see in Republican version quite a lot on this forum (New Mitanni, etc). There is no superiority in being the Democrat version?

Or get government out of the medicine racket, that is allow companies to freely make generic drugs and get rid of the mountainous process of achieving an FDA approval.

Less government = less taxes


Also =Flipper Babies.

Also =Flipper Babies.

Yeah, it's not like we've never traveled this road before after all. If we could actually learn from our past for once, we might make some progress, but our politics too often seems to be based on the theory of "you can't find it unless you step in it."

AS long as they can get things done, and get Iraq out of the way.

:rolleyes: does not affect me I left all that for a better job while I am finishing college in between deployments but it pisses me off to see people get screwed. And I agree with you that tips should be something extra not their pay. But hey you and I can not change it, that is up to the system.It would be nice if the system would change it, but the wait staff can always organize themselves.

People who make minimum wage are very seldom or never able to work overtime.

Minimum wage = Part-time help.True. Perhaps the minimum wage earners will only have to work 2 jobs now instead of 3?

Here's the funny thing: Big Corn is Big Oil. The abundant corn crops that drive the American industrial food system are fertilized with petrochemicals. Switching over from oil to corn is just putting an expensive, inefficient, and environmentally harmful middleman in between us and our petroleum. What we really need to do to make ourselves oil-independent is to dismantle and reconstruct our agricultural sector. Local, organic, and permacultural are the way to go. Even "big organic" is becoming just another variant on the industrial food system. The trick is to get the chemicals, trucks, quick fixes, feedlots, overproduction, centralization, heavy processing, mandatory division of facilities, and self-destructive susbsidy dependence out of our farms. Right now, it is more economical for farmers to let vegetables rot in their fields (to collect on federal crop-loss subsidies) than it is for them to harvest their vegetables and sell them. The family farm is a dying breed as a result of industrial food, which is ruining our health and our environment, and whose "99 cent hamburgers" and the like don't even hint at the true costs of the product to our health, our environment, or our taxes. With the farm subsidies, we are essentially financing the obesity epidemic, the dead zone in the Gulf, the mistreatment of animals, and the abandonment of our country's rural lands, while paying off Cargill, Monsanto, and ADM to catalyze this destruction.

So, what the Democrats are doing is a good start. Now, it's time for them to take some real initiative: start by rewriting the farm bill from the ground up to eliminate the corporate subsidies and financing instead local food economies, permaculture techniques, and wise practices; pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 50% by 2010, finance alternative energy, help nonprofit groups assist third-world countries in sustainable development, enact the latest California emission standards nationwide, and give the EPA its teeth back to enforce its new standards. How's that for initiative?

All in one day? Grats!

-snip-

We spend $238 billion on farm subsidies. You eliminate those, you effectively eliminate the budget deficit...that's a lot of money, and would make the world agricultural market a lot healthier than it is now.

For that matter, Europe should be doing the same thing so as to bring the agricultural market in to better balance; no one should be subsidizing agriculture.

Who are my guys? Are you actually so unobservant as to believe me to be a Republican?

I'm not acting like a jerk, I'm just calling you out for being a partisan hack of the kind we see in Republican version quite a lot on this forum (New Mitanni, etc). There is no superiority in being the Democrat version?
Are you always this abrassive? :D You could give BAAWAKnights competition even.

Or get government out of the medicine racket, that is allow companies to freely make generic drugs and get rid of the mountainous process of achieving an FDA approval.

Less government = less taxes

Or they could spend less.

A little late now, just because we spend a little less, it still means we have the huge debt from the Iraq war.

What's better.

Do nothing with the budget and eventually raise taxes when everyone starts asking for their money back?

Or start making a little profit by the government so they can pay back those our government owes without having to hurt the taxpayer?


Seriously you don't seem to realize how F*cked we are. Bush took out the largest IOU in the history of the nation. We can't just 'bounce back' from it.

Even if the government was made up of one guy who did nothing that money would still have to be paid. And the government can't declare bankruptcy.

Also =Flipper Babies.
That's useless Vittos is one of those people that believe Business is in it for the people instead of the money.

It would be nice if the system would change it, but the wait staff can always organize themselves.

True. Perhaps the minimum wage earners will only have to work 2 jobs now instead of 3?


I am sure you are refering to unions when you say organize, may as well shoot ourselves in the foot. Unions are pretty useless anymore in our society. There was a time in Americas past when unions served a purpose and made a difference in America....now they are just one more big bussiness out to take peoples money. And I know this from experience as I have been part of two unions, UAW and AFL-CIO. The unions do not care anymore about the little people they are out to have their own job"representing" and making money "dues" for which they do not have to work for to line their own pockets.

It is up to the people of the country to change the system, but alas it will never happen because people are too lazy to actually want to do anything. Instead they beleive in the promises given them by politicians of whatever stripe who say "we want to help you", "wecare about you", "we are just like you". What a load of BS.... politicians are all alike no matter what party they are part of, they really do not give to cents for the people they just care about themselves, one day people will wake up and all those who say "my vote does not matter" will all realize hey I do matter and they will call all politicians to answer for their actions and maybe then we will see a change for the better in America....... but it will not happen while the democrats and republicans have free reign without answering for their actions. Because in time the democrats will fall into the same who cares BS as the republicans they were voted in to replace and then the people will replace them with republicans again and the whole vicious cycle will renew itself.

At least until the people find their courage. And hold their leaders fully accountable.

I find Republicans funny. They are so convinced that government is evil they excert all their effort into making it so.

because some subsidies are protectionist, such as the farm subsidies. If we give up our food production, we'll get sideswiped by some third world country when they decide food actually has value. Or farmers will start growing crops that make real money.

El gaspo.

because some subsidies are protectionist, such as the farm subsidies. If we give up our food production, we'll get sideswiped by some third world country when they decide food actually has value. Or farmers will start growing crops that make real money instead of what we need to eat. Or they'll sell out to interests that are wililng to abuse us in other ways, because there is no money in it. Same for airlines, and military weapons producers...In theory.

I'll say this congress seems to have jumped off the mark. Let's hope they have some wind as well.

The US produces enough food to feed most of the world; we will not suddenly be threatened with starvation if we cut subsidies because they are structured to keep an inefficient system. Most crops in the US are not program crops and therefore receive no government support. Removing subsidies and price floors will cut a lot of waste from the system, save a lot of money, spur technological innovation, and do it all without endangering the ‘food security’ of the nation.

The only thing crop subsidies do is line the pockets of large agricultural firms. That’s it. They spend a lot of money on lobbyists to keep it that way. Any attempt to change it is met with a massive disinformation campaign to tell everyone that congress is trying to screw over the family farm. Truth be told, the family farm benefits very little if at all as the large corporations have professional grant writers to get all the money, while the family farmer struggles to get the Byzantine series of forms filled out properly.

FYI – for the purposes of getting federal money to support ‘small’ farms, small is defined as making under $100 million per year.

Sorry for the thread tangent, but it annoys me when people make ludicrous claims that cutting farm subsidies will make Americans starve (btw, my parents have a farm and I grew up in a rural area. I’m not some inner city yahoo who thinks meat comes from the supermarket). Farm subsidies should be eliminated as soon as possible.

A little late now, just because we spend a little less, it still means we have the huge debt from the Iraq war.

What's better.

Do nothing with the budget and eventually raise taxes when everyone starts asking for their money back?

Or start making a little profit by the government so they can pay back those our government owes without having to hurt the taxpayer?


Seriously you don't seem to realize how F*cked we are. Bush took out the largest IOU in the history of the nation. We can't just 'bounce back' from it.

Even if the government was made up of one guy who did nothing that money would still have to be paid. And the government can't declare bankruptcy.

We have some making up to do for crappy government in the past, but it doesn't mean we must doom ourselves to crappy government in the future.
I am all for pulling the financial plug on Iraq right now. We can cut back our spending at any time.

I am all for pulling the financial plug on the Iraq war right now.

That's useless Vittos is one of those people that believe Business is in it for the people instead of the money.

I am one of those people who believe that people have the wherewithal to look out for their own interests.

The only group I would expect to be less concerned with my health than business would be the detached and indifferent bureaucracy of government.

Oil subsidies: Should have been done a long time ago. I believe in a free market. The government should not be subsidizing any industry, and certainly not one that is making a profit.

9/11 commission: Mixed opinions about this one. Some of the ideas are good, some are not. One of the big issues is screening cargo – this gets a lot of support from protectionists precisely because it will drastically inhibit trade and raise the cost of importing anything. It is an underhanded way of imposing a tariff on imported goods, without the benefit of collecting the monies. It is no surprise that all the ‘security’ they put in place is simply to make panicky people feel better and not to actually do anything – the actual effect is merely to make travel a pain in the ass. I highly doubt that there is all that much that could be done to really make us any safer and 99% of it will merely be for show.

Minimum wage: dumb idea. This will be somewhat costly with negligible effects on poverty. If your goal is to give a little more money to your teenage kid at their part-time job, then it is effective. If your goal is to help those in poverty, the way to go is with something like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Minimum wage laws are very poor economic tools which do little to help the problem it is meant to address while causing a lot of inefficiencies and distortions in the rest of the economy.

Stem cells: Have no idea why this is an issue – why are there any restrictions on this at all? It seems highly irrational and the product of a religious zealot to impose limitations.

Prescription drugs: I say let the free market have its way – if it costs too much, buy it from Canada. Why should American citizens be forced to subsidize pharmaceutical research for the rest of the world?

Student loans: How about we just link it to the Federal Funds Rate? Seems logical to me, that way it stays low and will not have to be adjusted now and then. The federal funds rate (I think its somewhere around 4.5% at the moment) is the rate the fed loans out to banks, so it seems reasonable to give that to students.

If you want to deal with student debt, you should not look to reduce interest rates, but to reduce the cost of tuition. First off, get rid of this ‘everyone should go to college’ garbage – not everyone is suited to college and trying to shove a degree in everyone’s hand merely cheapens the product as you lower the standards. Technical and vocational training should be emphasized, and community colleges better promoted. If more people went to vocational schools or community colleges for their first two years it would drastically reduce the strain on universities (and thus prices would fall). Spending your first year or two to get the general education requirements out of the way is very cheap and allows you the freedom to explore new areas. Cheap classes let me take a little of everything so I got a much more rounded education. I then spent the last 2 and a half years in New Zealand, so this was not exactly typical, but in the end I got a far superior and very diverse education for about half what I would have if I just spent 4 years at U of Maryland.

I am sure you are refering to unions when you say organize, Yep.

may as well shoot ourselves in the foot. Unions are pretty useless anymore in our society. Given the declining standards in workplace safety and declining wages in general, not hardly.

There was a time in Americas past when unions served a purpose and made a difference in AmericaNow they don't too much, mostly because of declining membership.

....now they are just one more big bussiness out to take peoples money. And I know this from experience as I have been part of two unions, UAW and AFL-CIO. The unions do not care anymore about the little people they are out to have their own job"representing" and making money "dues" for which they do not have to work for to line their own pockets.Not all unions are the same.
Nonetheless, you're better off with an average union than without it.

It is up to the people of the country to change the system, but alas it will never happen because people are too lazy to actually want to do anything. Instead they beleive in the promises given them by politicians of whatever stripe who say "we want to help you", "wecare about you", "we are just like you". What a load of BS.... politicians are all alike no matter what party they are part of, they really do not give to cents for the people they just care about themselves, one day people will wake up and all those who say "my vote does not matter" will all realize hey I do matter and they will call all politicians to answer for their actions and maybe then we will see a change for the better in America....... but it will not happen while the democrats and republicans have free reign without answering for their actions. Because in time the democrats will fall into the same who cares BS as the republicans they were voted in to replace and then the people will replace them with republicans again and the whole vicious cycle will renew itself.

At least until the people find their courage. And hold their leaders fully accountable.The system is set up to make this as difficult as possible.

We have some making up to do for crappy government in the past, but it doesn't mean we must doom ourselves to crappy government in the future.
I don't see how a government that is trying to find alternate means of rebuilding what little credit this country has left is crappy. Unless you seem to think that (For my example) the medical industry would suffer that much.

I am all for pulling the financial plug on Iraq right now. We can cut back our spending at any time. But the damage has been done. This is like turning off a leaking pipe after it's made your water bill soar through the roof. That money isn't going to magically reappear just because we stop spending more of it.


I am all for pulling the financial plug on the Iraq war right now.
I will repeat, The damage has been done.


I am one of those people who believe that people have the wherewithal to look out for their own interests.
To make money right? Who cares who suffers in the name of profit.


The only group I would expect to be less concerned with my health than business would be the detached and indifferent bureaucracy of government. Government isn't allowed to be indifferent, mainly for the same reason as corporations, they get voted out (By ignoring the people), they get less money.

In the Government it's bad to be hated by everyone.

In a corporation it doesn't matter because the people have no effect on what Business can do.

The Minimum Wage Law won't affect much; inflationary pressures have pushed wages up so much that the real Minimum Wage is higher than the legal one already. At most, it will raise the salaries of a few and the firings of a few, but not by any significant degree.

I commend the new congress for at least doing something for their pay.

The Minimum Wage Law won't affect much; inflationary pressures have pushed wages up so much that the real Minimum Wage is higher than the legal one already. At most, it will raise the salaries of a few and the firings of a few, but not by any significant degree.

Depends on where you are. There are some places--generally rural and economically depressed--where the minimum wage is still in full effect, where jobs are so scarce that any pressure to raise wages has to be artificially applied.

Depends on where you are. There are some places--generally rural and economically depressed--where the minimum wage is still in full effect, where jobs are so scarce that any pressure to raise wages has to be artificially applied.

Which, of course, can have negative effects on employment as well.

Personally, I think it would make more sense to increase the EITC than the minimum wage; the benefits of a negative income tax would far outstrip the benefits of the minimum wage, especially when you consider that the minimum wage bill is loaded with tax cuts that are probably larger than a similar increase in costs due to raising the EITC.

I don't see how a government that is trying to find alternate means of rebuilding what little credit this country has left is crappy. Unless you seem to think that (For my example) the medical industry would suffer that much.

What alternative means?

The best way to improve credit is to stop borrowing and start paying back, but that doesn't require that we spend more, it only requires that we spend more responsibly.

But the damage has been done. This is like turning off a leaking pipe after it's made your water bill soar through the roof. That money isn't going to magically reappear just because we stop spending more of it.

Yes, but changing the leaking pipe will stop the high water bill.

I will repeat, The damage has been done.

No, the damage is being done. When we stop burning our tax dollars in Iraq, the damage will be done.

To make money right? Who cares who suffers in the name of profit.

To handle whatever interests they have, it has nothing to do with the profit you are speaking of, and everything to do with handling your own matters.

Without government, private methods for monitoring food and drug companies will arise and they will be cheaper and more effective, as the people have substantial reason and ability to ensure safe food and drugs.

Government isn't allowed to be indifferent, mainly for the same reason as corporations, they get voted out (By ignoring the people), they get less money.

In the Government it's bad to be hated by everyone.

In a corporation it doesn't matter because the people have no effect on what Business can do.

Are you telling me a congressman who pretty much is assured a congressional seat for 40 years cannot be indifferent? Are you telling me that a bureaucrat that is the benefactor of nepotism and has little to no supervision cannot be indifferent?

In government it is quite often that being liked by very few is all that is necessary to become an official.

A business, on the otherhand, must make a constant attempt to win over favor of the public, as the public is their source of income. To say that the people have no effect on what a business can do may be the most ignorant thing I have heard in weeks.

I commend the new congress for at least doing something for their pay.

They will find it very difficult to earn their pay.

If anyone should be benefitting from a minimum wage increase, it should be our government officials.

The best way to improve credit is to stop borrowing and start paying back, but that doesn't require that we spend more, it only requires that we spend more responsibly. And where are we going to get the money to pay it back? Oh yeah, TAXES.



Yes, but changing the leaking pipe will stop the high water bill. But you'll still have the previous high water bill.



No, the damage is being done. When we stop burning our tax dollars in Iraq, the damage will be done. It's more like it's Done and getting worse, but like I'm saying the problems won't go away.

Without government, private methods for monitoring food and drug companies will arise and they will be cheaper and more effective, as the people have substantial reason and ability to ensure safe food and drugs. Or all the companies will universally agree to NOT monitor things, since that takes time and money. And then they will simply shut down any monitoring companies.


Are you telling me a congressman who pretty much is assured a congressional seat for 40 years cannot be indifferent? Are you telling me that a bureaucrat that is the benefactor of nepotism and has little to no supervision cannot be indifferent? The makeup of the current congress alone proves you wrong.


In government it is quite often that being liked by very few is all that is necessary to become an official. Still you have to be liked.
A business simply has to be 'there'.

A business, on the otherhand, must make a constant attempt to win over favor of the public, as the public is their source of income. To say that the people have no effect on what a business can do may be the most ignorant thing I have heard in weeks. A company can control the public by simply being conveinent. (Example, Many people I know HATE Walmart with a passion, but walmart is the only 'everything' store within 15 miles.)

And where are we going to get the money to pay it back? Oh yeah, TAXES.

But you'll still have the previous high water bill.

It's more like it's Done and getting worse, but like I'm saying the problems won't go away.

All I said was less government = less taxes, and all you have argued is that government activity in the past has created a need for greater taxes.

You have said nothing that I wouldn't agree with on this specific topic, and have said nothing to counter my point.

If we cut back on spending and government activity in general, we will not have as a great a tax burden.

Adding and continuing unnecessary government activity is unnecessary taxation.

Or all the companies will universally agree to NOT monitor things, since that takes time and money. And then they will simply shut down any monitoring companies.

And immediately suffer massive loss of market shares.

The makeup of the current congress alone proves you wrong.

In the House, there were 403 incumbents running, of which 22 lost. That means 94.5% of incumbents were reelected.

Out of those 22 that lost, just about every single one consisted of an incumbent republican being defeated by a conservative democrat who was nearly a mirror image of the republican minus Jack Abramoff or the Iraq War.

That was the most dramatic shift in the house in 22 years.

The Senate actually saw an amazing 6 incumbents defeated, of course all democrats in those races were decidedly conservative, and one largely because of Republican scandal. We can likely consider it an abberation with the typical turnover being represented by the single incumbent that lost in 2004.

Incumbents historically have been retained at a 95% rate, and the vast majority are considered a lock long before campaigning starts.

Still you have to be liked.
A business simply has to be 'there'.

A business that no one likes is not "there".

A company can control the public by simply being conveinent. (Example, Many people I know HATE Walmart with a passion, but walmart is the only 'everything' store within 15 miles.)

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

GOD! I hate businesses and their convenience!

All I said was less government = less taxes, and all you have argued is that government activity in the past has created a need for greater taxes.

You have said nothing that I wouldn't agree with on this specific topic, and have said nothing to counter my point. Maybe because in this case we both agree on it.


Snip
True but still the process works... eventually...


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

GOD! I hate businesses and their convenience!
It's funny isn't it. Personally I go the few extra miles and visit Target instead. But that's the nature of competition correct?

I have never and never will support tax cuts, mainly because they are needed for social support funding for society, and also because they only ever really benefit the upper class and big business.

Tax cuts are simply a smoke grenade for distraction against the real social problems in the country, while lining the pockets of the corporates for election funds.