to all those individuals who are presently working for $5.15/hr. That is a considerable increase as a matter of fact. Sure, it will be spread over a couple of years, but still any increase at that level will find a good use.

You are correct when you call minimum wage employers exploiters. They have businesses that have grown too large to be run by themselves. In order to keep their standard of living, they hire people as cheaply as possible and then never...repeat...never raise wages of their workers.

It is up to the people of the individual states to raise the minimum wage to living levels. Many states have done so. These state-ordered wage raises must also be tied to the cost of living.

A living wage would probably, in most states today, be in the $9/$10/hr area. But again, for those working for minimum wage today(think of Kansas workers who work for their state wage of $2.65/hr), $7/hr is considered quite helpful...certainly not paltry.

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

Louis Pasteur

Such a system would greatly diminish the greed factor without completely destroying incentives for those who are competitive, while comcomitantly redistributing wealth so that we might have a real democracy instead of a de facto oligarchy masquerading as an "everyone's vote counts" government, & America's unemployed could afford to take jobs currently being given to illegal aliens & third-world workers at slave wages.

With your system what would give anyone incentive to spend 4 to 7 years in higher education and leave college with a $40,000.00 student loan to go to work for minimum wage plus a few pennies ? How would a doctor pay for malpractice insurance or an industrial architect or engineer pay for their errors and omissions insurance, [just the two first examples that pop into mind]? Or are the exorbitant taxes you propose after all business expenses? What happens to entrepreneurs under your system ? Does Bill Gates too only get the equivalent of $7,8, 9, 10 per hour? I can only imagine the night mare of bookkeeping this new idea would cost, just figuring a business expense from a personal one. I wonder how many careers would very shortly change? No use to worry about the wages if the government gets 85% to 99% of the gravy anyway. Who would rather pick up trash than ...oh say play the guitar in a night club, if the money was the same?

1) No matter how much some of us might want to live in lala land there must be incentive for most of us to achieve excellence. 2) The entire world economy works on the $ incentive, so we would be the ones totally out of step i.e. not able to buy on the world markets. 3) A level playing field is the last thing that we need, when that playing field is leveled by legislating a less for all kind of bulldozer approach.

As out of line as corporate profits and executive wages are right now this is no answer. This is the same kind of socialism that has never worked and it never will work.

There is no answer in going from one extreme to it's diametric opposite

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis

In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell

It should be raised immediately. I cannot jibe with these businesses who say they need more tax cuts. As Kennedy said how many more billions before the poor deserve a raise??

"Market Fundamentalism has become like the air we
breathe, we hardly notice it. Everytime George W
Bush argues for more taxcuts. he relies on the
unquestioned assumption that we all embrace Market
Fundamentalism. Like religious Fundamentalism, it
is based more on faith than reason. through constant
repetition, the American public has been bullied into believing that private spending is rational amd
public spending is always wasteful and unproductive.
(Tell that to people who live in New Orleans."

This was lifted from an article at CommonDreams.org.
entitled. "Note to Nancy Pelosi:Challenge Market
Fundamentalism"

In this article, Ruth Rosen, Note Fundamentalism
not Fundamentals. Rosen describes Market Fundamentalism "as an irrational belief in Markets
to solve all problems, an economic fundamentalism
that has dominated our national debate for a
generation." -----Fundamentalism:Privatize everything,
rely on yourself, and expect nothing from your
government." --Ruth Rosen

"Two decades of the reign of Market Fundamentalism
have impoverished both the language and aspirations
of Progressive Democrats"

"instead they dance around Market Fundamentalism;
they try to gain support for their cause without
directly attacking the 800 lb gorilla that sits
in Congress, in our deteriorating schools. and at the
bottom of the gulf between those who hold stocks
and those who wait for their next minimum-wage
paycheck". --Ruth Rosen

IMHO,
There is nothing that smacks of socialism here.
As Democrats we have permitted Conservatism
be defined as God, Guns, Gays. while never
questionining the economic strategy and
agenda. In fact by not questioning "Market
Fundamentalism" it can be assumed we agree
with Republican Economic Agenda.

This article is worth going to CommonDreams.org
"Note to Nancy Peolosi:Challenge Market Fundamentalism