Democratic agenda Options

[pebkac]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1981688,00.html

The proposed legislation from the Democrats includes:

· Ethics reform, with a ban on gifts from lobbyists to congressmen and other controls;

· A rise in the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour;

· An end to the Bush administration's restrictions on stem cell research;

· Implementation of the recommendations of the commission on the 9/11 terror attacks;

· A plan for the federal government to negotiate cheaper prices for prescription drugs;

· And the halving of interest rates on student loans.

I suppose the minimum wage thing is debatable, but I like most of the stuff on the agenda (although I really don't know much about the 9/11 committee's recommendations. I do like the last one the best though.

Another interesting part...

In a much-anticipated speech, Mr Bush is expected to reveal his new strategy on the war as early as next week, amid widespread speculation that he intends to bolster the US presence in Iraq in the short term by an additional 30,000 troops.

That troop "surge" and a White House request for an additional $100bn (£51bn) to pay for the war this year are expected to encounter strong opposition from a previously supportive Congress.

This should turn out to be interesting. Wonder what the Dems are going to do if Bush does decide to try a surge.

[Billy]

Did you ever stop to consider that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people? Slavery is good for the economy, but it isn't good for those people who are exploited. You cannot just look at numbers. You have to also look at the human part of the issue.


By the way: Dun dun dun

[impala454]

Did you ever stop to consider that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people? Slavery is good for the economy, but it isn't good for those people who are exploited. You cannot just look at numbers. You have to also look at the human part of the issue.

kinda ironic, considering only a few posts ago you said:

Show me facts, not beliefs.

anyhow, you tell me then, how you believe a minimum wage increase is good for the people. how it will help the 'human' part of the issue, and how it will make a worker under $7.25 strive for a better future for themselves.

By the way: Dun dun dun

not really much of a shocker. as was already stated the politicians approve of it because it makes them look good in their elections ('vote for me I increased your wages').

[Billy]

kinda ironic, considering only a few posts ago you said:
anyhow, you tell me then, how you believe a minimum wage increase is good for the people. how it will help the 'human' part of the issue, and how it will make a worker under $7.25 strive for a better future for themselves.

So which part of that post do you disagree with? Was it the claim that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people in it? Was it the example I gave? Do you disagree you should not consider the human element of issues?

You cannot rule a country on economics alone. If economists had their way, we'd all be working 80+ hour work weeks (increase in GDP). To answer your last question though: in general, when someone makes more money, they have a higher quality of life (and before you counter with the whole inflation argument and how increasing minimum wage actually means they end up making fewer "real" dollars, think about it: I've yet to see that happen). You believe (and falsely) that an increase in the minimum wage is equivalent to "just printing more money". That is not the case, because more money isn't being printed (yes, I understand your example, but I think the only way to have the effect on the economy your example tries to illustrate is to literally print more money). Instead, what's happening is you're redistributing the wealth from the richest people (corporate leaders), to the poorest (minimum wage workers) [do you understand how this has a different effect than just printing off more money?]. Sometimes this is a good thing to do, other times it is a bad thing to do (need balance). Given that the current minimum wage in buying power is as low as it's ever been since the 1970's, that's a good argument to increase it. But everything is a trade off. If, and only if, those who make more money do not spend it, but instead save it, that is bad for the economy. But lucky for us, the poorest people tend to be bad savers.

I think I've made my case the best I can. I feel your argument is far from convincing and it seems mine isn't much better. I guess we'll just have to see what happens =)

[impala454]

So which part of that post do you disagree with? Was it the claim that what's best for the economy isn't always best for the people in it? Was it the example I gave? Do you disagree you should not consider the human element of issues?

You cannot rule a country on economics alone. If economists had their way, we'd all be working 80+ hour work weeks (increase in GDP). To answer your last question though: in general, when someone makes more money, they have a higher quality of life (and before you counter with the whole inflation argument and how increasing minimum wage actually means they end up making fewer "real" dollars, think about it: I've yet to see that happen). You believe (and falsely) that an increase in the minimum wage is equivalent to "just printing more money". That is not the case, because more money isn't being printed (yes, I understand your example, but I think the only way to have the effect on the economy your example tries to illustrate is to literally print more money). Instead, what's happening is you're redistributing the wealth from the richest people (corporate leaders), to the poorest (minimum wage workers) [do you understand how this has a different effect than just printing off more money?]. Sometimes this is a good thing to do, other times it is a bad thing to do (need balance). Given that the current minimum wage in buying power is as low as it's ever been since the 1970's, that's a good argument to increase it. But everything is a trade off. If, and only if, those who make more money do not spend it, but instead save it, that is bad for the economy. But lucky for us, the poorest people tend to be bad savers.

I think I've made my case the best I can. I feel your argument is far from convincing and it seems mine isn't much better. I guess we'll just have to see what happens =)

this is a perfect example of the argument for the increase. every argument I've read so far, whether on here or some news report or website, takes this extremely narrow minded approach. it says "well they'll make more money so that's good right?" without looking at the effects it has on business. you think it's a take from the rich give to the poor thing? please. you believe someone can't live off the minimum wage at a full time job? this isn't about getting high school & college kids more beer money. Minimum wage is just that, the bare minimum. it's not a "minimum so everyone can have a decent apartment and cable & high speed internet". people who don't strive for more than the minimums won't get more than the minimum. and did you just skim over the part I pasted from that article? here it is again:

The last major increase in the minimum wage was in 1996. After the increase, a survey of 1,000 restaurants by the National Restaurant Association concluded that more than 146,000 jobs were eliminated because of increased labor costs. These same restaurants delayed hiring an additional 106,000 people for a net loss of 252,000 employees in the restaurant industry alone.

how's that for the 'human side' of things?