About Me

Name: The Voice of...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Minimum wage increase, bad for America

Nancy Pelosi has vowed that on the agenda within the first 100 hours of the democratic party take over of the House of Representatives will be to increase the current federal minimum wage of $5.15/hr to $7.15/hr. Hiking the minimum wage, on the surface, sounds like the compassionate thing to do doesn't it? i mean who can live on $5.15/hr.? Or even $6.00? Can you? I know i can't!

But now let's take a look at some facts about minimum wage. Who actually works that cheap? My 17 year old daughter recently obtained her first job at McDonalds starting at $6.00/hr (not $5.15). My son, having just obtained his first job about a year ago at age 20, is making that much as well.  Both are living at home. Translation: I am flipping the bill. They have no cost of living. that is unless you count the big macs or movies they take in with their friends.

Here are some statistics that my children fall right in the middle of things. Economist Dr. Walter E. Williams states in Capitalism Magazine, workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25; only about 2 percent of workers over the age of 25 earn minimum wages.   Moreover, 63% of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15% still earn the minimum wage after three years.  Furthermore, only 5.3 of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; 40% live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher. 

The U.S. Department of Labor reports "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15."

That is the dirty little secret the liberals will not tell you. The liberals would like us all to think that the average American is struggling by, not able to put food on the table and having to decide between feeding his kids or paying the light bill all because he is making minimum wage when in reality, no one or very few are actually getting paid at that rate. And the ones that are getting paid that, I have a solution to pull you out of the poverty you put yourself in. Learn a trade and quit relying on the government to help you out. They will never get you where you can get on your own..

Now, for arguments sake, let's assume for an instant that many Americans are only getting paid $5.15/hr and the facts I stated earlier are all bogus. Just for the record, I am going to "steal" an argument from Rush Limbaugh (Ok I just lost half of the readers). Why stop at $7.15? What is so magical about that amount? why not just go to $10.00/hr? Or $20.00? Better yet, let's just raise it to $50,000/yr. If $7.15/hr will do the trick, just think how well $50,000 will do?

I want to raise two well established facts about minimum wage increases that again, the liberals don't want to tell us.

1. Employers will be forced to raise their prices or cut jobs to compensate for the sudden overhead they have been slapped with. When i first informed my son and daughter that their pay would go up over a dollar an hour if congress does pass this, they were ecstatic. On the surface, once again, it looks great. And then I started to explain to them what they would have to start paying for a big mac,  or a movie ticket when the merchant raises the price. They lost their enthusiasm real quick. And that is the good side. The bad side is my daughter or son might be one of the ones the employer will have to let go to cover his expenses which would, obviously, have a diverse effect on our record breaking low unemployment rate of 4.4%.

Are liberals gullible enough to think the employer will just suck it up and eat $90.00 a week per employee extra without passing it on down to the consumer? And then what about the person that is already making $7.15/hr? Now, all of a sudden he or she is only making minimum wage  when they worked so hard to get those pay raises for the last couple years. The employer is now faced with a dilemma. They will be forced to raise that employees pay or risk the possibility of losing a good employee.

2. And then there are the  Unions. If the Unions can get legislation passed, it will do two things for them. 1.) they can gain bargaining position for higher wage contracts, and 2.) raise their monthly dues. Council of Trade Unions' President Ross Wilson has indicated he would like to see a minimum wage increase of $12.00/hr. Bottom line: More money in his pocket!

My solution is that we completely do away with the minimum wage which would make pay more competitive. The majority of employers want good help and will pay to get it.  They don't need the government to  regulate how much they should have to  pay. Anytime the government sticks their hands into it, whether it is minimum wage, education, or even airport security, the system becomes broken
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is this global warming or global cooling? Can you please make up your mind?

 

I wish you libs would make up your mind. Are we having Global warming or cooling? It amazes me that only thirty years ago you guys swore up and down we were headed for the ice age. But to listen to you guys now, we are all going to melt away.

On April 28, 1975 Newsweek had an article written by Peter Gwynne that said, quoting from Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin,  the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

But what is real hilarious is if we look at what you guys said about global cooling then, and compare it with what you guys say now about global warming, they are identical. Here is an excerpt taken from Terradaily Feb. 5, 2005 Global warming will boost outbreaks of infectious disease, worsen shortages of water and food in vulnerable countries and create an army of climate refugees fleeing uninhabitable regions, a conference here was told Wednesday.  And then the Newsweek article says, The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

Dennis Miller said the other day (paraphrased), The only difference between what they said thirty years ago and today is the two words, warming and cooling. He hit the nail on the head.

This all boils down to one underlying fact. This has nothing to do with their fears of either a warming trend or a cooling trend. What it boils down to is the liberal agenda of bringing about socialism throughout the world. To punish the rich for having a lot and then taking it away from them to help those poor starving souls.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ban the media from reporting on the war!

 

That's right folks! You heard me. Can anyone please tell me what war we have actually won after Korea? Has anyone noticed that since the lib media has been involved at the level they have been since the 60's America has cut and run in every conflict? Even the first Gulf war, we didn't get Saddam Hussein! I realize that wasn't the mission, but once again, the reason being was the role of the media. If Herbert Walker Bush would have made it the U.S. mission, this would have required ground troops and the media would have gone bonkers. The liberal media doesn't report facts, but put out an agenda filled with anti-american propaganda. They report what they would like to be facts and then hope it turns out the way they reported. But whether it does or not, their mission is to convince the America people that what they read and hear  is the truth. As someone has said, "the liberal media has become the fourth branch of government"

Republicans are afraid to stand up against them and refuse to do what FDR, and  Abraham Lincoln did to preserve this nation. FDR rounded up the Japanese during WWII because he feared there could possibly be a threat against Americans. And he did the right thing. Can you even imagine what would happen if GW Bush rounded up all the Arabs living in this country? They would eat him for lunch. And then Lincoln, hailed as one of the greatest presidents in our history, suspended Habeas Corpus because he feared a total breakdown in this country. And again, he was right in doing so. And contrary to what many would think, Lincoln did not violate the constitution.

Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

The operative word here is unless. There was rebellion. And there was a fear of public safty being at risk.

In 1861, Lincoln had also suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. Once again, who do you think the liberal media would be eating for lunch if GW Bush did this?

By banning the media and keeping us all in the dark while at war, the military and president can do what it takes to assure victory without any backlash or pressure. It is not important that we know what is happening because most of it is filled with half truths.

I have had people sarcastically respond to me, "Why not just do away with the bill of rights while I am at it (obviously referring to the first amendment right of free speech)"? But as of yet, no one has been able to show where I want anyone to stop publishing. They can publish anything they want, just not about the war. With freedom comes responsibility. Try yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and see how fast you get arrested. Your first amendment right to free speech has just been violated!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »