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

[Wyatt earp]

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

And it means what exactly?


He going to get laid more than me?!

 

[Lesh]

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?

Because the minimum wage hasn't been raised to keep up with inflation...and why?

Because Republicans fight it...just like they are here

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

Because the minimum wage hasn't been raised to keep up with inflation...and why?

Because Republicans fight it...just like they are here

Minimum wage causes inflation?

 

[martybegan]

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

When you pay someone more than the value they put into the end product, you either raise the price of the product, make the product non-viable, or force the owner to find a way to make up the loss.

Even in your Utopian world of rising spending, inflation would remove any benefit because the VALUE of the product remains higher than the labor input, until inflation balances it out.

 

[keepitreal]

I live in Chicago, $1 increase went into effect July 1st
Minimum wage is now $13 an hour

The girl at Walgreens works there only part time
Only management is full time

She had started a 2nd job a few months ago
A few weeks ago I asked her how the 2nd job was going

She told me she quit the second job
because she lost her food stamps

She’d rather work 1 job and get food stamps
then 2 jobs and have to buy her own food

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Davis-Bacon is a minimum wage law that works.

If by works you mean designed to keep blacks from working these jobs while inflating government costs, yeah, it worked like a charm. It should be eliminated. Today.

Nothing bad happened, workers got good pay for working.

You're wrong. Again. Not kidding.

The Racist History of Minimum Wage Laws


04/16/2017 Chris Calton

In 1966, Milton Friedman wrote an op-ed for Newsweek entitled "Minimum Wage Rates." In it, he argued "that the minimum-wage law is the most anti-Negro law on our statute books." He was, of course, referring to the then-present era, after the far more explicitly racist laws from the slavery and segregation eras of United States history had already been done away with. But his observation about the racist effects of minimum wage laws can be traced back to the nineteenth century, and they continue to have a disproportionately deleterious effect on African-Americans into the present day.

The earliest of such laws were regulations passed in regards to the railroad industry. At the end of the nineteenth century, as Dr. Walter Williams points out, "On some railroads — most notably in the South — blacks were 85–90 percent of the firemen, 27 percent of the brakemen, and 12 percent of the switchmen."1

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, unable to block railroad companies from hiring the non-unionized black workers, called for regulations preventing the employment of blacks. In 1909, a compromise was offered: a minimum wage, which was to be imposed equally on all races.

To the pro-minimum wage advocate, this may superficially seem like an anti-racist policy. During this time, with racism still rampant throughout the United States, blacks were only able to enjoy such high levels of employment by accepting lower wages than their white counterparts. These wage-gaps at the time genuinely were the product of racist sentiment.

But this new wage rule, of course, did not eliminate the racism of nineteenth-century employers. Instead, it displaced their racism at the expense of black workers. One white union member at the time celebrated the new rule for removing "the incentive for employing the Negro."2 This early minimum wage rule was explicitly put in place to prevent African-Americans from finding employment, and it was successful in this goal.

In the 1930s, racial views had hardly improved, if at all. Despite this, the unemployment rate among blacks was actually marginally lower than that of whites.3 Like the railroad workers, this was due to their willingness to accept lower wages than whites. But as infuriating as the employer racism at the time might be, the 1930s wage laws should incite even more anger.

In 1931, Congress passed the Davis-Bacon Act, requiring uniform wages for any workers employed in federally funded public works projects. In 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act was signed into law, mandating industry-specific wages throughout the economy. In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act — the only one of the three to remain permanently on the books — took effect, initially imposing a federal minimum wage for any worker engaged in interstate commerce.

All of these laws served to price African-Americans out of the job market. Rather than forcing employers to pay non-racist wages, it simply forced blacks to shift from suffering race-motivated wages to suffering race-motivated unemployment.

The industries that were not governed by minimum wage laws demonstrate the market's propensity to raise the relative income of discriminated people. In the 1920s, for example, popular black performers were starring in Broadway plays alongside whites. In the 1940s, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball, despite the racism in professional sports. Meanwhile, blacks in civilian and government jobs were being pushed out of their industries by wage floors.

By the 1960s, many African-Americans were employed as farmers — at least partly due to this being one of the few remaining fields of work that was not yet subject to wage regulations. This changed in 1967, when the government extended the minimum wage laws to American farmers as part of the "War on Poverty." Black farmers who were accustomed to making a modest $3.50 per day were now legally required to be paid $1.00 per hour — a tremendous increase in wages.

The effect of this law was immediate and undeniable. An estimated 25,000 farm workers were put out of work in the Mississippi Delta region alone.4 Black farmers were not oblivious to the cause-and-effect at play. "That dollar an hour ain't worth nothing," said the wife of one day-laborer. "It would have been better if it had been 50 cents a day if you work every day."5 Fifty cents per day, of course, was a lower wage than what her husband would have been earning prior to the law. Her point was clear: the federal minimum wage destroyed their ability to earn a living.

Instead of raising the wages of the predominantly-black farmers, the new law sped-up the move toward mechanization and ushered in the use of chemical weed killers instead of the previously more economical human weed pullers. Meanwhile, black migration out of these farmlands occurred by the thousands; the New York Times in 1968 called it the "Negro Exodus."

Whatever your feelings on the status of racism in America today, it is difficult to argue that the United States is actually more racist than it was during the Jim Crow era. In that time span, the country has gone from making African-Americans drink from different water fountains to electing the first black president. Yet, despite this distinct improvement, the unemployment rate of black teens is roughly double that of whites. In 1948, by contrast, the unemployment rate among teenagers was the same between the races.6 Despite the widespread racism remaining in the country following the emancipation of slaves, the rise of a black middle-class started to emerge quickly and continued for decades. But thanks to meddlesome laws passed by presumably well-intentioned bureaucrats, the government has only served to stifle this upward trajectory.

• 1. Walter E. Williams, South Africa's War Against Capitalism (New York: Praeger, 1989), p. 74.
• 2. Sterling D. Spero and Abram Harris, The Black Worker (New York: Kennikat Press, 1931), p. 291.
• 3. Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 3rd ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2007), p. 250.
• 4. James C. Cobb, "Somebody Done Nailed Us on the Cross: Federal Farm and Welfare Policy and the Civil Rights Movement in the Mississippi Delta," The Journal of American History (December 1990): 912–36.
• 5.Des Moines Register, February 27, 1968, p. 2.
• 6. Sowell, Basic Economics, p. 251.

The Racist History of Minimum Wage Laws | Chris Calton

CEOs get 361x the average worker. Read the fucking link I provided.

You don't understand what your fucking link is fucking saying.

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.

361 times is for 500 of the biggest corporations on the whole damn planet. Moron.

Meanwhile, in the real world.......if $13,940,000 is 361 times the average rank and file worker ($38,615),
average CEO salary $200,140 is a bit over 5 times average worker salary.

Chief Executives

You're welcome. Come back anytime. Glad to educate the misinformed.

 

[BluesLegend]

I see the libtards are yapping about how there will be no negative consequences for increasing costs. These people are plain stupid.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

Hey DUFFUS-E-Baloney...……….do you remember the last time you played your genius economic wisdom on all of us? Well, WE DO! It was called OBAMACARE!

Do you remember the roses, peaches and cream you promised? Do you remember that "up to 2500.00 bucks" you touted we would save? What was the end result, oh "Great Karnak!"

And so, PROVE your point, and you can! We have seen BLUE states, change their state minimum wage to 15 SAMOLIANS an hr. Tell all these nice people if minimum wage jobs have massively increased, decreased, or stayed the same in their jurisdictions. Right at your fingertips is all the answers you seek, instead of massively POSTING, do a little research, just make sure you use statistics from the last 18 months.

Will the answers change your mind?

I doubt it, but maybe you can EDUCATE yourself for once in your dismal life, instead of being a Leftist parrot. (Billy want some crack……...errr, I mean a cracker)

Once you look up the stats, if you have ANY character at all, you will either abandon, or close this thread. For some reason, I have a feeling you will continue on in this thread with your propaganda, which translates in most social circles as meaning...……..you have NO CHARACTER worth a damn to speak of.

Carry on Phony-Baloney. Your side may yet win the 2020 election, but isn't it fascinating that to do it, you have to lie through your pearly whites, lol.