PressCoverage

that's right... a predominantly right-wing, priviledged initiative... keep the poor poor, and create many more of them... at all costs...

Senate Multimillionares Vote To Block Minimum Wage Hike

After repeated delays by conservatives, the Senate voted 87-10 today to end debate on legislation that will raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 to $7.25. The bill will move to a full vote in the next several days.

Ten right-wing senators stuck together and voted to further delay raising the minimum wage:

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

As ThinkProgress detailed in a report last year, at least two of those 10 senators — Gregg and Isakson — are multimillionaires with a combined fortune of up to $35.5 million. Despite their enormous personal wealth, they refuse to grant even a small raise to the nearly 8 million Americans who live on $5.15 an hour:

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)

TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $3,402,000 and $10,055,000

HIGHLIGHTS: In Oct. 2005, Gregg won $853,000 in the Powerball lottery. He owns between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in Fleet Bank, as well as between $250,000 and $500,000 in Bristol Myers stock and between $50,000 and $100,000 in Exxon and Verizon stock.

KEY QUOTE: “If you start losing jobs because you raise minimum wage too quickly, too fast that small employers can’t afford it, that’s going to have an effect on peoples’ opportunity to work.” [Gregg, 6/21/06]

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $7,631,000 and $25,515,000

HIGHLIGHTS: Isakson owns between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in both Wachovia and Riverside Bank stock. He also holds 12 acres of Georgia real estate valued between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

KEY QUOTE: “Robert Reich, once observed ‘most minimum wage workers aren’t poor.’ He is right.” [Isakson, 6/20/06]

Real World

Where I support raising the minimum wage, the earnings of those who voted against raising it is irrelevent. In a country where over 100 Congressmen, and some 40 senators are millionaires, do you really think that personal income is what drives their minimum wage vote?

Voting against a minimum wage, or a minimum wage hike is about two things, economics, and business owners rights. Some vote no because they feel the business owner should have say in what he or she pays. Others vote no because increasing the min wage will have ramifications on the economy. Such ramifications would be job loss & inflation.

I forgot to mention that the above, is a conservative phylosophy, and has been for quite some time, which is why the above voters are Republican. Most people who know what each parties basic principles are could tell you ahead of time which way a parties general vote will go. Raising the minimum wage is a democratic party position, just like limiting gun control would tend to be a republican one.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PressCoverage

i understand what makes up conservative philosophy and their party's basic "principles"... you may label it purely economics and business owners' rights, i say it's something much deeper... something that clearly defines the fundamental differences between right and left.... and always has...

Real World

Sure Agenda Boy, it's much deeper. Those guys with the gazillions in the bank are worried that raising the minimum wage $2 will mean they'll have to give their maids a raise, and they simply don't want to do that.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PressCoverage

could you be more of a cowardly, punkass b****? you continue to call me "boy" despite my requests to please stop... i've toned down the personal venom long ago, but unfortunately, you want to keep at it... so be it, you piece of *****... it's on now...

meanwhile...

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) wants a raise.

Backers of raising the minimum wage are blocking the annual congressional pay raise until 13 million working Americans also receive a raise. Blunt is objecting, saying the raise is “crucial for members of Congress who are not independently wealthy and must operate two households.” Members of Congress currently receive an annual salary of $165,200. The minimum wage is stuck at $5.15/hour.

Real World

No pay raise for Congress in 2007

When Democrats blasted Republicans last fall for taking annual congressional pay raises while blocking numerous attempts to raise the minimum wage, it was an effective campaign tactic. Democrats vowed not to accept the annual cost-of-living hike until Congress increases the minimum wage.

But Republicans angered over the political attacks are unwilling to allow Democrats to reinstate the so-called members' COLA, forcing Democratic leaders to scuttle the 1.7 percent pay hike for the entire year.

"There will be no COLA adjustment," said a disappointed Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House's No. 2 Democrat, on Tuesday.

Hoyer has for years played a central role in finessing the ticklish issue of lawmakers' pay, working cozily with GOP leaders to make sure an annual pay-related vote went smoothly.

Lawmakers' pay will be frozen at $165,200 for this year in the dispute, in which Democrats violated a yearslong understanding that the competing parties would not use the pay raise issue in campaign ads.

http://www.kare11.com/news/national/...storyid=240681

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

BelichickFan

Terrible argument. It's just a different belief system on what is better for the country. John Edwards is for a minimum wage increase and after seeing his new house, I'd love ot see his wealth. Ted Kennedy ? There is no value whatsoever to your argument. I'm against a minimum wage increase and I know I don't have that kind of money. Your cause and effect is very lacking.

wistahpatsfan

The minimum wage is completely wrong, IMO. Make what you can doing what you do. Form a union if you want. The government telling employers what to pay the labor makes my skin crawl. (BTW, I pay above the general rate for my crew because they do a great job, and they get performance bonuses, and they stay with me longer than most)

Real World

I support a hike for the simple reason that their are so many illegals in this country willing to work for nothing, that raising the miminum cost makes them less desirable. Plus, because $5.15 needed a kick up. My problems with minimum wage are that $7.25 in one state is disporportionate to what $7.25 might be in another state. I understand that each state sets its own minimum rate, but they have to adhere to the feds limit as a bottom line. See, by raising it roughly 40%, cheaper states (cost of living) are most likely going to see a rise in inflation & jobloss. Some company in Idaho for example, will not only see a 40% increase in it's labor's pay, but it will also now have to pay increases in matching social security, and medicare taxes, in conjunction with an increase in workers compensation insurance (as it is based on a percentage of payroll). When you add this all up, we're not talking a small jump for an employer. I'm sure that in some places this will mean either a loss of jobs, or an increase in costs to patrons. Obviously, $7.25 is not a lot of money here in Massachusetts. I totally see why an increase makes sense, and what it is intended to do. I do agree with that. I just wonder how many people really understand the economics of it on an employers side. That's all.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

BelichickFan

It's a state issue IMO. Whether every job should pay a liveable wage is an issue in itself but even if you assume it should, what's liveable in CA or NY is entirely different from Idaho or North Dakota. As usual the federal government should butt out.