The CBO’s report on raising the min wage demonstrates how RWs don’t understand the topic

[bripat9643]

So many times I hear conservatives make the ridiculous claim that if the minimum wage was raised a few buck an hour, the cost of everything would skyrocket. It comes from such a place of ignorance. And yes, prices would rise but we are talking cents on the dollar and people would have a few extra hundred bucks to spend each month.

Actual economics matter. Jobs would be lost initially, but over time the boost to consumer spending would CREATE jobs. The cost of jobs is worth the benefits.

“A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has evaluated the impact of raising the federal minimum wage to $15, $12, or $10 per hour by 2025. According to CBO estimates, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would boost the pay for 17 million workers. But, says CBO, it would also cause a median 1.3 million employees to lose their jobs as employers can’t afford the wage — that’s a 0.8% reduction of the number of employed workers.

CBO says that if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour, there is a 66% chance that between none and 3.7 million people could lose their jobs. However, the report states, “there is considerable uncertainty about the size of any option’s effect on employment.”

$15 minimum wage would boost pay for 17 million workers, says CBO

I'm sorry, remind me again WHERE in the Constitution it stipulates that it is the job of the Fed to dictate to states how much or how little private business can pay for a given job? I forget just which Article that came under.

Congress created Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938.

This act was created under article 1, section 8 of constitution; the section allowing congress to regulate commerce. States can too.

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only “commerce” in a classic sense, i.e., the buying, selling, or transportation of goods or services across state lines. By its terms, the Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only interstate commerce itself—not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The power to regulate ‘commerce’ can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities’ effects on interstate commerce.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is unconstitutional.

 

[imawhosure]

What many on the left fail to understand is this is not a one size fits all world. In some areas of country a 15 dollar an hour minimum will have little negative impact and be a benefit in others it will be devastating.

This report disputes exactly what you are saying.

What many on the left fail to understand is this is not a one size fits all world. In some areas of country a 15 dollar an hour minimum will have little negative impact and be a benefit in others it will be devastating.

This report disputes exactly what you are saying.

The report says the impact would be the exact same across the entire country bullshit. Only people very naive stupid or both would buy that.

These people are economists. You are not. You are uneducated in economics. The estimate of job loss has those more vulnerable areas in mind.

You have no idea what I’m educated in the only thing you seem to be educated in is partisan BS. The CBO gives estimates and opinions and have been wrong before I have also seen you lefties be dismissive of and reject the CBO when they put out something that doesn’t support your narrative. I take the CBO for what it is and don’t accept what they put out as the gospel truth no matter which political narrative benefits from it.

No entity predicting economics is always 100% correct. You’re pretending you know more about economics than the CBO does and that’s stupid. Obviously you aren’t wrong that a flat min wage hike nationwide would hit some areas worse than others, but that is something the report takes into account.

Uh yeah. Over time, a few hundred bucks a month for 17 million workers would create economic gains.

Baloney. Giving workers more money, just because it makes you feel better, doesn't magically increase GDP.
If it doesn't increase GDP, you're just moving money around, not adding money to the economy.

Lol this is a consumer based economy you idiot. Of course it would increase GDP. That’s capitalism.

Newly unemployed low skilled workers consume less.
Never employed low skilled workers consume less.
Businesses with less profit consume less.

Keep demonstrating your stage one thinking. As if I needed more proof of your ignorance.

Yeah no shit. We are talking about a median of 1.5 million in estimated loss of jobs though. That doesn’t somehow translate to a stagnant economy. It’s a minor setback, but in the mean time 17 million more workers are spending hundreds of dollars more per month. Over time, this boost to consumer spending will generate more GDP and will easily pay for the loss of capital and then some.

The reason why wages are stagnant and way behind on the cost of inflation isn’t because businesses can’t afford it. These businesses refuse to pay above the bare minimum because it maximizes their profit. You do get that right? Unfettered capitalism results in the exploitation of the workers. That is the fundamental flaw in a private market system.

We are talking about a median of 1.5 million in estimated loss of jobs though.

That's the immediate loss. Now what about the loss of the new entrants to the work force who you've forever priced out of a job?

It’s a minor setback,

That hits minority teens the hardest.

but in the mean time 17 million more workers are spending hundreds of dollars more per month.

Where did they get this extra money? Be specific.

Over time, this boost to consumer spending will generate more GDP and will easily pay for the loss of capital and then some.

You've already shown your economic ignorance, no need to repeat it.

These businesses refuse to pay above the bare minimum because it maximizes their profit.

When you have an endless flood of low skilled illegals, what's the need to pay low skilled workers above the bare minimum?

This report disputes exactly what you are saying.

This report disputes exactly what you are saying.

The report says the impact would be the exact same across the entire country bullshit. Only people very naive stupid or both would buy that.

These people are economists. You are not. You are uneducated in economics. The estimate of job loss has those more vulnerable areas in mind.

You have no idea what I’m educated in the only thing you seem to be educated in is partisan BS. The CBO gives estimates and opinions and have been wrong before I have also seen you lefties be dismissive of and reject the CBO when they put out something that doesn’t support your narrative. I take the CBO for what it is and don’t accept what they put out as the gospel truth no matter which political narrative benefits from it.

No entity predicting economics is always 100% correct. You’re pretending you know more about economics than the CBO does and that’s stupid. Obviously you aren’t wrong that a flat min wage hike nationwide would hit some areas worse than others, but that is something the report takes into account.

What I’m saying is I don’t take what any economist say at face value. It was at least some economists who were telling us the election of Donald Trump would cause an economic disaster worse than the Great Depression that has not happened many if not all economists didn’t see the housing collapse and economic meltdown of 2008 coming. I take anything any so called experts in any field say with a degree of skepticism something any wise person no matter what their political leanings are would do.

Well lets see, even in Billy Baloneys study, it says that UPWARDS of over 3 million would lose their jobs.

Now before you let the Mighty Baloney tell you that is not to bad since we have over 160 million people working, remember this-------------->those 3 million jobs lost won't be white collar workers, it will be minimum wage workers, and how many of those are there? Can we guess, maybe 7 million? Maybe 10 million?

So Billy-E-Baloney is celebrating the fat that------------------>1/3 to 1/2 of very looooooooow wage workers, will lose their jobs, which now means, THEY MAKE NOTHING, not to mention...….now prices rise because of higher wages, and now those who lost their jobs because of elitist Baloney's idea, are now further away from purchasing even a McDonalds hamburger!

Just like his party, everything Billy-E-Baloney touches turns to poo-poo! You have to excuse the Phonio-Baloneeeeeeeooooo, because the void in his head is so large, he needs to get to Frisco to try and steal the Golden Gate Bridge to cover the span between his ears!

In all reality---------->he is nothing more than another raging Leftist spewing propaganda he thinks sounds good, to undermine the greatest country the world has ever been witness to. He is terrible at this craft, but is convinced he is soooooooooo good, he is a legend in his own mind, lolol!

Sorry Billy-E-Phony-Baloney, as usual, you screwed the pooch again. Now start another 10 threads, and never fear, eventually, you might get something correct-)

 

[toobfreak]

So many times I hear conservatives make the ridiculous claim that if the minimum wage was raised a few buck an hour, the cost of everything would skyrocket. It comes from such a place of ignorance. And yes, prices would rise but we are talking cents on the dollar and people would have a few extra hundred bucks to spend each month.

Actual economics matter. Jobs would be lost initially, but over time the boost to consumer spending would CREATE jobs. The cost of jobs is worth the benefits.

“A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has evaluated the impact of raising the federal minimum wage to $15, $12, or $10 per hour by 2025. According to CBO estimates, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would boost the pay for 17 million workers. But, says CBO, it would also cause a median 1.3 million employees to lose their jobs as employers can’t afford the wage — that’s a 0.8% reduction of the number of employed workers.

CBO says that if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour, there is a 66% chance that between none and 3.7 million people could lose their jobs. However, the report states, “there is considerable uncertainty about the size of any option’s effect on employment.”

$15 minimum wage would boost pay for 17 million workers, says CBO

I'm sorry, remind me again WHERE in the Constitution it stipulates that it is the job of the Fed to dictate to states how much or how little private business can pay for a given job? I forget just which Article that came under.

Congress created Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938.

This act was created under article 1, section 8 of constitution; the section allowing congress to regulate commerce. States can too.

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only “commerce” in a classic sense, i.e., the buying, selling, or transportation of goods or services across state lines. By its terms, the Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only interstate commerce itself—not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The power to regulate ‘commerce’ can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities’ effects on interstate commerce.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is unconstitutional.

TOO FUNNY. So, the Muddluck proves my point that the Fair Labor Act WASN'T and ISN'T in the Constitution anywhere and never intended by its spirit but was simply added long after (160 years later?) as part of an unconstitutionally mandated socialist power grab by ever-expanding Big Government!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Baloney. Giving workers more money, just because it makes you feel better, doesn't magically increase GDP.
If it doesn't increase GDP, you're just moving money around, not adding money to the economy.

Lol this is a consumer based economy you idiot. Of course it would increase GDP. That’s capitalism.

Newly unemployed low skilled workers consume less.
Never employed low skilled workers consume less.
Businesses with less profit consume less.

Keep demonstrating your stage one thinking. As if I needed more proof of your ignorance.

Yeah no shit. We are talking about a median of 1.5 million in estimated loss of jobs though. That doesn’t somehow translate to a stagnant economy. It’s a minor setback, but in the mean time 17 million more workers are spending hundreds of dollars more per month. Over time, this boost to consumer spending will generate more GDP and will easily pay for the loss of capital and then some.

The reason why wages are stagnant and way behind on the cost of inflation isn’t because businesses can’t afford it. These businesses refuse to pay above the bare minimum because it maximizes their profit. You do get that right? Unfettered capitalism results in the exploitation of the workers. That is the fundamental flaw in a private market system.

We are talking about a median of 1.5 million in estimated loss of jobs though.

That's the immediate loss. Now what about the loss of the new entrants to the work force who you've forever priced out of a job?

It’s a minor setback,

That hits minority teens the hardest.

but in the mean time 17 million more workers are spending hundreds of dollars more per month.

Where did they get this extra money? Be specific.

Over time, this boost to consumer spending will generate more GDP and will easily pay for the loss of capital and then some.

You've already shown your economic ignorance, no need to repeat it.

These businesses refuse to pay above the bare minimum because it maximizes their profit.

When you have an endless flood of low skilled illegals, what's the need to pay low skilled workers above the bare minimum?

Immediate loss? Um no. That would be over time.

Minority teens? Um okay.

Where did they get the extra money? Are you this dense? It’s in their paychecks that are now bigger. Good god. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?

Christ. Illegals or not, businesses will pay as low as they can get away with to maximize their profits.

Immediate loss? Um no. That would be over time.

If you're worth $10/hour, it's not taking a lot of time for me to get rid of you at $15/hour.

Minority teens? Um okay.

Yes. Not very familiar with the history of minimum wage, are you?

Where did they get the extra money?

Yes, silly twat, where did they get this money suddenly in their paycheck? Where did it come from?

Illegals or not, businesses will pay as low as they can get away with to maximize their profits.

Yes, as low as they can get away with.

They won't give your unskilled ass a raise if there are a million new unskilled illegal aliens who just arrived, increasing the supply of unskilled workers.

You know.....supply and demand.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That would be in article 1, section 8, clause 3.

It's called the commerce clause.

It gives the government the power to regulate business.

You might want to actually read the constitution. That way you wouldn't make fool of yourself to all of us who have actually read that document.

No, it actually doesn't, but they've certainly used it that way with the aid of activist judges over the years. The Commerce Clause was written to prevent states from interfering in trade between other states. It was never written to give the federal government full regulation over the entire economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A congressional committee (Maxine's) just questioned Powell. One asked, "would the $15/hr minimum wage help or hurt the US economy". Powell declined to answer, and said that was congress' decision. IMHO the minimum wage should be a state decision based on Federal guidance, such as:
1. Heads of households should have a "phased in" $15/hr minimum wage, phased in over 2 or 3 years.
2. Non-heads of households should have a $10 or $12 minimum wage, also phased in over 2 or 3 years.
3. If any employees qualify for government assistance, it needs to be reported to the IRS. (the government should not be subsidizing any business)

That would give businesses time to adjust their financial planning. The problem to be addressed is income inequality. The top tax rate needs to increase to cover the budget deficit and the entitlements and healthcare for retirees.

Heads of households should have a "phased in" $15/hr minimum wage, phased in over 2 or 3 years. Bad idea.
Non-heads of households should have a $10 or $12 minimum wage, also phased in over 2 or 3 years. Makes your first bad idea even worse.
If any employees qualify for government assistance, it needs to be reported to the IRS. (the government should not be subsidizing any business) If the government gives benefits to an unskilled or low skilled worker, how is that a subsidy to the business?
The problem to be addressed is income inequality.
Why is that a problem? Why do you feel the government has the power or the ability to fix it?

If you look at the wealth distribution over time (chart below), the bottom 95% or so lose wealth and the top 5% or so gain wealth. IMHO the US needs a strong and healthy middle-class. If we devolve into the 1% of super-rich and the rest of us as peons, that society will fail.
a. You say min wages are a "bad idea" but don't say why. Job loses (1% -3%) are acceptable for non-heads of households.
b. Every job should provide a living wage, or we are peon drones, no worker should ever qualify for food stamps or welfare. (Even welfare recipients should work for their checks, like the WPA in the 1930s)
c. The Commerce Clause gives the government the power to regulate business. The government needs to work with business to prepare the work-force for productive work. I support free Community College with job training that lands good jobs, (like Germany). How will robotics and artificial intelligence affect the work-force?

Policies to reduce economic inequality

1. Increase the minimum wage.
2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit
3. Build assets for working families, like affordable housing
4. Invest in education, like free Community College and job training for real jobs (not worthless degrees with massive student loan debt)
5. Make the tax code more progressive, raise the top tax rate, add a VAT if needed to balance budget

You say min wages are a "bad idea" but don't say why.

If you add $10/hour of value but the government mandates you receive $15/hour, will you ever get hired?

Every job should provide a living wage,

How large a home should the guy sweeping the floors be able to buy?
The 18 year old running the fry basket......what type of Corvette should he be able to afford?

The government needs to work with business to prepare the work-force for productive work.

Sure. By pricing the inexperienced out of that first job....wait, what?

I support free Community College with job training that lands good jobs, (like Germany).

Maybe the teachers can all be the people you priced out of private sector work?

a. The government mandates Davis-Bacon wage rates now for Federal jobs. The workers benefited, nothing bad happened, the budgets handle the wage rates. Its called planning, and budgeting. A better argument might be "without tariffs, how can US companies compete with the low overseas wage rates?" More jobs and factories would move overseas. You either hire workers, or you don't
b. How many more $billions do the top 1% need to feel human? In 1950 the average CEO pay was about 20x the average worker. Today that multiple is 361. Why are CEOs compensated so much more than their workers? Are they worth it? Not always.
CEO Pay Skyrockets To 361 Times That Of The Average Worker
c. Stop being stupid. Matching job skills, training, and even education with the jobs that are available or projected is better than what we have now. Free Community College would make workers more valuable by getting specific job training. That will help them land their first job more than a useless college degree (Art-History, Gender Studies, Fashion Design, Music, Communications, Liberal Arts, Fine Arts, etc.)
d. There may be a glut of useless teachers to deal with, maybe they'd need re-training to stay useful. Either way, they'd be well compensated.

The government mandates Davis-Bacon wage rates now for Federal jobs.

Yes, another horrible idea.

The workers benefited, nothing bad happened,

You're kidding, right?

In 1950 the average CEO pay was about 20x the average worker. Today that multiple is 361.

Wow! You love your fake statistics.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The CBO’s report on raising the min wage demonstrates how...

...the CBO is an out-of-touch organization controlled by global commies trying to bring about one world order under authoritarian statist control to the detriment of American Sovereignty and Western Ideals.

.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So many times I hear conservatives make the ridiculous claim that if the minimum wage was raised a few buck an hour, the cost of everything would skyrocket. It comes from such a place of ignorance. And yes, prices would rise but we are talking cents on the dollar and people would have a few extra hundred bucks to spend each month.

Actual economics matter. Jobs would be lost initially, but over time the boost to consumer spending would CREATE jobs. The cost of jobs is worth the benefits.

“A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has evaluated the impact of raising the federal minimum wage to $15, $12, or $10 per hour by 2025. According to CBO estimates, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would boost the pay for 17 million workers. But, says CBO, it would also cause a median 1.3 million employees to lose their jobs as employers can’t afford the wage — that’s a 0.8% reduction of the number of employed workers.

CBO says that if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour, there is a 66% chance that between none and 3.7 million people could lose their jobs. However, the report states, “there is considerable uncertainty about the size of any option’s effect on employment.”

$15 minimum wage would boost pay for 17 million workers, says CBO

Hey let’s roll the dice! Out of 542,000 according to 2017 statistics that actually make minimum wage, well your magic hourly rate is now zero. For those just over that number it gets pretty fun. 3.5 million of you get to join the zero dollar per hour club! Some may get a dollar an hour raise, although like Amazon did it will only cost you your stock options, or in other cases healthcare, vacation time and over time. Not to mention your work experience and dignity.

Who wants to play!

 

[dudmuck]

So many times I hear conservatives make the ridiculous claim that if the minimum wage was raised a few buck an hour, the cost of everything would skyrocket. It comes from such a place of ignorance. And yes, prices would rise but we are talking cents on the dollar and people would have a few extra hundred bucks to spend each month.

Actual economics matter. Jobs would be lost initially, but over time the boost to consumer spending would CREATE jobs. The cost of jobs is worth the benefits.

“A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has evaluated the impact of raising the federal minimum wage to $15, $12, or $10 per hour by 2025. According to CBO estimates, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would boost the pay for 17 million workers. But, says CBO, it would also cause a median 1.3 million employees to lose their jobs as employers can’t afford the wage — that’s a 0.8% reduction of the number of employed workers.

CBO says that if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour, there is a 66% chance that between none and 3.7 million people could lose their jobs. However, the report states, “there is considerable uncertainty about the size of any option’s effect on employment.”

$15 minimum wage would boost pay for 17 million workers, says CBO

I'm sorry, remind me again WHERE in the Constitution it stipulates that it is the job of the Fed to dictate to states how much or how little private business can pay for a given job? I forget just which Article that came under.

Congress created Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938.

This act was created under article 1, section 8 of constitution; the section allowing congress to regulate commerce. States can too.

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only “commerce” in a classic sense, i.e., the buying, selling, or transportation of goods or services across state lines. By its terms, the Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only interstate commerce itself—not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The power to regulate ‘commerce’ can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities’ effects on interstate commerce.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is unconstitutional.

This was resolved in United States v. Darby.

The Court found that based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. - Wikipedia.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That would be in article 1, section 8, clause 3.

It's called the commerce clause.

It gives the government the power to regulate business.

You might want to actually read the constitution. That way you wouldn't make fool of yourself to all of us who have actually read that document.

No, it actually doesn't, but they've certainly used it that way with the aid of activist judges over the years. The Commerce Clause was written to prevent states from interfering in trade between other states. It was never written to give the federal government full regulation over the entire economy.

Amazing how few people know that. Some even become judges.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This was resolved in United States v. Darby.

The Court found that based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. - Wikipedia.

Yes.

The all-expansive, means everything, Interstate Commerce Clause.

If anything Congress does can be done in the name of Interstate Commerce, why have powers reserved to the states?

Those were HORRIBLE decisions, unilaterally expanding Federal power and buttfucking State power right in the ass.

But, we need to adopt Randy Barnett's proposed Bill of Federalism:

A Bill Of Federalism

_______________________
Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]

Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed.

Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power]

The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Article [of Amendment 3] -- [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]

Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.

Article [of Amendment 4] -- [No Abuse of the Treaty Power]

No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.

Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press]

The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.

Article [of Amendment 6] -- [Power of States to Check Federal Power]

Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

Article [of Amendment 7] -- [Term Limits for Congress]

No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Article [of Amendment 8] -- [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]

Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.

Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.

Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People]

Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.

Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

Article [of Amendment 10] -- [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution]

The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.

Click here for an explanation of each Amendment

Here is my explanation of each amendment, in plain English.

Proposal 1: The income tax has vastly increased the power and the intrusiveness of the federal government, far beyond what the framers of the 16th Amendment ever imagined. The first proposed amendment restores the original taxing power of Congress by denying it the power to enact income estate or gift taxes, or to circumvent this restriction by levying an annual tax on net consumption or expenditures.

Lest the prohibition on an aggregate consumption tax raises any doubt, the provision makes clear that Congress retains the power to impose a sales tax that is uniform. Sometimes called a "fair tax," a national sales tax would be paid by all persons residing in the U.S., whether legally or illegally, without the need for intrusive reporting of their activities. As people buy and consume more, they would pay more in taxes, but all their savings and investments would appreciate free of tax. And no longer will everyone have to file annual returns that expose their private actions to the government and give rise to liability for any errors. Detailed information on how a national sales tax can be implemented is available here.

This proposal also increases the voting requirement for tax increases to three-fifths of each house, and requires that all tax increases be presented to the president for his signature. This preserves the effectiveness of the veto power lest a tax increase be buried in an "omnibus" bill that the president will feel compelled to sign. Finally, to give Congress ample time to fashion an alternative revenue system--and do away with the IRS--the implementation of this amendment is delayed for five years. Of course, Congress may end the income or estate tax sooner if it so chooses.

Proposal 2: The original Constitution reserved powers to the states by specifically delegating powers to Congress. Consequently, as Congress has exercised powers beyond those delegated to it by the Constitution, the reserved powers of states have been usurped. The second proposed amendment restores the Commerce Clause to its original meaning, thereby leaving wholly intrastate activities to be prohibited or regulated by the several states, or be left completely free of any regulations as states may choose.

And it negates three constructions adopted by the Supreme Court to expand the reach of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause--sometimes called the "Sweeping Clause"--of Article I: that Congress has power to regulate wholly interstate activity that either (a) "affects" interstate activity, (b) uses instrumentalities obtained from outside the state, or (c) is part of a comprehensive national regulatory scheme. This amendment makes clear that Congress retains the power to regulate interstate pollution and the power to define and punish acts of war and insurrection against the U.S., for example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction.

This provision leaves untouched the delegated powers of Congress to regulate wholly intrastate activities to enforce civil rights as expressly authorized by, for example, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments; it only restricts the improper construction of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to reach wholly intrastate activity.

Proposal 3: The third proposed amendment addresses two sources of persistent federal intrusion into the powers of states. The first is federal laws mandating state action necessitating the expenditure of state funds without reimbursing the states for their expenditures. In this manner, the federal government can take credit for adopting measures without incurring the political cost of increasing taxes or borrowing. The second problem is the use of federal spending to restrict liberty for purposes not delegated to the U.S. For example, the 55 mph speed limit was imposed by the states by conditioning the receipt of federal highway funds upon compliance with this mandate. This amendment makes this type of condition on funding unconstitutional.

Proposal 4: The framers of the Constitution were profoundly wary of entangling the U.S. in international legal commitments, so they required two-thirds of the Senate to ratify all treaties, and they assumed that treaties would only reach matters of truly international concern. These principles have been subverted by misinterpretations of the Constitution. First, the treaty power has been interpreted to reach every imaginable subject, including many subjects of purely local concern. Second, the treaty power has been interpreted as a mechanism to increase the legislative power of Congress, thus creating a doubly perverse incentive: an incentive to enter into new international legal obligations simply to attain increased domestic legislative power. This amendment would correct these errors and restore the original meaning of the Treaty Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

Proposal 5: The fifth proposed amendment makes it clear that the freedom of speech and press now protected by the First Amendment extends equally to all media, including for example radio and television, as well as to financial contributions to political candidates and campaigns.

Continued on the next page

Proposal 6: At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to seek an amendment to the Constitution by applying for a constitutional convention to propose amendments that must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This proposed amendment provides an additional check on federal power by empowering the same number of states to rescind any law or regulation when they concur it is necessary. Such a power provides a targeted method to reverse particular Congressional acts and administrative regulations without the risk of permanently amending the text of the Constitution.

Proposal 7: When the tradition of two presidential terms established by George Washington was broken by Franklin Roosevelt, the Congress and states responded with the 22nd Amendment limiting every president to two terms. The seventh proposed amendment establishes congressional term limits by allowing two full terms for Senators and six full terms for Representatives. This restores what the founders referred to as "rotation in office," which has been undermined by various forms of incumbent protection that are difficult to identify specifically and correct. More information on the merits of term limits can be found here. To reduce any disruption, it phases in these limits by exempting the time already served by incumbents from the calculation of the limits on their terms.

Proposal 8: The practice by Congress of aggregating thousands of lines of expenditures into "omnibus" appropriation bills has greatly diminished the veto power that the Constitution reposes in the president. Because of their reluctance to threaten a government shut down, Presidents are loath to veto such bills. Knowing this, Senators and Representatives can load spending bills with pork, knowing that Congress will never have to give an up or down floor vote to a particular line item and that the threat of a presidential veto is empty.

While there is great demand for constitutional requirement of a balanced budget, mechanisms for this that have been devised to date are highly complex, typically contain numerous exceptions and loopholes, and lack effective means of enforcement.

By linking the goal of a balanced budget with a temporary presidential line-item veto, the eighth proposed amendment provides a real incentive for Congress to devise a balance budget; if Congress fails to do so, the president would then have a temporary line item veto power over any appropriation in the budget. For example, should Congress enact a budget with a deficit, the president could veto Congressional earmarks and be held accountable for failing to do so. The amendment also ensures that Congress will retain the same power to override any presidential line item veto as it currently has for a traditional veto. The operation and advantages of this measure over other balance budget amendments is explained in detail here.

Proposal 9: The existing Ninth Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Section 1 of this proposal elaborates on the original meaning of "rights ... retained by the people" with language that is adopted from the wording of amendments proposal to the first Congress by state ratification conventions and by James Madison, and from the very similar wording found in several state Constitutions at the time of the founding.

For example, the constitution of Pennsylvania read: "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 protected the right of any citizen "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property. ..."

Section 2 corrects the current approach of the Supreme Court that precludes citizens and legal residents from contesting the necessity and propriety of restrictions on their retained rights unless the Court deems the right in question to be "fundamental" and provides all liberties with the same type of protection now accorded the rights of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Proposal 10: The 10th proposed amendment ensures that the text of the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land by preventing judges from ignoring or changing the linguistic meaning of the text of the Constitution by "interpretation." It requires that judges obey the text of the Constitution until it is properly changed by a constitutional amendment. And it confirms that foreign law is relevant to constitutional interpretation only to the extent that it casts light on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. A constitution that is ignored or systematically misinterpreted is a dead constitution. Only if the Constitution is actually followed can it accurately be considered as a "living constitution."
__________________________________

 

[Wyatt earp]

What many on the left fail to understand is this is not a one size fits all world. In some areas of country a 15 dollar an hour minimum will have little negative impact and be a benefit in others it will be devastating.

This report disputes exactly what you are saying.

What many on the left fail to understand is this is not a one size fits all world. In some areas of country a 15 dollar an hour minimum will have little negative impact and be a benefit in others it will be devastating.

This report disputes exactly what you are saying.

The report says the impact would be the exact same across the entire country bullshit. Only people very naive stupid or both would buy that.

These people are economists. You are not. You are uneducated in economics. The estimate of job loss has those more vulnerable areas in mind.

We know math you do not..

.

 

[Billy000]

This report disputes exactly what you are saying.

This report disputes exactly what you are saying.

The report says the impact would be the exact same across the entire country bullshit. Only people very naive stupid or both would buy that.

These people are economists. You are not. You are uneducated in economics. The estimate of job loss has those more vulnerable areas in mind.

You have no idea what I’m educated in the only thing you seem to be educated in is partisan BS. The CBO gives estimates and opinions and have been wrong before I have also seen you lefties be dismissive of and reject the CBO when they put out something that doesn’t support your narrative. I take the CBO for what it is and don’t accept what they put out as the gospel truth no matter which political narrative benefits from it.

No entity predicting economics is always 100% correct. You’re pretending you know more about economics than the CBO does and that’s stupid. Obviously you aren’t wrong that a flat min wage hike nationwide would hit some areas worse than others, but that is something the report takes into account.

Baloney. Giving workers more money, just because it makes you feel better, doesn't magically increase GDP.
If it doesn't increase GDP, you're just moving money around, not adding money to the economy.

Lol this is a consumer based economy you idiot. Of course it would increase GDP. That’s capitalism.

Newly unemployed low skilled workers consume less.
Never employed low skilled workers consume less.
Businesses with less profit consume less.

Keep demonstrating your stage one thinking. As if I needed more proof of your ignorance.

Yeah no shit. We are talking about a median of 1.5 million in estimated loss of jobs though. That doesn’t somehow translate to a stagnant economy. It’s a minor setback, but in the mean time 17 million more workers are spending hundreds of dollars more per month. Over time, this boost to consumer spending will generate more GDP and will easily pay for the loss of capital and then some.

The reason why wages are stagnant and way behind on the cost of inflation isn’t because businesses can’t afford it. These businesses refuse to pay above the bare minimum because it maximizes their profit. You do get that right? Unfettered capitalism results in the exploitation of the workers. That is the fundamental flaw in a private market system.

We are talking about a median of 1.5 million in estimated loss of jobs though.

That's the immediate loss. Now what about the loss of the new entrants to the work force who you've forever priced out of a job?

It’s a minor setback,

That hits minority teens the hardest.

but in the mean time 17 million more workers are spending hundreds of dollars more per month.

Where did they get this extra money? Be specific.

Over time, this boost to consumer spending will generate more GDP and will easily pay for the loss of capital and then some.

You've already shown your economic ignorance, no need to repeat it.

These businesses refuse to pay above the bare minimum because it maximizes their profit.

When you have an endless flood of low skilled illegals, what's the need to pay low skilled workers above the bare minimum?

The report says the impact would be the exact same across the entire country bullshit. Only people very naive stupid or both would buy that.

These people are economists. You are not. You are uneducated in economics. The estimate of job loss has those more vulnerable areas in mind.

You have no idea what I’m educated in the only thing you seem to be educated in is partisan BS. The CBO gives estimates and opinions and have been wrong before I have also seen you lefties be dismissive of and reject the CBO when they put out something that doesn’t support your narrative. I take the CBO for what it is and don’t accept what they put out as the gospel truth no matter which political narrative benefits from it.

No entity predicting economics is always 100% correct. You’re pretending you know more about economics than the CBO does and that’s stupid. Obviously you aren’t wrong that a flat min wage hike nationwide would hit some areas worse than others, but that is something the report takes into account.

What I’m saying is I don’t take what any economist say at face value. It was at least some economists who were telling us the election of Donald Trump would cause an economic disaster worse than the Great Depression that has not happened many if not all economists didn’t see the housing collapse and economic meltdown of 2008 coming. I take anything any so called experts in any field say with a degree of skepticism something any wise person no matter what their political leanings are would do.

Well lets see, even in Billy Baloneys study, it says that UPWARDS of over 3 million would lose their jobs.

Now before you let the Mighty Baloney tell you that is not to bad since we have over 160 million people working, remember this-------------->those 3 million jobs lost won't be white collar workers, it will be minimum wage workers, and how many of those are there? Can we guess, maybe 7 million? Maybe 10 million?

So Billy-E-Baloney is celebrating the fat that------------------>1/3 to 1/2 of very looooooooow wage workers, will lose their jobs, which now means, THEY MAKE NOTHING, not to mention...….now prices rise because of higher wages, and now those who lost their jobs because of elitist Baloney's idea, are now further away from purchasing even a McDonalds hamburger!

Just like his party, everything Billy-E-Baloney touches turns to poo-poo! You have to excuse the Phonio-Baloneeeeeeeooooo, because the void in his head is so large, he needs to get to Frisco to try and steal the Golden Gate Bridge to cover the span between his ears!

In all reality---------->he is nothing more than another raging Leftist spewing propaganda he thinks sounds good, to undermine the greatest country the world has ever been witness to. He is terrible at this craft, but is convinced he is soooooooooo good, he is a legend in his own mind, lolol!

Sorry Billy-E-Phony-Baloney, as usual, you screwed the pooch again. Now start another 10 threads, and never fear, eventually, you might get something correct-)

Over 3 million would be the worst case scenario doofus. Even then, 17 million people would be spending a couple hundred more each month. That is MORE consumer spending which translates to job growth. That is capitalism 101. All of those jobs would be made back and more over time.

 

[dudmuck]

This was resolved in United States v. Darby.

The Court found that based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. - Wikipedia.

Yes.

The all-expansive, means everything, Interstate Commerce Clause.

If anything Congress does can be done in the name of Interstate Commerce, why have powers reserved to the states?

Those were HORRIBLE decisions, unilaterally expanding Federal power and buttfucking State power right in the ass.

But, we need to adopt Randy Barnett's proposed Bill of Federalism:

A Bill Of Federalism

_______________________
Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]

Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed.

Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power]

The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Article [of Amendment 3] -- [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]

Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.

Article [of Amendment 4] -- [No Abuse of the Treaty Power]

No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.

Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press]

The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.

Article [of Amendment 6] -- [Power of States to Check Federal Power]

Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

Article [of Amendment 7] -- [Term Limits for Congress]

No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Article [of Amendment 8] -- [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]

Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.

Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.

Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People]

Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.

Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

Article [of Amendment 10] -- [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution]

The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.

Click here for an explanation of each Amendment

Here is my explanation of each amendment, in plain English.

Proposal 1: The income tax has vastly increased the power and the intrusiveness of the federal government, far beyond what the framers of the 16th Amendment ever imagined. The first proposed amendment restores the original taxing power of Congress by denying it the power to enact income estate or gift taxes, or to circumvent this restriction by levying an annual tax on net consumption or expenditures.

Lest the prohibition on an aggregate consumption tax raises any doubt, the provision makes clear that Congress retains the power to impose a sales tax that is uniform. Sometimes called a "fair tax," a national sales tax would be paid by all persons residing in the U.S., whether legally or illegally, without the need for intrusive reporting of their activities. As people buy and consume more, they would pay more in taxes, but all their savings and investments would appreciate free of tax. And no longer will everyone have to file annual returns that expose their private actions to the government and give rise to liability for any errors. Detailed information on how a national sales tax can be implemented is available here.

This proposal also increases the voting requirement for tax increases to three-fifths of each house, and requires that all tax increases be presented to the president for his signature. This preserves the effectiveness of the veto power lest a tax increase be buried in an "omnibus" bill that the president will feel compelled to sign. Finally, to give Congress ample time to fashion an alternative revenue system--and do away with the IRS--the implementation of this amendment is delayed for five years. Of course, Congress may end the income or estate tax sooner if it so chooses.

Proposal 2: The original Constitution reserved powers to the states by specifically delegating powers to Congress. Consequently, as Congress has exercised powers beyond those delegated to it by the Constitution, the reserved powers of states have been usurped. The second proposed amendment restores the Commerce Clause to its original meaning, thereby leaving wholly intrastate activities to be prohibited or regulated by the several states, or be left completely free of any regulations as states may choose.

And it negates three constructions adopted by the Supreme Court to expand the reach of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause--sometimes called the "Sweeping Clause"--of Article I: that Congress has power to regulate wholly interstate activity that either (a) "affects" interstate activity, (b) uses instrumentalities obtained from outside the state, or (c) is part of a comprehensive national regulatory scheme. This amendment makes clear that Congress retains the power to regulate interstate pollution and the power to define and punish acts of war and insurrection against the U.S., for example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction.

This provision leaves untouched the delegated powers of Congress to regulate wholly intrastate activities to enforce civil rights as expressly authorized by, for example, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments; it only restricts the improper construction of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to reach wholly intrastate activity.

Proposal 3: The third proposed amendment addresses two sources of persistent federal intrusion into the powers of states. The first is federal laws mandating state action necessitating the expenditure of state funds without reimbursing the states for their expenditures. In this manner, the federal government can take credit for adopting measures without incurring the political cost of increasing taxes or borrowing. The second problem is the use of federal spending to restrict liberty for purposes not delegated to the U.S. For example, the 55 mph speed limit was imposed by the states by conditioning the receipt of federal highway funds upon compliance with this mandate. This amendment makes this type of condition on funding unconstitutional.

Proposal 4: The framers of the Constitution were profoundly wary of entangling the U.S. in international legal commitments, so they required two-thirds of the Senate to ratify all treaties, and they assumed that treaties would only reach matters of truly international concern. These principles have been subverted by misinterpretations of the Constitution. First, the treaty power has been interpreted to reach every imaginable subject, including many subjects of purely local concern. Second, the treaty power has been interpreted as a mechanism to increase the legislative power of Congress, thus creating a doubly perverse incentive: an incentive to enter into new international legal obligations simply to attain increased domestic legislative power. This amendment would correct these errors and restore the original meaning of the Treaty Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

Proposal 5: The fifth proposed amendment makes it clear that the freedom of speech and press now protected by the First Amendment extends equally to all media, including for example radio and television, as well as to financial contributions to political candidates and campaigns.

Continued on the next page

Proposal 6: At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to seek an amendment to the Constitution by applying for a constitutional convention to propose amendments that must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This proposed amendment provides an additional check on federal power by empowering the same number of states to rescind any law or regulation when they concur it is necessary. Such a power provides a targeted method to reverse particular Congressional acts and administrative regulations without the risk of permanently amending the text of the Constitution.

Proposal 7: When the tradition of two presidential terms established by George Washington was broken by Franklin Roosevelt, the Congress and states responded with the 22nd Amendment limiting every president to two terms. The seventh proposed amendment establishes congressional term limits by allowing two full terms for Senators and six full terms for Representatives. This restores what the founders referred to as "rotation in office," which has been undermined by various forms of incumbent protection that are difficult to identify specifically and correct. More information on the merits of term limits can be found here. To reduce any disruption, it phases in these limits by exempting the time already served by incumbents from the calculation of the limits on their terms.

Proposal 8: The practice by Congress of aggregating thousands of lines of expenditures into "omnibus" appropriation bills has greatly diminished the veto power that the Constitution reposes in the president. Because of their reluctance to threaten a government shut down, Presidents are loath to veto such bills. Knowing this, Senators and Representatives can load spending bills with pork, knowing that Congress will never have to give an up or down floor vote to a particular line item and that the threat of a presidential veto is empty.

While there is great demand for constitutional requirement of a balanced budget, mechanisms for this that have been devised to date are highly complex, typically contain numerous exceptions and loopholes, and lack effective means of enforcement.

By linking the goal of a balanced budget with a temporary presidential line-item veto, the eighth proposed amendment provides a real incentive for Congress to devise a balance budget; if Congress fails to do so, the president would then have a temporary line item veto power over any appropriation in the budget. For example, should Congress enact a budget with a deficit, the president could veto Congressional earmarks and be held accountable for failing to do so. The amendment also ensures that Congress will retain the same power to override any presidential line item veto as it currently has for a traditional veto. The operation and advantages of this measure over other balance budget amendments is explained in detail here.

Proposal 9: The existing Ninth Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Section 1 of this proposal elaborates on the original meaning of "rights ... retained by the people" with language that is adopted from the wording of amendments proposal to the first Congress by state ratification conventions and by James Madison, and from the very similar wording found in several state Constitutions at the time of the founding.

For example, the constitution of Pennsylvania read: "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 protected the right of any citizen "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property. ..."

Section 2 corrects the current approach of the Supreme Court that precludes citizens and legal residents from contesting the necessity and propriety of restrictions on their retained rights unless the Court deems the right in question to be "fundamental" and provides all liberties with the same type of protection now accorded the rights of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Proposal 10: The 10th proposed amendment ensures that the text of the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land by preventing judges from ignoring or changing the linguistic meaning of the text of the Constitution by "interpretation." It requires that judges obey the text of the Constitution until it is properly changed by a constitutional amendment. And it confirms that foreign law is relevant to constitutional interpretation only to the extent that it casts light on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. A constitution that is ignored or systematically misinterpreted is a dead constitution. Only if the Constitution is actually followed can it accurately be considered as a "living constitution."
__________________________________

All that doesnt change the fact that Fair Labor Standards Act still remains unchallenged for 70 years.

The reason is, taxpayers are subsidizing companies who pay minimum wage, because they need welfare to survive on these low wages.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

This was resolved in United States v. Darby.

The Court found that based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. - Wikipedia.

Yes.

The all-expansive, means everything, Interstate Commerce Clause.

If anything Congress does can be done in the name of Interstate Commerce, why have powers reserved to the states?

Those were HORRIBLE decisions, unilaterally expanding Federal power and buttfucking State power right in the ass.

But, we need to adopt Randy Barnett's proposed Bill of Federalism:

A Bill Of Federalism

_______________________
Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]

Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed.

Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power]

The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Article [of Amendment 3] -- [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]

Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.

Article [of Amendment 4] -- [No Abuse of the Treaty Power]

No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.

Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press]

The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.

Article [of Amendment 6] -- [Power of States to Check Federal Power]

Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

Article [of Amendment 7] -- [Term Limits for Congress]

No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Article [of Amendment 8] -- [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]

Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.

Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.

Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People]

Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.

Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

Article [of Amendment 10] -- [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution]

The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.

Click here for an explanation of each Amendment

Here is my explanation of each amendment, in plain English.

Proposal 1: The income tax has vastly increased the power and the intrusiveness of the federal government, far beyond what the framers of the 16th Amendment ever imagined. The first proposed amendment restores the original taxing power of Congress by denying it the power to enact income estate or gift taxes, or to circumvent this restriction by levying an annual tax on net consumption or expenditures.

Lest the prohibition on an aggregate consumption tax raises any doubt, the provision makes clear that Congress retains the power to impose a sales tax that is uniform. Sometimes called a "fair tax," a national sales tax would be paid by all persons residing in the U.S., whether legally or illegally, without the need for intrusive reporting of their activities. As people buy and consume more, they would pay more in taxes, but all their savings and investments would appreciate free of tax. And no longer will everyone have to file annual returns that expose their private actions to the government and give rise to liability for any errors. Detailed information on how a national sales tax can be implemented is available here.

This proposal also increases the voting requirement for tax increases to three-fifths of each house, and requires that all tax increases be presented to the president for his signature. This preserves the effectiveness of the veto power lest a tax increase be buried in an "omnibus" bill that the president will feel compelled to sign. Finally, to give Congress ample time to fashion an alternative revenue system--and do away with the IRS--the implementation of this amendment is delayed for five years. Of course, Congress may end the income or estate tax sooner if it so chooses.

Proposal 2: The original Constitution reserved powers to the states by specifically delegating powers to Congress. Consequently, as Congress has exercised powers beyond those delegated to it by the Constitution, the reserved powers of states have been usurped. The second proposed amendment restores the Commerce Clause to its original meaning, thereby leaving wholly intrastate activities to be prohibited or regulated by the several states, or be left completely free of any regulations as states may choose.

And it negates three constructions adopted by the Supreme Court to expand the reach of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause--sometimes called the "Sweeping Clause"--of Article I: that Congress has power to regulate wholly interstate activity that either (a) "affects" interstate activity, (b) uses instrumentalities obtained from outside the state, or (c) is part of a comprehensive national regulatory scheme. This amendment makes clear that Congress retains the power to regulate interstate pollution and the power to define and punish acts of war and insurrection against the U.S., for example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction.

This provision leaves untouched the delegated powers of Congress to regulate wholly intrastate activities to enforce civil rights as expressly authorized by, for example, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments; it only restricts the improper construction of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to reach wholly intrastate activity.

Proposal 3: The third proposed amendment addresses two sources of persistent federal intrusion into the powers of states. The first is federal laws mandating state action necessitating the expenditure of state funds without reimbursing the states for their expenditures. In this manner, the federal government can take credit for adopting measures without incurring the political cost of increasing taxes or borrowing. The second problem is the use of federal spending to restrict liberty for purposes not delegated to the U.S. For example, the 55 mph speed limit was imposed by the states by conditioning the receipt of federal highway funds upon compliance with this mandate. This amendment makes this type of condition on funding unconstitutional.

Proposal 4: The framers of the Constitution were profoundly wary of entangling the U.S. in international legal commitments, so they required two-thirds of the Senate to ratify all treaties, and they assumed that treaties would only reach matters of truly international concern. These principles have been subverted by misinterpretations of the Constitution. First, the treaty power has been interpreted to reach every imaginable subject, including many subjects of purely local concern. Second, the treaty power has been interpreted as a mechanism to increase the legislative power of Congress, thus creating a doubly perverse incentive: an incentive to enter into new international legal obligations simply to attain increased domestic legislative power. This amendment would correct these errors and restore the original meaning of the Treaty Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

Proposal 5: The fifth proposed amendment makes it clear that the freedom of speech and press now protected by the First Amendment extends equally to all media, including for example radio and television, as well as to financial contributions to political candidates and campaigns.

Continued on the next page

Proposal 6: At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to seek an amendment to the Constitution by applying for a constitutional convention to propose amendments that must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This proposed amendment provides an additional check on federal power by empowering the same number of states to rescind any law or regulation when they concur it is necessary. Such a power provides a targeted method to reverse particular Congressional acts and administrative regulations without the risk of permanently amending the text of the Constitution.

Proposal 7: When the tradition of two presidential terms established by George Washington was broken by Franklin Roosevelt, the Congress and states responded with the 22nd Amendment limiting every president to two terms. The seventh proposed amendment establishes congressional term limits by allowing two full terms for Senators and six full terms for Representatives. This restores what the founders referred to as "rotation in office," which has been undermined by various forms of incumbent protection that are difficult to identify specifically and correct. More information on the merits of term limits can be found here. To reduce any disruption, it phases in these limits by exempting the time already served by incumbents from the calculation of the limits on their terms.

Proposal 8: The practice by Congress of aggregating thousands of lines of expenditures into "omnibus" appropriation bills has greatly diminished the veto power that the Constitution reposes in the president. Because of their reluctance to threaten a government shut down, Presidents are loath to veto such bills. Knowing this, Senators and Representatives can load spending bills with pork, knowing that Congress will never have to give an up or down floor vote to a particular line item and that the threat of a presidential veto is empty.

While there is great demand for constitutional requirement of a balanced budget, mechanisms for this that have been devised to date are highly complex, typically contain numerous exceptions and loopholes, and lack effective means of enforcement.

By linking the goal of a balanced budget with a temporary presidential line-item veto, the eighth proposed amendment provides a real incentive for Congress to devise a balance budget; if Congress fails to do so, the president would then have a temporary line item veto power over any appropriation in the budget. For example, should Congress enact a budget with a deficit, the president could veto Congressional earmarks and be held accountable for failing to do so. The amendment also ensures that Congress will retain the same power to override any presidential line item veto as it currently has for a traditional veto. The operation and advantages of this measure over other balance budget amendments is explained in detail here.

Proposal 9: The existing Ninth Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Section 1 of this proposal elaborates on the original meaning of "rights ... retained by the people" with language that is adopted from the wording of amendments proposal to the first Congress by state ratification conventions and by James Madison, and from the very similar wording found in several state Constitutions at the time of the founding.

For example, the constitution of Pennsylvania read: "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 protected the right of any citizen "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property. ..."

Section 2 corrects the current approach of the Supreme Court that precludes citizens and legal residents from contesting the necessity and propriety of restrictions on their retained rights unless the Court deems the right in question to be "fundamental" and provides all liberties with the same type of protection now accorded the rights of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Proposal 10: The 10th proposed amendment ensures that the text of the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land by preventing judges from ignoring or changing the linguistic meaning of the text of the Constitution by "interpretation." It requires that judges obey the text of the Constitution until it is properly changed by a constitutional amendment. And it confirms that foreign law is relevant to constitutional interpretation only to the extent that it casts light on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. A constitution that is ignored or systematically misinterpreted is a dead constitution. Only if the Constitution is actually followed can it accurately be considered as a "living constitution."
__________________________________

All that doesnt change the fact that Fair Labor Standards Act still remains unchallenged for 70 years.

The reason is, taxpayers are subsidizing companies who pay minimum wage, because they need welfare to survive on these low wages.

Wouldn’t the common sense reasoning be the government isn’t very good at market control? By your own admission it’s been 70 years and the minimum wage people are still dirt poor. How long do you need to finally realize made up minimum wages hurt more than they help?

 

[toobfreak]

So many times I hear conservatives make the ridiculous claim that if the minimum wage was raised a few buck an hour, the cost of everything would skyrocket. It comes from such a place of ignorance. And yes, prices would rise but we are talking cents on the dollar and people would have a few extra hundred bucks to spend each month.

Actual economics matter. Jobs would be lost initially, but over time the boost to consumer spending would CREATE jobs. The cost of jobs is worth the benefits.

“A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has evaluated the impact of raising the federal minimum wage to $15, $12, or $10 per hour by 2025. According to CBO estimates, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would boost the pay for 17 million workers. But, says CBO, it would also cause a median 1.3 million employees to lose their jobs as employers can’t afford the wage — that’s a 0.8% reduction of the number of employed workers.

CBO says that if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour, there is a 66% chance that between none and 3.7 million people could lose their jobs. However, the report states, “there is considerable uncertainty about the size of any option’s effect on employment.”

$15 minimum wage would boost pay for 17 million workers, says CBO

I'm sorry, remind me again WHERE in the Constitution it stipulates that it is the job of the Fed to dictate to states how much or how little private business can pay for a given job? I forget just which Article that came under.

Congress created Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938.

This act was created under article 1, section 8 of constitution; the section allowing congress to regulate commerce. States can too.

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only “commerce” in a classic sense, i.e., the buying, selling, or transportation of goods or services across state lines. By its terms, the Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only interstate commerce itself—not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The power to regulate ‘commerce’ can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities’ effects on interstate commerce.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is unconstitutional.

This was resolved in United States v. Darby.

The Court found that based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. - Wikipedia.

What a crock of bull. How does a kid serving me a burger and fries a mile from my house become "interstate commerce?
How does giving him $15.00 instead of leaving it $10.50 make it not "substandard" labor?"
And where is any of this supported in the Constitution?
It is not.
No one has to take any job and the MARKET not the government should drive labor costs.
The question was where is this supported in the US Constitution and you have just proven it is not.

 

[bripat9643]

So many times I hear conservatives make the ridiculous claim that if the minimum wage was raised a few buck an hour, the cost of everything would skyrocket. It comes from such a place of ignorance. And yes, prices would rise but we are talking cents on the dollar and people would have a few extra hundred bucks to spend each month.

Actual economics matter. Jobs would be lost initially, but over time the boost to consumer spending would CREATE jobs. The cost of jobs is worth the benefits.

“A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has evaluated the impact of raising the federal minimum wage to $15, $12, or $10 per hour by 2025. According to CBO estimates, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would boost the pay for 17 million workers. But, says CBO, it would also cause a median 1.3 million employees to lose their jobs as employers can’t afford the wage — that’s a 0.8% reduction of the number of employed workers.

CBO says that if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour, there is a 66% chance that between none and 3.7 million people could lose their jobs. However, the report states, “there is considerable uncertainty about the size of any option’s effect on employment.”

$15 minimum wage would boost pay for 17 million workers, says CBO

I'm sorry, remind me again WHERE in the Constitution it stipulates that it is the job of the Fed to dictate to states how much or how little private business can pay for a given job? I forget just which Article that came under.

Congress created Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938.

This act was created under article 1, section 8 of constitution; the section allowing congress to regulate commerce. States can too.

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only “commerce” in a classic sense, i.e., the buying, selling, or transportation of goods or services across state lines. By its terms, the Clause authorizes Congress to regulate only interstate commerce itself—not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The power to regulate ‘commerce’ can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities’ effects on interstate commerce.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is unconstitutional.

This was resolved in United States v. Darby.

The Court found that based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. - Wikipedia.

That was the court infested with Roosevelt cronies that decided that. In other words, it was pure horseshit.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Just look at the practical, devastating effect that raising the minimum wage has had on youth employment. Go talk to waitresses and waiters about how jacking up the minimum wage hurt them considerably. I remember when I was a youth working at a car wash and the minimum wage jumped by about 40 cents an hour, an increase of about 50%--the car wash simply could not afford to pay all its workers the new wage, so it laid off about one-fourth of the workers.

 

[Thinker101]

The report says the impact would be the exact same across the entire country bullshit. Only people very naive stupid or both would buy that.

These people are economists. You are not. You are uneducated in economics. The estimate of job loss has those more vulnerable areas in mind.

You have no idea what I’m educated in the only thing you seem to be educated in is partisan BS. The CBO gives estimates and opinions and have been wrong before I have also seen you lefties be dismissive of and reject the CBO when they put out something that doesn’t support your narrative. I take the CBO for what it is and don’t accept what they put out as the gospel truth no matter which political narrative benefits from it.

No entity predicting economics is always 100% correct. You’re pretending you know more about economics than the CBO does and that’s stupid. Obviously you aren’t wrong that a flat min wage hike nationwide would hit some areas worse than others, but that is something the report takes into account.

Lol this is a consumer based economy you idiot. Of course it would increase GDP. That’s capitalism.

Newly unemployed low skilled workers consume less.
Never employed low skilled workers consume less.
Businesses with less profit consume less.

Keep demonstrating your stage one thinking. As if I needed more proof of your ignorance.

Yeah no shit. We are talking about a median of 1.5 million in estimated loss of jobs though. That doesn’t somehow translate to a stagnant economy. It’s a minor setback, but in the mean time 17 million more workers are spending hundreds of dollars more per month. Over time, this boost to consumer spending will generate more GDP and will easily pay for the loss of capital and then some.

The reason why wages are stagnant and way behind on the cost of inflation isn’t because businesses can’t afford it. These businesses refuse to pay above the bare minimum because it maximizes their profit. You do get that right? Unfettered capitalism results in the exploitation of the workers. That is the fundamental flaw in a private market system.

We are talking about a median of 1.5 million in estimated loss of jobs though.

That's the immediate loss. Now what about the loss of the new entrants to the work force who you've forever priced out of a job?

It’s a minor setback,

That hits minority teens the hardest.

but in the mean time 17 million more workers are spending hundreds of dollars more per month.

Where did they get this extra money? Be specific.

Over time, this boost to consumer spending will generate more GDP and will easily pay for the loss of capital and then some.

You've already shown your economic ignorance, no need to repeat it.

These businesses refuse to pay above the bare minimum because it maximizes their profit.

When you have an endless flood of low skilled illegals, what's the need to pay low skilled workers above the bare minimum?

These people are economists. You are not. You are uneducated in economics. The estimate of job loss has those more vulnerable areas in mind.

You have no idea what I’m educated in the only thing you seem to be educated in is partisan BS. The CBO gives estimates and opinions and have been wrong before I have also seen you lefties be dismissive of and reject the CBO when they put out something that doesn’t support your narrative. I take the CBO for what it is and don’t accept what they put out as the gospel truth no matter which political narrative benefits from it.

No entity predicting economics is always 100% correct. You’re pretending you know more about economics than the CBO does and that’s stupid. Obviously you aren’t wrong that a flat min wage hike nationwide would hit some areas worse than others, but that is something the report takes into account.

What I’m saying is I don’t take what any economist say at face value. It was at least some economists who were telling us the election of Donald Trump would cause an economic disaster worse than the Great Depression that has not happened many if not all economists didn’t see the housing collapse and economic meltdown of 2008 coming. I take anything any so called experts in any field say with a degree of skepticism something any wise person no matter what their political leanings are would do.

Well lets see, even in Billy Baloneys study, it says that UPWARDS of over 3 million would lose their jobs.

Now before you let the Mighty Baloney tell you that is not to bad since we have over 160 million people working, remember this-------------->those 3 million jobs lost won't be white collar workers, it will be minimum wage workers, and how many of those are there? Can we guess, maybe 7 million? Maybe 10 million?

So Billy-E-Baloney is celebrating the fat that------------------>1/3 to 1/2 of very looooooooow wage workers, will lose their jobs, which now means, THEY MAKE NOTHING, not to mention...….now prices rise because of higher wages, and now those who lost their jobs because of elitist Baloney's idea, are now further away from purchasing even a McDonalds hamburger!

Just like his party, everything Billy-E-Baloney touches turns to poo-poo! You have to excuse the Phonio-Baloneeeeeeeooooo, because the void in his head is so large, he needs to get to Frisco to try and steal the Golden Gate Bridge to cover the span between his ears!

In all reality---------->he is nothing more than another raging Leftist spewing propaganda he thinks sounds good, to undermine the greatest country the world has ever been witness to. He is terrible at this craft, but is convinced he is soooooooooo good, he is a legend in his own mind, lolol!

Sorry Billy-E-Phony-Baloney, as usual, you screwed the pooch again. Now start another 10 threads, and never fear, eventually, you might get something correct-)

Over 3 million would be the worst case scenario doofus. Even then, 17 million people would be spending a couple hundred more each month. That is MORE consumer spending which translates to job growth. That is capitalism 101. All of those jobs would be made back and more over time.

The estimate is 3.7 million which is closer to 4 million, Einstein. As far as those jobs being made back, in how long? How long would you like to be unemployed?

 

[kyzr]

A congressional committee (Maxine's) just questioned Powell. One asked, "would the $15/hr minimum wage help or hurt the US economy". Powell declined to answer, and said that was congress' decision. IMHO the minimum wage should be a state decision based on Federal guidance, such as:
1. Heads of households should have a "phased in" $15/hr minimum wage, phased in over 2 or 3 years.
2. Non-heads of households should have a $10 or $12 minimum wage, also phased in over 2 or 3 years.
3. If any employees qualify for government assistance, it needs to be reported to the IRS. (the government should not be subsidizing any business)

That would give businesses time to adjust their financial planning. The problem to be addressed is income inequality. The top tax rate needs to increase to cover the budget deficit and the entitlements and healthcare for retirees.

Heads of households should have a "phased in" $15/hr minimum wage, phased in over 2 or 3 years. Bad idea.
Non-heads of households should have a $10 or $12 minimum wage, also phased in over 2 or 3 years. Makes your first bad idea even worse.
If any employees qualify for government assistance, it needs to be reported to the IRS. (the government should not be subsidizing any business) If the government gives benefits to an unskilled or low skilled worker, how is that a subsidy to the business?
The problem to be addressed is income inequality.
Why is that a problem? Why do you feel the government has the power or the ability to fix it?

If you look at the wealth distribution over time (chart below), the bottom 95% or so lose wealth and the top 5% or so gain wealth. IMHO the US needs a strong and healthy middle-class. If we devolve into the 1% of super-rich and the rest of us as peons, that society will fail.
a. You say min wages are a "bad idea" but don't say why. Job loses (1% -3%) are acceptable for non-heads of households.
b. Every job should provide a living wage, or we are peon drones, no worker should ever qualify for food stamps or welfare. (Even welfare recipients should work for their checks, like the WPA in the 1930s)
c. The Commerce Clause gives the government the power to regulate business. The government needs to work with business to prepare the work-force for productive work. I support free Community College with job training that lands good jobs, (like Germany). How will robotics and artificial intelligence affect the work-force?

Policies to reduce economic inequality

1. Increase the minimum wage.
2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit
3. Build assets for working families, like affordable housing
4. Invest in education, like free Community College and job training for real jobs (not worthless degrees with massive student loan debt)
5. Make the tax code more progressive, raise the top tax rate, add a VAT if needed to balance budget

You say min wages are a "bad idea" but don't say why.

If you add $10/hour of value but the government mandates you receive $15/hour, will you ever get hired?

Every job should provide a living wage,

How large a home should the guy sweeping the floors be able to buy?
The 18 year old running the fry basket......what type of Corvette should he be able to afford?

The government needs to work with business to prepare the work-force for productive work.

Sure. By pricing the inexperienced out of that first job....wait, what?

I support free Community College with job training that lands good jobs, (like Germany).

Maybe the teachers can all be the people you priced out of private sector work?

a. The government mandates Davis-Bacon wage rates now for Federal jobs. The workers benefited, nothing bad happened, the budgets handle the wage rates. Its called planning, and budgeting. A better argument might be "without tariffs, how can US companies compete with the low overseas wage rates?" More jobs and factories would move overseas. You either hire workers, or you don't
b. How many more $billions do the top 1% need to feel human? In 1950 the average CEO pay was about 20x the average worker. Today that multiple is 361. Why are CEOs compensated so much more than their workers? Are they worth it? Not always.
CEO Pay Skyrockets To 361 Times That Of The Average Worker
c. Stop being stupid. Matching job skills, training, and even education with the jobs that are available or projected is better than what we have now. Free Community College would make workers more valuable by getting specific job training. That will help them land their first job more than a useless college degree (Art-History, Gender Studies, Fashion Design, Music, Communications, Liberal Arts, Fine Arts, etc.)
d. There may be a glut of useless teachers to deal with, maybe they'd need re-training to stay useful. Either way, they'd be well compensated.

The government mandates Davis-Bacon wage rates now for Federal jobs.

Yes, another horrible idea.

The workers benefited, nothing bad happened,

You're kidding, right?

In 1950 the average CEO pay was about 20x the average worker. Today that multiple is 361.

Wow! You love your fake statistics.

1. Davis-Bacon is a minimum wage law that works. Your non-reply means you lose.
2. Nothing bad happened, workers got good pay for working. (not kidding, you lose again)
3. CEOs get 361x the average worker. Read the fucking link I provided. Here it is again, its not a fake article, you lose 3x. Thanks for playing.
CEO Pay Skyrockets To 361 Times That Of The Average Worker