|

Why won’t the cowardly Republicans allow an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage?

party-of-no

This isn’t the way democracy is supposed to work.

No matter how you may feel about whether an increase in the federal minimum wage is a good idea or not, one overriding fact pertains: Republican leaders in the House of Representatives refuse to allow a vote on the matter.

Why? The answer is obvious: They’re afraid it will pass.

In fact, Republicans in both houses of Congress are afraid of almost every bill that comes down the pike. Consequently, their only course of action is obstruction.

If a bill the Republicans don’t like comes up in the Senate, they impose a filibuster, which requires 60 votes, rather than a simply majority of 50, to overcome.

If a bill the Republicans don’t like is proposed in the House, their  leaders refuse to allow an up-or-down vote — for fear that a few GOP members will vote with the Democrats and pass the measure.

The Founding Fathers didn’t intend for the system to work this way. But, of course, Americans get the kind of congressional representation they deserve. They could overthrow this system of obstructionism, but they’re too damn dumb to do so. They’re too distracted by the nonsense that’s fed to them by demagogues.

Share:

29 Comments

  1. Why? Because they will loss, and the bill will pass.

  2. The CBO just said raising the minimum wage will cost 500,000 jobs.

    There is simply no sane reason to bother to vote on it. Unless, of course you are a Democrat, and your whole goal is to encourage people not to work or if you do work make sure you work less hours. Democrats will never stop encouraging people to become dependent on the government instead of yourself, that’s how they stay in office.

  3. Steverino

    What else would you expect from a party that orchestrates voter suppression.

  4. Neftali: The CBO report also says the minimum wage would lift 900,000 Americans out of poverty. And the CBO cautioned that the estimate on job losses was imprecise and that job losses are likely to fall within a range from practically nothing to one million.

    Moreover, some economists said the CBO was overstating the effect on the job market. Lawrence Katz of Harvard, for instance, said that the CBO had used “a lot of off-the-shelf estimates” of the jobs effect, and that if it had emphasized findings from higher-quality studies, it would have found a smaller or negligible impact on total employment.

  5. It’s all about politics and power/control, not good economics. Politicians will vote for things they think will increase their power, rather than what is good for the country.
    A slow, measured increase in the minimum wage, bringing it up to the point that a full time worker is above the poverty level, would be good economics. A sudden jump to that amount would cause big problems, though. We have an approximately 70% consumer economy, and it will be stimulated by getting more money into the hands of people who will spend it. We don’t want to put all of the stimulus burden on businesses, however, especially small businesses. Earned Income Tax Credit increases would help, as would government infrastructure spending. The combination would lift the economy.
    The moderate republicans, who could do something, are too busy kowtowing to the tealiban to get anything reasonable done; their own power and position are more important to them than the good of the people they are supposed to serve.

    • Really? Lets give out more obama phones then. Lets keep giving “free” stuff to people who wont get off their asses. Meanwhile those of us who work hard have to pay more and more taxes to pay for these “free” entitlements. Democrats are just giving more and more people incentive to not work. So maybe we should raise minimum wage and make life better for us honest hard working americans that actually want jobs!!!

  6. G, Really? Please try to use that double-digit IQ of yours to come up with an original thought, instead of shrilly shouting the party line.
    Where did I suggest an incentive not to work? Infrastructure spending… you know, roads, bridges, stuff like that. Not giveaways, jobs. So people have money to spend on things that businesses, small and large, provide. They spend with businesses, the businesses have demand for goods and services, and have to hire more people to provide them. More jobs.
    Slowly now… think about it… jobs -> money -> spending -> demand -> more jobs… repeat. It’s called a cycle. Add something to it and you make it spin faster. I suggested a few different ways to add to it, so no one part has all the burden. Everybody gets better, even you. You might even have enough extra to do something good, like go back to school for your GED.
    Good luck!

    • Wow. And you’re not doing the same? And why do you liberals always resort to insults? Probably cuz your ideas dont work. Never have and never will. So you have to resort to sandbox tactics. The problem is the current state of liberalism in amaerica isnt liberalism, its socialism. I personally dont want government running my life.

  7. Oh and by the way, im only 17 and currently in high school. Maybe you shiuld check your iq!

  8. Oh and by the way, im only 17 and currently in high school. Maybe you should check your iq!

  9. G, maybe you will give up your socialism based social security and medicare either now if you’re drawing it or when you’re old enough because its socialism in action. Same for unemployment and disability. As far as welfare programs, some worked others didn’t.

    G, since you want to portray yourself as some steward of good governance and spending of tax payer dollars, which is cheaper: provide a small stipend to people who qualify for the welfare programs or incarcerate them when they steal to get by as that’s what they do when their hungry and cold ( or die)? That small stipend, aka welfare, is money that is circulated into the system through the businesses that money is spent at.

    Are there people who abuse the system year after year? Yes. Does that offend me? Yes. What should we do with them that isn’t going to cost us more money? Maybe you could hire them if you’re an employer?

    Give us some answers. Throw us some of that Fox News based wisdom. Enlighten us.

  10. Do you feel better about yourself when you insult people? Thats another problem with this country. People are too eager to demean others. There is no decency anymore. Maybe when you have an original idea you can stop resorting to insults Paul.

    • G, Get a grip. First, I correctly assumed you hadn’t finished High School yet. Second, I certainly am a condescending jerk who has fun mocking egregious stupidity. Part of the problem is that this kind of stupidity is not all that uncommon.
      Also, I am not a liberal. I have always been a non-partisan, centrist moderate. I don’t trust either party, and I don’t trust anyone with power. I just seem liberal compared to your extreme right-wing nonsense. I also seem conservative compared to extreme left-wing nut jobs. I once had someone tell me they thought we should do everything possible to turn all of North America into a nature preserve. Nutty.
      You have the absolute certainty of youth. A very wise man once told me the First Law of Infinity: The more you know, the more you see how much there is you don’t know.
      The converse of that is that those who know very little are completely convinced they know everything they need to know.
      I have a child your age, and I remember being that age once, long ago, so I do understand.
      Please try to open your mind and heart to understand the world, and pull your head out of whoever’s transverse colon is filling your mind with their toxic bigotry.
      The world is huge, and extremely complex. Please don’t pretend you understand it yet.

  11. Ok. First of all, social security is on the brink of going broke. How about lowering taxes so individuals can save more in private accounts and lessen the need to rely on government when retired? How about creating good paying jobs instead of extending unemployment benefits and giving out more food stamps? And if you want to talk about cycles, why dont we figure out a bipartisan way to really educate our pour so they can lift themselves out of poverty instead of tax and spend on more government programs and waste? Granted there are some social programs that work. But why do dems want everything run by the government?

    • I’m all for creating those good paying jobs that lower and middle class people can do without incurring the cost of college, like it was when I was a youngster. Those good paying jobs didn’t start out as good paying, but those factories provided a lot of upward growth opportunities which meant increased wages as new skill bases were learned.

      Places like Macdonald’s don’t really offer that kind of upward growth. Retail is what makes up most of the new jobs being created and they’re not going to provide wages to drive an economy upward, especially when rents where I live for a one bedroom can range from $750 to $1600 a month. Minimum wages aren’t going to leave much left for buying other things that drive an economy like the purchase of new cars, home appliances, carpeting, golf clubs, Christmas gifts, vacations, etc.

      Who do you want to create those jobs? And why aren’t they doing it?

  12. I also dont understand how dems have forgotten the american way, work hard to get ahead. Instead youd rather take from the rich who have worked hard for what they have and give to those who sit on their asses and expect hand outs. There are more people on food stamps today then ever, so what do you think happens when you just keep giving people stuff? Its called lazy. People get lazy and entitled.

  13. Stop with that g d dems have forgotten bs. Lots of those people getting welfare vote republican. Go back about 13 years when GWB and the republicans took us to war against a country that had nothing to do with 911 and then had the balls to cut taxes on the rich at the same time, and then run that war off the books so it didn’t show up the budget. Then Obama comes in, puts the cost of these wars on the books, and he gets blamed for increased budget. Get a conscience G!

  14. G ` “First of all, social security is on the brink of going broke.”

    Social Security cannot go broke. At worst, it will not pay out full benefits, but it will never go broke. It can’t, by law. It can never pay out money it has not collected.

  15. And you need to stop blaming bush for everything. Obama has had more than enough time now. He wanted the job but he chooses to play golf every time you turn on the news. And if social security cant pay out when were paying in then it will be broke or have to borrow money from somewhere else. Oh thats right, its nit just tax and spend, its tax borrow and spend. Malloy is saying ct have a surplus? Ehhhhh wrong! Its money left over from a loan. Wish i could balance my bank account that way!

    • As long as people have jobs, SS will have money coming in. As long as SS has money coming in, it has the ability to pay out. It cannot go broke. Also, it cannot borrow.

      G, I suggest you read up on SS yourself. Stop listening to people who do not know what they are talking about.

  16. & maybe my fellow reps are cowards! Why am i the only one taking on these socialist?

    • Social security is projected to be drained by 2037 (or there about) on its current funding. Population aging caused by the baby boomers entering retirement and a shortage of people entering the work force = a shortage of funds. So yes it can run out of money! And im sure they can find a way to borrow. Maybe king obama can use another executive order to accomplish that.

  17. Go penguins!!!

  18. t is not Social Security that runs out of money. It is the Trust Fund which is made up of excess SS collections, excess payments made by the very people who are now starting to collect SS. If no changes are made to SS, the Trust Fund will run out of money, SS will still be able to pay about 75% if the scheduled benefits from the money coming in at that time. SS does NOT run out of money. It simply can pay only about 75% of scheduled benefits. The payments will not go to zero. And that is if nothing, no changes, are made to SS.

    Your last sentence shows that you have no understanding of how SS works. I recommend you stop talking and start learning. You are not doing yourself any favors.

  19. Shawn Robinson

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
    G, if you’re going to start in on the Obama phone crap, your powers of analysis probably need some work. You can believe your political party’s cartoon version of reality of join the real world. The lifeline program began under Ronald Reagan on 1984.
    The Democrats rarely follow through with their ideas but the Republicans don’t even live in reality right now and believe they are fighting socialism. What a joke. Only people entrenched in their political cult believe that Obama is a socialist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *