home
Indentured Servitude Comes to Colorado | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Squeaky (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:53:20 PM EST
Your problem is that this actually happened.

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 10:12:39 PM EST
Do you have proof? The moonie times is about as reliable as, well, you. In other words it is a right wing spin machine.

Has the minimum wage bill even gone into effect yet? My understanding was that the Senate bill had to be reconcilled with the house bill.


[ Parent ]

You really didn't (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 07:34:01 AM EST
hear about this excercise in a double standard?

NYSun

BTW - Since you agree that newspapers have agendas...Do you agree that the NYTimes has a left wing agenda??


[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:37:49 AM EST
For the updated link. The moonis times link you provided led it's readers to believe that the San Fransisco starkist plant was exempt from minimum wage. A lie and a hit piece on Pelosi. Smear King ppj delivers the lastet lies from wingnuttia.

The Sun made it clear that that was not even remotely true. In fact it points out that because of Pelosi CA has the highest minimum wage in the country.

Northern Marina Islands, wasn't that in the news last year, ppj, um....something to do with your man Delay?

. The Democrats from California leading the charge for minimum-wage increases already have a state minimum that is higher than the new proposed federal minimum. They want to raise the costs of primarily Republican states, which have not raised their state minimums.

and then the Sun comes out against the rise in the minimum wage.

It's too bad that it takes American Samoa to show us that higher minimum wages are protecting some workers out of a job and into economic catastrophe. What makes no sense for American Samoa makes no sense for the rest of us either.

Is that your position ppj, to not only reject the minimum wage increase, but to do away with it completely?

ppj's social liberalism at work.

[ Parent ]

Squeaky smears again. (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:41:02 PM EST
Sigh.... From the Washington Times:

The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws
.

Your claims are easily refuted. You either don't read, or else just want to deny.

The benefactors of this act would be the companies headquartered in CA, but who do not have to pay CA or Federal minimum wage to the exempted islands.

So it certainly appears that her actions were definitely to aid the companies in question.

BTW - I love your last question. Do you still beat your husband/wife??

So thanks for the smear.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:21:28 PM EST
Your attempt to smear Pelosi by quoting a portion of the moonie press backfired, leaving you with egg on your face. Your quoute clearly states that Pelosi is a for eliminating the minimum wage for a Company in her state a fact that can not be farther from the truth:

"Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."

BTW-How is Starkist CA any different from all the corps  throught America that outsource? Because it is clearly outsourcing that Starkist is doing.

And as for the second NYS article that you link to, you have not answered my question.

Are you against the minimum wage bill, no less increase in the minumum wage. That is the point of the more honest and straight forward, albeit conservative, Sun article?

Your 'Social Liberal' credentials are fading fast. Your reputation for spin is increasing.

[ Parent ]

Squeaky - You are making things up. (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 06:17:20 PM EST
Or maybe you just can't understand. Let us review some basic facts.

1. The companies involed are headquartered in San Francisco.

a. They must pay CA Minimum Wage to employees working in CA. They must also pay Federal Minimum wage to employees working in CA. Since the CA wage is more, the Federal wage is moot.

b. They do not have to pay CA minimum wages to employees who do not work in CA.

These emplpyees in question work in American Samoa. The bill that Pelosi introduced exempted American Samoa.

c. By doing so she left the citizens of American Samoa without any Federal Minimum Wage protection, placing them in the tender mercies of the companies in question.

d. The companies in San Franciso that employee these people will benefit from Pelosi's actions because they will be paying their employees less. i.e. Less cost, more profit.

The above is all factual and provable from readily available sources, assuming the interested parties can read. In is also past tense.

After being caught and called out she backtracked and now American Samoa has the Federal Minimum Wage protection.

All of the other discussions are just strawmen and laughable attempts by you to make a bunch of comments meant to cloud the facts.

 

[ Parent ]

Indentured Servitude Comes to Colorado | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft