Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

for those non-americans who dont know. $5.15 is almost enough to get you a value meal at mcdonalds. somehow this is believed to be a livable wage.

Your sig is making me hungry.

Speaking of McDonald's, for $4.28 (with 7% sales tax) you can get 1 McChicken, 1 Double Cheeseburger, and 2 Medium Fries.

Because of idiots, they have taken away the Super-Sized portion of french fries, so now I have to get 2 mediums. Still, it's the best deal around.

I did research on minimum wage for something for my economics class last year, and working a fulltime job at minimum wage puts you below the poverty level in the US.

Luckily America is the land of opportunity and you can get three jobs to try to house and feed your family.

oh who can forget that!!!

allow me to quote:

DUBYA: Mary is with us. Mary Mornin. How are you, Mary?
MS. MORNIN: I'm fine.
DUBYA: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.
. . .
DUBYA: There's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.
MS. MORNIN: Yes.
DUBYA: And so thank you for asking that. You don't have to worry.
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
DUBYA: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
DUBYA: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. Get any sleep?

-- Dubya takes pride in the fact that in America, this woman has to work three jobs to stay afloat, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005 www.dubyaspeak.com

What a complete fidiot. I can't believe that the press didn't roast him over that one.

Although it has nothing to do with the subject I had to post another great Bush quote:



Does anyone see the irony of him saying that?

yeah, ehh dubya what about Iraq then?????????????

anyone with an i.q. in the double digits could see that...



...so naturally many here wont see it

Oh, the irony...

This new bill really didn't have much of a chance with the Republican majority within the Senate, and has seen limitations ever since the last increase in 1997. And it was noted that it was basically within party lines that this bill was downvoted, by a mere three votes; and as with Senator Byrd's new outcry, maybe the minority here have a reason why they are voting for such a bill, and such a huge minority that is, you simply cannot dismiss that they make a great case on why minimum wage needs to increase. It is also quite alarming that now the divide is increasing, the middle class is now missing, as they are now included with the poor.

President Bush certainly wants to be known for a crusade, but sadly 90 percent of Americans will know that that crusade was against them, the poor. With Chapter 7 also under the gun, it is now the middle class who is very much in red alert. Clearly the only compassion President Bush has is for his own kin, namely, the five percent who earns what he earns.

I am on the side of increasing Minimum wage.

But I think it is only fair to put the Republican position in perspective, especially when people are throwing out insults about IQs. People should analyse and understand first.

First of all, Mimimum Wage isn;t meant to be about minimum living standard. If people are doing 40hours/week 52weeks/year work on Minimum Wage, that is a seperate scandal in of itself. The solution to that is NOT to raise the minimum wage, it is to make sure more opportunities exist to work at something ABOVE the minimum level.

Minimum wage is there to stop abusive payment to people doing relatively minor jobs for extra money, not to bring a country out of poverty, because it doesn't work like that.

Secondly, the Republicans are not saying that the current wage is good. Look at what they sayd. First of all, they are happy with an increase- they are just not in agreement about the size. Then furthermore, their position is not that the wage should stay low, their positon is that wages should be increased by application of market forces, rather than enforcing a high minium rate which will lead to a lack of competitivity and, therefore, job losses.

Fact is, it is easy to demonsise evil Republicans for opposing Minimum Wage because they want peoplke to reamin poor- but it is not so. As far as they are concerned, THEIR way is the way that will give people more and better paid jobs. They think high Minimum Wage will hamper that.

The same objection was raised to the creation of a (relatively high) minimum wage in the UK, that it would simply lead to less jobs. It must be said, that since its introduction, it has do e well, has not impaired the economy, and former Toery opposition to the scheme has been quietly shelved. it has done well and the fears proved to be groundless.

The US is not the same as the UK, but I see no reason for the situation to be different there.

Therefore, I believe the Republican position to be incorrect and not borne out by available facts, hence the Democrat plan is the better one.

But I don't think they are wrong out of malice and greed. I think they just have the wrong idea about how to do it, is all.

I am on the side of increasing Minimum wage.

But I think it is only fair to put the Republican position in perspective, especially when people are throwing out insults about IQs. People should analyse and understand first.

First of all, Mimimum Wage isn't meant to be about minimum living standard. If people are doing 40hours/week 52weeks/year work on Minimum Wage, that is a seperate scandal in of itself. The solution to that is NOT to raise the minimum wage, it is to make sure more opportunities exist to work at something ABOVE the minimum level.

Minimum wage is there to stop abusive payment to people doing relatively minor jobs for extra money, not to bring a country out of poverty, because it doesn't work like that. To put it simply, whatever the Minimum Wage level is, the primary earner in a household should be considerably above it.

Secondly, the Republicans are not saying that the current wage is good. Look at what they sayd. First of all, they are happy with an increase- they are just not in agreement about the size. Then furthermore, their position is not that the wage should stay low, their positon is that wages should be increased by application of market forces, rather than enforcing a high minium rate which will lead to a lack of competitivity and, therefore, job losses.

Fact is, it is easy to demonsise evil Republicans for opposing Minimum Wage because they want peoplke to reamin poor- but it is not so. As far as they are concerned, THEIR way is the way that will give people more and better paid jobs. They think high Minimum Wage will hamper that.

The same objection was raised to the creation of a (relatively high) minimum wage in the UK, that it would simply lead to less jobs. It must be said, that since its introduction, it has do e well, has not impaired the economy, and former Toery opposition to the scheme has been quietly shelved. it has done well and the fears proved to be groundless.

The US is not the same as the UK, but I see no reason for the situation to be different there.

Therefore, I believe the Republican position to be incorrect and not borne out by available facts, hence the Democrat plan is the better one.

But I don't think they are wrong out of malice and greed. I think they just have the wrong idea about how to do it, is all.

hit the wrong button did ya?
its the one on the left that says 'edit'


and my i.q. comment was in reference to those who might not see the irony in this statement from dubya:
"We want democracy in Lebanon to succeed. And we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power"
however its totally off topic so i can understand the mix up

I disagree. Although the Republican Party did put another option on the table, they have significantly been the single blockage to another increase to the minimum wage, as the last increase has been almost a decade ago. Let us remember, even with such fears that of job loss and less competition for better paying jobs, that on the last increase in '97, such examples did not even occur, and only in actually it put more pressure on the jobs that paid $1 more, which is the great benefit of the increase. Job loss has only seen an increase when this Administration has been voted in back in 2000, and has seen the biggest net of job loss in decades.

So while they put in the rhetoric, the results prove otherwise. If they truly supported the notion that this wage is quite preposterous, then there is absolutely no explanation to the constant blocks with every proposal put down infront of them, even with the success of the '97 increase.

But their blocks are for the reason I put above. There isn't any nefarious reason behind it, simply a difference in opinion over how to best benefit the economy.

so would the solution be to create a seperate minimun wage for FULL time workers? seems like a simple and effective solution. 40 or more hours a week and you are entitled to a higher wage right?

well, im just gonna go ahead and prove myelf wrong, as this would just make companies take advantage by hiring only part time workers, even going so far as hiring for 35 hours a week or so, just enough to ride you, yet just below the payout level.

the thing is, the solid fact in america is, minimum wage is not some rarely met salary. companies here are greedy and will always pay out as little as possible for as long as possible (indefinately). i just think its crime.

but i dont just blame the republicans, i blame the whole lot those pricks.
it takes them about 1 hour a year to come to a vote to raise their own wages...NO PROBLEM THERE...but when it comes to 'the people' they allow themselves to be hung up on technicality after technicality, debating economics while families remain in poverty. btw, the minimum wage has been the same for about 15 years. FIFTEEN YEARS

All I can say is that those who vote against raising of the minimum wage should be ashamed. Shame Senate, shame.

well, as they say--

the opposite of pro is con

so the opposite of progress is ___________.

The truth is the minimum wage would have been a lot higher now if it wasn't for Reagan. He was the first one who didn't increase the wage at all and kept it at the same rate for his entire eight years as president.

and everyone wonders why poor families opt for welfare