Way to go Congress.

AXEAM · #1 08-04-2006, 06:54 PM

Once again the Congress has voted down a raise in the minimum wage....I swear this guys are so out if touch w/ the American people that's it's not even funny.

shinerbock · #2 08-04-2006, 06:56 PM

Not to attack on all your threads man, but it could be a good thing. How can people expect job growth, minimum wage hikes, and small business success at the same time? It just doesn't work like that. Also, it was the Democrats who voted down the wage hike, because it was attached to an estate tax reduction.

AXEAM · #3 08-04-2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Not to attack on all your threads man, but it could be a good thing. How can people expect job growth, minimum wage hikes, and small business success at the same time? It just doesn't work like that. Also, it was the Democrats who voted down the wage hike, because it was attached to an estate tax reduction.

Your full of crap man explain why the Democrats really didn't go along w/ that attachment....yea you're right it's a good for greedy business but a very bad thing for hard working Americans. We are always preaching about the values of hard work and being responsible but we choose to short change those who do work hard it's funny how Congress always seemed to vote a pay raise for themselves w/no attachments.

AlphaFrog · #4 08-04-2006, 07:58 PM

The only job I've EVER seen advertised at minimum wage was work-study type stuff when I was in college. $5.15 might BE the min, but I don't know anyone who actually works for that amount. Hell, when I was in highschool years ago, most fast food places were paying at least $7. The company I work for now pays at least $8 for your (below) average no-experience, uneducated grunt laborer.

AXEAM · #5 08-04-2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

The only job I've EVER seen advertised at minimum wage was work-study type stuff when I was in college. $5.15 might BE the min, but I don't know anyone who actually works for that amount. Hell, when I was in highschool years ago, most fast food places were paying at least $7. The company I work for now pays at least $8 for your (below) average no-experience, uneducated grunt laborer.

You should visit a couple of southern states like Miss, SC, Ala.

shinerbock · #6 08-04-2006, 09:45 PM

Greedy business? Corporations rarely pay minimum wage. Democrats always talk about how they wanna keep jobs in the country, and wanna keep small businesses going, yet they try to raise the minimum wage? Anybody who thinks that will work needs to spend a little more time with an economics book.

Well, if the Democrats had cared enough they could have voted it through, but they didn't. Why? Because it was a political decision. They wanna run on the prospect of raising the minimum wage in November, so if the Republicans pass it now, then not only do we get the estate tax cuts, but we also take away a democratic campaign issue. So if you're interested in blaming somebody, go blame the Democrats.

Also, about the salary raises, of course they'll raise their salary. They do it regularly to keep up with inflation. Most of these guys could be making a lot more than 150k in the private sector.

AXEAM · #7 08-04-2006, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Greedy business? Corporations rarely pay minimum wage. Democrats always talk about how they wanna keep jobs in the country, and wanna keep small businesses going, yet they try to raise the minimum wage? Anybody who thinks that will work needs to spend a little more time with an economics book.

Well, if the Democrats had cared enough they could have voted it through, but they didn't. Why? Because it was a political decision. They wanna run on the prospect of raising the minimum wage in November, so if the Republicans pass it now, then not only do we get the estate tax cuts, but we also take away a democratic campaign issue. So if you're interested in blaming somebody, go blame the Democrats.

Also, about the salary raises, of course they'll raise their salary. They do it regularly to keep up with inflation. Most of these guys could be making a lot more than 150k in the private sector.

Your rants about Democrats are tired and if the congress as you say need raises in their salary to keep up w/ inflation why can't they see that working Americans need a wage raise also.

ladygreek · #8 08-05-2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Also, it was the Democrats who voted down the wage hike, because it was attached to an estate tax reduction.

Attached by whom? End of discussion. (and I am neither DFL nor Repub.)

shinerbock · #9 08-05-2006, 05:19 PM

It was attached by the Republicans obviously. If they are gonna give something up, why should they not get something in return?

Regarding the comments on 9/11, I don't know where to begin. Everything you say is pretty much a one time leftist talking point which has since been disproven. As I've said before, go read Bush at War, by Bob Woodward. It is an account of the lead up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Woodward is an unequaled journalist and not a republican. What exactly do you think Bush would have done if he knew when and where the attacks would be? They had heard the same threats from Bin Laden for years, yet you expect Bush to be in the oval, instead of reading to kids, as if it will help the situation? We obviously had our guard down more than we knew, but that has very little to do with Bush. Clinton's administration had threats from Bin Laden, yet made no motion to better secure the country. This is a good example of how Democrats attempt to divide the country. Rather than blaming the terrorist act on the people who did it, being Al Qaeda, you and other are attempting to blame the Bush administration. Not only are you simply and utterly wrong, it is an extremely stupid thing to say. The only people we could possibly place responsibilty on is the intelligence community, but even then it is not a fair accusation. We are fighting an entirely different war, one that unfortunately has to be based on intelligence. This isn't the cold war where we can teach somebody russian and send them to an embassy. We're fighting an enemy that hides in caves in remote deserts, and they are by no means easy to infiltrate. If you'd like to blame this on Bush, go ahead, but he's done far more to secure this country than Clinton did, and far more than Kerry or Gore would have done. Lets not forget that DEMOCRATS voted for the war in Iraq. Now, you can proclaim they were lied to, but that is an idiotic claim. You're telling me senators only go on what the president tells them? Many democratic senators saw the same intelligence Bush saw, and yet voted for the war. I don't buy that they were misled by somebody who they hated to begin with, and have never trusted.

AXEAM · #10 08-07-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

It was attached by the Republicans obviously. If they are gonna give something up, why should they not get something in return?

Regarding the comments on 9/11, I don't know where to begin. Everything you say is pretty much a one time leftist talking point which has since been disproven. As I've said before, go read Bush at War, by Bob Woodward. It is an account of the lead up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Woodward is an unequaled journalist and not a republican. What exactly do you think Bush would have done if he knew when and where the attacks would be? They had heard the same threats from Bin Laden for years, yet you expect Bush to be in the oval, instead of reading to kids, as if it will help the situation? We obviously had our guard down more than we knew, but that has very little to do with Bush. Clinton's administration had threats from Bin Laden, yet made no motion to better secure the country. This is a good example of how Democrats attempt to divide the country. Rather than blaming the terrorist act on the people who did it, being Al Qaeda, you and other are attempting to blame the Bush administration. Not only are you simply and utterly wrong, it is an extremely stupid thing to say. The only people we could possibly place responsibilty on is the intelligence community, but even then it is not a fair accusation. We are fighting an entirely different war, one that unfortunately has to be based on intelligence. This isn't the cold war where we can teach somebody russian and send them to an embassy. We're fighting an enemy that hides in caves in remote deserts, and they are by no means easy to infiltrate. If you'd like to blame this on Bush, go ahead, but he's done far more to secure this country than Clinton did, and far more than Kerry or Gore would have done. Lets not forget that DEMOCRATS voted for the war in Iraq. Now, you can proclaim they were lied to, but that is an idiotic claim. You're telling me senators only go on what the president tells them? Many democratic senators saw the same intelligence Bush saw, and yet voted for the war. I don't buy that they were misled by somebody who they hated to begin with, and have never trusted.

All of your posts are blinded by your brain washed GOP ideology and hatred for Democrats I call it as I see it, you say Bush has done more to secure the country then Clinton ...yet the twin towers and New Orleans are destroyed not to mention the wreck that is Iraq. You don't think that it's funny that all this happened under Bush's watch, Bush is an incompotent failure maybe you ought to read Worse then WaterGate by John W. Dean former counsel to president Nixon.