I agree, the Dems should be able to gain some political advantage out of this party-line vote.

During Nixon's reelection campaign - I guess this was 1971 - I was just becoming aware of politics and asked my father what was the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. "Democrats care about the poor, Republicans care about the rich," he told me, straight-up.

Years later, in college, I reflected that Dad might have done me a disservice by giving me such a simplistic answer at such an impressionable age. On principle, I don't like it when parents indoctrinate their kids with religious or political beliefs.

But alas, still further on in life, I have sadly come to realize that what Dad had actually done was to boil it down to the essential truth. The fact that Democratic politicians, as politicians, are just as corrupt as Republicans doesn't negate the essential ethical difference. To the extent that the poor and strugging middle classes are the Dems' consitutuents, the Dems are taking the ethical high road. Republicans, by and large today, just don't care a fig for the poor. I don't understand how this can be anything but obvious to anyone who observes American politics. (For you Christian believers: remember the rich man and the eye of the needle?)

So I believe that what you're saying is that the Santorum amendment would have passed and raised the minimum wage by a FULL DOLLAR but all the Democrats voted against it so it failed?

So let's see, who do we blame for not voting to raise the minimum wage again?

Dave

Yes, Congress should just vote to make employers pay you what you want. Damn those Republicans.

They ought to just raise the minimum wage to $50/hour. That way everyone would have plenty of money, and you wouldn't even need to bother completing your education. You could live large on busboy bucks.

Matt,

Would you rather have the minimum wage go through and then have employers start laying off workers (which in effect would increase your workload)?

I didn't think so.

Dave, Santorum's bill didn't *just* increase minimum wage, but also included several other elements, including one which might have resulted in a lower minimum wage for some workers, as well as lower wages for workers working overtime.

Nobody is helped by partisan oversimplification.

Fortunately, some states, like Connecticut, where I live now, have their own, higher, minimum wage ($7.15 here). Unfortunately, there's no work: to make stockholders happy (people who are set for life), employers are cutting staff and sending the jobs to Mexico (Branson Ultrasonics, Danbury, CT), and in one case here an entire company went South of the Border(I assume that executive positions are exempt from this).

So what's the answer? Living space in Danbury is expensive - $900 to $1400 for a one bedroom apartment. Efficiencies/studios are also expensive.
Even if you have a good paying job, your salary doesn't keep up with the cost of living.

And I have a 'poisoned resume' (to coin a phrase); despite my college education and high IQ, my resume shows too many blue collar jobs, jobs I took to get by while I applied for and waited for the jobs I really wanted, which never came. This poisons my chance to be considered for the better jobs. A employment agency person even told me I'd never get a good job with my resume.

So, what's the answer? Something's got to bend here for the American worker, or something's going to break.

I can see fair points on both sides of this issue, but what's disappointing is how callous some of the conservative folks come off when talking about these issues. Maybe they feel as though they can afford to feel so as the poor come to the polls in lower numbers than those who are more comfortable. Maybe it's because the political strategy of going after social issues works for the GOP.

It's really interesting that with all of the "values talk" going on nowadays, there's very little interest in helping those who are stuck at the bottom.

And please: at its very best, there's only so much that supply-side economics can do.

I used to be on the Republican side of the issue, and now I find myself increasingly on the Democratic side. In both cases, with caveats.

But yeah, the heartlessness disturbs me as much or more than the unwillingness to consider more than one economic factor.

Did somebody say heartlessness? Even Robert Risch admitted that many people are laid off when the minimum wage is increased. I think it is heartless to force these people out of work. Milton Friedman had it right. Let people work.

BTW I come from a poor family (25K in my Dads best year) and have no problem getting a good paying job.

I don't see why they don't just index it to the cost of living, or inflation, or something. I heard that relative to the standard of living the minimum is now lower than it has been for 50 years: why should it go in fits and starts? Why not just index it?

That makes a lot of sense to me, Eric.

On that note: what also makes sense in this "booming" economy of ours, the vast majority of people aren't feeling the trickle-down.

Re: indexing, minimum wage (as well as the official "poverty level") could also be indexed to local cost of living. Yes, some states have their higher min., wages, but not all, and a lot of people are dependent on the "poverty level" as set by the Federal Government. It's insane that someone who lives in NYC or San Francisco is considered for rights and benefits on the same arbitrary scales as someone who lives in Des Moines.

The other day I saw a PSA for Fannie Mae. The show followed a couple buying their first home. One of the pieces of advice given on the show was that you need to establish your price range and then stick with it. They showed the couple looking at real estate listings for houses. One of them admired a house that cost $269,000, and the other said, "No, come on, that's way out of our range." My wife and I just looked at each other and laughed. Where we live, that won't buy you a cardboard box on the street. Yet we in the "blue-leaning" big cities pay disproportionate amounts of taxes to the same federal government that the right-wingers seem to think is so terrible. Is it any wonder we have a hard time not stopping ourselves from viewing the current state of the two-party system as a matter of good vs. evil?

Correcting a typo: I meant "have a hard time stopping ourselves..."

Excuse me, it is true that Santorum's proposal (which was supported by Dubya and thankfully nixed by 61 senators) would raise the minimum wage by $1.10 an hour. But don't leave out the rest of the right-wing Pennsylvanian's nefarious plot: Under Santorum's plan, new rule changes would have been enacted to cut the number of people eligible for minimum-wage pay, to create a new brand of sweatshops, and to end overtime-pay protections for millions of workers. If the Senate, as a whole, were serious about improving conditions for the working poor, they would have come up with some sort of increase -- even if it wasn't the $2.10 proposed by Ted Kennedy -- without tying it to a bunch of draconian rule changes that prove Congress' interest is business over people. The Senate opted to leave things as they are, to keep people in misery. That, at the very least, is unconscionable.

Oh, and the Economic Policy Institute takes issue with the notion that raising the minimum wage will mean job losses; the job-loss issue is a straw man.

What should have happened here is that moderate Republicans and Democrats should have gotten together to propose a third plan which would have raised the minimum wage by a reasonable amount (not ths crazy high amount in the Democrat plan) without the bizarre restrictions Santorum proposed. But that didn't happen because the Democrats are interested in scoring political points not in actually doing anything about the minimum wage.

Both of the proposals in this instance were extreme and no one was willing to compromise, so the result is no change in the minimum wage. Which is fine with me, since I don't think there should be a federal minimum wage in the first place. As Nick pointed out, states are fully capable of passing such laws on their own.

BTW, Nick. The answer to your dilemma mentioned earlier is to move the hell out of Connecticut to a place where there ARE jobs and there's no such thing as a 'poisoned' resume.

Dave

What we really need to help us poor people is a "minimum selling price of homes". My house is only worth 100K but I think we should pass a law (using indexing) that says no house can be sold for less than 150K. Why should I be left behind?

It doesn't matter what my house is REALLY worth. It only matters what we SAY it is worth. Very antiRandian!

$2.10 is "crazy high," Mr. Nalle? Matter of opinion. But I agree -- if the Senate had been serious about improving things, even slightly, for the working poor, it could have come up with an alternate plan. It chose not to do so. I blame both the Dumbs and the Repugs.

"The answer to your dilemma mentioned earlier is to move the hell out of Connecticut to a place where there ARE jobs and there's no such thing as a 'poisoned' resume."

But how does one answer the dilemma of coming up with the means to make such a move? Especially for poor people who don't own homes and have nothing of value to sell? Packing up and moving on ain't cheap -- especially for someone on or just above minimum wage.

Dave Nalle...Natalie Davis..hmmmm

No matter which party affiliation you belong to, is it not obvious this country is currently controlled and funded by a purely capitalist-minded administration, house, and senate? Americans should give the minimum-wage hike issue a break, not because it isn't an important issue, it is. But, because the last thing fortune 500 corporations, major investors, military contractors and the politicians who represent them want is an equal playing field and fair wages, and unfortunately this is the reality. This is how capitalism works.

If you want balanced minimum wages, you probably also support free health care, properly funded public education, and other social-based services. I'm 100% behind this, 1000% behind funding to improve society by building up human rights to education, health, housing, property, protection, and work. However, our history, our political and justice system, even our constitution, does not guarantee us these rights or freedoms. Why republicans and democrats continue to battle in the halls of society over matters not in most of their interest, our society outside the capital already failed when it misinterpreted the truth behind what American Capitalist-Democracy was built on and what it truly is.

I too fail to see how a $2.10 increase could be considered a "crazy high amount." It's a high percentage, but you're starting from a level that's only fit for a 14-year-old saving for a new bike, not for someone - even a single person - trying to make a living.

The idea that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of setting a minimum wage at all does have some appeal in the abstract. Unfortunately the federal government is the last resort for many people. Improving, streamlining and cleaning it up is in everyone's best interest. Thoughtlessly slashing its funds and its power to help the least fortunate among us, as the right-wingers in power now seek to do, is unconscionably heartless.

Unfortunately, Opinionater, talking the sense you've laid out in your second graph gets you branded as a heretical-Commie-pinko-maniac in the current political climate.

There does need to be a federal minimum wage law otherwise the state's will compete for the lowest possible amount to attract business.

No one can say that won't happen. It happens now with huge tax incentives and breaks to attract business to states and cities.

Washington State has one of the highest minimum wage levels $7.25 - they haven't sunk. AZ is at the federal level I believe, $5.15.

That's a factor, but I wouldn't consider WA a poor state by any stretch and I wouldn't consider AZ a rich state by any stretch.

Despite the idea that minimum wage is only for gas station cashiers and fast food places or part-timers, many companies hire temps and others who work at minimum wage.

It beat sout those high health insurance costs, remember?

The federal minimum wage is a joke. $5.15 x 40 x 52 = $10,700. (and they still have to file an income tax to get a refund)

$10,700? No way. That is poverty in America, whichever way you slice it. You can't get a bag of rice for a dime in the USA as you can in other countries (that's wh they can live on $500 per annum)

The dynamics of business are greater than this one issue but this one issue speaks to the dynamics of business priorities.

All I'm saying is that I'm working as a waiter as I persue my Masters in Education so that I can teach children for a living.

For the past year I have earned the whopping sum of $2.13 an hour, which is normally gobbled up in taxes. I am living entirely off my tips, as are most waiters.

Most waiters I know haven't gotten a raise since the last minimum raise increase in the 90s. If you think that's fair, vote Republican.

>>$2.10 is "crazy high," Mr. Nalle? Matter of opinion.<<

Well, it's more than 3 times the highest amount the minimum wage has EVER been raised at one time in the past. The crazy part is the expectation of Democrats that if the best they could ever do before was 65 cents when they controlled the house and the presidency, that they would be able to raise it more than three times that when they control nothing. This is why the $2.10 an hour proposal was obviously not intended seriously. It was just a red herring designed to stir up trouble and create an opportunity to be obstructionist and blame the failure in raising the minimum wage on Republicans.

Dave

And if you don't, move to Canada. There is no place for you here. And if you can't afford to move, shut the hell up.

Mr. Berlin, let 'em brand away. They'll do it anyway. The only important thing is that they get theirs.

Dave - I think you're incorrect in stating that $.65 was the biggest hike in minimum wage ever enacted. I'm fairly certain Clinton had a phased in raise of of $1.50 or so during the early 90s, and therefore similar to the current Democratic proposal. Can anyone confirm this?

Natalie - You're right, of course. I'm afraid the only thing to be done is to build an equally formidable message/branding/stereotyping machine. I don't think much will change unless fire is fought with fire.

Two wrongs don't make a right; it's trite, but true, Mr. Berlin. Doing what is right is more important than winning, and engaging in stereotyping -- even reciprocally -- is just plain wrong.

Something's got to be done to break the Republican majority, Natalie (if you're a Democrat, that is).

It's nice to be right and feel good about it, but how many more elections do you want to lose?

Of course I was exaggerating in part regarding the "stereotyping," but I do believe a think tank/PR/media/"star" roster must be developed to combat the conservative movement that has been gearing up for decades and is now "fully operational" (Star Wars fans, you with me?).

I am neither Democrat nor Republican, thank goodness, Mr. Berlin. The feeling good isn't the issue; it's the doing what's right -- even when it hurts. Losing hurts, but not as bad as "winning" by unprincipled means would. Something must be done to counteract the GOP. Absolutely. But the minute decent people move away from doing what they know is right and just, the bad guys win by default.

True enough, Natalie. As a principled independent, what do you propose should be done to bring about policies that more closely adhere to your way of thinking?

Hang 'em all, Mr. Berlin, hang 'em all.

Just kidding.

Seriously, clean house. Bring in people of conscience and humanity. Term limits would be a good start.

Really, though, anything I come up with would not work with society as we know it. The primarily Democrat-Republican mainstream clearly is happy with the sickening status quo. Anything I propose would be dismissed out of hand. The vast majority of your nation is not interested in justice or *really* helping the poor or anything that doesn't boost corporate culture or promote "Desperate Housewives."

Unfortunately people of "conscience and humanity" who enter politics tend to be quickly corrupted by it. Or if they remain well-intentioned, they're frustrated by entrenched bureaucracy and special interests. The only way towards a more just society is by taking baby steps. Like electing some Democrats. Thing is, a "just society" isn't an important goal in 21st century America, and that's not a matter of Democrat vs. Republican, it's a cultural matter.

I agree Jon -- excellently and succinctly stated. The alternative of not trying for baby steps is to to just drop out and do nothing, which really only exacerbates the problem(s).

Mr. Sobel, creating a just society may not be important to you or to most of your countrypersons or to those who embrace the culture you do, but it is of vital importance to some.

Mr. Berlin, many can handle incrementalism; some of us find that distasteful and/or immoral at times (depends on what the particular issue is; some things can be compromised, but issues involving justice and equality can not be). Ultimately, the way in which we on the outside of your society handle dealing with it varies from individual to individual.

Hey, I wasn't talking about myself. I was talking about the US culture as a whole. I'm quite willing to discuss my personal investment in that culture and whatever my failings as a do-gooder may be, but I was making a general statement, and I think most Americans in this discussion, no matter what their politics, would probably agree with me.

Cool, Mr. Sobel; I did say "may," indicating that I have no idea what your personal beliefs might be. As for "most Americans," as said previously, I am quite aware that my beliefs have little in common with theirs.

What are your beliefs, Natalie?

>>Something's got to be done to break the Republican majority, Natalie (if you're a Democrat, that is). <<

And by all means the best way to do that is to make sure the working people don't get a minimum wage hike by proposing a preposterous increase and then not even considering compromising.

Dave

I once personally observed an economic lesson about how raising minimum wages denies opportunity.

I had a friend who worked for Good Will. The Good Will people had an outpost to make it more convenient for people to make donations. It consisted of a semi trailer that sat in the corner of a shopping center parking lot. My friends job was to help people unload their junk, sort the salvageable from the garbage, then stow it away inside the trailer. At the end of the week the trailer would be towed to the Good Will store on the other side of the city where the merchandice was to be sold.

My friend, who wasn't the most industrious guy I've known, made something like $3.25 an hour, forty hours a week. When minimum wage was raised to $5.15--I think-- they told him they couldn't afford him any more. They tried to get by for a while with just leaving the trailer there, but people would just throw their stuff on the ground and it would get rained on or picked through by opportunists etc.

I had a relatively higher paying job then as a construction laborer, (a plentiful opportunity I would recommend to any able-bodied person dis-satisfied with minimum wage). On days when I was rained out, and in the area, I would stop by and sit in the trailer with him. We would pass his guitar back and forth in between the infrequent contributors who would drop off their donations.

I remember those sessions as being a good time, except he was being paid for it. He was very content, and I was somewhat envious. When the opportunity was lost, I realized how he got squeezed out. The economic reality didn't justify paying $15 more a day for such a slight service.

The continuing overfamiliarization -- part of "ugly American" syndrome -- is really getting to me, Mr. Berlin. Certainly you can call me what you want whether I appreciate it or not -- free speech and all -- but I just had to voice my discomfort.

In answer to your query, Mr. Berlin, the short list would include peace, justice, equality, compassion. It would be unwise for me to expound on that, given how unpopular my views are in this forum. More importantly, the discussion is supposed to be about what went down in the Senate yesterday, not about my beliefs.

Please feel free to visit my site, Mr. Berlin; if you truly are interested in a complete answer to your question, you'll find it there.

Dan - I see your point, but surely there are lots of people who bust their asses for minimum wage (or close to it) and who, for a variety of reasons, can't get anything better.

That's why there are so many parents out there, attempting to keep their family together, working two, three jobs, etc.

Someone questioned by statements about the levels of minimum wage increase. I checked my figures and I am indeed correct. The largest single yearly increase in the minimum wage was 70 cents in 1977. Clinton's largest yearly increase of the minimum wage was 50 cents in 1996 followed by another 40 cents in 1997, so the total increase in the minimum wage in his 8 years was 90 cents. The largest increase in any administration was a total of $1.05 in the course of the 4 years of the Carter administration.

Compared to these increases the Democrat proposal was unquestionably unrealistically enormous, especially in light of the substantial minimum wage increases already enacted in the prior administration.

All this info is on the Department of Labor website.

Dave

Dave never lets the facts get in the way of a good conservative rant.

And Matt is apparently incapable of doing simple math.

Dave

I do SO love this "just society" crap. A just society apparently consists of liberal schmucks getting to determine how everyone else should live, and getting to enforce their ideas of how much people supposedly should be paid, or what welfare they have a right to- all at the point of a gun.

My idea of a truly just society is one where individuals as much as possible deal with one another strictly on a voluntary and co-operative basis. How does Natalie sending in some cops with guns to tell someone they can't pay X amount to employ someone willing to work for X constitute justice?

Any legitimate idea of justice flew out the frickin' window when the cops showed up.

Re: comment 41 Yes Natalie, we all love poverty, war and injustice. Only you and your sainted few want the world to be a better place. Are we really supposed to take your cheap moral self-aggrandizement seriously?

Well put, Al. There's an awful lot of hand wringing and finger pointing going on, but no one ever seems to want to stand up and take responsibility for solving their own problems and letting other people deal with theirs themselves as well.

Dave

Thanks, Dave. When Ted Turner or Bill Gates puts up a buttload of their own money to help out, I think they are totally kick ass. When Ted Kennedy comes up with demands to give away OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, I'm far less impressed.

It's pretty easy to be generous with other people's stuff.

Al says:

I do SO love this "just society" crap. A just society apparently consists of liberal schmucks getting to determine how everyone else should live, and getting to enforce their ideas of how much people supposedly should be paid, or what welfare they have a right to- all at the point of a gun.

I do SO love this "just society" crap. A just society apparently consists of conservative schmucks getting to determine how everyone else should live [particularly in the bedroom, with women's bodies... anything vaguely sexual, really], and getting to enforce their ideas of how much swindly companies supposedly should get away with, how pharmaceutical, insurance, energy, and defense companies should get fat to the detriment of everone and everything else, or what corporate welfare they have a right to... and lots of guns, the more the better!

Sorry, EB - just weak. Sometimes turning someones statement around works, but you have to be able to fit accusations into it of equivalent validity, and I am absolutely positive that Al doesn't agree with most of the things you just ascribed to all conservatives - I know I don't.

Dave

Mr Berlin- I don't know whose politics you're talking about, but they're certainly not mine. For starters, I don't go on and on about "justice," presuming to automatically demonize anyone who has any political disagreement with me.

Also, I certainly have no truck with telling other people what to do in their bedrooms, and I'm certainly no advocate of anything that might reasonably be described as "corporate welfare."

You may say that pharmaceutical companies "get fat" by taking advantage of people. I'd generally say that they're just trying to make an honest buck. That's a legitimate point of disagreement.

One more difference might be that I wouldn't presume to enforce my opinions of other people's business practices at gunpoint. If they don't involve force or fraud, then you can deal with these companies or not.

Simply arbitrarily labeling your own personal opinions about how much people should be paid for what jobs, or how much companies should charge for what products as "justice" does not in fact make it just for you to impose your opinions at gunpoint.

Dave & Al: Take it easy fellas, I was having a wee bit of fun.

I wasn't turning your words around on you necessarily, Mr. Barger, rather flipping a rant against liberals into a rant against conservatives.

And yes, companies try to make money. I get this. But it's the job of government to make sure there's a fair playing field. And in my opinion, this administration has a sore back from bending over for Mr. Big Business.

As I stated earlier, I see both sides of the minimum wage debate. And yes: both parties are going to play politics, because that's the name of the game. But throwing out past increases and past history, I think it's crazy to ask someone in America 2005 to make a living on $5.15 an hour. It's just not going to happen.

PS to Dave: Shucks, and there I thought you were going to pat me on the head and tell me how clever I am.

Dave despite your alleged "math" that $2.10 wasn't in one year as all your "math" figures discuss. Read the post -

>>... would have raised the minimum wage $2.10 over the next 26 months.

Now that may be too much, though I noticed no one addressed my points above. About a need for a federal minimum age law to start with. About comparing AZ and WA.

I don't view this as a Dem or a GOP thing. I view it as a practical survival issue that $10,700 (the amount earned annual under the current min. wage if working 40 hours) is poverty.

Eric- It's Kool and the Gang. I'm not un-easy.

I dig ya generally, but this particular rant turnaround was not especially clever though, because the turnaround simply doesn't work It represents neither my viewpoint, nor Dave's, nor that of anyone else I know.

Sometimes you can take an argument and flip it back on the person making it. Not this one, though.

It represents neither my viewpoint, nor Dave's, nor that of anyone else I know.

It might not represent the viewpoint of the conservative base, but it's pretty accurate in it's description of what the conservative party is accomplishing.

What's the term that fits here? Asleep at the Wheel? Left hand ain't payin attention to who the Right hand is stroking? I know there's a term that fits...

>>Dave despite your alleged "math" that $2.10 wasn't in one year as all your "math" figures discuss. Read the post - <<

I never said it was all in one year. It's a 2 year program like almost all other minimum wage increase legislation.

>>I don't view this as a Dem or a GOP thing. I view it as a practical survival issue that $10,700 (the amount earned annual under the current min. wage if working 40 hours) is poverty.<<

Actually, according to the HHS department the cutoff for poverty is about $9500. And as I demonstrated in a previous posting you can live on minimum wage if you make sensible sacrifices.

Dave

Al - Again, my comments were not directed at you specifically but at this administration and the prevailing views of many of those who support it.

It's not really worth that much hashing over, I'll admit. A little chuckle was what I was going for -- no submission to The Nation in order here.

>>It might not represent the viewpoint of the conservative base, but it's pretty accurate in it's description of what the conservative party is accomplishing.
<<

No, it's an accurate representation of the twisted version of conservatism which is being promulgated by leftist scaremongers. Yes, there are some ultra-right wackos who have questionable extreme beliefs, but the attempt to apply their philosophy to everyone who's right of Ted Kennedy is pure leftist propaganda, oversimplifying the variety of viewpoints on the right and trying to make everyone who doesn't agree with them look like a loony even when that's not at all accurate.

Dave

Steve, I think the term you're looking for is "hack sell-out politician." If you want to wail on the Republican dirtbags in Congress going through money like a bunch of drunken sailors, and buying off every interest group in site without any regard whatsoever for principles- count me in on some of that action.

Yes Dave, there you have it: I was flipping an outlandish and stereotypical attack of the left back upon the right, tit-for-tat.

If you can't see that, your powers of observation are... not strong.

Eric, obviously I saw it. It just didn't work terribly well.

Dave

Yes, there are some ultra-right wackos who have questionable extreme beliefs, but the attempt to apply their philosophy to everyone who's right of Ted Kennedy is pure leftist propaganda

No, Dave, I specifically said 'it might not represent the viewpoint...'.

That paragraph may NOT be the overall conservative ideology, but it is the ideology that is being implemented. Still keeping those fringe elements under control are you?

Steve, it's conspicuously NOT being implemented. Seen a lot of successful banning of abortions recently?

Dave

Seen a lot of successful banning of abortions recently?

Dave, do you really want to get into a debate with me on what all the Republican party is doing today, in regards to the actual statement of "particularly in the bedroom, with women's bodies... anything vaguely sexual, really"?

You do know that just today, Republicans voted to continue allowing anti-abortion protesters to file for bankruptcy to avoid paying damages that their protests create? Was an amendment to the cloture vote.

Steve, I despise abortion protestors, but you can't exempt them from coverage by the bankruptcy laws because they go bankrupt as a result of political activity. That's so blatantly unfair that I can't believe anyone ever even considered such a law. You can't pick and choose between causes of bankruptcy. It has to be administered in a purely functional, cause-neutral way. That you could even begin to think that people can be singled out for an inferior legal status because of their religious or political beliefs is incomprehensible given your feelings about gay rights. You can't have two different standards under the law for religion, political activity or sexual preference.

Dave

Dave that is absurd.

you can't exempt them from coverage by the bankruptcy laws because they go bankrupt as a result of political activity.

what are you talking about? going bankrupt as a result of political activity? No, we're talking about filing for bankruptcy to avoid paying for the damages caused to other peoples property.

So I take it you are fine with OJ filing for bankruptcy so he wouldn't have to pay the Simpsons and the Goldmans for the damages he did? But of course he gets to keep his golf clubs.

That you could even begin to think that people can be singled out for an inferior legal status because of their religious or political beliefs is incomprehensible given your feelings about gay rights.

Dave, if someone wants to file for bankruptcy because they are pro-life, more power to them. Let's stick with talking damages and court rulings of justice.

Question for you, Dave. Protesters protest outside an abortion clinic. Cars are damaged and windows broken. Who's responsible financially?

correction - cars are damaged and windows broken by the protestors who THEN file for bankruptcy.

Forget the dollar amount. Just ask your local Conservative if he or she thinks ca. $10,500 a year is a living wage. If the answer is no ask what he or she thinks should be done. If it's yes, the person is morally corrupt.

>>Question for you, Dave. Protesters protest outside an abortion clinic. Cars are damaged and windows broken. Who's responsible financially?<<

Whoever did the damage is always responsible. But you can't have laws that are selective based on political opinion or religious affiliation. You can't single out people to not have equal protection because of their personal lifestyle. You can't remove bankruptcy protection from gays or blacks or anyone because of who they are. That's not equal protection under the law.

If you get sued or if you have a legal judgement against you for money damages, then you have to pay those damages to the best of your ability and if you can't then you declare bankruptcy. That bankruptcy protects certain assets so you aren't totally destroyed by the process, but still gets some money for the creditors and puts you in a rather oppressive financial situation for years afterwards. Bankruptcy is nominal protection, but it's not exactly skipping out on all your debts.

I'm willing to debate the legitimacy of some of our bankruptcy laws. It's arguable that they go too far in protecting some assets. And yes, I'd like to see anyone who behaves destructively punished. But you can't have laws that punish destructive behavior by one group and not by others. If OJ can declare bankruptcy to avoid a judgement against him, then abortion protestors ought to have that same right.

The idea that some legal protections should be available selectively to some people and not others is just outrageous. That's the route to selective law enforcement, legal persecution and the rule of an elite over undesirable minorities. It's not a road we should ever go down.

Dave

Dave, the amendment does not punish people because of their beliefs, it holds people accountable if they damage property.

The idea that some legal protections should be available selectively to some people and not others is just outrageous.

I agree. People who are pro-life are unaffected by this amendment, it's about damage not beliefs. I can't believe you are trying to tie this to ideology.

Yes Trevor, I agree that it's disturbing that anyone, in 2005, is just fine with a hardworking 40-hour/week American citizen making 10,000/year.

And if anyone thinks that minimum-wage jobs, guess again. I wonder if any of these people have worked the fry machine at McDonalds for eight hours, or washed dishes for eight hours. Not fun, lots of work.

After some reflections here are my thoughts.

If the logic is that the higher the minimun wage goes the less people will be able to find work then why don't we just lower the minimun wage to about $2.13 or something so then everyone could find work.

Also, if in order for a soceity to fuction it must treat the people on the bottom like crap then what makes us any different then comunist china or pre-Bush Afganastan?

For the record I worked 4 and half hours last night and made the whopping sum of $20 in tips. Yeah, I sure don't need a minimum wage increase.

Most of the people making minimun wage are in the restaurant business. The idea that those people are going to loose jobs isn't vaild, because if we have less servers I get more tables and therefore less cash, also a restuarant needs to have so many people in order to make a prophet, the worse case scenario is that it costs a couple bucks more to eat out, also good for me because it raises the check average and therefore the tip average.

I spoke with my friend last night (the one who was recently fired from Wal-Mart).

I brought up the option of slinging fries.

This is the response I got:
I can't live on that, I'd be homeless.

So it turns out she has two choices:
1) take minimum wage and be homeless and have 40 hours out of her week eaten up.

2) get on public assistance, get roughly the same amount of money, still live on the edge of homelessness and have 40 extra hours per week.

Guess which one she chose?

Steve: If you don't mind my asking, why'd she get fired from Wal-Mart?

Steve - I just read about your friends story over on another post. Sounds like she has something of a case for a lawsuit, being fired just short of being 100% vested and then asked to reapply for her position later -- that's outrageous.

>>Steve - I just read about your friends story over on another post. Sounds like she has something of a case for a lawsuit, being fired just short of being 100% vested and then asked to reapply for her position later -- that's outrageous.<<

If that's what happened it's not just lawsuit fodder, the state attorney general might be interested. Some years ago the Texas AG went after Safeway here for exactly that practice.

Dave

>>So it turns out she has two choices:
1) take minimum wage and be homeless and have 40 hours out of her week eaten up

2) get on public assistance, get roughly the same amount of money, still live on the edge of homelessness and have 40 extra hours per week.<<

I'm not clear on why these are her only two options. With job experience from Wal-Mart why can't she go and get an equivalent job at Target or Costco or a grocery store and make more than minimum wage?

For that matter, does a fast food job in your area actually pay minimum wage? It would be one of the very few areas in the country where that is the case.

Is she in a situation where she has children to support? She could work, supplement her income with WIC and make it by better than on straight out welfare.

There are always more than just two options. If she thinks that minimum wage and welfare are the only choices that says more about her mindset than the actual situation.

Dave

combining posts:

Steve - I just read about your friends story over on another post. Sounds like she has something of a case for a lawsuit, being fired just short of being 100% vested and then asked to reapply for her position later -- that's outrageous.

I get my posts mixed up, I was too lazy to look up the page to see if I told her story here or not. Sorry.

If that's what happened it's not just lawsuit fodder, the state attorney general might be interested.

My partner used to be a manager at the same store. There's a lot that goes on in company policy that is extremely unethical, although I won't say illegal. I don't know the rules/laws. Most of my anti-corporate zeal comes from Wal-Mart, Microsoft and the insurance/healthcare industry.

I've said before, I love capitalism, entreprenuership and the American spirit to prosper and succeed. I believe corporatizing kills that spirit. Should someone want to open a store to earn their keep, what's their chances when a wal-mart is 2 miles away? Practically zilch, unless they want to be an employee rather than a business owner. And the way corporations treat people is as an asset (easily replaceable) rather than a human being.

why can't she go and get an equivalent job at Target or Costco or a grocery store and make more than minimum wage?

She's applied/applying. It's not like an individual store is constantly hiring. Costco said try back at the end of the month. I'm always pushing for costco, their corporate model is one of the few models that is profitable AND treats their employees decently AND pays them far more than anybody else.

Is she in a situation where she has children to support?

No, she was raising her grandson while her daughter was in prison. They had a falling out and her daughter said a bunch of stuff so CPS came and took the grandson away, now he's lost in the system, so no, it's just her and her husband (who spends about 12 hours a day picking your lettuce for about 2 dollars a crate).

For that matter, does a fast food job in your area actually pay minimum wage?

I don't know what it pays actually. She says it's unliveable for an adult. If you can't live on 5 bucks an hour or you can't live on 6 bucks an hour, what's the difference?

Here's something that happened last night, I swear on my life I'm not making any of this up:

Last night the DVD-ROM on my partners HP laptop crapped out. He called support and it turns out that the warranty expired 4 days earlier. He's screwed now and has to come up with 1/3 of the cost of a new laptop if he wants to replace the DVD drive (I told him to check ebay today). This is in spite of the fact that he's now systems administrator for a law firm and has purchased probably 150k worth of HP stuff in the last two years.

You know, a mom and pop shop, the kind that says hi when you walk in the door, would have acknowledged the privilege of having a repeat customer and would have assisted in some way more than the response he got last night, where corporations HAVE to stick to the rules, common sense and humanity be damned.

Ugh, ugh, it just works me up. Everytime we have to deal with a corporation, it just makes me sicker and sicker of big business.

(he will probably get a better deal on ebay, and he's no longer going to purchase HP products for the company, but the point is the treatment he got).

Steve - I share a great deal of your anti-corporate zeal, particularly with regard to insurance companies. The Big Picture problem, though, is that the individual has less and less control/recourse over circumstances, whether it is dealing with working life, the phone company, HMOs, and on and on.

Recent moves to make filing for bankruptcy more difficult and cap malpractice awards will, if enacted, further curtail the options of individuals.

It's a Big Business world in the US of A, and we're working for it.

Eric, I believe the insane bankruptcy restriction law was not passed, for what it's worth.

Dave

But the message from this administration (and the Republican party) remains:

We don't care about individuals, we don't care about the poor, we don't care about the environment.

We care about money and business (you can flip the order there if you like).

Eric, sometimes I sound more radical than I might be, but you summed up my thoughts pretty good in comment 80.

Dave, Atrios is reporting that the bankruptcy law did pass.

Actually Atrios is linking to someone else who's reporting that the bankruptcy bill passed.

>>The Big Picture problem, though, is that the individual has less and less control/recourse over circumstances.

Funny how that happens from a Party that is all about individual freedoms.

Thanks Steve. I'm actually fairly moderate in total, my recent ventures into venting aside. And to quote the Koz: I'm not an ideological Democrat, I'm a partisan one.

I'm looking for leadership who can address the problems I stated in #80, and I don't care where they come from.

I'm actually fairly moderate in total

When I take those political quizzes, I always turn up alongside Clinton (Bill). It's only here and only by some of the Right that I constantly get labeled as a socialist, a pinko, a communist, an oppressor of CEO's, etc.

Steve - I couldn't agree more. I'd be first at the polls for Bill Clinton, Part III.

Maybe that inclination could, in part, help to give Hillary the nomination in '08? Don't be surprised...

Sorry, let me clarify. The relatively moderate bankruptcy reform bill passed. The insane, unconstitutional punitive measure against abortion protestors was rejected.

The bill which passed isn't particularly awful. It does things like require you to pay child support before other debts, and requires credit counseling for those who declare bankruptcy. Here's a provision the liberals out there should like - it caps the homestead exemption at $125,000 - so fat cats will lose their houses in a bankruptcy, but the guy in the trailer down the road won't.

Dave

Dave--$125,000 is the dividing line between trailers and mansions?

join us in the real world

Matt, you have a good point. Most of the lower to middle class will be negatively affected by what the Republicans have done. While it's good that the trailer park people won't lose their home, the average middle class home is what? Out here it starts at about 400,000, with any type of features (appliances, hardwood floors, etc) making them start around 500k.

Ultimately though, discussing the losing of a home, while an easy debate to win, would not be near as easy to win, if the debate were about what Republicans/Bush are doing to make home ownership a reality for many people, anyway.

hehe, correction: I mean far easier to win!

Condos on my block start at $400,000...

You can still get a decent home here for $120,000. Lots of new construction througout AZ. That's about what we can afford; maybe $150K, $170K on two incomes.

Maybe more, I haven't gone to ask for a loan, yet.

PS When your credit rating tanks, it takes a while to do anythng financial again. My credit tanked when I was making about $20,000, living in a modest apartment. I needed to spend more to put food on the table. Part of the time it was top Ramen. I did and couldn't pay it back for years. We're past that now.

>>Dave--$125,000 is the dividing line between trailers and mansions?

join us in the real world.<<

I live in Austin and while it doesn't always seem like the real world, it's not far from it. In the Austin area $120,000 is about right as the dividing line between a reasonably sized family home and a double wide or something roughly equivalent. Today in Austin for under $120,000 you can get a very nice double wide in an exurban area, a small, badly built suburban tract home with no yard, or some sort of old shack or dilapidated rural house.

IMO that $125,000 cut off on the homestead exemption is way too low.

Dave