Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich - Page 3

**CingularDuality** · 08-05-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcat2000

So you are saying you would rather have minimum wage, no benefits and no retirement plan. Companies today treat people like trash. So I am assuming that you like being treated like that. I know there are lazy people out there sitting on their ass and getting paid for it. There will always be kinks in the system.

Look at WalMart as an example of how people will be treated with no unions. You might say that proves your point, but I believe that it proves mine, as WalMart employees have dealt with corporate abuse using options other than a union.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcat2000

THe only thing the union covers us is a lawyer, and negotiations for our contracts which includes step increases, cost of living increase and other glitches in our contract.

Are you a federal employee? If so, that's a perfect example of where unions do nothing but contribute to the bureaucratic nightmare that is our government, while ensuring that either taxes are raised, or our deficit increases...

**CingularDuality** · 08-05-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

I think management bears some responsibility for the plight of the auto industry, doesn't it? Who was pumping out gigantic overpriced gas-guzzling cars while reinvesting only a tiny measure into alternative fuels and electrics when every future projection pointed to a surge in oil prices? Who decided to forcibly limit the development of low-emissions engines when American federal policy was pushing in that direction? Who blew billions on lobbying against regulation when they could have been trying to trump federal emissions standards with better numbers? Who raises executive salaries to 500 times the assembly line worker and rewards VIPs with golden parachutes when they run business into the ground? Wasn't the unions.

Ha! That's pure comedy gold there!

Perhaps you should read up a bit on the UAW...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

But if you outlaw unions (which is what we're talking about here, right? Getting rid of them?) then you tumble right back into the pre-collective bargaining period of yesteryear, and eventually the common worker loses the last of his power.

No, I'm not proposing outlawing unions. I just think they're too powerful right now and I encourage people to give them no more power just to get an extra few cents per hour pay raise. Unions are hurting Americans more than helping at this point in time.

wildcat2000 · 08-06-2006, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Look at WalMart as an example of how people will be treated with no unions. You might say that proves your point, but I believe that it proves mine, as WalMart employees have dealt with corporate abuse using options other than a union.
Are you a federal employee? If so, that's a perfect example of where unions do nothing but contribute to the bureaucratic nightmare that is our government, while ensuring that either taxes are raised, or our deficit increases...

No, I am a state employee.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-06-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRS_Agent

Both Wisconsin senators opposed the bill (Herb Kohl (D) and Russ Fiengold (D)) pretty much because it included more tax cuts for the rich. I can't stand all these bills where they sneak in little extras that have little to do with the point of the said legislation (I know there is a term for it, but it slipped my mind).

I believe the term is "ear marks".

xTYBALTx · 08-06-2006, 04:38 PM

The bill started out as a tax cut bill. The min wage increase was the earmark.

Steeler · 08-06-2006, 06:31 PM

Added by a Republican (I think, correct if wrong please) as bait in order to bring some Democrats on board.

icky · 08-06-2006, 06:45 PM

Those darned republicans... oh wait, the whole system is broken.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-06-2006, 06:52 PM

Go icky, go icky, go icky, GO!

xTYBALTx · 08-06-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Added by a Republican (I think, correct if wrong please) as bait in order to bring some Democrats on board.

Yep.

@icky - Why is this evidence of the system being broken? Each side gets - or could've gotten, had the bill passed - a bit of what they want. Compromise.

icky · 08-06-2006, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

@icky - Why is this evidence of the system being broken? Each side gets - or could've gotten, had the bill passed - a bit of what they want. Compromise.

Here's a novel idea for ya... Introduce a bill on ONE THING, vote on ONE THING. To do otherwise is simply wrong. It doesn't make any sense. There is too much **** which happens because those empowered to vote are bribed into voting for things with which they do not agree, or more importantly with which those they represent do not agree. The best way to get something to pass is to include a pay raise for everyone voting. That's something they can all agree on.

I mean seriously, those guys might as well be walking away with bags with big dollar signs on them every time they vote.

Compromises don't really have a place in these things, do they? The government is meant to do what is best for the people of the country in all cases. This doesn't mean that they do what some people think is best on one item and what some other people think is best on another item. They have to reach a genuine majority agreement on each item on its own.

I don't know, maybe I'm just crazy, but it seems like a system where the public is never properly represented.

xTYBALTx · 08-06-2006, 10:30 PM

I can't agree with you. It's a different system, that's for sure, but to say that it's worse is another statement entirely. Additionally, I don't see how any politicians are making money out of reducing the impact of the estate tax or increasing the minimum wage... these are both items which many constituents of each political party want, but neither party has the power to pass on their own, so the two items are consolidated into one bill and made more appealing to the other side.

People may not approve of the dealmaking it takes to get laws through government, but I hardly think that that aspect - the dealmaking - is unique to US politics. What is unique to US politics are the checks and balances which render any legislation exceedingly difficult to pass. Not only do we have two legislatures, often controlled by different parties, but we also need a supermajority in one of them (the senate, 60% to overcome filibusters), the President may strike down any legislation if he feels like it, and finally the Supreme Court may strike down any legislation deemed in conflict with the Constitution.

All of this is by design. Now, that design has been altered throughout the years with constitutional ammendments (the Senate used to be elected/appointed by State Legislatures), and the emergence of political parties among other things, but I think that the structure of the US government stands out for it's ability to slow down the legislative process and maintain the status quo.

One way of breaking the legislative logjam is by combining a little something for everyone in the legislation. This sort of compromise often pleases more of the people, not less. If there were no compromise bill (indeed, the estate tax cut has been thrown at the senate several times over the past few of years in far less watered down versions), this would have simply been an estate tax cut bill. With the compromise, the bill incorporated an increase in the minimum wage. The US political system is built around compromise. It's perfectly fine for you to disapprove, but compromise is what this specific system is about.

Finally, it is a keystone of the US legislative process that representatives not always vote in favor of what the people they are representing want. The founding fathers were acutely afraid of "rule of the mob" and majority rule and specifically designed the government to diminish "the people's" influence on legislation. The people still may kick out their representatives every two years if they disagree and replace them with whomever they want, but they may not force their representatives to vote a certain way on specific legislation. This is obviously controversial, but it's how the system has been designed.

icky · 08-06-2006, 11:37 PM

I appreciate your effort, but I am still missing the reason why it makes sense to do things that way. Are you really saying that representatives of the people aren't supposed to do what is best for the people? This one, you'll have to explain in more detail. It is counterintuitive to say the least. I understand that they must act within the specific bounds of laws and human rights, but otherwise, given that it is a representative democracy (isn't it?), are they not supposed to represent the people?

As for the "logjam", would it not be better avoided by sending logs down the river without all of those messy branches attached to them? It's all about efficiency and transparency. Or at least, I think it should be, if they do represent the people.

I'll drop the corporate corruption charges for now as a compromise in exchange for answers to the above.

xTYBALTx · 08-07-2006, 12:13 AM

:] The compromise is appreciated!

I haven't really been saying what representatives should and shouldn't do, just saying what I understand the framer's intentions to have been when they designed the government. Therefore, I'm not so much saying how a representative should act as describing why they act as they do. I will, however, confirm your suspicions and say that I do personally approve of 'the way it works.' I'll just put it this way - a representative acts such that he is doing the best for his people, not necessarily what the people want. Sometimes those two things converge, sometimes they do not. If the people are pissed off enough, they can kick him out.

Regarding the logjam and efficiency - The US legislative system is inefficient, slow, and often gets little done. That's a feature, not a bug. :*]

This is all clearly controversial, and I would not expect many people to approve of the way it works. You could even say that only a small minority approves... which may be precisely why ammending the Constitution is such an arduous process. It's perfectly fine that we don't agree on these issues; I recognize that my opinion is not widely shared and don't blame anyone for disagreeing with me.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-07-2006, 09:58 AM

Yes to to what xTYBALTx says about being inefficient and slow being a good thing.

I fear the day the process becomes efficient and fast. Can you imagine the crap that would spew forth from congress? shudder

**leejo** · 08-07-2006, 10:23 AM

I think there is a reason why so much legislation has so many deal-making pieces that are unrelated to the main point of the bill: those guys don't habla "something for nothing". I'm sure the game used to be "scratch my back and in a few months I'll scratch yours unless I change my mind in the meantime or decide you're no longer important" but eventually the back scratchers decided to secure their guarantees in writing and make the quid pro quo deals execute at the same time. Voila!

To the matter of whether legislators are supposed to do this or that, the reality of the matter is that what members of government around the world and for all time have actually *done* is serve their own interests. We have a decent system to handle that, I think.

08-06-2006, 04:38 PM	#35 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,919	Re: Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich The bill started out as a tax cut bill. The min wage increase was the earmark. __________________ A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

08-06-2006, 06:31 PM	#36 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich Added by a Republican (I think, correct if wrong please) as bait in order to bring some Democrats on board. __________________

08-06-2006, 06:45 PM	#37 (permalink)
icky Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ottawa Valley Posts: 6,154	Re: Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich Those darned republicans... oh wait, the whole system is broken. __________________ Peace through fear... since 1947!

08-06-2006, 06:52 PM	#38 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,861	Re: Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich Go icky, go icky, go icky, GO! __________________ I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

08-06-2006, 10:30 PM	#41 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,919	Re: Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich I can't agree with you. It's a different system, that's for sure, but to say that it's worse is another statement entirely. Additionally, I don't see how any politicians are making money out of reducing the impact of the estate tax or increasing the minimum wage... these are both items which many constituents of each political party want, but neither party has the power to pass on their own, so the two items are consolidated into one bill and made more appealing to the other side. People may not approve of the dealmaking it takes to get laws through government, but I hardly think that that aspect - the dealmaking - is unique to US politics. What is unique to US politics are the checks and balances which render any legislation exceedingly difficult to pass. Not only do we have two legislatures, often controlled by different parties, but we also need a supermajority in one of them (the senate, 60% to overcome filibusters), the President may strike down any legislation if he feels like it, and finally the Supreme Court may strike down any legislation deemed in conflict with the Constitution. All of this is by design. Now, that design has been altered throughout the years with constitutional ammendments (the Senate used to be elected/appointed by State Legislatures), and the emergence of political parties among other things, but I think that the structure of the US government stands out for it's ability to slow down the legislative process and maintain the status quo. One way of breaking the legislative logjam is by combining a little something for everyone in the legislation. This sort of compromise often pleases more of the people, not less. If there were no compromise bill (indeed, the estate tax cut has been thrown at the senate several times over the past few of years in far less watered down versions), this would have simply been an estate tax cut bill. With the compromise, the bill incorporated an increase in the minimum wage. The US political system is built around compromise. It's perfectly fine for you to disapprove, but compromise is what this specific system is about. Finally, it is a keystone of the US legislative process that representatives not always vote in favor of what the people they are representing want. The founding fathers were acutely afraid of "rule of the mob" and majority rule and specifically designed the government to diminish "the people's" influence on legislation. The people still may kick out their representatives every two years if they disagree and replace them with whomever they want, but they may not force their representatives to vote a certain way on specific legislation. This is obviously controversial, but it's how the system has been designed. __________________ A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West." Last edited by xTYBALTx; 08-06-2006 at 10:47 PM.

08-06-2006, 11:37 PM	#42 (permalink)
icky Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ottawa Valley Posts: 6,154	Re: Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich I appreciate your effort, but I am still missing the reason why it makes sense to do things that way. Are you really saying that representatives of the people aren't supposed to do what is best for the people? This one, you'll have to explain in more detail. It is counterintuitive to say the least. I understand that they must act within the specific bounds of laws and human rights, but otherwise, given that it is a representative democracy (isn't it?), are they not supposed to represent the people? As for the "logjam", would it not be better avoided by sending logs down the river without all of those messy branches attached to them? It's all about efficiency and transparency. Or at least, I think it should be, if they do represent the people. I'll drop the corporate corruption charges for now as a compromise in exchange for answers to the above. __________________ Peace through fear... since 1947!

08-07-2006, 12:13 AM	#43 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,919	Re: Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich :] The compromise is appreciated! I haven't really been saying what representatives should and shouldn't do, just saying what I understand the framer's intentions to have been when they designed the government. Therefore, I'm not so much saying how a representative should act as describing why they act as they do. I will, however, confirm your suspicions and say that I do personally approve of 'the way it works.' I'll just put it this way - a representative acts such that he is doing the best for his people, not necessarily what the people want. Sometimes those two things converge, sometimes they do not. If the people are pissed off enough, they can kick him out. Regarding the logjam and efficiency - The US legislative system is inefficient, slow, and often gets little done. That's a feature, not a bug. :] This is all clearly controversial, and I would not expect many people to approve of the way it works. You could even say that only a small minority approves... which may be precisely why ammending the Constitution is such an arduous process. It's perfectly fine that we don't agree on these issues; I recognize that my opinion is not widely shared and don't blame anyone for disagreeing with me. __________________ A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy.* -F.A. Hayek "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West." Last edited by xTYBALTx; 08-07-2006 at 12:56 AM.

08-07-2006, 09:58 AM	#44 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,861	Re: Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich Yes to to what xTYBALTx says about being inefficient and slow being a good thing. I fear the day the process becomes efficient and fast. Can you imagine the crap that would spew forth from congress? shudder __________________ I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

08-07-2006, 10:23 AM	#45 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Min Wage Increase == Tax Cuts for the Rich I think there is a reason why so much legislation has so many deal-making pieces that are unrelated to the main point of the bill: those guys don't habla "something for nothing". I'm sure the game used to be "scratch my back and in a few months I'll scratch yours unless I change my mind in the meantime or decide you're no longer important" but eventually the back scratchers decided to secure their guarantees in writing and make the quid pro quo deals execute at the same time. Voila! To the matter of whether legislators are supposed to do this or that, the reality of the matter is that what members of government around the world and for all time have actually done is serve their own interests. We have a decent system to handle that, I think.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links