6 million to lose overtime pay under bush plan
- Thread starter Sparx
- Start date
too true.Just how President Bush said the Iraq war made us safer nine times in a thirty minute speech, every conservative commentator says that the Kerry-Edwards ticket is the "most liberal ticket in history" (after all, Kerry was the most liberal senator and Edwards was the fourth most liberal senator), and just how all the Sunday morning talk show guests referred to the Music City Fundraiser as a "hate-fest." Gotta love the repitition from both sides.
D
dems4me
Guest
Sparx Can I help it if bush won't give up on it even though a majority of both the House and Senate say it's no good for American workers?
bush says it will bring more people into the overtime ranks on the low end of the pay scale. So, if he wants to help why take it away from a whole other group? Why not just bring them in?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
And if I tell my wife I love her every day, it never actually becomes LESS true, because it was true the first time. Repetition only becomes *tedious* when it was FALSE the first time.
As the comment on the "liberal ticket". The ADA is not some fly-by-night conservative polling group. They're the nation's oldest liberal independent lobbying organization (their own words) and they were founded by the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt and Hubert Humphrey. Their rating is the de facto standard. They give yearly ratings BUT they also give lifetime ratings.
Kerry's lifetime rating is 92%.
Edward's lifetime rating is 81%.
This is an observation made by DEMOCRATS. And it makes this ticket the most liberal ticket observed by them.
Okay, which body of government is it that makes the laws and which executes the laws? If the Congress is against the new rules, as claimed, wouldn’t they be within their powers to change them as they see fit?
As a person making over 70K a year, and exempt from the FLSA, I don’t think anyone making over 100K needs overtime. On the other hand a person working as a manager in a fast food place making a buck or two more an hour then the non-managerial employees and not getting overtime might be the exact person this change was designed to benefit.
As a person making over 70K a year, and exempt from the FLSA, I don’t think anyone making over 100K needs overtime. On the other hand a person working as a manager in a fast food place making a buck or two more an hour then the non-managerial employees and not getting overtime might be the exact person this change was designed to benefit. [/QUOTE] [/B]
Overtime wasn't designed to put more money in peoples pockets in the first place. It was designed as a deterent to keep some greedy business owners from requiring unfair and sometimes fatal work hours on their employees. It doesn't make any difference how much one makes in salary or hourly wages you can still be worked to death and have no time with your family without some kind of deterent.
Family values president my a$$
Overtime wasn't designed to put more money in peoples pockets in the first place. It was designed as a deterent to keep some greedy business owners from requiring unfair and sometimes fatal work hours on their employees. It doesn't make any difference how much one makes in salary or hourly wages you can still be worked to death and have no time with your family without some kind of deterent.
Family values president my a$$
Last edited:
Please tell me how two men who voted for the Iraq War, voted for No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, the largest defense budgets in the nation's history, and in Kerry's instance, for welfare reform represent the most liberal ticket ever? Kerry and Edwards are proposing cutting corporate tax cuts, they are not proposing that the United States cut and run from Iraq, and they are proposing deficit reduction measures to cut the deficit in half (after supposedly conservative President Bush allowed the deficit to balloon to $500 billion). I just do not see the out of touch, liberal mentality that the GOP wants us to.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Ask the ADA. They're *DEMOCRATS*. They are the ones making the assessment. I suspect they are basing it on ALL the votes they have cast, and not the few you have commented on.
If they voted for those things - why are they trying so hard to
hang George Bush for them now? What does it mean to vote FOR the war, but only the threat of war? What does it mean to vote FOR a bill before voting AGAINST it? How dare they vote for the Patriot Act, and then pillory George Bush over it. "“We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.”
They are definitely saying they will roll back all of George Bush's tax cut.
Kerry is against No Child Left Behind, a piece of legislation he once labelled "groundbreaking". He said "Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’ "
Every point you made, Kerry has switched his position on.
Look, your argument isn't with MY assessment of them - it's the ADA's.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
A recession, reduced revenues and terrorist attacks WILL put a dent in your coffers, and it's not the time to RAISE taxes when you're in a pinch. A war will do that, too. Not good, but understandable.
But I'm extremely unconvinced that Kerry can reduce the deficit with the trillions in spending proposals he's already promised. It don't add up.
No I don't. This is my opinion on it. The history of overtime talks about job creation as the reason for overtime pay. Incentive for employers to hire more workers to do the same amount of work instead paying overtime. Another good reason though and it works.
But it seems this administration would rather see jobs go overseas than create new ones here.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
So which is it? Kerry says we should unite globally, and then on the other hand we shouldn't let them have any jobs!?!? Good double speak.
India gets some jobs from us. WHOOOPPEEE DOOOO!!!
Our businesses get their consumer base!!! Heck, they have as many children as we have people total! An improving economy for India is good for the world, good for us, and we get their billion plus people buying OUR goods! I know reality is tough, but just try to take a hit off it. You might like it.
The FLSA was about money in the people's pockets and additional concerns in regard to employee well being. The text of the law under "Congressional finding and declaration of policy" 29USC202 states, "The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers..." The minimum standard of living was in reference to worker pay which resulted in the establishment of the minimum wage, defining the work week in hours, and declaring that additional compensation will be paid for time in excess of the defined work week at a minimum of time and a half the employees normal wages.
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
Your theory fails in the fact that is actually cheaper for my employer to pay me for 80 hours of work per week than it is to hire another person to work just 40 hrs per week, even if I did get time and a half pay (which I don't). A persons hourly wage only makes up about half of what it costs an employer to pay for that worker.
