It is almost certain that democrats will have a majority in the house, and it is possible for them to gain control of the senate. If they do what do you think will be the issue that they will champion?
To get things started:
Anyone currently making under 6.85 per hour will likely get a raise to at least that amount in the next two years. There is strong support for a minimun wage increase amoung democrats.
Embryonic stem cell research, most democrats and many republicans support this issue, and it will recieve a moderate chance of getting a two-thrids majority to overturn President Bush's veto in congress.
What other issues do you think they will support? And try and find something in addition to Iraq and war on terror to discuss
2006-10-28 05:07:17 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think they will support Amnesty for the illegals, which is highly controversial and hotly contested, and I must say I am against.
I think your right and they will push to up the minimum wage to 7.00 or so.
They will most likely push for more minority equality reforms, such as Affirmative Action and the like...
Also a raising of taxes to support welfare and unemployment
They will probably attack the deficit and attempt to bring a balanced budget and hopefully a surplus as Clinton did
There, I tried to mention things I agree and disagree with, to balance to political bashing both sides will bring to this question
2006-10-28 05:10:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
What does raising the minimum wage do for anyone? Sounds good, but businesses simply raise the price of their goods and services to cover the increase. It's for the same reason that businesses pay no taxes. The customer pays the taxes for the business. Raise the business tax, the business raises the price to cover it. Everything costs more. And if 8.00 per hour is good, why not 10? Or 12? Raise it to 15. If you'd like to pay 6 bucks for a cheeseburger. Democrats just use the minimum wage issue to raise votes. Other issues the Dems will support is higher taxes. They say they'll sock the rich, but the rich pay no taxes. They get it from you and me. The little guys always gets screwed by any sort of tax increase. And Dems will support gays getting married. And more Political Correctness. Sex education for 4 year-olds. Higher taxes. They'll outlaw certain kinds of foods with too much fat or sugar. More cameras everywhere. Higher taxes. Abortion at whatever month. (Abortion up to 24 months after birth?) Intergenerational sex. Interspecies sex. The list goes on. Did I mention higher taxes?
2006-10-28 12:23:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lets tackle minimum wage.
Pure and simple, if you raise the minimum wage, you have to raise taxes and I will prove this to you. It's all a cycle, you raise minimum wage, not little johnny(average American) can go buy more stuff. Odds are he won't save it b/c that's how are society is, especially those who are making minimum wage/lower class. So when he buys more stuff, production has to pick up, but with more production, more taxes are being implemented. Having to buy stuff from overseas and what not, we are still losing "ground".
Johnny's actual pay won't really go up, more will just be taken out. It's more of a dead end where we shoot ourselves in the foot, or what have you.
Solution, keep taxes low along side the minimum wage, much like what republicans are doing now. Now you say to yourself, how can johnny ever make it in the world making in minimum wage? Well he can't. Unless johnny gets an education or goes and finds a high risk job that pays, then he will never make it. Sad, yes, but raising the minimum wage doesn't solve the problem and the democrats know this. They are just trying to milk that part of the vote, which for the most part, they do a good job b/c little johnny doesn't know any better.
2006-10-28 12:19:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They will raise taxes on the high earners which will be passed down. Sh*t rolls down hill!
They will increase the minimum wage causing higher unemployment for the unskilled minimum wage earner.
They will screw up foriegn policy and give your tax dollars and weapon technology to tyrants as appeasment.
They will aid criminals by promoting anti self defense legislation.
They will try to impose a universal healthcare which will hurt everyone. Poor people already get slow but free health care. They want everyone to get slow free healthcare at tremendous taxpayer expense. (Wait in the Emergency room with everyone else)
They will increase current government funding of embryonic stem cell research which has no proven effect on anything. Adult stem cells show promise, not embryonic. This is legal and currently funded by the Bush administration. Embryonic stem cell research is a justification for abortion.
The Stock Market will dive.
Terrorism will increase.
US economy will slow.
Inflation will rise.
Social Security will continue to collapse.
But it needs to happen.
2006-10-28 12:29:46 · answer #4 · answered by rjf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
HERES A MORE ADVANCED OPINION ON THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::By Steven Malanga
UNION bosses and lib eral politicians like to argue that raising the minimum wage will help lift people out of poverty.
But the facts, as numerous studies have amply demonstrated, utterly contradict this notion. That's why a broad range
of economists and policy makers have long ago rejected it.
But the weight of evidence against minimum-wage hikes apparently isn't enough for New York's leading business group,
the increasingly left-leaning New York City Partnership — which has bizarrely joined labor leaders in calling
for a 38 percent increase in the state's minimum wage.
It's distressing when the business leaders of one of the world's most important capitals of finance don't seem to grasp Econ 101.
To understand what's wrong with the Partnership's position — and what we should do instead —
consider some facts about minimum-wage earners.
In the Empire State, 64 percent of minimum-wage employees are not the primary breadwinners in their families;
they are the second or third or fourth wage earner — teens, retirees or spouses working part-time.
In fact, the average family income of a minimum-wage earner in New York state is about $48,400,
according to research by the Employment Policies Institute, a business-backed organization in Washington, D.C.
Only 16 percent of all minimum-wage workers in the state are supporting a spouse and/or children.
One thing these statistics tell us is that raising the minimum wage would primarily affect those who aren't poor.
It would mostly put more money into the pockets of teens working part-time, or spouses of dual-income families
whose yearly wages are already two and three times above the poverty level.
Still, is that such a bad thing? Why not give all those hard-working, industrious part-timers a boost in salary?
Well, chiefly because mountains of research show that when we raise the minimum wage,
we destroy low-wage jobs and increase poverty.
This should not be surprising. If we boost the price of anything, including labor, buyers will buy less of it.
Increase the minimum wage in New York state, and employers, especially small businesses who are already struggling
with high health-care costs and steep taxes, will hire fewer low-end workers — unless government can somehow figure
out how to increase a business' revenues at the same time.
Even worse, the biggest losers will be those who can least afford it. A recent study by three university economists
found that a 10 percent rise in the minimum wage produces a 5.7 percent decline in overall teenage employment
and an 8.5 percent decline in employment among African-Americans aged 16 to 24.
It is because studies have consistently found such results that most economists and policy makers long ago
stopped pushing for minimum-wage hikes and instead advocate increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) —
a federal program, supplemented by some states, that puts cash right into the hands of the working poor.
A single mother raising two children and working at the minimum wage is eligible for a $4,204 EITC check from the federal government,
and another $1,260 from New York. That already raises her actual hourly wage in New York state above $7.70. (Moreover,
in New York these workers are eligible for a whole range of other assistance, including Medicaid and subsidized child care.)
Unlike the minimum wage, the benefits of these programs go straight to the poor.
A 2000 study by David Neumark of the University of Michigan, a leading researcher on the minimum wage,
and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve concluded that "the EITC is more beneficial for poor families
than is the minimum wage."
If state leaders really wanted to help the poor, then they'd boost New York's EITC, already the highest among the states.
But minimum-wage discussions are not about helping the poor; they're about electoral politics.
Unions love minimum-wage hikes because they give labor negotiators leverage to demand higher contracts for their workers —
especially in service industries where unionized workers make under $10 an hour.
Raise the minimum wage and that will surely increase unions' wage demands for their workers. As a consequence, however,
low-wage workers who aren't unionized will lose their jobs.
Politicians sign onto this agenda when they are cynically seeking union endorsements.
But it's mystifying why business leaders would also.
One explanation is that the Partnership is composed of executives of big New York City businesses
who don't have many minimum-wage workers and so aren't affected by this proposal. That it might prove a
huge burden on small businesses, especially ones outside Manhattan, doesn't matter much to the Partnership.
Widespread speculation also has it that the Partnership's leaders are responding to a request for support
from Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno — doubtless in hope of a quid pro quo.
The losers will be low-wage workers, but in the increasingly cynical world of Albany politics, who cares about them?
From city-journal.org, the Web site of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal. Steve Malanga is a CJ contributing editor.
©2004 New York Post
2006-10-28 12:28:50 · answer #5 · answered by just the facts 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They will straiten the EPA to its former roll as a enforcer of Environment laws not a lackey to Industry polluters
2006-10-28 12:10:53 · answer #6 · answered by dstr 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They will improve the economy. They will make sure education is more affordable. Cut the deficits. They will improve the foreign policy. If they were ruling, there would not have been a terrorist attack.
2006-10-28 12:14:37 · answer #7 · answered by observer 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They will work to repair the medicare drug bill and the No Child Left Behind law, as well as doing something about FEMA
2006-10-28 12:09:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
maybe the milk was a bad choice act and the halloween parties.
2006-10-28 12:09:32 · answer #9 · answered by stargurl_5887 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They will probably give the Kennedy's get out of jail free cards so they can drive drunk and rape with impunity.
2006-10-28 12:09:56 · answer #10 · answered by acmeraven 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋