Vincenzo's Crock Pot #14

Please join me in signing John Kennedy O'Hara's petition at SignOn.

Here's the basic text:

Hi,

John Kennedy O'Hara is the first person in New York to be convicted for "illegal voting" since 1872. The defendant in that case was Susan B. Anthony. He has an application for a pardon before Governor Cuomo. He has the support of the editorial boards of the New York Daily News, The Albany Times Union, The Irish Echo and The Amsterdam News. A petition asking Governor Cuomo to grant a pardon would correct a horrible precedent that now subjects dorm students and homeless people to prosecution if they vote from a place that is not their "principal and permanent residence". www.freejohnohara.com

That's why he created a petition to Governor Andrew Cuomo, which says:

"We the undersigned, urge Governor Andrew Cuomo, pursuant to Article IV, section 4 of the New York State Constitution to issue an executive pardon to John Kennedy O'Hara for his conviction of illegal voting."


Will you sign his petition?

Speaking of injustice - I had mentioned this in a previous piece, but it bears repeating:

B'klyn DA in hot seat for wrongful conviction

A federal judge slammed Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes Friday for protecting a rogue prosecutor accused of railroading an innocent man on murder charges.

The freed man, Jabbar Collins, is seeking $150 million for the 15 years he spent in prison for murdering a rabbi. Hynes' top aide Michael Vecchione - who prosecuted the case back in 1995 - is accused of threatening a witness and withholding evidence for more than a decade that could have exonerated the man .

Judge Frederic Block said he was "disturbed" and "puzzled" that Hynes did not punish Vecchione, but instead heaped praise on him despite the serious allegations.

"Hynes hasn't treated it seriously, has he?" Block asked a city lawyer at pre-trial hearing. "What has he done? Name one thing he's done in light of Vecchione's aberrational behavior.

"This was horrific behavior on the part of Vecchione," Block said. "We are going to have a civil proceeding and all of this is going to be uncovered, I kid you not."

The judge peppered city lawyer Arthur Larkin about Hynes' public statements on the case.

A key witness who had incriminated Collins in the 1995 murder of Rabbi Abraham Pollack in Brooklyn testified at a hearing last year that Vecchione threatened to clobber him over the head with a coffee table and throw him in jail if he did not finger Collins for the killing.

Vecchione is the chief of the district attorney's rackets bureau and is considered one of Hynes' closest aides.

Collins' conviction was tossed out last year by another federal judge in Brooklyn, Dora Irizarry, who termed the prosecutors' conduct "shameful" and called the years of incarceration a "tragedy," according to the suit.

Hynes decided not to retry him for the murder, but his office has not wavered in the belief that Collins killed the rabbi as he was collecting rent at a building he owned.

The suit notes that despite Irizarry's harsh comments, Hynes publicly praised Vecchione in a press release as a "very principled lawyer" who had done nothing wrong and would not face disciplinary action.

Pressed about Hynes public statements of support for Vecchione, Larkin, the city lawyer, responded, "I can't speak to that."

Collins' lawyer Joel Rudin said he would discuss the possibility of a settlement with the city.

"I would very much like the facts to come out, but my client also wants to get on with his life," Rudin said outside court.

Block criticized Hynes for exposing the city to significant liability by publicly defending Vecchione instead of disciplining him. He set a trial date of April 8 for a lawsuit.

A spokesman for Hynes declined to respond to the judge's comments.

Hynes is facing a potentially tough re-election fight next year from at least two announced opponents, including former Brooklyn federal prosecutor Kenneth Thompson.

Not to mention Abe George.

"If the minimum wage kept pace with the rise of executive salaries, the poorest Americans would be paid more than $23 an hour."

I found this on the internet last night, and it made me curious. Could this be true?

I researched it further:

Did you know that if minimum wage had kept pace with the increases in salaries for the 1% the lowest paid workers in the country would now be making over $23.00 per hour?

by Tea in the Harbor Posted April 26, 2012
Related Topics: 
Yup, that's right, if working people were getting a fair break in our economy, minimum wage would be 23 bucks an hour, which would mean that everyone who works would be making enough to be required to pay taxes.

If all those people were paying taxes, we wouldn't have a deficit, but because all the money went to people with lawyers and accountants paid specifically to lower their tax burden, we're broke as a nation and half of the nation is living in poverty.

Thanks 1%, it's good to know whose knife that is in our backs!!
 
There were 83 responses to this posting - they're all too interesting to leave out:

Top Opinion

text size
Opinions

  • Uranos7
    Economics 101
    If everyone made a minimum of $23 an hour companies would have to pay them increasing thier labor costs. They would respond to the increased cost first by cutting as many jobs as possible. Next they would raise thier prices as far as the market would allow. Which since everyone else had to pay it would be pretty high. So that burger that now costs $3 would cost $10.
    Those companies that could make thier products elsewhere would most likely move over to Mexico if transportation costs were less than labor cost.

    In other words $23 minimum wage you would end up paying triple the amount you do now for everything, and unemployment would be double what it is now.
  • Tea in the Harbor
    The money that goes into the worker's pocket comes from the same profit that goes into the executive's pocket, how can you say that increased wealth for one set of pockets has any different effect than increasing the wealth of the other would?

    That makes no sense. Handing the money to the rich has the same effect on prices as increasing wages for workers does, The only difference is in whether the money goes to buy trinkets for the wealthy or to feed hungry children. Do you think the trinkets are the higher purpose? And don't even start with the "job creator" lies, eight years of constantly rewarding their sloth resulted in the worst economy since the Great Depression. To be dumb enough to fall for that one at this point you would also have to be too dumb to survive outside of the womb. (Actually, it's more like 30 years of rewarding them, with a short interruption during the Clinton Administration when the policy was changed and the economy straightened out.)

    If we had a fair society, the profit would have been split between workers and the non working class which would result in the rich being slightly less obscenely rich and the poor having a decent standard of living without affecting prices at all.
  • Uranos7
    "That makes no sense. Handing the money to the rich has the same effect on prices as increasing wages for workers does."
    The rich person will not buy ten times more Milk and groceries than the poor person thus the poor person will have a greater effect on supply and demand.
    We are already seeing increased inflation due to high gas prices from the transportation cost being passed along to the consumer. Increased labor cost will produce the same result.

    "If we had a fair society, the profit would have been split between workers and the non working class which would result in the rich being slightly less obscenely rich and the poor having a decent standard of living without affecting prices at all."

    That is almost the exact definition of communism. It didn't work out to well for Russia and China is starting to incorporate capitalism to compete in the world market.

    so·cial·ism
       [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] noun
    1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect ...
    (more)
  • Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    I heard somewhere that if the minimum wage kept pace with corporate CEO's bonuses, the minimum wage would be something like $800.00 an hour!
  • exhon2009
    +1
    Did you analyze how many jobs would have left the country as a result genius?
  • Tea in the Harbor
    +5
    None if the money came from the massive profit growth of the rich, the rich would just be a little less obscenely wealthy, that's the point.

    The rich are not as valuable to society as they think they are. It's happened before. Marie Antionette and Caligula come to mind.

    It didn't do their countries any good.
  • exhon2009
    +1
    Warren Buffet that billionaire darling of the left who is arguing for the "Buffet Rule" is arguing for this too: BTW Buffets customers are all 1%'ers too. You're getting played lefties.

    Buffett's NetJets Wins Fee Waiver From Congress 4/25/2012 9:26:56 AM
    While the so-called Buffett Rule would compel wealthier Americans to pay more taxes, NetJets, owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, spent more than $1 million to lobby Congress to cut fees for its wealthy customers. Photo: Bloomberg


    http://online.wsj.com/video/B...
  • Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    well said!
  • Lady Whitewolf
    +3
    "The rich are not as valuable to society as they think they are..."

    THAT is what we have to get throught their thick skulls come November! Vote wisely!
  • BabyBear
    +4
    But then how would companies like Walmart make their CEO's billionaire's while their employees collect welfare, even though they work full time?
  • Tea in the Harbor
    +5
    They would have to settle for being multi millionaires, poor bastards.
  • BabyBear
    +1
    What most people that actually believe the propaganda by large corporations is that $23/hr will collapse the economy don't see: I'm unionized, I make $33/hr, our top CEO is on Forbes 500, he's a billionaire and my company isn't going under any time soon.
  • Tea in the Harbor
    +3
    It's just that they don't think anyone who sweats at work deserves a decent life. They feel like they are "entitled" to the labor that builds and maintains civilization.

    When the Catholic Church says your proposals are "immoral" as they have about the Ryan plan, you'd think professed "Christians" would would take a closer look. I heard a Nun earlier tonight call Ryan everything short of the Anti-Christ, I don't think they intend to back down on this. It could get very interesting.
  • Stormy
    +2
    Debt slavery.
  • Tea in the Harbor
    +2
    Exactly, well put.
  • Stormy
    +4
    In New Zealand the minimum wage is $13 an hour. In Australia the minimum wage is $15 dollars an hour. Why is America s' minimum wage so mean ? Increasing minimum wage increases aggregate demand and all businesses would benefit as people spend more. keeping people on starvation wages starves the whole economy of their spending power, because they simply don't have any. Just more and more debt.
  • Tea in the Harbor
    +4
    We have greedier rich people.

    They worship themselves and think they are inherently more valuable as human beings than others. The rich have done that in a lot of societies, usually just before they fall.
  • Stormy
    +3
    We have just put a few of those greedy rich people in jail for misleading hundreds of thousands of NZ investors in failing finance company's during the GFC, losing the life savings of the middle classes, America doesn't even seem to be able to do that. A captured financial regulatory system seems to make banksters immune to prosecution. At least we can get the buggers and make them pay.
  • Tea in the Harbor
    +3
    They have to be pretty bad to be prosecuted here, and then it's usually a fine that is less than they scammed people out of so it's still good business.
  • Stormy
    +2
    I know. The fine is factored in as a business expense. That MF Global scandal was unbelievable. What happened to Corzine of " I have no idea what happened to 1.2 billion dollars of customers segregated funds. . . " Corzine ? Nothing.
  • BabyBear
    +1
    It's due to the endless propaganda and brainwashing of average people. Corporations get greedy, they buy politicians (basically) and both sides constantly bombard America with the lie of better wages = worse economy.
  • Stormy to BabyBear (edited)
    Stormy
    +2
    Yep. You can thank Fox news for that. You can't even seem to get a fair tax system let alone a wage increase. Why are the super rich paying half as much as the average Jo Shmo ? When they can easily afford to pay more. Why is income from actual work taxed higher than money earned from investments ? It's all arse about face, round the wrong way upside down topsy turvy.
  • BabyBear
    +1
    It's backwards ass.
  • Stormy
    +3
    Why can't all the 99% see that ? . . .so many are defending the rich who are robbing the poor. It's like the sherriff of nottingham is the hero and robin hood is the villain. neo fuedalism . . .here we come. It's a worrying precedent for the whole world.
  • Lady Whitewolf
    "so many are defending the rich who are robbing the poor..."

    THAT makes NO sense to me whatsoever...
  • Jiorgia
    thats less then what i earned an hour as a junior casual in australia.
    get with the times america.
  • dave b (edited)
    dave b
    +3
    If the lowest pay in the country was $23 an hour, the cost of living would automatically increase for everything. It would increase utility bills, food bills, gas costs, insurance costs, etc.

    And thats a nice thought about not having a deficit, but in case you havent noticed, the government has a habit of spending far more than they take in. They'll never stop without a revolution.

    In the end, nothing would change....people making $23 per hour would still be considered poor

    Minimum wage jobs were never meant to be careers.
  • Tea in the Harbor
    +2
    There was no revolution in the late 90s, when budget surpluses were the norm and we were paying down our debt. It's also the only time since LBJ that the middle class gained buying power. It isn't coincidence that the economy does well when the middle class has more capital in their hands, it's cause and effect and we have decades of consistent records to prove it.

    Mr. Lincoln put it well.


    lincoln labor
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    Here is the national debt from the US Treasury--Please show me where anyone paid beans to the debt. There was no surplus - not spending money you do not have is not a surplus - that was smoke and mirrors talk. As to middle class - I made money until now - even when the market took that hard in 2008 - my 401K was still up from 2001 and I made money. Our debt now is roughly 15 Trillion and climbing - Obama has managed to add more to the debt in 3.5 years than Bush did in 8 years.

    09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891...
    09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511...
    09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912...
    09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
    09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
    09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
    09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
    09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
    09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
    09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
    09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
    09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
    09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
    09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
    09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
    09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +5
    Oh goody - I want to pay $25.00 for a carton of milk if I could find one - we can return to candles, live in little hovels and have an unemployment rate of 50%

    Good plan
  • sbtbill
    +2
    The point is low end wages have gone up to slowly and high end wages have gone up to fast.

    We see this in real estate. An average house should sell for 2 1/2 time the average annual wage. That means about $120,000 today. If the average annual wage went up to $60,000 that would be $180,000. If it goes down to $35,000 that means housing prices must decline to $105,000.

    Deflation or stagnant wages actually mean an ever increasing cost of living because you get a concentration of wealth. This particularly true when you get what has happened in the US for the last 20 or 30 years where prices move up and wages stay the same.

    That sounds good for small business profits in the short run but in the medium run - say 2 or 3 years - it means increasing business bankruptcies because their customer can not afford to buy and/or pay their debts. Exporting jobs just makes it worse.

    The best way to solve this problem is to increase unions, repeal NAFTA, and end free trade.
  • Jimbo
    +3
    The House Reps. in the 90s made $92,000. They said they could not live on it and today make $172,000. The min. wage was not increased for a decade under GOP congressional control. These bums can't live on 92,000 but won't raise those making less than $15,000. Romney wants to end the EIC, working poor don't need help only millionaires getting an extra $125,000 in tax breaks for every million.
  • dave b
    +2
    Yet you fail to mention that the Dems, who had the majority under Obama, didnt do anything to 'fix' that, did they....yet you make it sound like those evil Repubs are the only greedy ones...LOL!
  • Lady Whitewolf
    hear ya
  • Path60
    +11
    If minimum wage was $23 an hour you wouldnt be able to afford a McDonalds hamburger dont be an idiot
  • Jimbo
    +1
    Why not? You make at least $23,00 an hour.
  • Path60
    +5
    Do the math and get back to me
  • sbtbill
    +1
    Gee we all know the top 1% are overpaid and under taxed.
  • Lady Whitewolf
    YA THINK?? **facepalm**
  • Joe Shwingding
    +6
    ah but then they wouldnt have an underclass in which to rob, steal, cheat, drug test, and demand austerity from.

 

text size
Opinions

  • VoteOut
    Employees set the minimum wage and employers set the maximum wage.
  • No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +6
    And how many minimum wage jobs would be lost across the country?
  • sbtbill
    +3
    Probably 0.
  • No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +4
    How many small businesses can afford $23 per hour for many, many employees.
  • randy
    +2
    Most if not all. The small business owners would be forced to do everything and no chance for growth.
  • Jimbo
    +2
    None. Those jobs already can't compete with $1/hr overseas. Someone must slop the fries and be cashiers at Wal-Mart.
  • No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +3
    And why have many of those gone overseas? I have always thought union demands for benefits, not the wages, that sent jobs out of the country.
  • sbtbill
    +3
    We need higher tariffs to keep those products out. Americans should not have to work for slave wages.
  • No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +2
    I hardly think the wages in America are slave wages. $23 hr minimum wage certainly isn't.
  • sbtbill
    +1
    I'd say with the cost of living in a large city $8 an hour is a slave wage.
  • No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    Where did you get $8 an hour?...... the post is about $23/hr.

    I know that SS did not get a COLA for the first two years of 0bama......
    and the cost of living soared!
  • sbtbill
    You (No nons...) said you hardly think the wages in America are slave wages. I was responding to that statment.

    If you read the Ryan/Romney budget you will find it change the COLA to reduce SS pay increases. The Left also wants to change the COLA but in the opposite way.
  • No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    It was bama who didn't give a COLA to SS for several years when he took office... He did give a bice little pay raise to federal workers, and of course, the Congress voted to raise their pay.
  • Lady Whitewolf
    SO SO AGREE!
  • FeedFwd
    +3
    You assume that companies would be paying people $23/hr. They wouldn't unless they could sell their goods for Neimann-Marcus prices and not Wal-Mart prices. Basically, everybody working would be paying taxes, but not many people would be working.
  • Tea in the Harbor
    +1
    If people were making that kind of money they could afford much higher prices, it's the reason the Ford Motor Company succeeded.
  • FeedFwd
    I'm sure that with Ford hiring many people and paying them a good wage, he enabled them to become car buyers. But I think the principle effect was the cost/price reduction that made Fords more accessible and available to everybody, not just automakers.
  • Tea in the Harbor
    +1
    The cars weren't accesible to everyone, they were accesible to Ford employees because they made double and sometimes triple what everyone else was making. By doing so he guaranteed himself a market large enough to offset R&D costs enough to make them affordable for others.

    Ford was also a brilliant manager, every step of the manufacturing process was integrated to make the other steps more efficient. The shipping crates for Ford engines for instance were designed by Ford to be used as roof frames for cars once they reached his factory so that the labor used in making them also helped in manufacturing labor. He did this sort of thing in many areas of the company.

    I think he would have been even more of an American business icon if he'd stayed out of politics, his early support for the Nazis really hurt him in the history books but he was far from alone.
  • aherbert
    +1
    Thanks for sharing … I know the gap from the middle class and wealthy is large but DANG! If things were just fair the economy would work itself out. I don’t like American GREED! I think the minimum wage in CA is 7.75....
  • luvguins
    +2
    Everything else inflates but middle class wages. Sure has been swell for the 1%. If this continues the deficit will never decrease and the budget will never balance. Just look at Ryan's budget the experts say won't balance until 2040.
  • Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    hear ya
  • Murph
    +5
    You're not taking into account the millions of small businesses that would go under and lay off tens of millions of people. Your "fair break" is one of the most remarkably stupid things I've heard of since ObamaCare.
  • Jimbo
    You charge what the market will bear. If everyone is making more you can charge more. Your competition can't cut your price paying the same wages.
  • luvguins
    Millions of small businesses haven't minded increasing their prices to keep the same profitability, but they don't want to increase workers pay a dime.
  • rightside
    +4
    I don't think you can entirely blame the rich. Maybe its the back door, good ole boy congressman deals that do this.
    I'm blaming both sides. They try to pass a bill such as bamacare, but half of it has non medical agreements in it to insure votes.
    This happens on both sides and it should be stopped.
    Tax breaks for corporations should only be taken into consideration if they can prove quality job growth.
  • Jimbo to rightside (edited)
    Jimbo
    +1
    Where China. The GOP says if the profits from foreign manufacture are put into T-bills no tax is due. They do not give the same break to Joe the plumber.
  • rightside
    +1
    bama put jeffery immelt as his job czar as he sends thousands of jobs oversears.
    Come on jimbo, Congress is screwing up, not just the GOP. They all vote themselves raises. If you think your DiMs have you are heart, you are sadly mistaken.
  • Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
    +3
    Yeah that is sad. But we have to keep the multi millionaire richer. While the poor people can rot. I am blessed to have as much as I do, and to see my fellow man suffering makes me mad.
  • DJPanicDC
    +5
    Yup also did you know that if wages kept pace with productivity since this 40hour work week was instituted as full time a 11hour work week would be full time
    but these things would make it harder on CEOs to who might only make 40x the average underlings wage like they did back then instead of the 400x they have now
  • randy
    +5
    Would that equate to a $60 Happy Meal?
  • Murph
    +2
    At $60 it would definitely be a not so happy, or maybe even a sad and depressed meal.
  • sbtbill
    Sure but most people would have enough to pay for it.
  • ManBearPig
    +1
    when you run a small business or a medium sized business for that matter would have hire someone to do tedious work such as cleaning dishes or somethin with low skill to do for 23$ an hour?
  • sbtbill
    I understand that.
  • Murph
    No, most people would be out of work
  • Plantgypc
    +5
    Milk would be $20.
  • randy
    +3
    A pint....
  • sbtbill
    Sure but people would be able to pay off their credit cards, student loans and mortgages.
  • ManBearPig
    +1
    nope that would just mean the prices for those credit cards and loans goes up as well since they know people should have the money to pay for em meaning rates would go up since they expect you to have the money to pay for it
  • susan to sbtbill Apr. 26
    susan
    +2
    Probably not, because mortgages, credit cards, student loans, etc would be 3.5 times the amount they are today - so would gasoline, food, heating and cooling bills, clothing, etc. Also, everyone would be in a higher tax bracket, so more money would be flowing into the govt coffers andthe net result is that we would all be worse off than before.
  • sbtbill
    +1
    Keep in mind that student loans and mortgages are fixed. So a 10 year old mortgage would still have the payment it had 10 years before, same for a student loan. Course what we also need is a return to enforced usury laws with teeth.
  • Plantgypc
    +1
    Not and eat too.

You can see the variance in the responses - they go from derision to outrage. What are your thoughts?

Here's my two cents on jobs:

If you can't do the job, get the hell out of the way and let someone better equipped do what they do best.

You haven't any idea of the kinds of morons I've had to smell in my various levels of employment.

I'll give you a little background on a past job at a health care facility. If you know me, you can verify that what I'm saying is true; if you don't, take my word for it - this is how serious I am about earning my salary:

I've been at this job for a while now. I've gotten to know the doctors; the nurses, the hospital staff in general. They are happy to see me whenever there is a problem that requires my assistance. I go in, I take care of the problem, and I check for anything else which could potentially pose a future problem.

At some point, my colleagues are pared down to the bare minimum. I am working most of the off-hour shifts by myself. For the most point, this isn't a problem.

However, most health care facilities perform a generator test once a month. This requires that the facility turn off access to provided power and that they run on generator power for four hours. That means that many of the computers that are in use by the facility turn off. Fortunately, the most critical components are connected to sockets which maintain power during the switchover, but the complement of the computers must be returned to service.

My facility has ten floors, and encompasses most of a city avenue block, minus a parking lot. I'm talking about a lot of ground to cover.

So, I come in at 4:00 PM. I am in charge of backing up not only the computer data, but the medical data as well. I will need to produce reports for the various departments, as well as respond to emergencies.

In addidtion to those duties, I have the generator test.

I the first four hours, I do as much of the backup work as possible; I print as many reports as I can, and eventually, it is time to perpare for the generator test.

I pause the printers, make sure the backup is as current as possible, and then I head to the emergency room.

Next, I go to the ICUs.

Next is the nursery and the newborn section.

Next is the wards ancillary to the ICUs.

After that will be the psychaitric wards, and then the complement of the departments.

Sometimes, I will find that I'll have to return to a location - no problem.

I eventually return to my office, and I will complete the printing of said reports and the backup of the data. I will then leave everything in the proper state for incoming staff.

They will have the task of dealing with the return of power.

I have performed double shifts at certain times, so I have had to deal with both parts of the generator test - trust me - they know that they are in good hands.

I was proud to have done that job, and to service that community.

Having said all that, it makes me sick when some lazy bastard won't perform their job function at even a basic level of competence.

Why go through the motions?

Why waste everyone else's time?

If there's someone better suited to do your job, you shouldn't be in the way.