Senate Rejects Bid to Raise Minimum Wage

[BettorsChat]

EXACTLY. He did whatever it took. He didn't stand around and wait for it to be handed to him. Think how productive this country would be if most had that work ethic. But that was generations past. Now it's strictly survival of the fittest, like it or not.

He works with 1 young guy that fucks off half the day and puts shit out on a computer that my father or another worker has to fix as its all screwed up. And this guy makes almost as much as my dad. So like I said he's doing good at this place and they value him, but they aren't putting enough value on him compared to the other idiot.

[winner]

[QUOTE=BettorsChat]

You've missed it 3 or 4 times

The question was asked in another topic some time back.

Can the republicans do no wrong? That includes your President.

ALL politicians do wrong;both sides. What we hear about and what is done is way different too. Transparency would be great, but will NEVER happen. All backdoor deals. But it is OUR president!

[TwoTonTony]

He works with 1 young guy that fucks off half the day and puts shit out on a computer that my father or another worker has to fix as its all screwed up. And this guy makes almost as much as my dad. So like I said he's doing good at this place and they value him, but they aren't putting enough value on him compared to the other idiot.

that is why i favor performance related wages......thats why i did sales....If i produced...i got paid...If i did not...oh well...nobody to blame except...........get ready Monte.....


the Democrats!!!! ha ha...just kidding...me!!!

[BettorsChat]

[QUOTE=winner]

ALL politicians do wrong;both sides. What we hear about and what is done is way different too. Transparency would be great, but will NEVER happen. All backdoor deals. But it is OUR president!

Next time a republican fucks up I want to hear it from you. And I don't want to debate Bush as I would be up all freaking night and he's simply not worth my time.

[TwoTonTony]

monte..1 thing i will agree on and this is just my observation.....

Democratic chicks are much better in BED!!!!

[cd329]

this just on yahoo about our great leader. really how far is this guy gonna go in the name of terrorism? its getting way out of hand, the guy thinks hes fidel castro

WASHINGTON - A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

ADVERTISEMENT

Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."

Apparently, enough to challenge many more statutes passed by Congress than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that, but notes that Bush is hardly the first chief executive to issue them.

"Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through President Clinton," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power — from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas., a former state judge.

"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.

Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists.

Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.

Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.

[BettorsChat]

that is why i favor performance related wages......thats why i did sales....If i produced...i got paid...If i did not...oh well...nobody to blame except...........get ready Monte.....


the Democrats!!!! ha ha...just kidding...me!!!

Performance wages should translate to all jobs. I think maybe you mean that, but I'm not sure. Obviously selling cars is based on that etc.

The problem is companies don't want to pay that way. They want to get as much work out of the good hard working workers as they can for as little as they can. Now some companies aren't like that and I know union jobs aren't like that. I have an uncle that is union and he makes damn good money with no education. He has either 2 or 3 months of vacation a year as well. They tried buying him out about 6 years ago and it was a nice chunk of change.

[winner]

[QUOTE=BettorsChat]

Next time a republican fucks up I want to hear it from you. And I don't want to debate Bush as I would be up all freaking night and he's simply not worth my time.

I will say it in a hearbeat. Campaign scams, soft money, buying face time, money in freezers, it's all bullshit. And it's all backdoor deals to favor themselves. Pay raises? For what? INSANE retirement/pensions, for spouses too? Put them on SSI and see how quickly it gets fixed. Have them fill out some Medicare forms and see how quicklt things get changed.

[TwoTonTony]

this just on yahoo about our great leader. really how far is this guy gonna go in the name of terrorism? its getting way out of hand, the guy thinks hes fidel castro

WASHINGTON - A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

ADVERTISEMENT

Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."

Apparently, enough to challenge many more statutes passed by Congress than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that, but notes that Bush is hardly the first chief executive to issue them.

"Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through President Clinton," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power — from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas., a former state judge.

"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.

Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists.

Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.

Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.

uh-oh....this is getting political....i thought this was the minimum wage debate?????

i am staying out of this one!!!

[winner]

uh-oh....this is getting political....i thought this was the minimum wage debate?????

i am staying out of this one!!!

Yep, sleep time. Lock the thread before Savage wakes up!!!

[BettorsChat]

Another thing i'm tired of hearing is how everything is tied into Terrorism.

[BettorsChat]

Yep, sleep time. Lock the thread before Savage wakes up!!!

Ever since savage was attacked he hasn't been in these threads, because if he was this thread would be 3 times as long.

[TwoTonTony]

Performance wages should translate to all jobs. I think maybe you mean that, but I'm not sure. Obviously selling cars is based on that etc.

The problem is companies don't want to pay that way. They want to get as much work out of the good hard working workers as they can for as little as they can. Now some companies aren't like that and I know union jobs aren't like that. I have an uncle that is union and he makes damn good money with no education. He has either 2 or 3 months of vacation a year as well. They tried buying him out about 6 years ago and it was a nice chunk of change.

i think many companies would want to do that, but many positions it would be subjective......Something tangible like a car sale is a good example...However, if it is customer service that is much harder to do...It would be up to a superior to assess that and then you can get into favoritism....

I always paid for new ideas.....Efficiency contests.....Safety contests.....etc.....

I really believe in it....

[cd329]

Winner,
you nailed that ss thing. not many people know that politicians dont belong to the ss system and instead get there salary paid for life, thats their pension. Pretty sweet.
If they had to collect ss, you bet your ass the whole system would be fixed in a heartbeat.

[TwoTonTony]

Ever since savage was attacked he hasn't been in these threads, because if he was this thread would be 3 times as long.

savage attacked????? I believe he was counter-attacked.....Savage loves this shit....He can flex his cerebral muscles.......That guy loves touchy topics.......