Response to Merkley's support letter for the Minimum wage.

[MarAzul]

I just received your reply on comment about the minimum wage.

I operated a ranch for about 10 years after I retired from a major corporation. Didn't make much money doing so but it was
an enjoyable thing to do. One of the aggravations that came with the job me was paying minimum wage occasional when help was needed. I didn't mind so much that my effective wages were low, below minimum wage, but it didn't seem right that I had to pay another guy part time more than I was making.
No one ever seems to care about the guy paying the minimum wage.

Now my question is, why is this the business of the federal government in any stretch? Can you point to the article in the Constitution that makes the minimum wage the business of congress? The nearest place I can point to is the 10th amendment because of it not being mention any where in the main text.

Regards,
MarAzul

 

[barfo]

Also, what the hell business does the federal government have trying to regulate nuclear warheads? Where are nuclear warheads mentioned in the constitution?

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Also, what the hell business does the federal government have trying to regulate nuclear warheads? Where are nuclear warheads mentioned in the constitution?

barfo

The amendment process is still lawful and available.

 

[MARIS61]

And who the hell pays casual labor only minimum wage?

$10 an hour under-the-table has been the local standard here and remained unchanged throughout the boom and the recession. Was that when I moved here 12 years ago and it hasn't budged either way.

Anything less would be considered bad manners here in Beautiful Central Oregon.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I just received your reply on comment about the minimum wage.

I operated a ranch for about 10 years after I retired from a major corporation. Didn't make much money doing so but it was
an enjoyable thing to do. One of the aggravations that came with the job me was paying minimum wage occasional when help was needed. I didn't mind so much that my effective wages were low, below minimum wage, but it didn't seem right that I had to pay another guy part time more than I was making.
No one ever seems to care about the guy paying the minimum wage.

Now my question is, why is this the business of the federal government in any stretch? Can you point to the article in the Constitution that makes the minimum wage the business of congress? The nearest place I can point to is the 10th amendment because of it not being mention any where in the main text.

Regards,
MarAzul

Wait what?!?

So you own a ranch, you've never ranched before so there are some problems, a few mistakes here and there and if you sat down and penciled it out you're only making a dollar a hour. So you decided to hire some help and you think that since you're only making a dollar a hour that it's only fair that you pay them a dollar a hour? Oh wait, you say it's not fair that they make the same as you, so what you really want to do is pay them .25? .50? 75 cents per hour?

 

[barfo]

The amendment process is still lawful and available.

And very, very slow.

The world moves faster these days than it did in the 1790s.

barfo

 

[donkiez]

The free market at work, with no regulation Mar's ranch pays the going rate of less than minimum wage because he can and because he thinks thats fair, and there are plenty of people to take advantage of in that income bracket.

Did you ever employ any illegals on your ranch or did you only look for law abiding citizens?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

under the table marazul, im sure there are muchos personas pobre to exploit in such a fashion

good luck

 

[MarAzul]

Amazing! Not one comment about the fact that congress has no business being involved with what one man pays another for his help. Actually in the above scenario it usually is one rancher helping the other and it usually work both ways. It was sort of standing joke, either one of us made more money when working for the other because congress set the going rate and they had no business being involved in the first place.

It is hard for me to believe the generations in control these days have so little regard for the Constitution and the protection that limit governments intervention in your lives. I guess it would be fair to say, it is appalling to me that you give away your freedom so readily. Congress has no more business in controlling a minimum wage than they do telling you what light bulbs you can use, but you let them do both without your authorization in the constitution.

Look at the dumb ass comment above about the amendment process being slow!! Holy shit, why in the hell is any one in a hurry to authorize the government more legal authority to intervene in your lives?? That is fucking appalling in it's self, but worse yet you simple find it expedient to ignore the Constitution as easier. Damn! you will get what you deserve and you can count on it not being an improvement.

 

[donkiez]

How were your farm subsidies? I assume the rest of us were unconstitutionally paying for your cowboys paradise.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[barfo]

Amazing! Not one comment about the fact that congress has no business being involved with what one man pays another for his help.

That's not a fact, that's just your opinion. And a minority opinion at that.

Actually in the above scenario it usually is one rancher helping the other and it usually work both ways. It was sort of standing joke, either one of us made more money when working for the other because congress set the going rate and they had no business being involved in the first place.

So you are complaining about a 'standing joke'?

It is hard for me to believe the generations in control these days have so little regard for the Constitution and the protection that limit governments intervention in your lives. I guess it would be fair to say, it is appalling to me that you give away your freedom so readily. Congress has no more business in controlling a minimum wage than they do telling you what light bulbs you can use, but you let them do both without your authorization in the constitution.

Yes, and Congress also has no business telling drug manufacturers to test their products before selling them, or telling corporations they can't dump hazardous waste in the rivers, etc etc. Life would be so much better if everyone could do exactly what they wanted and there were no rules other than the guy with the most guns and the most money wins.

Look at the dumb ass comment above about the amendment process being slow!! Holy shit, why in the hell is any one in a hurry to authorize the government more legal authority to intervene in your lives?? That is fucking appalling in it's self, but worse yet you simple find it expedient to ignore the Constitution as easier. Damn! you will get what you deserve and you can count on it not being an improvement.

Reality says amending the constitution isn't our current system of government. This isn't something new or different. Last amendment was in 1992, last significant one was 1971. You can pine all you want for the old days, but the constitution is at this point mostly a 'historical document', and I mean that in the Galaxy Quest sense.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

You can pine all you want for the old days, but the constitution is at this point mostly a 'historical document', and I mean that in the Galaxy Quest sense.

barfo

Correction, The constitution is ignored by you lazy assed fools only until the not so foolish wake the fuck up.

 

[barfo]

Correction, The constitution is ignored by you lazy assed fools only until the not so foolish wake the fuck up.

Well, go ahead and wake the fuck up, if you think that's what's needed. You'll find the world has changed since you went to sleep, Mr. Van Winkle.

barfo

 

[julius]

hey, watch the personal insults, or someone might contact their personal lawyer and he'll send off a hell-fire and brimstone letter to the Blazers!

 

[BigGameDamian]

If minimum wage gets raised small business may likely suffer though. However, If your on the other end of the stick I'm sure it will be all good.

 

[Denny Crane]

Also, what the hell business does the federal government have trying to regulate nuclear warheads? Where are nuclear warheads mentioned in the constitution?

barfo

Wow. 2/3 of the constitution grants the federal government all sorts of military rights.

 

[MarAzul]

Well, go ahead and wake the fuck up, if you think that's what's needed. You'll find the world has changed since you went to sleep, Mr. Van Winkle.

barfo

LOL! I see you have read a few fables, but skip the real history.

A few years of inattention is correctable. Baloney like ObamaCare, NSA ignoring the 4th amendment, and a plethora things would not stand through the scrutiny of the amendment process. The people like yourself that consider it fine to ignore the Constitution are in the minority.

 

[barfo]

Wow. 2/3 of the constitution grants the federal government all sorts of military rights.

Ok, show me where the constitution says I can't have a nuke.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Ok, show me where the constitution says I can't have a nuke.

barfo

Who says you can't?

 

[barfo]

Who says you can't?

You think I can?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You think I can?

barfo

I think you can't afford it. It takes a decent sized nation to make one.

 

[barfo]

I think you can't afford it. It takes a decent sized nation to make one.

Who said I was going to make it? Besides, you are ignoring the point. Change it to some sort of biological agent if you like.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Who said I was going to make it? Besides, you are ignoring the point. Change it to some sort of biological agent if you like.

barfo

You're the one trying to prove something.

Your statements about the constitution aren't true.

 

[barfo]

You're the one trying to prove something.

Your statements about the constitution aren't true.

Let's recap.

MarAzul said that minimum wage wasn't in the constitution, and therefore Congress making laws about it was invalid.
I said, what about prohibiting me from having nukes? That ain't in the constitution either.
Now you say my 'statements aren't true'.

So are you saying the constitution does mention nukes? Or that congress should not be permitted to regulate those things, since they aren't in the constitution? Is that your position? If not, maybe you could be a little more clear about what it is you are trying to say.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Let's recap.

MarAzul said that minimum wage wasn't in the constitution, and therefore Congress making laws about it was invalid.
I said, what about prohibiting me from having nukes? That ain't in the constitution either.
Now you say my 'statements aren't true'.

So are you saying the constitution does mention nukes? Or that congress should not be permitted to regulate those things, since they aren't in the constitution? Is that your position? If not, maybe you could be a little more clear about what it is you are trying to say.

barfo

It's really rather simple, if you want congress to take on new responsibilities then an amendment is appropriate to add the authority. Yes it is heavy, requires a super majority of in congress and of the States as it should. I imagine you could assume Nuclear Weapons Control would pass until it did, but I don't think ObamaCare would ever make it. The federal minimum wage would likely fail also
since many state do their own. Having a federal minimum wage just gives low functioning politician like Merkley something to crow about.

 

[Denny Crane]

Let's recap.

MarAzul said that minimum wage wasn't in the constitution, and therefore Congress making laws about it was invalid.
I said, what about prohibiting me from having nukes? That ain't in the constitution either.
Now you say my 'statements aren't true'.

So are you saying the constitution does mention nukes? Or that congress should not be permitted to regulate those things, since they aren't in the constitution? Is that your position? If not, maybe you could be a little more clear about what it is you are trying to say.

barfo

2/3 of the constitution talks about the military role of the government. If you consider a nuke to be a military weapon, then the constitution seems to cover the government funding a manhattan project or even bio weapons.

I don't find anything in the constitution that allows the government to regulate contracts between people.

 

[barfo]

2/3 of the constitution talks about the military role of the government. If you consider a nuke to be a military weapon, then the constitution seems to cover the government funding a manhattan project or even bio weapons.

I wasn't talking about the government having those things. I was talking about the government prohibiting me from having them.

I don't find anything in the constitution that allows the government to regulate contracts between people.

So it's ok if I hire a hit man to kill you?

barfo

 

[barfo]

It's really rather simple, if you want congress to take on new responsibilities then an amendment is appropriate to add the authority. Yes it is heavy, requires a super majority of in congress and of the States as it should.

Sure, that's theory the way the system works. I don't argue with that. However, in reality, it's a different story.
You can say it shouldn't be that way, but it's as pointless as saying that teenagers shouldn't have sex.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Sure, that's theory the way the system works. I don't argue with that. However, in reality, it's a different story.
You can say it shouldn't be that way, but it's as pointless as saying that teenagers shouldn't have sex.

barfo

I guess you have hit upon our differences. I am not about to worry to much about the teenagers, but I sure will not vote for weak voices like Merkley who ignore the Constitution.
I don't mind if you join me.

 

[jlprk]

I just received your reply on comment about the minimum wage.

I operated a ranch for about 10 years after I retired from a major corporation. Didn't make much money doing so but it was
an enjoyable thing to do. One of the aggravations that came with the job me was paying minimum wage occasional when help was needed. I didn't mind so much that my effective wages were low, below minimum wage, but it didn't seem right that I had to pay another guy part time more than I was making.
No one ever seems to care about the guy paying the minimum wage.

Now my question is, why is this the business of the federal government in any stretch? Can you point to the article in the Constitution that makes the minimum wage the business of congress? The nearest place I can point to is the 10th amendment because of it not being mention any where in the main text.

Regards,
MarAzul

If you want attention from a U.S. Senator, you need to avoid 9 errors in usage, grammar, or spelling, not including your 2 spelling errors inside your 9th boldfaced error.

It marks you, in Washington, D.C. as well as on this board, as a moron. I'm not saying that you're a moron, just that you write like one.