Do you really think we'll get a minimum wage increase if we win in Nov?

[Herman Munster]

I think that's being overly optimistic.

Why won't the republicans filibuster in the senate? You need 60 to pass anything and our best hope for senate victory is 51 dems.

And even if we pass it, why wouldn't Bush veto it? He vetoed stem cell research and didn't care about public opinion. He can say the typical right wing bullshit on how people will lose jobs if the minimum wage goes up and the market should decide wages.

With that in mind, I think the failed minimum wage/estate tax bill was the only hope of getting anything passed prior to 2009.

The only hope for poor people now is a dem win and a dem congress in 2009, I'm sorry to say. Poor people are going to suffer for another 3 years, minimum.

[babylonsister]

1. Strongly disagree. If Dems take over anything in November,

I think this would be one of the very first issues that's voted on (though my vote would be for impeachment, post haste). As for dimson vetoing something like this, he IS that stupid, but I can't see even him doing that.

[Atman]

Sure.

And the GOP will immediately label it a "tax increase."

[catmandu57]

8. At this point it wouldn't do them a bit of good

I don't think people would mind a bit if the people who stole the money give some back in the form of higher taxes. The tax raising issue is tired right now, we should target our taxes.
If, we regain the govt. raising the minimum wage will happen, but we've got graves to dig first.

[jerry611]

2. If we win? Around here everyone thinks the election is in the bag!

Why? I dont know. Everyone keeps putting their faith in polls.

The polls may show people disagree with the direction of the country. But I don't believe people are pissed off enough to go out to the polls in a mid-term election and vote out congress.

[MadHound]

3. And yet this bill that was just voted down was a chimera

Sure, it would have raised the minimum wage, but it also would have transfered a large tax burden from the rich onto the poor and middle class. Whatever gains you saw from a minimum wage hike would have been more than offset by a tax hike and increased debt.

It was a bad bill and it deserved to go down in defeat.

But yes, sadly you're right, we won't see a minimum wage hike now until '09 at best.

[SteppingRazor]

4. I don't think the senate would filibuster...

too politically damaging. But a Bush veto is a very likely outcome.

[ComerPerro]

5. Hell, I hope Republicans filibuster and/or Bush vetoes

[leftofthedial]

6. a massive maximum wage decrease would do far more good for this country

than even a minimum wage increase

it depends on the dynamics of the win

[rubberducky]

7. I think that a raise in minimum wage

is going to come from the states. Here in Michigan it has been raised recently.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. They will have to lay their cards on the table.

Sure they can veto and fillibuster but they will have to veto and fillibuster instead of inventing bullshit schemes to put lipstick on pigs, rename shit shinola, and pile up pork with pretend legislation.

The kimino will be open for all to see.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Puting it nicely, that's crap.

The bill as it was funded itself on the poor -- give them a miniscule raise, then futher slant the tax burden upon them by means of a multi-billion giveaway to the richest 1%. At the same time, remove minimum wage protection from tip earners in those few states where they have fought for and gained that protection.

A real minimum wage increase would be an immediate increase of $1/hr, followed by a two-step progression to $3.50/hr increase in two years, with that amount tied to annual inflation to provide for an annual increase thereafter - no more of this languishing for ten years because the wrong party controls congress. Tip earner protections should also be included. That would restore a bit of fairness to the wage scale, nationally.

Call it the Family Wage Protection Act, and emphasise that the last time there was such an equitable minimum wage, your typical family could be supported on a single income, kids worked for spending money and to support their cars, not support their families, and we had the most powerful economic engine in the world. Also, at that time, the taxes on the richest were well over 50%, and on corporations were close to 90%.

You may be right -- the poor may well suffer for another 3 years. But this bill that was shot down was not a "last hope" for them - it was no hope at all, and they would suffer anyway. This administration does not do ANYTHING to address the plight of the poor, and this band-aide minimum wage would be no help. It might, in fact, suppress wages for the poorest, because in most places businesses are paying higher than minimum wage already - not much higher, but a little bit. This bill would allow them to justify not going any higher.

ON EDIT: Welcome to DU, and keep asking those questions!