Unemployment rate hits 5-month high

POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 21:39
VIEWED: 7321
PAGE 5 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
You'll get no argument from me that passing the minimum wage increase would be a good thing. So pass it by itself. That Republicans will not put the minimum wage increase to an up and down vote tells you something about their priorities. It's almost as if the thought of paying workers more per hour is abhorrent to them.

I suspect that if the Minimum wage or estate tax parts could make it out of committee as individual bills, the opposition to either would load them with poison pill amendments and neither would get passed. Bundling them seemed like an acceptable compromise to me, with both sides giving a bit to get somthing they wanted.

Quote:
I'll turn it around a bit. Why do we have to reward the rich. Why make things easier on them?

I thought the American dream was you work hard, play by the rules and get ahead. Instead we continue to stack the deck so that the best decision you can make to ensure a successful future is to choose to be born rich.

One part of the American dream is to provide a better life for your children. That's why you work hard to get ahead. The way it works now; if you're very successful, you get to give up to 30% of your children's inheritance to the government as the price of being smart enough to make more money.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Saturday, August 5, 2006 1:36 PM

WASHINGTON - Hiring slowed in July as employers added just 113,000 new jobs, propelling the unemployment rate to a five-month high of 4.8 percent

Wow...4.8% !! Worst economy in the past 50 yrs, huh?

ROFLOL!

Please.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GEEZER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...do you (think) $7.20 an hour is going to allow anyone to afford health insurance, buy a home, and improve their lives? Assuming a full time job, $7.20/ hr grosses $17,000/ year before taxes.

Actually, I do. Figure a couple working minimum wage jobs would see an $8,000/yr income bump, to $34,000. Figure a couple with one spouse making the average hourly salary of $16.76(say $35,000/yr) and the other the new minimum wage. That's a $4,000/yr bump to $53,000.00. I can see lots of ways an additional $4,000 to $8,000 could improve people's lives.

Quote:
You're always (talking) about how "the system works". Have you suddenly (decided it doesn't)? That ... $6 billion loss could fund something like... Head Start which right now is funded at about $7 billion. Or WIC which is funded at about $6 billion.

But we both know that, unfortunately, that money will never be allocated like that. Remember that when I mention "the system works" I also apply the caveat that it works slowly, imperfectly, and with many fits and stops.

Quote:
And now...let's examine your math.

My math is that I'd rather have lots of people getting a bigger paycheck at the end of the week, and if that means than the government gets a little less tax revenue, I see it as a fair trade.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, August 5, 2006 4:15 PM

How do you suppose a present day minimum wage earner would react to the bill?

Senator: We have tabled a bill that would see you earn an extra $2.10 per hour over the next three years. That is a forty percent increase.

Minimum Wage Earner: I will be paid more to do the same job? That sounds too good to be true.

Senator: Of course we are also repealing the estate tax on inheritances under 5 million dollars.

Minimum Wage Earner: So you said I will get a forty percent raise over the next three years with no strings attached?

Somewhat simplistic, I know, but are the Democrats not seeing the forest for the trees?

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 5, 2006 4:16 PM

Quote:
...do you (think) $7.20 an hour is going to allow anyone to afford health insurance, buy a home, and improve their lives? Assuming a full time job, $7.20/ hr grosses $17,000/ year before taxes-Signy

Actually, I do- Geezer.

Then you're stupid Geezer

Quote:
Figure a couple working minimum wage jobs would see an $8,000/yr income bump, to $34,000. Figure a couple with one spouse making the average hourly salary of $16.76(say $35,000/yr) and the other the new minimum wage. That's a $4,000/yr bump to $53,000.00. I can see lots of ways an additional $4,000 to $8,000 could improve people's lives-Geezer

I smell a lot of "if" coming offa that plan. Only 38% of minimum-wagers work full-time. "Married, spouse present" makes up only 24% of the that and only 15% of the female minimum-wage population.

Quote:
You're always (talking) about how "the system works". Have you suddenly lost faith? That ... $6 billion loss could fund something like... Head Start which right now is funded at about $7 billion. Or WIC which is funded at about $6 billion.-Signy

But we both know that, unfortunately, that money will never be allocated like that. Remember that when I mention "the system works" I also apply the caveat that it works slowly, imperfectly, and with many fits and stops.

First of all never is a looooong time. What you just said is that the system will NEVER work.

So- why not? Are you saying that Congress is irretrievably controlled by wealth? If that were the case wouldn't you say that is a good reason to vote them out in November? A yes or no will be sufficient.

Quote:
And now...let's examine your math. -Signy
My math is that I'd rather have lots of people getting a bigger paycheck at the end of the week, and if that means than the government gets a little less tax revenue, I see it as a fair trade- Geezer

Of course you would see it as a fair trade. You're not the one trying to live on $12,000 a year and depending on WIC, Head Start, Food Stamps, and the other crumbs that are tossed to the poor.

This "inheritance for the wealthy" is really near and dear to your heart, isn't it? You'd scrape the poor off the bottom of your shoe like dog shit, and find all kinds of justifications for it. Now I know exactly who you are.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, August 5, 2006 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
This "inheritance for the wealthy" is really near and dear to your heart, isn't it? You'd scrape the poor off the bottom of your shoe like dog shit, and find all kinds of justifications for it. Now I know exactly who you are.

Perhaps the minimum wage issue is near and dear to Geezer's heart. I thought Firefly fans would see the necessity of 'greasing the wheels' on occasion for the greater good.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Perhaps the minimum wage issue is near and dear to Geezer's heart. I thought Firefly fans would see the necessity of 'greasing the wheels' on occasion for the greater good.

Here was the grease:
Permanent reduction in estate tax (estimated as a $268 billion loss in revenue over the next 10 years)
Other tax breaks and federal aid ($38 billion - I'm guessing this is per year, not sure)
Provision to allow restaurant employers to pay less than the minimum wage for those who work for tips (apparently because minimum really doesn't mean minimum)

At the same time the Senate passed pension legislation. Just pension legislation, no extra provisions. It passed 93 to 5.

* edited to add: I just found some fascinating information (from http://www.cbpp.org/8-2-06tax2.htm ). The minimum wage was last increased almost a decade ago. Since that time the estate tax exemption has increased and/or the top rate has been reduced every year except in 2001. In 1997, all estates under $600,000 were exempt. By 2006, this number has increased to $2,000,000.

So, going by the logic that the two should be coupled, we should've been increasing the minimum wage every year except 2001.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I suspect that if the Minimum wage or estate tax parts could make it out of committee as individual bills, the opposition to either would load them with poison pill amendments and neither would get passed. Bundling them seemed like an acceptable compromise to me, with both sides giving a bit to get somthing they wanted.

And yet, if you look at my last post, you'll see that there has been no problem reducing the estate tax burden in eight of the last nine years.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
One part of the American dream is to provide a better life for your children. That's why you work hard to get ahead. The way it works now; if you're very successful, you get to give up to 30% of your children's inheritance to the government as the price of being smart enough to make more money.

You're neglecting the part where you're aided in becoming successful by infrastructure (built or subsidized by taxpayer dollars), an educated workforce (mostly educated by taxpayer dollars), a safe and secure arena to operate in (protected through the spending of taxpayer dollars), incentives and loopholes (where the rest of the taxpayers pick up the slack), etc. How much more successful are you because of those investments made by taxpayers? Hard to say. Thirty percent? Maybe. Maybe more.

What the estate tax does is allow you to reap the extra benefits of operating in the US while you live. Then, when you die, some of that goes back to maintain the system that will allow the next generation of employers to be more successful. What repealing of the estate tax does is allow specific families to remove themselves from the equation forever. "Thanks for all the help. We've got ours. Bye bye now."

KWICKO

Saturday, August 5, 2006 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheRightStuff1:
You think your being clever but he is the reason we all have more money now! President Bush is saving us all financially and giving us the chance to save our souls. You want to laugh at him but I laugh at you! You want to be one with the Devil just keep on this path you idiot!
You CHOOSETO BE ONE!!!
PS.,its warming to get ready for where your headed l.o.l.

TheRightStuff1

"You think your being clever..." Yes. More clever than you, obviously - although that's not saying much...

"...he is the reason we all have more money now!" Too bad you didn't use any of yours on education, specifically on spelling and grammar lessons.

"You want to laugh at him but I laugh at you!" But not nearly as much as I laugh at you. And at him. And at you both, together.

"You want to be one with the Devil just keep on this path you idiot!" I love your use of irony: using a horribly constructed, terribly punctuated sentence to call someone else an idiot.

"You CHOOSETO BE ONE!!!" Whereas you arrived there through generations of selective inbreeding, I guess.

"PS.,its warming to get ready for where your headed l.o.l." That's actually the first time I've heard a fundamentalist nutjob admit that there *IS* such a thing as global warming. Of course, in your world, that's by design (intelligent design?), simply to prepare the rest of us for "where your headed". So, if that's where we're headed, you're (note the correct spelling and punctuation of the contraction) okay with Bush doing the driving? That figures. You seem *almost* as stupid your beloved leader, and willing to follow him into ANY folly.

I'm glad you showed me just who Bush's "real" believers and followers are; now I never need to wonder again. They are true fucking morons, absolute knee-biting, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging dolts.

Mike

GEEZER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Only 38% of minimum-wagers work full-time. "Married, spouse present" makes up only 24% of the that and only 15% of the female minimum-wage population.

And increasing the minimum wage wouldn't help these people? Of course it's not going to help everyone equally, but I fail to see how increasing folks' pay is a bad thing.

Quote:
Are you saying that Congress is irretrievably controlled by wealth? If that were the case wouldn't you say that is a good reason to vote them out in November?

We had a nice discussion a while back about campaign finance reform. That seems the place to discuss wealth's influence on Congress. I'm planning on letting campaign finance reform be one of the issues that informs my voting.

Quote:
Of course you would see it as a fair trade. You're not the one trying to live on $12,000 a year and depending on WIC, Head Start, Food Stamps, and the other crumbs that are tossed to the poor.

No I'm not. If I was, I think I'd appreciate that extra $2.10 an hour more than seeing someone elses money disappear into the Treasury.

Quote:
This "inheritance for the wealthy" is really near and dear to your heart, isn't it?

If I thought that the Minimum wage could make it through as a stand-alone, I'd say do it. I don't think that will happen. The Dems must not either, or I suppose they'd propose it. I don't care one way or the other about the Estate tax. It'll never impact me. It just seemed there was a chance to make a deal to get a Minimim tax increased passed, and the Dems wouldn't compromise enough to get what they say they've wanted for years.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE