Romney vetoed minimum wage increase

[txlonghorn]

I can't believe he would do such a terrible thing. The employed members of the 47% must be outraged.

 

[kaaazuo]

Not a deep thinker, are you?

If you're going to generalize like that, get it right. GENERALLY, Republicans hate public sector unions because they tend to "bargain" with the very politicians they put into office. And by the way, FDR stood against public sector unions as well.

The teapublicans of today are full of hate for many Americans

awww, need a tissue? Or some new talking points?

Give him a tissue.

 

[koshergrl]

Romney vetoed minimum wage increase

Romney claims he worked across the aisle with the overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts legislature: Really? Well, a complete list of veto overrides covering all four of Romney’s budgets found that the overrides for fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 totaled 707 of the more than 800 line-item vetoes he issued. And in some cases, even the Republicans went against Romney. His minimum wage veto in 2006 was overridden unanimously… the House voted against him 152 to 0, and minutes later the Senate voted 38 to 0. Now tell us more about how much he cares about 100% of all Americans and how well he works across the aisle!

(1) Education: Romney said, “We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state.” This is the second time he has outrageously taken credit for the level of education in Massachusetts. It was the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 that pumped billions into education in that state. When he was governor, in 2007 he cut $277 million from the state’s local education aid budget and $130 million from higher education!

(2) Massachusetts budget: In 2003 he doubled fees for court filings, professional registrations and firearm licenses. He quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline. All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year. He also “closed loopholes” in the corporate tax structure, a move that generated another $150 million in increased revenue. He cut aid to local cities and counties. In 2004, he cut nearly 5 percent, or about $230 million, from the local aid budget. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing the state’s cities and towns, said Romney’s cut “forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees.” His oft-touted cuts in “wasteful programs” and duplicate agencies made only a small dent in the deficit, according to an estimate by the independent, nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Sure, Romney closed the deficit without raising taxes; he increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars; a shell game!

Good for him.

One of the reasons I like him.

 

[Sinjorri]

So, basically the workers ability to live off of the pay should not be considered in any form?

It should be considered by the worker their prospective employer. It is not a matter for anyone but those two parties.

If it did, that would force the employer to find more productive workers, which generally means paying more. One reason why 95% of hourly workers make more than the minimum.

So, if that is the logic behind it.. The minimum wage requirement would have the same effect whether it was there or not.

Let's think about the kind of jobs that it would really create if better labor does require better pay in your MW vacuum.. Are we just talking about dish washing jobs? What kind of industry is going to benefit from workers worth $3.50 an hour in pay? Farms are already paying that (on top of subsidies) to illegal workers for picking fruit, masonry and landscaping also do it..

Manufacturing involves skill, considering that most "pick and place" jobs are gone and machines do a majority of the work. Higher skill (higher pay) are not going to work for $3.50hr.

Again, not everyone looking for work is doing so because they're trying to support a family. Some are trying to get experience, to build a resume. Some are looking for extra pocket cash. Some, often the elderly, are just looking to stay engaged. The point is, it's NOT a moot point.

When I was 13 years old, I started working at a local restaurant. Paid me $3.00 an hour. No, I could not have lived off that but then, I had my parent's financial support. All I wanted was experience, to build a resume, and to put a few extra bucks in my pocket. I VOLUNTARILY accepted the wage and when I was ready to earn more, I quit.

So we should abolish minimum wage just for people to get jobs for references or some extra change in their pocket? Seems like this is more and more pointless the more you argue it.

Or as I said, a proverbial moot point.

Again, whether a person can or cannot survive on a particular wage is not your business. It's his choice to accept the wage or not.

And most people will not, considering that there are "10.2%" unemployed, how many of them are gonna come off of welfare to get a job for references or pocket change when they have a family to feed? Most people without work are adults, with, a family or some sort of payment obligations (car, house, children, food..).

Businesses owe their employees the wage they promised to pay. Nothing more.

Wonderful. Your business, your choice. You wouldn't want me to tell you how to run your business. Quite telling others how to run theirs.

At the end of the day, your support of minimum wage laws PREVENTS OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS FROM WORKING AT ALL. Disgusting. Shame on you.

Coming from someone who wants to abolish minimum wage for jobs that provide a reference or pocket change... I'll take your attack as a compliment.

my diet of laughter is working well, im losing pounds by all the laughing ive been doing, thanx for the help on my diet.

 

[Liberal]

my diet of laughter is working well, im losing pounds by all the laughing ive been doing, thanx for the help on my diet.

Your welcome.

Poking holes in his argument was amusing to me as well.

 

[eflatminor]

So, basically the workers ability to live off of the pay should not be considered in any form?

It should be considered by the worker their prospective employer. It is not a matter for anyone but those two parties.

If it did, that would force the employer to find more productive workers, which generally means paying more. One reason why 95% of hourly workers make more than the minimum.

So, if that is the logic behind it.. The minimum wage requirement would have the same effect whether it was there or not.

For 95% of workers, correct. For the thousands of unskilled, young and old that are trying to work, eliminating the minimum wage would have a profound effect.

Let's think about the kind of jobs that it would really create if better labor does require better pay in your MW vacuum.. Are we just talking about dish washing jobs? What kind of industry is going to benefit from workers worth $3.50 an hour in pay?

Obviously, low skill jobs. It's not about benefiting industry, it's about allowing everyone to pursue the work they are capable of engaging in. Your MW laws prevent them from doing so.

Higher skill (higher pay) are not going to work for $3.50hr.

Obviously, which is why you see jobs that require higher skills paying more than today's minimum wage. Obviously.

So we should abolish minimum wage just for people to get jobs for references or some extra change in their pocket?

Yes, as well as for unskilled workers whose abilities do not warrant the minimum. Again, what right do you have to stop such people, our MOST VULNERABLE, from working? Your hubris is overwhelming.

Again, whether a person can or cannot survive on a particular wage is not your business. It's his choice to accept the wage or not.

And most people will not, considering that there are "10.2%" unemployed, how many of them are gonna come off of welfare to get a job for references or pocket change when they have a family to feed?

Typical central planner ideology. First, you prevent unskilled workers from getting a job, then you rob productive citizens to pay them not to work. Wonderful plan.

Most people without work are adults, with, a family or some sort of payment obligations (car, house, children, food..).

So what? That has no bearing whatsoever on the citizens whose skills or personal situation does not justify minimum wage yet are prevented from working by you.

Hey, we get it, YOU know what's best for everyone else...

 

[eflatminor]

republicans hate unions because unions protect workers

Not a deep thinker, are you?

If you're going to generalize like that, get it right. GENERALLY, Republicans hate public sector unions because they tend to "bargain" with the very politicians they put into office. And by the way, FDR stood against public sector unions as well.

The teapublicans of today are full of hate for many Americans

That's your retort? Wow. Just how long was that bus you took to school?

 

[kaz]

my diet of laughter is working well, im losing pounds by all the laughing ive been doing, thanx for the help on my diet.

Your welcome.

Poking holes in his argument was amusing to me as well.

So you think that low wage workers are too dumb to take the best job they can get for the most pay they can get and they are too dumb to not take a job that makes an arbitrary salary you think is fair.

And you think because you ... um ... "care" about workers?