The regressive republicans want a permanent aristocracy.

They really are disgusting, aren't they? Mighty Christ like of them to spit on the least of them, their brothers.

They make me sick! Let's take names, people. You know what to do!!

And just what did you expect. Do you really think Republicans have family values??? The poor do not have oil wells.

Reid needs to find a way to get this bill onto the floor for an up and down vote.

The rest of the Democratic establishment needs to put their collective heads together and come up with something that shows that we are serious about improving the lot of working people.

If we don't, we'll lose any momentum that we had coming into the 2006 election. Show the voters that we can be creative and competent.

We live in a reality-based world, guys. A majority does do us any good if we don't exert our new found power when its needed.

Put it on the floor as a clean bill up or down or if the repugs want to filibuster it let them it will show even more people what a bunch of greedy F**k-ups they are. To hell with the common poeple and all hail the rich and corporations they need their billions and the rest deserve squat... I sure hope people remember this in 2008......It's gonna cost them BIG TIME!!!!!!

I'm not a bit surprised by these immoral Republicans who only care about helping big greedy business. Everyone should write a letter to your newspaper and express your feelings but be polite so that your letter gets published.

http://www.democrats.org/page/content/partybuilderLTE

When you write your letter mention how the minimum wage hasn't been raised in 10 years yet Republicans have voted numerous times to give themselves a raise but refuse to help the poor. Big business profits have never been better under the Republicans while the poor and middle class are pushed to the side as if they are nothing which is not right. The Republican meaning of capitalism is tax cuts for the rich and big business on the backs of the poor and the middle class. This is a disgrace! I hope that every voter remembers in 2008 how mean spirited the Republicans really are and those that call themselves Christians yet are against raising the minimim wage to help the poor make me want to throw up because that is NOT the message Christ gave, in fact, numerous times all over the Bible it says to help the poor but of course too many Republicans seem to want to pick and choose what they believe and ignore what they don't like to hear! Actions speak louder than words and Democrats once again have proven to be the real Christians by trying to reach out and help the poor. It's a shame the Republicans that call themselves Christians haven't learned anything by the actions of Democrats who have proven time and time again that they are the real party that cares about people.

Clearly the Puggies want to hitch their wagon to Bush's failing star. they want to side with Bush and block a clean bill then fine. Every Puggy that voted against this bill is a prime target in 2008 and beyond.

Reid needs to find a way to get this bill onto the floor for an up and down vote.
****

sandy, do what the Puggies did to us - tack it on to an appropriations bill that can't be filibustered OR declare the Nuclear option! Two can play this game.

Well, it sure shows what their true colors are, after winning office. It's basically 'blood' red.

Hello-
I just wanted to drop a line and hopefully clearify a little bit. When you raise the min. wage, you are asking for the business arena to raise prices to compinsate for any looses in their profit margine. Also, if companies have to pay more for the workers in the US, then these companies, in order to keep their cost lower, will look at other countries to find cheaper labor. It really does not pay to increase min wage. Increasing it would hurt everyone across the board and most likely would hurt the poor and middle class the most- these are the workers that the companies hire, and what is worse? The min wage staying what it is or no job at all? Then if you have worked at a company for ten years, and you are still receiving min wage... companies do increase the wage the longer that you have been working for them if you stay with the company and have prven to be a good worker. And what about the percentage increase for the people that make more than min wage? It would only be fair to increase everyones wage. It just makes sense that when you increase min wage, everything else increases as well. Look at what happened ten years ago- shoot a whooper once was 99 cents and look at the cost now. The start of the higher cost was due to the increase in min wage.
And why would someone who as worked hard to save their money and make the most of their situation have to be taxed up the jing jang to pay for someone who is offered the same opprotunity and not taken it? If we are going to live in a fair society, don't you think that it would be most profitable for everyone if we all were charged a flat income tax rate? After all, it's taken out of our checks anyway. If we all had to pay like 5% of our wages and hand that over to the government, then everyone would really benefit- social security wouldn't be messed with, medicare/caid would have a steady income, the government assistance wouldn't change all the time. If everyone contributed, then everyone would benefit. How would this really be negative? Please, I would like to understand how this would be negetive- logical explainations please. Just want to understand the other sides veiw. I don't ask that you agree with me. I just wnat to understand what you think.

Sorry about the misspelling in my previous comment. Hopefully, you will understand what the point is and can forgive any misspelling.

Sorry about the misspellings in my previous comment. Hoepfully, you will understand my point and be able to forgive the misspellings.

Raising the minimum wage should be a straightforward bill with no BS attached.
Who tacked that tax cut on it anyway?
The last thing we need is more tax cuts for the undeserving rich and greedy. I heard it was Max Bacchus, our undistinguished senator from Montana. Was it? Because if he did, it would be one more reason I'm not voting for him in 2008.

That's it! We need to end the fake bi-partisan bull. It doesn't work if the Republicans don't put forth the effort. We should launch a

"Nevermind"

Petition telling the Democratic congress to abort it's reach across the aisle and just pass the dang legislation.

I'm flippin serious too.

;[

Pragmatic: Amen, brother!

Slave labor is making a comeback!

PragmaticAmerican-
Thank you for taking your time and showing, for the most part, a logical arguement (although the comment at the end about my education level is totally uncalled for and just rude, hopefully you and people who enjoyed that comment are satisfied that you got your jab in).
As far as Christian values and the government, the last time that I checked our government offered assistance and programs that do benefit and help individuals. It may not help everyone, but the goverment does try to do what it can; not just in our country, but in the world. I know that there are specific examples when the government has not met the expecations of everyone, but who can meet all those expectations? The government is not God. And since the government is expected to hand over money to so many different organizations, groups, programs, and countries that need help then it would be logical that there will not be an even close to perfect social program.
As far as bashing Republicans (not just in your statement, but in others as well) and saying that their Christian values and actions aren't up to par, from what I know, no human on this Earth is God and can make such judgements; why have so much anger towards a group of people that you really don't know what thier intentions are? From what I have read, it seems that it is all just generalizations. If you don't like what is being done, why must you generalize and say that the Republicans are money hungery uncaring individuals? Why be like that? Republicans do care and they do show it. They are capitalist, no doubt about it, and as far as I know, there is nothing wrong with earning your money and doing what you want with it, instead of having to hand most of it over to the government (if you were rich, that is what you would be doing; like I said, I think a flat tax across the board would be the most fair and profitable). You don't know what they do as far as private contributions to organizations, you don't know if they volunteer their time to help people.
Like I said, for the most part, PragmaticAmerican, I enjoyed your reply and your logic. You offer a factual and logical reply (I don't agree with everything that was said, but you did offer some food for thought, for the most part). My intentions are to understand and voice my thoughts as well, and hopefully not in a hurtful or demeaning way. Having said that, if you would like to reply to this, I would enjoy it, but please, treat me with some respect and try to "enlight" this individual instead of attempting to insult someone.

Halliburton should not be classified as a small business.

pee-wee: There's a difference between being "not up to par" and being deliberate hypocrits.
Even if you leave religion out of the picture, we are still descendants of communal beings whose best interest for the survival of all of us is to take care of the least of us.
Republicans have so twisted the criteria of this government, and not only disrespected the humanity of all of us, but refused to admit that life threatening conditions in the environment exist, that they are due a lot of honest heart-felt criticism.
Look clearly and with open mind at their track record and you can see the problems.
"Republican bashing" is the justifiably angry reaction of a lot of us. It should serve at a wake up call for those who would listen to the big corporation messages and think that they are the only ones who are right on their media. Check out other sources, see what's going on in the world, don't rely just on Faux news.
It is said that people of privilege view that privilege as the norm and fail to understand why they are being criticized for their actions.
I've seen a several of those former members of the middle class change their politics once their jobs went overseas, and they found they couldn't even find jobs in their fields, much less a job that paid what they were used to getting.
Is that what it's going to take for a lot of Republican supporters to wake up? Another Depression?
The working people of this country are already having a depression as their wages erode, and jobs and benefits go away.
We need to do something now before it's another 1930s era.
Kissing up to Republicans and K-street isn't the answer.

As a small business owner since 1977 I would like to say that I do not care about tax cuts to offset the expense of a minimum wage increase. We believe that we should pay our fair share in taxes and pay our employees a livable wage.

As business owners and consumers we firmly believe that you get what you pay for. As an example, part of our business is delivery of goods. We could in today’s market hire what we refer to as a steering wheel holder for $8 per hour and not get our deliveries done in an efficient manner and continually make repairs to our delivery vehicles while paying higher insurance premiums or we can pay better wages on the front end to a quality employee which we know saves our company money in the long run.

A small business needs to stand out to achieve success and there is no reason why increasing the minimum wage should adversely affect a true small business (not a subsidiary of large company)that is providing a quality product or service to their customers.

As a mother and a grandmother the minimum wage is a disgrace to our country. As a former worker in compensation and benefits for a large company, I worked through many personnel layoffs while I watched numerous top officials receive substantial increases and bonuses, I believe that big and small business need to step back and see that they can earn more in the long run by paying their workers a livable wage. Employees that feel the company cares about them will create higher profits in the long run. It is beneficial to our nation and our employers to provide a livable wage.

Thank you for fighting for those of us in the working middle class.

America appreciates your comments DebM.

What the regressives don't want the American people to find out is that raising the minimum wage increases demand for American products and services sold by small businesses.

Please be honest... what democratic senators voted against the minimum wage increase ...we voters deserve to know.. i am a registered democrat and i am angry and sick of both parties being in the control of megacorporations in this country.. what a disgrace.

Butte-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I must say that I don't agree with everything. I don't forsee the depression reappearing if minium wage is not increased (granted, you did not make that statement to the T, but the thougths go along that route). There are certain safe guards in effect that the government has set up to prevent such a downfall again. So, that is not a fear of mine. The market could get worse, yes, but it won't get to that extreme again.
About the Republican Bashing- what I found to be slightly offensive was that people were talking about Christianity and Christian Values, and then making slanderous comments about Republicans. Just doesn't seem to mesh. I understand about being angery and wanting to vent, but when it is said in such a disrespectful way... I just don't understand why someone would want to do that. I don't agree with a lot of what the Democrats do, but I wouldn't ask God to spit on them. I understand that people differ in views, but that does not mean that you should use anger as an excuse to curse people.
About what you said about the priveldged viewing priveldge as a norm- isn't that what this is all about? Raising the minium wage so that the priveldged norm will be met? In my opinion, if you have a way to live, a place to rest that is not a health hazard and can protect you from the weather, food on the table (doesn't have to be the healthiest of meals, just food to survive- so it has to be somewhat healthy), clothes to wear, water to drink, and some form of Spirituality, that is all that people really need. Anything more than that, if you want it, you need to earn it. Work for it and pay for it. It should not be handed over to you by Bill Gates.
As far as a communial peoples, you have to pull your weight if you want to be apart of the community. Your share of what is called your "weight" should be based upon your ablity to even pull weight. If you are able bodied and have a working mind, you should be able to pull your wieght. In this society, that means: get a job and be satified if you are able to have your basic needs met, and then be rejoiceful if you have any extras, for you have been blessed with the ablity to earn it and get it. Now, if you are able bodied and have a working mind, and are UNABLE (ie you have TRIED) to have your basic needs met (food, water, shelter, spirituality- if you choose to have spirituallity), then the government, family, friends, and Community Programs should assist by pointing you in the right direction and offer short term help and save the real hardcore help for those who really cannot help themselves. To me, the above is more important than raising minium wage. Like ParagmaticAmerican said, the pay at a fast food joint is more than minium wage. So, if push comes to shove, and I have no other choice, I would gladly work anywhere so that my kids will have food. I do not expect the government to bail me out. If I need help, I will go to family first (I am lucky enough to have a caring family) before I would even think about going to the government.
This is the BEST country to live in, which is why so many people want to live here and why so many countries hate Americans- we have the best opprotunities to offer people, if they choose to take them (along with one of the most kind justice systems in the world- that's just my opinion, you don't have to agree). If you work hard and try to better yourself, not much will stand in your way to having your basic needs met and more material "wealth".
Our counrty is about offering you the opprotunity to better yourself. This country does offer the opprotunity for that. It is not a right or a priveldge to have all the nicer things in life. If you work for it, then you have the right to earn it and do what you want with it. Bill Gates, or an other multi-b/m-illionaire is not expected to give me money. If they see fit to offer help, that is thier CHOICE. They should not be forced to assist me. Christ, after all, gave people the choice to follow him or not. He didn't force anyone to follow his teachings. And about turning over the tables at the temple (pragmaticamericans statement), he did that out of anger over having the Temple of God turned into a market place; not because he was against trade, but because they were disrespecting a house of WORSHIP.
Man, I really could go on and on. I am interested to know what you think about what I had to reply. Hopefully, I have written something that would offer some form of interesting conversation and I hope that I have stayed somewhat on the topic of minium wage (I know that I did stray a bit). Really, I would like to know what you think, Butte and anyone else willing to swap ideas. Again, I do not mean to be rude in anyway. Thank you for your time.

What a travesty that the republicans have blocked the minimum wage increase. I mean, its helping what .005 percent of the workers that work for minimum wage. Most of those being kid/students who live at home.

terrible terrible

Good point joe jones! What are the stats on who is actually going to benefit directly by increasing minium wage (ie who is working for minium wage that would get the increase and is that really the percentage of indivuals who would get that increase)?

Oh, and another point. why are we only raising the minimum wage to $7.15. Who can live on that? Why not make the minimum wage $25 an hour. Then at least you could live on it.... Except for those pesky price increase to pay for it....

Why shouldn't employers be allowed to pay child laborers $1.00 an hour?

So, I googled it, and found something of interest. www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm

So, it says that about 4% of the population receives minimum wage- and of that population, about half of min wage earns are under 25; one fourth was 16-19; 2% were 25 and over; 4% were over 65.
Never married workers, who tend to be yound, were more likely to earn minium wage or less
2% of the workers over 16 had high school diplomas and had not gone to college; compared to 1% of those who obtained degrees
These stats are from the web site stated above. Pretty interesting read for those that are interested in the stats.
So, considering that, owhen about 4% of the population works for minimum wage and under (under would be mainly for the service industry that would get tips), and half of them (2% of the poplulation) are 25 and under who most likely are not responsible for the health and safety of anyone but themselves, and then a fourth (that would be 1% of the population) are most likely living at home, why do these kids need an increase when they do not have the responsiblity of caring for, taking care of, providing for a family?
Here's some numbers: before taxes, if someone works full time at minimum wage, they would make $824 a month. Take away about 10% for taxes and FICA and Soc, that would leave about $739 a month. If they lived in a one bedroom apartment, rent would be approximately $300 (depending upon where they live) and if they lived where they had to pay electric, take off $50. For a basic phone, take away $20. SO, that would be $370 in basic bills. SO, that would leave $369 for other stuff (basic stuff like food and maybe $20 for a bus pass). Again, what is the big deal about raising the minium wage when it is obvisous from the math that it really is not needed?
Hmm- interesting food for thought- what do y'all think?

This minimum wage bill will only affect 4% of American workers, but the regressives continue their lie about this bill hurting small businesses.

It is time for the regressives to cut the crap!

Can you tell me how it would hurt small business if the minimum wage were not raised? I would like to know- if small business does not have to pay more for a starting out employee, then how is that going to hurt them? Logically, if the small business starts out paying someone at minium wage and then offers the incentive of more pay if they learn thier job well, then that would show some dedication and will do attitude. If someone earns the money and does their job well, then they deserve a pay raise. But seeing how only 4% of the population earns minimum wage (and half of those people are 25 and younger with one fourth of the population that earns minimum is between 16 and 19 and the never married workers are more likely to earn minimum wage) and there are government programs set up to help people in need, how would a minimum wage increase benefit small business and the average American? If a small business has good workers and wishes to pay thier workers well after a grace period, how would raising the minimum wage be of any benefit to the American people? Having given some rough numbers on the break down of cost and bills, I don't really see how this would help anyone when the basic needs have been met. And then add to the fact that most of the people recieving minimum wage are young, they are just developing skills that would be need to make an excellent work record, and in time, they would no longer be receiving minimum wage.
With the thought that raising minimum wage might (cause I know that some of you don't think that would be an issue) increase prices and possibly cause companies to go abroad for cheaper labor, then why risk it? What is the down fall if minium wage is not increased? Seems to me that the increase in minium wage would only benefit a small group of people for the short term and then the rest of the population will have to pay for it later and then in another 10 years, we will have to raise the wage again because of inflation that was caused by raising the minium wage. Just my thoughts

WhatRuThinking,

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of
adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question it's methods or throw light upon it's crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe..corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong
it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed. --Abraham Lincoln

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at
defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom
it properly
belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by
inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."-- Thomas Jefferson

WhatRuThinking,

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of
adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question it's methods or throw light upon it's crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe..corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong
it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed. --Abraham Lincoln

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at
defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom
it properly
belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by
inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."-- Thomas Jefferson

4% of 250 million is 10 million.
Regressives don't want a consumer driven economy.

Just to clarify pee-wee- these percentages, if you looked at the websit that I mentioned, would show you that these percentages were base upon some 73.9 Americans tath were working on an hourly rate, which is (in 2004) 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. So, with that in mind, your calculation is incorrect- that would be about 520,000 people that were earning minimum wage, with 1.5 million working below minium wage (ie- people that work for tips as well). SO, that would be 2 million individuals. Check out that web site and see for yourself. The above is from that website (www.bls.gov)
So, even then, as I stated in a previous statement, the current minimum wage is more than enough to support (having your basic needs met and then a little bit extra) an individual.
To superdawg- liked the quotes. Very interesting and makes you wonder about the relationship between the bankers and the running of our government.

Half of the minimum wage earners are older than 25.
Why do regressives love cheap labor so much?

I heard that all 51 of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the resolution allowing for the increase in the minimum wage. So, the Republicans are the ones who will have to take the blame (totally) for this bill being blocked.

GOD BLESS ALL 51 OF THE DEMOCRATS THAT VOTED FOR THIS INCREASE (ALSO BLESS THE FEW REPUBLICANS THAT VOTED WITH US ON THIS), AND GOD HELP THE REPUBLICANS THAT VOTED AGAINST IT!

I heard that all 51 of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the resolution to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. So, the Republicans will have to take all of the blame for this bill being stalled.

GOD BLESS ALL 51 OF THE DEMOCRATS (AND THE FEW REPUBLICANS THAT VOTED FOR THE BILL WITH US), FOR TRYING TO PASS IT. AND, GOD HELP THE REPUBLICANS THAT VOTED AGAINST IT!

I would like to put in my two cents worth on the Minimum Wage bill I am really applaud that it was not passed. I know what it means to live on $ 5.15 an hour and still not to be able to make it go as far as it should. Most people pay over $3oo dollars for rent. electric is $158.00 per month and then there is car insurance, health insurance, Medicare D plan and then gas for your car to get you to work for that $ 5.15 hour job and you happen to be nearly 80 years old and you don't make enough in Social Security. Food has gone up and every other thing. yes you people that happen to have the dollars in your pocket seem to yell the most. Go try living on the minimum wage. There are more things to life than to live from pay check to pay check. I really don't care how old you are and who you are it seems like the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer when we have The Good old Republicans running things for us.

I would like to put in my two cents worth on the Minimum Wage bill I am really applaud that it was not passed. I know what it means to live on $ 5.15 an hour and still not to be able to make it go as far as it should. Most people pay over $3oo dollars for rent. electric is $158.00 per month and then there is car insurance, health insurance, Medicare D plan and then gas for your car to get you to work for that $ 5.15 hour job and you happen to be nearly 80 years old and you don't make enough in Social Security. Food has gone up and every other thing. yes you people that happen to have the dollars in your pocket seem to yell the most. Go try living on the minimum wage. There are more things to life than to live from pay check to pay check. I really don't care how old you are and who you are it seems like the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer when we have The Good old Republicans running things for us.

Hello paratic- I would appreciate it if you read my statement again with the break down of the cost- you can get an efficience or one bedroom apartment for ABOUT $300 in some areas. And then if you are making minimum wage and are living pay check to pay check and you own a vechile and have to pay for gas, then you are living above your means. There is always the bus if you live in a city. If you cannot afford it, you should not have it, when it comes to material things. If you have your basic needs met, and a little extra in your pocket, you are doing better than so many other people world wide. I have been there, and I know may people who are there, and they all make ends met. Many have even better there situation by using assistance from many different types of sources to educate themselves so that they won't be in that situation forever. The ones that are still in that situation are content with the life that they live; there are family and friends available when and if they need assistance. Again, live within your means. And when you work your way up, then it will have all been worth it and you will look back and it will hopefully make you appreciate the things that you have, because you worked for it and earned it.
Pee-Wee- I am going to quote this for you, because it seems that I am not paraphrasing well enough. "Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly paid workers are earning $5.15 or less were under the age of 25, and about one fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Amoung thos age 65 and over, the proportion was 4 percent." "Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely to earn the minimum wage or less that persond who are married." "About three in four workers earning $5.15 or less in 2004 were employed in service occupations, mostl in food service jobs with earnings ar or below $5.15, at under 2 percent." These workers earn tips.
I understand that all of you have your hearts in the right place- you intend to help people with increasing minimum wage, but in my mind, you are forgetting that anything above having your basic needs met is a priveldge, not a right. If people are having difficulty getting their basic needs met, then there are government and other organizational programs that will help them. So, why increase minimum wage if it truely is not necessary?

paratic- something that i forgot to mention, in my statement of breaking down the costs to live- the electric for a one bedroom apartment, to my knoledge and experience has never exceeded $70 a month- and that $70 was really high for some reason. The average was about $40. So, if you were paying 150 for a one bedroom or effeincy apartment, that would have been oh so crazy and I would have called the company top find out what was going on.

I have you know that where I live it is cold. i have spent my life working really hard. I am just saying that you should live on peanut butter and jelly for a while. When you are a senior and have spent your life working hard and paying taxes and then have to get paid $ 5.15 and hour it is an insult. I bet you have never had to wonder where your next meal is coming from?

There are two words for workers that don't "EARN" their money: You're fired! Minimum wage workers (3.4 million are parents) work harder than a lot of salaried workers, yet they have to hear the bitching and complaining from regressive republicans who love foreign labor, child labor, and cheap labor.

It is not the federal government's job to regulate wages, now is it? Leave wage minimums up to the states. This minimum wage legislation needs to be opposed.

No I have never have had to wonder where my next meal is going to come from. I am fully aware of the socail agencies that offer assistance to people who don't have enough money for food. I am also aware of the soup kitchens, that offer meals without questions of any sort. I have lived in an extremely cold climate (and due to the fact that I feel that I have already given too much personal information about myself, I will not say where, but let's just put it this way- I highly doubt that you live in a climate as extreme as that) The apartments that I lived in had steamed heat and I didn't have to pay for water, just electric. I looked around and found places that I could afford. The government and social agencies offer assistance for almost every aspect and they are there to help. In my opinion, the government does way more than it should and we all should feel blessed and privledged to live in a country that is able and willing to help those who are willing to help themselves. I don't think that you understand what basic needs are; goto some other country and look at what people don't have, then come back here and look at what even our minimum wage workers do have. At this point, I am a little irritated that facts and numbers did not seem to at least make you (not just you, paratic) think that maybe the other view (ie Republicans) has a point in their arguement. I don't ask that you change your beliefs, just for a comment or reply that would say, "Well, I can understand that." I do understand what the intentions are of this group of people, but I do not agree that raising the minimum wage would benefit people in the long run. At this point, I would have to say goodbye and God Bless. I came to this forum in order to attempt to see what the other view is, and I have seen it and I don't agree; take care and please, count your blessing and be grateful that we live in a country where you have the right to sya whatever you feel you need to say and in a country where almost every citizen has so much more than so many people that live in this world.

The regressive republicans don't value work.

Thank you whatruthinking, at last a dem that has some clearity in their thinking.
Why do we equate rich and republican? Do you really think that the leaders of this party are struggling to make ends meet?

Now we know why the regressive republicans can't balance a budget: They've taken a piece of legislation that didn't cost the people's government one dime and turned it into a treasury raid for Halliburton.

The only person that should be making a wage increase is the business owner. Why? Because it's THEIR business, not the employee's and not the government's. If we are to live in a country where we respect liberty - where people are free - people should be free to run THEIR business the way they want to run it. That includes what THEY want to pay employees. What is wrong with that? Freedom grows stale if we allow government to begin telling us what we have to do with our own businesses.

And, employees should be free to excercise self-responsibility and improve themselves. Why must they stay on minimum wage forever? Answer: They don't have to. If they want to do something about it, they are free to do so. I think that makes more sense than FORCING a business owner to shell out more money to someone who chooses not to improve themselves.

Likewise, a tax-break for a minimum wage increase is an even worse idea! Who is going to pay for that lack of money that government is used to receiving (because there certainly is no mention of decreasing the size of government along with that tax break)? Answer: YOU, and me, and everyone else. Then, we would ALL have to pay that extra minimum wage, for someone who has chosen not to improve themselves. There is no free lunch, until you actually reduce a portion of government to pay for that tax break.

Both ideas, minimum wage and a tax break for business owner to pay minimum wage, are poor ideas for the reasons I have mentioned. Luckily, both have had the breaks put on them. Looks like checks and balances really work. Whew!

Markets can't exist without rules.

My fellow Democrats:

Once again, we are faced with classic Republicanism that caters to the wealthiest among us. Not only are the ensuring that our fellow American wage earners are left out of Americas promise for prosperity for all its citizens, they are also guaranteeing that the business interest that has come to define their party is maintained.

Also by not allowing this bill to pass without certain amendments, the Republicans have managed to ensure that America's working class, who I might add, are the backbone that drives our economy, will work harder for ever decreasing wages. This “this race to the bottom” has to discontinue, and the only way for this downward trend to at least level-off, is to increase the minimum wage to an amount that will at least provide for an acceptable standard of living for this income group.

Politics is leadership of constituents in their best interests and leading non-constituents AGAINST their best interests.

How can a REPUBLICAN EXTREME PROPAGANDA CHANNEL lead WE THE PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY'S CONSTITUENTS, against our best interest?

By promoting and inculcating in as exciting of a way as possible through the media, over and over again REPUBLICAN EXTREME PROPAGANDA as "fair and balanced" so that WE THE PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY'S CONSTITUENTS, will trust anything the AUTOCRATIC REPUBLICAN EXTREME GOVERNMENT tells us, since none of us are their constituents. WE THE PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY'S CONSTITUENTS, ARE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S NON-CONSTITUENTS.

REPUBLICAN EXTREME PROPAGANDA is NOT in the best interest of WE THE PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY'S CONSTITUENTS, but IS in the best interest of CORPORATISTS and CAPITALISTS, AUTOCRACY'S CONSTITUENTS, corporatists and capitalists, who have chosen to use WE THE PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY'S CONSTITUENTS against our best interest to make us consumers and customers of their private enterprises of our public resources instead of citizens who need our own resources.

The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES represents WE THE PEOPLE and the SENATE represents AUTOCRATIC CAPITALISTS AND CORPORATISTS.

The DLC is rampant in the Senate. The DLC is the enemy of WE THE PEOPLE. The DLC MUST GO. WE THE PEOPLE MUST NOT ALLOW ANY MORE DLC MEMBERS INTO THE CONGRESS and VOTE OUT BY USE OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION PROCESS ALL KNOWN DLC MEMBERS in order for WE THE PEOPLE to be able to have any kind of equilibrium in the Congress.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

The DLC works with the secret government which is against WE THE PEOPLE. The following urls will give insight as to how it works, or just Google "Shadow Government". The United States has a shadow government that is taking over our country through the DLC and the RIGHT WING EXTREME REPUBLICANS.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/shadow.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_government

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52164

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20584-2002Feb28?language=printer

http://www.constitution.org/shad4816.htm

Our country is in deep trouble if WE THE PEOPLE do not get the DLC out of our Congress. Any member of the DLC, Democratic Leadership Council promoted by the REPUBLICAN EXTREME, is an enemy of WE THE PEOPLE.

What RU: Do your statistics look at the number of people under 20 who are married or are single parents and have families? Or the number of jobs paying more than minimum wage compared to the number of job-seekers who are looking for those jobs? I don't think so.
You seem to be saying that people who work minimum wages shouldn't have hopes, dreams, families or even have a life. Yet you were prating about people knocking religion. This is exactly why people knock religion. They are looking at people like you who claim religion, yet are turning their backs on Christ's teachings about social responsibility. Part of that social responsibility is to pay people fairly for a fair day's work, and at the current minimum wage, that isn't happening.
The tax break for the rich isn't part of the minimum wage bill, it is a rider attached to the real bill to either kill the bill or give the rich and greedy some concessions to "allow" the bill to pass, which is totally bogus. This isn't an oligarchy yet, and the K-street legislators should stop acting like it is.
You obviously haven't priced urban apartments lately. Even in Butte, $300 per month is not going to find you a decent place for a family to live. Inferior housing runs up the cost of utilities because of higher heating costs, and runs up medical expenses because of more health problems. We have kids here, who have to sleep in their overcoats because of the heating costs in inferior housing!
When you look at urban areas, the cost of rent on even a one room apartment is totally outrageous. It's one of the reasons that the military bases housing allowances on zip code. Some areas are so high cost that even senior enlisted personnel can't afford to live on the economy without getting extra money, and there is a shortage of family housing on bases because of it.
Many of these minimum wage workers, and even too many who are making over minimum wage are living in their cars. We have homeless people who have steady jobs! This is outrageous!
Food costs have also gone up, as has public transportation, when you can find a job that allows you to take public transportation, and isn't out in the boonies, or such odd hours that the buses don't run.
The prices you are determined to keep mentioning are prices that may have been correct 10 or 15 years ago, but you need to catch up to the 21st century.
In short, What RU, you are one of the willfully ignorant who believe by refusing to admit the truth, the inconvenient facts will go away.
Wake up and smell the 21st century, it smells a lot like the 19th!

the wages need to go up because there are alot of Americans who can keep up on their bills because os so low the wages are so help support the wage increase way to go democratics.

Teddy was unbelieveable!
Kennedy to Republicans: "What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?"

GOP blocks the increase? I thought it was held up because the Senate wants tax cuts for small businesses which will be hit hard by this increase. Please don't tell me that the DNC wants to impose an increased minimum wage without a tax cut.

Why don't I hear anything about the Wilson couple in the press anymore? Now that it turns out your anger was inaccurate about that whole made up media scenario I don't see anything on your web site about them. Hmmm.

Remember, President Bush did not say that Iraq had entered into contracts with the Nigerian government-but had made overtures in Niger toward obtaining some yellow cake. So your hit man Wilson was sent by his non-covert CIA wife on his mission to undermine the facts. He even said that Iraq had sent "diplomats" to Niger.

Listen to the words your leaders use before you jump to judgment. Think critically about what he said. He said they had not obtained yellow cake in Niger. What do you think the Iraqi "diplomats" wanted in Niger? You can get two things there-Yellow Cake and sand-and Iraq has got plenty of sand.

You guys talk about distorting the facts to start a war-but you are willing to ignore the facts when it helps support your delusional media brain-washed belief structure. What you guys need to do is look at things from a critical point of view. Be skeptical, but not cynical. Take a moment to consider who is providing you with your information before you take it as gospel.

As I've said before, don't even take what I say as gospel, because I to am biased. Find out for yourselves-but don't just lap up the pabulum the press feeds you every day and think your intelligent for repeating their diatribes.

Since you in the "Do Nothing Coward" Democrat Party are so fond of the quoting press which supports your lies-here's some information you probably refuse to listen to. Since I have to hear your press every day on the network and cable news-maybe you should read something from a logical point of view-instead of your emotionally charged arguments which ignore the facts. Enjoy the read!

The truth hurts doesn't it? Remember September 11, 2001! Remember Flight 93! Keep rolling! Keep fighting despotic dictators and the terrorists they support! God bless the United States of America and God bless our troops! Support their Victory in the battle for Iraq and the war against international terrorism!

Always Faithful
Seeking Truth

Wall Street Journal
January 25, 2007
Pg. 18

Wonder Land

Talking Ourselves Into Defeat

By Daniel Henninger

The United States is talking itself into defeat in Iraq. Its political culture is now in a downward spiral of pessimism. In the halls of Congress, across endless newspaper columns, amid the punditocracy and on Sunday morning talk shows -- all emit a Stygian gloom about America.

Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins wonders "whether the clock has already run out." To U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the new strategy is "a dead end." For the Bush troop request, presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted "overwhelming rejection." (His committee resolution to that effect yesterday passed by three votes.) Presidential candidate Chuck Hagel: "We have anarchy in Iraq. It's getting worse." And not least, Sen. John Warner this week heaved his tenured eminence against the war effort, proposing another "non-binding" resolution against more troops.

To pick one amid scores of similar characterizations in the media, the Associated Press wrote from Washington before the State of the Union speech that "Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- scoffed at his policy." "Scoff" is a strong word, suggesting eye-rolling ridicule. (The line was so good that the AP ran it after the speech as well, under another writer's byline, this time from Baghdad.) But of course amid the giddy vapors of mass mockery, they all "support the troops."

Our slide to a national nervous breakdown because of Iraq is not going unnoticed. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has been visiting across the U.S. this week. "I've been pretty worried about what I've heard," Mr. Downer said in an interview. Walking on Santa Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in Iraq.

"What concerns me about this," he said, "is that it's sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world's problems aren't theirs."

Some of this is politics as usual, but even normal partisanship comes dressed now in the language of apocalypse. In his SOTU rebuttal, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb ripped into the current economy, saying it reminded him of the early 1900s: "The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt." Ah, we've fallen to the level of czarist Russia.

You know the pessimism has turned manic when no one is allowed to depart the asylum. Sen. John McCain's support for Iraq and the new Bush plan is now being described in press reports as not only costing him support in the polls (the asylum's inkblot of reality) but worse, the support of campaign contributors.

It is a phenomenon fascinating to behold. Its causes are multiple, but here are several:

Bush schadenfreude. Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss. The Democrats have run against something called "Bush" for so long that this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy.

The Iraq Study Group. The ISG report wasn't defeatist, but it enabled the vocabulary of defeat. Its warning of a "slide toward chaos" was re-defined as the current Iraqi status quo. They called their bipartisan solution "phased withdrawal," but it was a euphemism for defeat. Momentum was already building in this direction, and the ISG propelled it.

The leadership vacuum. The administration never rallied the nation behind the war in a concrete way. A young Marine officer recently returned from combat in Iraq told me this week he is taken aback at how disassociated the American people seem from Iraq, no matter how constantly it's in the news. He says it's as if the problem is not so much what is actually happening in Iraq but that the war is "annoying" to Americans, as if to say: Can't it just go away or not be on the front page all the time? Rallying a nation at war is a president's job.

The opposition vacuum. One reason the negative mood in politics is so disconcerting is that the opposition's alternative vision is nonexistent. On joining the opposition recently, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman announced, "I can't tell you what the path to success is." Joe Biden says the "primary" Iraq strategy should be to force its leaders to make the political compromises necessary to "end the violence."

As a political strategy, unremitting opposition has worked. Approval for the president and the war is low. The GOP lost sight of its ideological lodestars and so control of Congress. But the U.S. still occupies a unique position of power in the world, and we are putting that status at risk by playing politics without a net.

On the "Charlie Rose Show" this month, former Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane, who supports the counterinsurgency plan being undertaken by Gen. David Petraeus, said in exasperation: "My God, this is the United States. We are the world's No. 1 superpower. This isn't about arrogance. This is about capability and applying ourselves to a problem that is at its essence is a human problem."

At our current juncture, Gen. Keane's words probably rub many the wrong way. But there's a Cassandra-like warning implicit in them. The mood of mass resignation spreading through the body politic is toxic. It is uncharacteristic of Americans under stress. Some might call it realism, but it looks closer to the fatalism of elderly Europe, overwhelmed and exhausted by its burdens, than to the American tradition.

In 1966, Sen. George Aiken delivered a speech on Vietnam famously translated for history as "declare victory and go home.'" On current course, it looks like we may declare defeat and go home.

I commend you on reading my post and the United States Constitution. If you feel like doing the things you mentioned in your message then by all means do them. The Democrat Party now has the power. Why don't they take a cue from Rosie O'Donnel (sp?)-your new Speaker?

But I remember your party shouting about another recent leader who was impeached, and yelling that it was a horrible thing to do. Maybe you don't understand the concept of perjury, but it is counted as a "high crime and misdemeanor".

But he only lied about having sex with Monica? It was no ones business anyway? Think about what he was doing in court the day he lied.

He was on trial for SEXUAL HARRASMENT. The charge was that he acted inappropriately when he exposed himself to some of the women he worked with while Governor of Arkansas. He exposed himself to one of the young ladies who worked for him!

When on trial for sexually harassing your employees your behavior-past and present-toward the people whom you command power over is not only relevant to the case, but is vital information for the court to hear. The information Clinton lied about under oath involved him making and performing sexual overtures with a young lady in the Oval Office.

I really don't care what a person does with his or her sex life; however, when they are on trial for sex crimes, and they perjure themselves then I care. Mr. Clinton was an officer of the court and knew what was required of him when he was on the stand. If I, you, or anyone else did the same thing then we would go directly to jail for perjury and we would have lost the sexual harassment case.

But what do I expect from a party who chooses to ignore the fact that their favorite President is a sex addict-whose behavior lead to his distraction during one of the most vital moments in our Nation's history? Sudan offered Bin Laden on a platter, but he chose not to take him. Perjury is a crime. I am sure you guys will say many things about President Bush and wanting to impeach him-but anything you have to say is mere emotional conjecture and not based in fact.

The difference between you and I is that when Mr. Clinton was in office I accepted him as my leader and supported him when others said disrespectful things about him. I accepted him as my Commander in Chief and would have fought and died for my country if he ordered me to do so. I supported him and your other Democrat Party leaders when they signed the Iraqi Liberation Act. I supported him when he sent us into Bosnia-because I understood that the United States of America-as the greatest nation in the world-has a duty to help those under the steel boot of tyranny. I was brought up to believe that when you have the power to help someone you do it.

The difference between you and I is that I accept the wisdom of the American voter in choosing their leader while you spit upon them when they don’t vote your way. I value the republican design of our nation at all times while you do so whimsically. You berate me and my fellow citizens when they vote for someone not of your ideology. You choose to tear down our country while I choose to support her in her darkest hour. I don’t blame you for your ignorance-you have ingested so much of the socialist miasma which swarms our country from Hollywood to Madison Avenue-your core beliefs are built upon it.

Take thirty days to clear out that the fog of bong smoke and the haze of acid hits that cloud your judgment. Then start seeking the truth not as you want to see it but as how it is. I know-the truth hurts at first, but you’ll get used to it once you accept it.

Remember September 11, 2001! Remember Flight 93! Keep rolling! Keep fighting despotic dictators and the terrorists they support! God bless the United States of America and God bless our troops! Support their Victory in the battle for Iraq and the war against international terrorism!

Always Faithful
Seeking Truth

Why don't I hear anything about the Wilson couple in the press anymore? Now that it turns out your anger was inaccurate about that whole made up media scenario I don't see anything on your web site about them. Hmmm.

Remember, President Bush did not say that Iraq had entered into contracts with the Nigerian government-but had made overtures in Niger toward obtaining some yellow cake. So your hit man Wilson was sent by his non-covert CIA wife on his mission to undermine the facts. He even said that Iraq had sent "diplomats" to Niger.

Listen to the words your leaders use before you jump to judgment. Think critically about what he said. He said they had not obtained yellow cake in Niger. What do you think the Iraqi "diplomats" wanted in Niger? You can get two things there-Yellow Cake and sand-and Iraq has got plenty of sand.

You guys talk about distorting the facts to start a war-but you are willing to ignore the facts when it helps support your delusional media brain-washed belief structure. What you guys need to do is look at things from a critical point of view. Be skeptical, but not cynical. Take a moment to consider who is providing you with your information before you take it as gospel.

As I've said before, don't even take what I say as gospel, because I to am biased. Find out for yourselves-but don't just lap up the pabulum the press feeds you every day and think your intelligent for repeating their diatribes.

Since you in the "Do Nothing Coward" Democrat Party are so fond of the quoting press which supports your lies-here's some information you probably refuse to listen to. Since I have to hear your press every day on the network and cable news-maybe you should read something from a logical point of view-instead of your emotionally charged arguments which ignore the facts. Enjoy the read!

The truth hurts doesn't it? Remember September 11, 2001! Remember Flight 93! Keep rolling! Keep fighting despotic dictators and the terrorists they support! God bless the United States of America and God bless our troops! Support their Victory in the battle for Iraq and the war against international terrorism!

Always Faithful
Seeking Truth

Wall Street Journal
January 25, 2007
Pg. 18

Wonder Land

Talking Ourselves Into Defeat

By Daniel Henninger

The United States is talking itself into defeat in Iraq. Its political culture is now in a downward spiral of pessimism. In the halls of Congress, across endless newspaper columns, amid the punditocracy and on Sunday morning talk shows -- all emit a Stygian gloom about America.

Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins wonders "whether the clock has already run out." To U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the new strategy is "a dead end." For the Bush troop request, presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted "overwhelming rejection." (His committee resolution to that effect yesterday passed by three votes.) Presidential candidate Chuck Hagel: "We have anarchy in Iraq. It's getting worse." And not least, Sen. John Warner this week heaved his tenured eminence against the war effort, proposing another "non-binding" resolution against more troops.

To pick one amid scores of similar characterizations in the media, the Associated Press wrote from Washington before the State of the Union speech that "Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- scoffed at his policy." "Scoff" is a strong word, suggesting eye-rolling ridicule. (The line was so good that the AP ran it after the speech as well, under another writer's byline, this time from Baghdad.) But of course amid the giddy vapors of mass mockery, they all "support the troops."

Our slide to a national nervous breakdown because of Iraq is not going unnoticed. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has been visiting across the U.S. this week. "I've been pretty worried about what I've heard," Mr. Downer said in an interview. Walking on Santa Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in Iraq.

"What concerns me about this," he said, "is that it's sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world's problems aren't theirs."

Some of this is politics as usual, but even normal partisanship comes dressed now in the language of apocalypse. In his SOTU rebuttal, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb ripped into the current economy, saying it reminded him of the early 1900s: "The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt." Ah, we've fallen to the level of czarist Russia.

You know the pessimism has turned manic when no one is allowed to depart the asylum. Sen. John McCain's support for Iraq and the new Bush plan is now being described in press reports as not only costing him support in the polls (the asylum's inkblot of reality) but worse, the support of campaign contributors.

It is a phenomenon fascinating to behold. Its causes are multiple, but here are several:

Bush schadenfreude. Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss. The Democrats have run against something called "Bush" for so long that this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy.

The Iraq Study Group. The ISG report wasn't defeatist, but it enabled the vocabulary of defeat. Its warning of a "slide toward chaos" was re-defined as the current Iraqi status quo. They called their bipartisan solution "phased withdrawal," but it was a euphemism for defeat. Momentum was already building in this direction, and the ISG propelled it.

The leadership vacuum. The administration never rallied the nation behind the war in a concrete way. A young Marine officer recently returned from combat in Iraq told me this week he is taken aback at how disassociated the American people seem from Iraq, no matter how constantly it's in the news. He says it's as if the problem is not so much what is actually happening in Iraq but that the war is "annoying" to Americans, as if to say: Can't it just go away or not be on the front page all the time? Rallying a nation at war is a president's job.

The opposition vacuum. One reason the negative mood in politics is so disconcerting is that the opposition's alternative vision is nonexistent. On joining the opposition recently, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman announced, "I can't tell you what the path to success is." Joe Biden says the "primary" Iraq strategy should be to force its leaders to make the political compromises necessary to "end the violence."

As a political strategy, unremitting opposition has worked. Approval for the president and the war is low. The GOP lost sight of its ideological lodestars and so control of Congress. But the U.S. still occupies a unique position of power in the world, and we are putting that status at risk by playing politics without a net.

On the "Charlie Rose Show" this month, former Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane, who supports the counterinsurgency plan being undertaken by Gen. David Petraeus, said in exasperation: "My God, this is the United States. We are the world's No. 1 superpower. This isn't about arrogance. This is about capability and applying ourselves to a problem that is at its essence is a human problem."

At our current juncture, Gen. Keane's words probably rub many the wrong way. But there's a Cassandra-like warning implicit in them. The mood of mass resignation spreading through the body politic is toxic. It is uncharacteristic of Americans under stress. Some might call it realism, but it looks closer to the fatalism of elderly Europe, overwhelmed and exhausted by its burdens, than to the American tradition.

In 1966, Sen. George Aiken delivered a speech on Vietnam famously translated for history as "declare victory and go home.'" On current course, it looks like we may declare defeat and go home.

This info is from the US Department of Labor
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm

"According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 - 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2004 data."

"Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was 4 percent. (See table 1 and table 7.)"
Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely to earn the minimum wage or less than persons who are married. (See table 8.)"

"Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, about 2 percent of those who had a high school diploma but had not gone on to college earned the minimum or less, compared with about 1 percent for those who had obtained a college degree. (See table 6.)"

"Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were much more likely than their full-time counterparts to be paid $5.15 or less (about 7 percent versus 1 percent). (See table 1 and table 9.)"

So, I see that the statement that I made about the cost of rent seems to be what is cause most of you to devalue my agruement, so I did a little bit of research (apartment finder and all that), so here we go with a modified version- after all, I am willing to listen to an agrue and look and see if I am totally off base. Believe it or not, I can admit when I am wrong. So, here we go (again) to prove that minimum wage can support your basic needs if you work full time and are supporting yourself (there is also an option to get a roommate as well if you would like to share costs and have a little bit more pocket change).
Let's break it down:
Minium wage at $5.15 at 40 hours a week (example)
that would be $824 a month. Then take out about 10% for taxes, fica, medcaid and soc cec- that is about $82.40 taken out, which leaves you with: $741.60. Now for the adjusted rent rate if you live alone: $450 (seems to be about the average, and I did find some about $300, but since you want to agrue that point, I made the adjustment), so that leaves you with $291.60. Let's say that the appartment complex covers basic utlities, except electric, that would cost about $50 (we are in a one bedroom apartment, remember?) So, that would leave you with $241.60. So, that is your pocket change to buy food and bus fare (which is about $20 a month for a pass). Now, if people would like to save some, they would be able to. So, according to the department of labor, there are 520,000 people working an hourly rate for minimum wage. Then you have 1.5 million that work below minimum wage that also earn tips.
That is 2 million people in the US that we are talking about. It is 1/40th of the working population (approxiametly). Again, there are social service agencies and community programs that offer assistance in case of emergencies. Since half of the people are 25 and under, and then another fourth of the people that are 16-19, I would assume that there is addition support (finacail aid for college students and then parental support for minors). So, if 3/4 of the people working minimum wage have additional support, that would leave 1/4 of the people supporting themselves. So, 1/4 of 2 million is 500,000 people that would have the $241.60 a month to buy food, bus passes, and extras. Again, we are talking about basic needs (food, water, and shelter- which millions of people world wide lack). SO, if these needs are met, what is your agenda? Anything above basic needs is a priveldge, not a right. As far as medical insurance- most hospitals that I know of will work with you in order to assist you in paying what you can pay- sliding scale, then you have the free clinics that offer all the yearly stuff, and then you have government assistance. If you have a family and are working minimum wage (which the research suggest that there isn't really that many people that are married with families that work minimum wage), then there are even more government programs available to you. The churches that I have gone to offer assistance to people who need it; you have to prove your need, but they will and DO help. So, again, why raise minimum wage if it is not needed and it would be a cause inflation?
Basic needs are being met. What more do you want? A socialist society where the government provides everything for you and all that you have to do is be a citizen? Where is the ambition? The drive for success? The desire to make something better for yourself and your children? You complain about the elite, and guess what, if this is going to be a socailst society, you are gauranting that there will be a socail elite and you the common worker not have a chance to acheive that elite force, if you wanted to. Look at every socialist (dare I say communitist) society and look at the conditions that the average person lived under when the government provided things for it's people. Not a pretty picture. IF you think that our minimum wage workers are deprived, look at other countries that have outragous living conditions for the majority of the people that live there, and then tell me that the minimum wage workers are truely lacking basic needs. I am sorry, but some people don't even have a blanket to wrap themselves up in if it is cold- count your blessing if you have that.
Do you think that it is more important to provide our homeless people with a safe place to live? Do you think that it is more important to make sure that our kids have the best education that the public can offer? Don't you think that it is more important that people be offered a chance to succeed? Don't you think that it is more important that people be treated fairly and have an honest shot to full their potential? If you answered yes, then don't you think that the money that the government might have to spend to compissate for the tax write off that the increase would cost be filtered into truely needed social agencies (where even a minium wage worker could get assistance)?
Crunch the numbers people- let's say that only half of the hourly workers work everyday (a very conserivative number, when most likely it is more than that, and then we shall forget about the spiral effect that it would cause with having to pay your people who are earning more than a minimum wage) and there is a $2 and hour increase, so that would be an extra $520,000 an hour. And let's just say that there is 8 hours a day where this 260,000 people working. So, that would be an extra $4,160,000 a day to raise the minimum wage of just the minimum wage earners. A DAY people! And some of you think that it won't raise prices? Gesh. Seriously.

WE MUST KEEP STANDING UP AN FIGTHING FOR WE NO IS RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE NO BUSH GOP BLOCK THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE WE NEED 7.25 AND UP AN HOUR TO PUT FOOD ON TABLE FOR OUR KIDS BUT THE BUSH GOP KKK SAID NO SO WE MUST STAND UP TO THIS HATE BUSH AND HIS GOP KKK THEY WILL NOT STOP THE WAR THIS IS HATE BUT BUSH AND THE GOP IS MAKE MONEY OVER AND OVER IN BUSH WAR SO THEY KEEP US POOR AND IN POVERTY SO WE ALL MUST STAND UP NOW AND KEEP STANDING UP STOP BUSH GOP KKK,POOR PEOPLE'S WHEN WE ACT TOGETHER,THE POWER IS IN POOR PEOPLE'S

WE AS POOR PEOPLE'S IN ALL 50 STATES IF WE ALL AS POOR PEOPLE'S COME TOGETHER NO FIGHT WE CAN NOT WIN AS ONE WE MUST STAND UO ALL OVER 50 STATES TOGETHER

WE AS POOR PEOPLE'S IN ALL 50 STATES IF WE ALL AS POOR PEOPLE'S COME TOGETHER NO FIGHT WE CAN NOT WIN AS ONE WE MUST STAND UO ALL OVER 50 STATES TOGETHER AN PUT A STOP TO HATE, TOGETHER WE HAVE POOR POWER

Osirak Redux?

An Israeli strike on Iran would pin the U.S. down in Iraq and resuscitate the neocons.

by Leon Hadar

In the aftermath of the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, pundits recalled another doomed Pentagon chief, Robert McNamara. After all, both were high-profile secretaries of defense who presided over controversial wars and were replaced by pragmatic figures as those wars began to appear unwinnable.

But another historical analogy is more applicable to George W. Bush’s decision to retire Rumsfeld: the firing of Alexander Haig by Ronald Reagan in 1982 against the backdrop of another bloody Middle East crisis, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

At the time, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and National Security Adviser William Clark accused Haig of giving Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon a green light to attack the Palestine Liberation Organization in Lebanon. Haig’s replacement, George Shultz, whom Israel’s supporters suspected of having close ties to Saudi Arabia, followed the advice of “Arabists” in the State Department and initiated an Arab-Israeli peace plan. Haig’s resignation and his replacement by Shultz were thus perceived as a major blow to Israel’s position in Washington. America’s earlier policy of punishing Soviet allies in the Middle East by focusing on Israel as a “strategic asset” and treating with benign neglect its creeping annexation of the West Bank and Gaza was replaced by a renewed commitment to co-operate with Saudi Arabia and Jordan to revive the peace process. In addition to pressing the Israelis to stop building Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, Shultz took the historic step of granting recognition to the PLO, thus creating the conditions for the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference and the ensuing Oslo Accords.

Viewed through the lens of the Haig analogy, Rumsfeld’s toppling could be seen as a change in the top national-security apparatus with the potential to transform American policy in the Middle East and adjust our relationship with Israel. More than any other senior administration official, with the exception of Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld embraced the neoconservative agenda of his top aides, with its emphasis on ousting Saddam Hussein as part of a campaign to remake the Middle East in a way that would be more hospitable to Israeli interests.

His successor, Robert Gates, is closely associated with the neocons’ nemesis—the administration of George H.W. Bush, in particular with the members of its foreign-policy team, including National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker. Gates also co-chaired with

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, a Council on Foreign Relations task force charged with recommending a U.S. policy for dealing with Iran. It called for direct American engagement with Iran and the use of fewer sticks and more carrots to convince the regime to stop enriching uranium and co-operate with the U.S. to end the insurgency in Iraq. Gates and Brzezinski also recommended discarding regime overthrow as a policy option and advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state as quickly as possible. They called on Washington to pressure Israel not to take any military action against the Iranian nuclear facilities because such actions would undermine American national interests.

Before joining the Bush administration, Gates was part of the Iraq Study Group chaired by Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. The committee has recommended new strategies for the war in Iraq, including entering into negotiations with Iran and Syria and renewing America’s effort to bring about negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as between Israel and Syria. If Shultz and the Reaganites succeeded in breaking down the American taboo on engagement with the PLO, can Gates and the post-Rumsfeld Bushies open the road to direct U.S. negotiations with Iran?

Israel’s 1982 operation to decimate the PLO in Lebanon led to American recognition of the Palestinian group, and the U.S. campaign to achieve regime change in Iraq and Iran could end up producing a détente between Washington and Tehran. Such is the irony of history. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon destabilized that country and energized its Shi’ite community in an anti-American and pro-Iranian direction, forcing Washington to rely on the moderate Arab states to repair its position in the Middle East. Likewise, the U.S. ouster of Saddam Hussein helped strengthen the position of Iran and its Shi’ite allies, including those in Baghdad. Since the U.S. doesn’t have the military power or political will to achieve regime change in Iran, it recognizes that it now needs to engage Tehran in order to stabilize Iraq and the Middle East.

Indeed, the need to engage Iran along the lines proposed by the Gates-Brzezinski task force and the Baker-Hamilton group has become conventional wisdom among the realists in Washington, who are in the process of retaking control of U.S. foreign policy from the bankrupt neocons. None of the mainstream realpolitik types think that Washington should tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons. Instead, they call for using diplomatic power to prevent or at least slow Iran’s drive to acquire the bomb.

Bush administration officials insist that they are willing to negotiate directly with Iran, but they are also setting a pre-condition on such talks—Iranian suspension of uranium enrichment—and threatening to punish Tehran if it refuses to comply. Iran and most UN members contend that it should not be prevented from exercising its right as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium under the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Hence, Moscow and Beijing have rejected American proposals to impose sanctions on Iran, and there are no indications that France, Germany, or Britain will support a U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear installations.

The Bush administration seems stuck in military and diplomatic deadends. A military strike would be ineffective because it would probably fail to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities and would further alienate America’s allies. At the same time, Tehran rejects the Bush administration’s prerequisite for direct talks. The Iranian regime certainly has no incentive to accept the terms set by Washington since it recognizes that the Bush administration faces enormous constraints on its ability to punish “rogue states.” Moreover, Iran realizes that it has the power to sabotage the stabilization of Iraq and threaten U.S. interests in Lebanon and Israel/Palestine. This seems to return the global superpower and the regional power to square one: the United States and Iran have no choice but to talk directly as part of a give-and-take diplomatic process that could produce a package deal. Washington would recognize the reality of Iran as a leading power in the Middle East, and Iran would submit to IAEA inspections, help the U.S. stabilize Iraq, and remain neutral if Israel and Palestine begin to negotiate a peace agreement. This is the kind of deal that Washington’s neo-realists could help achieve, especially if they can integrate it into a wider Middle East peace plan involving Israel, the Palestinians, and Syria.

But Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert insisted during his recent meeting with President Bush in Washington that the notion of engaging Iran was akin to appeasing Hitler’s Germany, and pressing Israel to deal with the Palestinians as a way of winning Arab and Muslim hearts had the makings of another Munich. “We have reached the pivotal moment of truth regarding Iran,” Olmert told a group of American Jewish activists in Los Angeles. “Our integrity will remain intact only if we prevent Iran’s devious goals, not if we try our best but fail.” The Israeli PM said that his government regarded Iran’s enrichment experiments as part of a program to develop a nuclear bomb, a development that, he argued, would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state and threaten the core interests of America and the West.

Olmert’s view is roughly shared by President Bush, the surviving neocons in the administration, and by leading Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, including presidential aspirants Hillary Clinton and John McCain. In fact, according to Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper, President Bush told French President Jacques Chirac during a recent meeting that the possibility of Israel striking Iran’s nuclear installations should not be ruled out and that if such an attack were to take place, he would “understand it.” This was not the first time the president has hinted that he would not veto in advance an Israeli raid on Iran’s nuclear centers. When Israel struck Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, the Reagan administration joined the other members of the UN Security Council in condemning the Israeli action. The “understanding” tone of the comments made by Bush implies that his administration will not follow suit.

Michael Oren, an Israeli historian affiliated with Shalem, a think tank that promotes the Likud agenda, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Olmert came to Washington “in search of a green light” from Bush to launch a preemptive strike against Iran. According to Oren, Olmert discovered that “bogged down in Iraq and hemorrhaging political capital at home,” Bush was unable to undertake a unilateral attack against Iran “or even to endorse an Israeli one.” That was “bad news” for the Israeli PM, who had “hoped to secure a hard-and-fast timetable for interdicting Iran’s nuclear program first by diplomacy and then, if that failed, by force.” Nevertheless, concluded Oren, “the light Mr. Olmert received in Washington was probably not green, but neither was it flashing red.”

American officials continue to maintain in public that Washington will not sanction unilateral Israeli action against Iran, and according to the Jerusalem Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told French officials that she would not be willing “to show understanding for a possible Israeli strike against Iran” in the same way that her boss promised. But the mixed signals coming out of Washington, and the fact that top officials have refrained from stating clearly that they would veto a strike, have led to speculation in Europe that there is some political logic behind what looks like confusion among the Bushies. Is it possible that Bush and Cheney, backed by the remaining neoconservative foot soldiers, are hoping that Israel will soon remake the Osirak ’81 production in Iran? Such an Israeli action could serve not only as preemptive action against Iran but also against the battalions of realist forces led by Baker, Hamilton, Gates, and Brzezinski, who threaten what remains of the neocon agenda. Indeed, as Oren put it, the ramifications of an Israeli attack on Iran “are certain to affect America as well.” If Israel attacks Iran, and especially if Israeli jets pass through Iraq’s American-controlled airspace, the perception in the Middle East and elsewhere will be that while Israel ostensibly acted alone, “the U.S. acts with it,” as Oren explained.

But he argues that only conspiracy theorists would arrive at such a conclusion. Consider, however, that U.S. presidents, including Bush, have repeatedly declared their opposition to any move by the government of Taiwan to declare its formal independence from China, recognizing that such a move could trigger a war that would almost certainly involve the United States. Why then aren’t President Bush and his aides announcing that they would not support an Israeli strike on Iran that would almost certainly force the U.S. into another war, further destabilize Iraq, and increase anti-American violence around the globe? One doesn’t have to stand on the grassy knoll to speculate that such developments would not only benefit Israel but could also halt the erosion of neoconservatives’ power and resuscitate their dream of U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East.

Hopes of an Israeli military action breathe life into the neocon geo-strategic corpse that was buried in Iraq and recall similar wishful thinking on the eve of the American decision to green-light the Israeli attack on Hezbollah’s infrastructure in Lebanon last summer. From the office of the vice president to the Pentagon to AEI and The Weekly Standard, officials, wonks, and scribblers fantasized that it was going to be the Six Day War all over again, that Israel would annihilate the Shi’ite militia and Hassan Nasrallah in the same way that it had left the Egyptian military rotting in Sinai and devastated President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1967. This would strike a major blow to Hezbollah’s patrons, Syria and Iran, and would shift the balance of power in the Middle East in favor of Israel and its sponsor, the United States, which would then be able to regain the momentum in Iraq. Before we knew it, we would have another tipping point in Mesopotamia.

The Israeli operation in Lebanon did serve as a tipping point—by transforming Hezbollah into the most popular anti-Israeli and anti-American force in the Middle East and by shifting the balance of power in the region even further in the direction of Iran. Now just six months after Israel’s fiasco in Lebanon and as the American disaster in Iraq continues to unfold, the usual suspects are once again daydreaming that a lame duck American president will approve military action by a politically drained Israeli prime minister against the leading bad guy in the neoconservative script.

A few days of Israeli bombing may or may not retard the Iranian nuclear program, but it would impede any plan by the realists to engage Iran in an effort to stabilize Iraq, start withdrawing U.S. troops, and change the direction of American policy in the Middle East.
____________________________________________

Leon Hadar is a Cato Institute research fellow in foreign-policy studies and author, most recently, of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East.

NOW YOU NO THAT THE CHRISTIANS WAY IS THE KKK WAY SO THAT IS WHO BUSH AND THE GOP IS WE MUST COME TOGETHER AS ONE TO STOP BUSH GOP KKK PARTY WE MUST STAND UP POOR PEOPLE'S ALL OVER 50 STATES WE NEED 7.25 AN HOUR AN UP NOT 5.15 AN DOWN SO WE MUST STAND UP
THE POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN INC
MR.JERRY ROBINSON
KINGROBINSON2@YAHOO.COM

POOR PEOPLE'S POOR PEOPLE'S POOR PEOPLE'S POOR PEOPLE'S POOR PEOPLE'S WE COME TOGETHER AS ONE NOW AND FOR ALL WAYS WE MUST AND WE WILL TOGETHER, WE ALL MUST COME OUT OF THE SHADOW

And as far as someone's comment about bus schedules not jiving with work schedules- communication is key people- talk to your supervisors and let them know about your situation and I am POSITIVE they will try to work with you (ESPECIALLY if you let them know before they hire you and you put on your application that the hours that you work need to fall in the bus schedules time frame, and if they don't want to work with you, fine, look for another job and if you are lucky, you might just find one that pays more than minimum wage, the public assisatnce office would be more than happy to help you look for a job). There is also fellow employees- I am sure that if you ask, someone will be willing to help you get to and from work for 5 bucks a week.

What RU: You have obviously been out of the work place way too long. You also haven't read the recent news releases about Wal-Mart computerizing the work schedules of their "associates" (read employees) so that they will work at the stores' convenience and not at their own.
A lot of corporate retail locations refuse to cut anyone any slack for kid's school schedules or even doctor's appointments.
Stop trying to justify a lack of empathy, sense of social responsibility and caring about anyone except your own selfish self.
You think life on the minimum wage is so great, you should try living on it for a year. Heck,I doubt you'd even last a month.

Over 100 amendments...............AND GROWING!

If they could they would.
The regressive economy is not that good.

Butte- I doubt that you have read everything thing that I have written. Other wise, why would you state that I lack empathy and all the other stuff. As far as being selfish, you don't know me and it is clear to me that you haven't read what I worte clearly and with any thought other than your own preconscived notion. Just to let you know, I am not a rich person by any means. My income falls below the governments poverty level, but I am content with what I have earned and how I live. I could take government assistance (that is where my focus in college was on, socail work; did not prosue that avenue further because of the sacrifices that my family would face with the time and stress level that is involved), but I choose not to because I am aware that there are people in this world that don't have as much as I do (and trust me, it's not that much). I am an educated individual (granted my spelling can really suck at times) with a loving family (which is more important than any amount of money this world can offer me- I could go make more money, but it would be at the sacrifice of loosing family time and that is not worth it to me). So, when you are thinking of bettering the life of "those poor folks" you are talking about me and some other people like me. We all have to start somewhere and then work our way up if we choose to.
I have offered you a logical arguement. And eyt you personally judge me. To me, it almost seems that you want to think less of me because I do make some sense. At what point in time did I make any judgements against you for your views? SO, since you do not seem to be able to offer a reply that I have not been able to shoot down, you personally make judgements about me, and boy are you ever so wrong. Also, if you put on your application that you are unable to work on certain days and at certain times, and that company hires you and then schedules you for that time (without your consent), they are in breach of contract with you and you could complain and file suit if you see fit. Let me guess, you didn't know that. Also, I have NEVER worked for someone that would not let me off when I needed to be off or leave early when I needed to leave early (maybe because I did not take advantage of those situations and I offered to work the extra time at a later date). If you find yourself working for someone with an "uncaring" attitude, you can always look for another job. No one is forcing anyone to work at a place that would not be understanding of your situation. If you choose to stay, that would be your choice (and sending a message that it is okay for them to take advantage of you). There are many jobs available and many opprotunities to better your situation in life. If you don't like where you are, you can always try to change that. Again, think about it. There are unions for a reason. There are so many ways to try to advocate for better working conditions and almost anything else, but yet, some people think that the National government is responsible. I am sorry, but if an employee does not like the situation, they can quit or go to a union or the many other avenues to get change. But the National Government does not have to step in and take control. So, Butte, you and I differ on this issue and I feel for the most part that I have offered you a very logical agruement. Unlike you, I will not make judgements against you for not thinking like I do. I understand that not everyone thinks the same way. I accept that people will have different veiws than myself, and I will not judge people because they don't agree with me. And if I have mistakenly done that, I am sorry. But gesh... it would seem that Rush and O'reilly are right- when push comes to shove, the Democrats tend to switch on the emotional button and personal attacks.

Why would anyone ever vote for a Republican again? The Republican Party has clearly abandoned the American people at multiple levels. This is yet another nail in the coffin for the Middle Class and the American Worker. It is also another example of the incompetent and corruption driven policies that the Republican Party has directed in the last six years. It is truly amazing that the Republicans authorize tax breaks and big government contracts ad nausea for oil companies and uber-wealthy individuals, yet whenever there is a measure to improve the standard of living for someone that falls out of the top tax bracket they either gather around to destroy that measure and/or pervert it so that the policy ends up benefiting others more than to whom it was not originally intended to help—look at their “new” healthcare reform ideas. This shameful mismanagement must come to an end. We must revitalize the Middle Class or we will become a nation of two classes: a minority privileged rich with access to everything and a majority underprovided for poor with access to nothing.

Now before I am accused of being a blind follower of Rush or O'Reilly, I would like to state that I do not agree with every word that these individuals say. I feel for the most part, they have a valid point that I cannot find a logical arguement against. I do have a mind of my own and am able to find out for myself.

Regressive republicans celebrate poverty.

You should read The Jungle by Uptom Syncail (spelling of his last name is soo off, I am sure) and the tell me that our current work situation is oh so horrible- granted I did not agree with most of the socialist veiws in it, but it high lights where our country has been- then u can compare it to today's work situation and see if things are so horrible for our current American work force.

WhatRUThinking: I am writing to respond to your comment about how raising the min. wage will ruin us all. It's a bunch of B.S.! These major corporations like Burger King (since you used the Whopper example) don't NEED to raise prices, they could simply redistribute the wealth of their multibillion dollar companies. But alas, how could the CEOs afford million plus dollar salaries if their employees made more money?! Oh the shame of it! The republicans have been arguing the same load of crap every time a min. wage increase has been suggested. "Oh the employment rate will be affected!""Oh small businesses can't survive" "Oh this will lead to inflation!" Whatever, you republicans are a bunch of greedy liars who are so evil that you have to pretend to be Christian to ease your consciences. This whole "small businesses will not make it without bigger tax breaks" is by far the biggest lie I've heard. The IRS says small businesses are the most tax fradulant group in the country accounting for $153 billion of the tax gap! But that's why they need more tax breaks huh? Over 86% of small businesses support increasing the minimum wage and say it will not affect them but it's those 14% of greedy self-serving (Republican no doubt) business owners who want more tax breaks to make more money. So go ahead and keep claiming the poor don't need the money and the rich do, you're the one who has to look in the mirror every morning.

Wow TexasDem. You leave me speechless with your verbal attack on Republican Christians. Maybe, if your are interested in what I would say, you should read all of what is on this blog.

To Butte- Just wanted to say that I don't have hard feelings towards you for what you have said. I don't know if you even care about that. And hopefully you found that for once, in my comment to TexasDem, I didn't get all long winded;) Seriously, Butte, I do wish you well and hope that you and yours are happy and successful. For the most part, I have enjoyed our verbal sparing.

Believing that many who read this blog wholly endorse the minimum wage increase....why $7.25. Why should goverment, in a land of freedom decide what a small business owner should pay for labor. What if ford motor company wasnt making enough money, and the goverment stepped in and decided that a $13000 car would now cost 15000 so the company would make enough money...just a thought. Back to 7.25, perhaps $6.00 would be better, or $25.00. While I am not saying the $7.25 is bad, I would like to know how a value is put on the minimum wage. Personally I would leave it up to the states like the constitution states.

Believing that many who read this blog wholly endorse the minimum wage increase....why $7.25. Why should goverment, in a land of freedom decide what a small business owner should pay for labor. What if ford motor company wasnt making enough money, and the goverment stepped in and decided that a $13000 car would now cost 15000 so the company would make enough money...just a thought. Back to 7.25, perhaps $6.00 would be better, or $25.00. While I am not saying the $7.25 is bad, I would like to know how a value is put on the minimum wage. Personally I would leave it up to the states like the constitution states.

Believing that many who read this blog wholly endorse the minimum wage increase....why $7.25. Why should goverment, in a land of freedom decide what a small business owner should pay for labor. What if ford motor company wasnt making enough money, and the goverment stepped in and decided that a $13000 car would now cost 15000 so the company would make enough money...just a thought. Back to 7.25, perhaps $6.00 would be better, or $25.00. While I am not saying the $7.25 is bad, I would like to know how a value is put on the minimum wage. Personally I would leave it up to the states like the constitution states.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY,WE MUST KEEP THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE'S WHO STOP THE MINIMUM INCREASE OK NOW THIS AWAY TO KEEP CONTROL OF THE POOR PEOPLE'S IN THE U.S.A WE MUST KEEP!!!! DEMANDED CHANGE THIS RACISM AND HATE THAT KEEP US AND OYR KIDS LIVE IN POVERTY WE MUST COME TOGETHER IN ALL 50- STATES AT ALL TIMES TO WROK CLOSELY TOGETHER WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WE ALL MUST STAND ON THE FRONT LINES FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE'S THE REPUBLICANS CAN AND WILL BE VOTE OUT THE NEXT TIME OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW, YOU SEE THE OLD REPUBLICANS PARTY MUST GO THEY FULL OF RACISM AND HATE LOOK AT BUSH AND HIS GOP KKK PARTY,WE NEED RIGHTS OF THE POOR PEOPLE'S IT IS TIME A JOB A HOME A HOPE A REFORM GOVERNMENT THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE'S AND BY THE PEOPLE'S AND THE REPBLICANS PARTY GOP BUSH IS NOT THAT RACISM IS HATE AND WE MUST STAND UP AND STOP IT FOR TOGETHER WE HAVE POOR POWER AND WE MUST USE IT TOGETHER WE CAN, DEMANDED CHANGE OUT OF POVERTY POOR PEOPLE'S

TOGETHER WE HAVE POOR POWER SO NOW WE MUST USE IT FOR THE GOOD OF ALL POOR PEOPLE'S IN THE U.A.S.NOW THE WAR MAN MAKE THEY ALL ARE MAN SO THEY CAN MAKE MONEY THAT IS WHY BUSH WILL NOT STOP THE WAR HE IS MAKE MONEY AND THE REPBLICANS GOP KKK PARTY OF RACISM AND HATE THAT KEEP POOR PEOPLE'S LIVE IN POVERTY AS POOR PEOPLE'S WE MUST STAND UP TO BESTER THE LIFE OF OUR KIDS,WE CAN'T KEEP SETING DOWN ON OUR ***SO WE MUST AND DIE FOR WHAT WE NO IS RIGHT FOR OUR KIDS AND POVERTY AND LOW MINIMUM IS NOT LIVE IT IS DIEING YOU NO THIS AND I NO THIS FOR WE ALL POOR PEOPLE'S LIVE THE SAME IN POVERTY

Hopefully Pragmatic, you have had a chance to read everything that I have written. Unfortunatelly, you seem to think that name calling and slander are appropriate response for an adult. When attempting to justify your veiw, don't you think that it would be more benefical to your cause if you left that out? After all, like me, there might be a few people that come hear to attempt to see what you all have to say and then see what your agruement would be and to see if there is a logical response to that arugement. Do you honestly believe that telling me that I am full of crap and an idiot will help me understand your view?
We do not live in a socialist society; we live in a capatilist society. Now I know that you will correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, every socialist society has not successed as well as a capatalist society and then there is the issue of conditions that people who live in socialist societies live in. Most Americans do not even come close to living in those types of unhealthy conditions. Don't you think that trying to help the homeless is so much more important than attempting to help people that have there basic needs met? To me, that is where the help is really needed, not handing more money to people that have more than a homeless person; ie their basic needs are being met.
And who am I to say that someone should not live above their means? Well, I am someone that is not living above their means, and am not GREEDY about wanting more that what I can earn. I am someone that lives in what the Government would classify as poverty level of income. I don't complain that someone has more than I do. I am grateful for what I do have, and then I see that there are so many people world wide that don't have their basic needs being met, and that is when my heart breaks. I am an American that has the chance to better myself, just like every other American in this country has that chance. I am lucky enough to live a country, where I can say pretty much whatever I want to. And since I am a caring individual, I choose to use my freedom of speech, and try not to insult people (my mom taught me better, and so did Christ).
Unlike most countries in this world, if you don't like your situation, then you have the opprotunity to get out of it (you have the right to LIFE , LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT of happiness). Pretty basic, right?
Now, knowing that there are government, state, and social agencies that offer assistance to people in need (and isn't that Christian?), why do you think that there is a need for raising minimum wage when basic needs are being met? Really, what is your agenda? It would seem to me that there is a lot of greed in trying to raise minimum wage.
Now, just becuase I have not choosen to insult you, your intellegent, and your party, does not mean that I am not as upset about what is going on in this country. I really feel that homelessness and true poverty are a more important cause than raising the minimum wage so (now here comes a little bit of a sacastic comment) Little Suzie can have a car (remember 1/2 of the minimum wage earners are under the age of 25, and then 1/4 of the minimum wage earners are 16-19, and mostly single).

To comment on the people you have mentioned, are you honestly shocked that people in our government are human and make mistakes? Christ forgives the repentant, and it would appear that you don't. Do you honestly believe that the Democrats don't have their share of immoral actions as well? Humans make mistakes, and thank God that Christ washed away our sins (if we repent), and if we believe in Christ. AGAIN, Christ turning over the tables at the temple was not because he was against trade, he was outraged that people would be trying to make money in a house of WORSHIP.

And, there are some anger managment class that might help you deal with expressing your anger.

I should say, expressing your anger in a more benefical and productive way.

WhatRUthinking (and the rest of you with a problem increasing the minimum wage without tax cuts) - The problem is really quite simple and hasn't got anything to do with religion. Here are the facts:

The last increase in the minimum wage was in 1998 - $5.85, where it remains at this time.

At present, it takes $7.24 to purchase what $5.85 purchased back in 1998.

That's a 23.8% increase minimum wage earners have NOT received.

Incidentally, in 1998 a Senatorial salary was $136,700.

Today that Senator's salary is $168,000.

That's a 22.9% increase Senators HAVE received.

All this info is on the web - check it out. Now, have any of YOU received any kind of increase in YOUR income since 1998? Even if you are just on Social Security, you MUST answer YES (unless you are a minimum wage earner, that is).

And babies, get real, the low wage jobs are ALREADY overseas and have been there for quite some time - when was the last time you checked the label on anything you bought to see where it was manufactured? Bet it said Taiwan or Indonesia or something similar.

WhatRUthinking - what is your basis for your claim that the increase in the price of a Whopper has been the direct result of an increase in the minimum wage? If that were so, the Whopper would not have increased in price since 1998.

By the way WhatRU, The Jungle was written by Upton Sinclair -if you want to cite something, at least make the effort to get it right - I'm sure you could have "googled" it in a heartbeat. Oh, and when you do "google" facts and figures, it's important to verify that the information is current - there's a lot of outdated information out there, or haven't you noticed?

And EVERYBODY, for crying out loud, lets leave God and Iraq out of this blog - we are discussing minimum wage increase WITHOUT tax breaks. There is something very, very wrong when at the age of 19 I was able to move out of the house, could support myself AND pay for school and at the same age today my daughter was not even able to support herself (and I don't mean lavishly) despite my input of $230/month, much less begin to pay for school.

By the way, here are the Senators who voted down the clean minimum wage bill:
* Alexander (R-TN)
* Allard (R-CO)
* Bennett (R-UT)
* Bond (R-MO)
* Bunning (R-KY)
* Burr (R-NC)
* Chambliss (R-GA)
* Coburn (R-OK)
* Cochran (R-MS)
* Corker (R-TN)
* Cornyn (R-TX)
* Craig (R-ID)
* Crapo (R-ID)
* DeMint (R-SC)
* Dole (R-NC)
* Domenici (R-NM)
* Ensign (R-NV)
* Enzi (R-WY)
* Graham (R-SC)
* Grassley (R-IA)
* Gregg (R-NH)
* Hagel (R-NE)
* Hatch (R-UT)
* Hutchison (R-TX)
* Inhofe (R-OK)
* Isakson (R-GA)
* Kyl (R-AZ)
* Lott (R-MS)
* Lugar (R-IN)
* Martinez (R-FL)
* McCain (R-AZ)
* McConnell (R-KY)
* Murkowski (R-AK)
* Roberts (R-KS)
* Sessions (R-AL)
* Shelby (R-AL)
* Smith (R-OR)
* Stevens (R-AK)
* Sununu (R-NH)
* Thomas (R-WY)
* Thune (R-SD)
* Vitter (R-LA)
* Voinovich (R-OH)
So, if any of them come from your states, I suggest you send them an email to get off their financially comfortable butts and pass a clean minimum wage bill - that is if they like holding office.

WhatRUthinking - I just happened to pick this up from one of your previous entries here:

"So, even then, as I stated in a previous statement, the current minimum wage is more than enough to support (having your basic needs met and then a little bit extra) an individual."

With that one line you have totally destroyed your credibility as a serious contributor to this blog. May I suggest that before you make a bigger fool of yourself here, you do a bit more factual rather than theoretical research?

Independent Mom- Thank you for your input. You offer some food for thought and actually use a logical agruement without the harsh insults. I am aware that my spelling is not the greatest thing on the planet. And I have already apologized for that and have hoped that my point will be understood anyway.
As far as citing something that was current, I figured that a unbiased and respectable site was more important (after all, I could go to some radom web site that has questionable statistical information and not reputable). The data in that site is from 2004; which is somewhat current and I highly doubt that the figures have changed drastically in the last 2 years (or 3 if you want to go ahead and count the rest of 2007).
In my opinion, like I have stated numerously, I feel that the basic needs of people are being met- I have crunched the numbers in previous entries. And if they are not, there are social agencies available that will assist people.
As far as inflation, yes, it is kinda crazy. AND you have a explained a point that one individual has asked- thank you.
As far as your daughter, she is very lucky to have had you in her life. There are people that do not have someone to assist them, and that is where the socail agencies can assist people (they even do assist people that have some help for family and friends).
So, thank you for your reply and I hope that your daughter has been able to use the opprotunities that you and this country has been able to offer her so that she is no longer in the same situation.

To All- I just want to stay that I think that I have tried very hard to offer a logical arguement and have tried to be respectful of individuals in the process. I really feel that there is no more that I would be able to offer without having to repeat myself. So, I harbor no hard feelings against anyone that has used negative and harsh words to describe me. So, ADios! May the Lord bless you and keep you and grant you some peace. I will not be responding any more. Thank you and it's been interesting ;)

1990 - min wage: 3.80
2006 - min wage: 5.15
increase of - aprox 70%

1990- dollar worth a dollar
2006- 1990's dollar worth 1.54
increase of - approx 65%

seems that increase min wage and increase of inflation; numbers don't lie

CORRECTION-
min wage increase of 30%
inflation rate 35%

forgot a step, gesh, brain fart, my bad

Wait a minute! Figures don't lie, but liars sure know how to figure.
If the minimum wage hasn't raised since 1998, and inflation is still going up, and I'm talking about such fripperies as shoes, blue jeans, milk, tires, lumber, and heat for the winter, but wages have been eroding, and jobs have been shipped overseas hand over fist so we can get "cheaper" goods. Who the hell's getting all the money??? Why are they getting all the money and the people who are busting their butts to do all the work aren't making a decent living?
Why are my grand daughter's blue jeans falling apart faster than the ones I bought when her dad, who was a heck of a lot harder on his clothes, was growing up, but the price is not any cheaper, just the quality?
There are just too many questions that desperately need to be asked about wages, the economy, tax breaks for the undeserving rich, booming oil company profits, CEOs who make 400 times more than anyone else in the corporation, where our working poor and former middle class tax dollars are going, and why aren't the rich paying for their war, why do we have to?
The whole economy thing smells worse than a 40lb catfish that was left on a sunny riverbank in the middle of July.
We need real truthful answers!
More than that, we need some fire in the belly, give a durn action!

Hello to all of you smart "democrats",I personally believe that this is an issue that should be adressed with a sense of "priority".In this contry there are two kinds of people, the takers and the givers. The takers are the ones sitting on cloud nine not worring about the youth and families of tomorrow.See this is the reason the chineese and the japoneese "especially",will always out last us as americans!!! They plan for the future,not just by the day.They plan a generation ahead.This has been our falure as a democracy.People are to concerned with there self presevation and the fail to realize the importance of our youth and there future.

It's pretty sad that Republicants who say they are for Americans can't agree to pass a bill to help those who really need it if they're not allowed to help the rich get richer. This is just another reason why we must win in `08.

WE NEED A GOVERNOR THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE'S AND BY THE PEOPLE'S THAT IS WHAT WE NEED FOR THE POOR PEOPLE'S SO WE MUST STAND UP NOW POOR PEOPLE'S THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO END POVERTY TOGETHER WE CAN END POVERTY

Democrats should make it clear! You, vote with us on that issue, or we start the impeachment of Bush's criminal gang of genociders (not deciders).

But I guess that is the part of the "American dream" for the majority of the people: stay poor, food insecurity or hunger or just come by.

That is to the like of the Jewish driven Stock market!
For the majority in Congress/Senate equals a somewhat decent life for the hard working American people into Socialism!

Here's an idea: If you make minimum wage and you need more money, how about taking some responsibility for yourself and work toward getting a better job that pays more than minimum wage, instead of relying on the government to force other people to pay you more of thier money that they worked for.

"How about taking some responsibility for yourself and work toward getting a better job"
A lot of people can't. You don't have enough money left over on a minimum wage job to afford to save up for the plane ticket to China or India, or wherever the jobs went.
Thanks to the very expensive "free" trade agreements, those jobs are gone, shipped overseas to places that don't have any regard for social responsibility towards their workers, and where sweat ships and child labor are legal.
If you Republicans are so bent on having people get better jobs, why do you insist on kissing up to the people who outsourced our jobs, and left us with no place to go for better jobs?
Stop outsourcing jobs, kill fast track!

ProblematicAmerican; since you were in the peace corps, then you should know what WhatRU is talking about; you should have seen it first hand. Wake up! And WhatRU even changed the data to prove the point; the numbers still worked. You guys really are a waste of time to even attempt to use any form of logical arguement. Let me guess, bottom line is, "I don't want to work for it, so I will take it from someone who has worked for it." Damm lot of Thieves- you are waste fo time.

Yeah, you guys are right about lots of things. But... There's no doubt that WE THE PEOPLE are getting the results of not only the "Reagan's era" but also and mainly the results of "Clinton's era". We certainly started losing our jobs and getting them overseas at the time when Reagan and his fellow extremists were in charge, but there's no doubt that Clinton and the era of Globalization made it possible to get our jobs not only overseas but to lose them forever and ever.

In the 80's, around seventy percent of different things like clothes, electronic stuff, cars, planes, food, toys for kids and not only, and even your God damn furniture in your house were made in the good old US of A. Made in the USA whould always be the motto and the life of Americans. The free trade crap and the Fed Reserve system whould trully become the meanings of life of the liberal agenda. The corporations achieved their fool glory and power at the time when Clinton was in Charge. Our jobs along with everything else possible were sent overseas. That's a fact. Yet,you may argue that Clinton was a ginius at economy and a good political manager and maybe, at some point, you're right, but let me take it with a little less faith in that. I'm studing economics and i know how the system actually works. So unless we have an excuse from God himself we better do something before it grows way too late. We must get back to Hamiltonian Protectionism and destroy the Fed reserve( Fed Reserve is not constitutional) and we should really care about our our own fellow citizens rather then thinking about the free trade crap or the "One world economy" of the liberal agenda.

The same people that called Miss Lucille Ball a communist are now calling minimum wage WORKERS thieves.

Cheap Regressive Bastards!

Yeah, you guys are right about lots of things. But... There's no doubt that WE THE PEOPLE are getting the results of not only the "Reagan's era" but also and mainly the results of "Clinton's era". We certainly started losing our jobs and getting them overseas at the time when Reagan and his fellow extremists were in charge, but there's no doubt that Clinton and the era of Globalization made it possible to get our jobs not only overseas but to lose them forever and ever.

In the 80's, around seventy percent of different things like clothes, electronic stuff, cars, planes, food, toys for kids and not only, and even your God damn furniture in your house were made in the good old US of A. Made in the USA whould always be the motto and the life of Americans. The free trade crap and the Fed Reserve system whould trully become the meanings of life of the liberal agenda. The corporations achieved their fool glory and power at the time when Clinton was in Charge. Our jobs along with everything else possible were sent overseas. That's a fact. Yet,you may argue that Clinton was a ginius at economy and a good political manager and maybe, at some point, you're right, but let me take it with a little less faith in that. I'm studing economics and i know how the system actually works. So unless we have an excuse from God himself we better do something before it grows way too late. We must get back to Hamiltonian Protectionism and destroy the Fed reserve( Fed Reserve is not constitutional) and we should really care about our our own fellow citizens rather then thinking about the free trade crap or the "One world economy" of the liberal agenda.

Pragmatic American, your awesome.
Ignore those republican bigots that don't even know who we are and what we stand for but for some reason they dare say all sorts of B.S. about us. Oh, well... Ignore! You don't wanna lose your ice cream, do ya?

PragmaticAmerican - you hate narrow minds? Wow, that's a good one.

You say that the republicans are programmed to attack you for not believing and thinking like them??? Dude, that's exactly what you are doing. I can't believe you would have the balls to accuse republicans of a narrowminded attack dog attitude when in the very same post you act like a narrowminded attack dog.

Pragmatic American,
(Those of you hear to read about minimum wage, this doesn’t really concern that, so don’t read this if you want just minimum wage info)Been wondering about something. Sincerely would like to know about this. If you had your own country, how would you run it and what would you do to make sure that everyone would have what they needed to survive? I just want to know. I have no intentions of condemning you about your views on this topic (probably won’t even respond anyway to it) and want to know what your idea of utopia is.

POOR PEOPLE'S WE MUST COME TOGETHER IN ALL 50 STATES TO END POVERTY,RACISM,HATE THIS IS WHAT IS HOLDING US BACK NOT BEING TOGETHER AS ONE THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OUR KIDS AND US POOR POWER IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW WE MUST USE IT TOGETHER WE CAN

IF POOR PEOPLE'S COME TOGETHER NO ONE CAN STOP US WE MUST DEMANDED A OPEN GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE'S AND BY THE PEOPLE'S THIS WILL BE COMMON GROUND FOR US ALL, WE CAN CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE U.S.A ONLY IF WE COME TOGETHER AS ONE BODY BUT WE MUST GET TOGETHER POOR PEOPLE'S ALL OVER IN ALL 50 STATES TO HAVE POOR POWER WE WILL STAND AND WILL NOT BE STOP BY NO ONE

YES WE NO THAT GOD IS NOT A REPUBLICANS BUT THE REPUBLICANS THINK THAT THEY IS GOD OVER THE POOR PEOPLE'S SO WE MUST FIGHT BACK NOW AND ALL WAYS FOR WE HAVE POOR TOGETHER THAT IS POOR POWER

Pragmatic American,

I stil think you're right man, no matter what. Dude, i lived in Utah for like four years but i really couldn't take it any more 'cause i whould hear the same kind of talk all around and i simply couldn't exersise my constitutional rights of freedom of speach and thought. That's why our whole family moved to Colorado, to where we live now. It's a great place, pretty nature, awesome people, and no "Holier than Thou" attitude.

Keep it up man!

Does anyone see this for what it really is? The Republicans want us to not pass this bill with the tax cuts so that they can claim we are flip-floppers. They did it to Kerry even though he had a very impressive voting record with no flips or flops. The Republicans know that if they get it passed as is they will win because of the tax cuts, if they can't pass it they will gain a great strategy for the '08 election. Call them on it!