This Tuesday BBC Radio starts airing a five-part series called Meet the Bloggers, introducing you to the people “who’ve attracted attention in cyberspace by recording their thoughts and impressions on anything and everything.”
I’m pretty impressed with the lineup of bloggers featured over the coming weeks. For example, take a look at the program segment on political blogs:
Programme 4: It’s Political
Tuesday 19 September 2006, 9.30amA look at Instapundit, one of the biggest “political’ blogs in America, written by law professor Glenn Reynolds from Knoxville, Tennessee, and Horsesass, where local political activist David Goldstein, from Seattle, gives what he calls “the Straight Poop on Politics and the Press’
Yeah that’s right. When the BBC went out looking for a couple of bloggers to represent the right and the left of the political blogosphere, they chose Glenn Reynolds and, um… me. (I know… it’s hard to believe somebody like Reynolds made the cut.)
My segment will be available for streaming after it airs on Sept. 19th, along with a longer version of my interview; I’ll post an update at that time. In the meantime you can read BBC producer Mark Savage’s impressions of meeting us bloggers face to face.
Carl Grossman, You have been traded to the Muuuuuuuuslim terrorists for the FOX News guys. I’m certain they will treat you nicely, as Michael Moore has announced that there is no war on terror. By the way, make sure that your beheading is filmed on “You Tube”. I’ll link it in a HA.ORG post.
Straight poop is right, pure unadulterated BULLSHIT!
(I know… it’s hard to believe somebody like Reynolds made the cut.)
True:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.....gness.html
Day 6 August 27, 2006 Where’s Goldy?
Mayor Nickels’
unprecedented tax increase proposal and
Tim Eyman’s opposition campaign not only screws the taxpayers into paying extra for basic services, but it also really puts Goldy and the rest of you seattle moonbats in a helluva predicament. I’ve been taunting Goldy for some time now with my “Where’s Goldy” series, and he still won’t tell us where he stands. No doubt, he’s between a rock and a hard place trying to figure out what to do. So as a true compassionate conservative, I’ll lay out the options here for ya Goldy:
1) Open up your wallet and pay more and more property tax every year until you are forced out of your home. Even if you can do it, do you want to make seattle a place where only the rich can live? Or do you not give a fuck about anybody else?
2) Join Eyman’s campaign to fight defeat the tax increase, and expose yourself to be the fucking hypocrite that you are. Admit that you are wrong about taxpayer rights, and thank Tim in pubic for giving you the right to vote on major policy issues.
3) Support the tax hike and agree that the tax money has to be raised, but make somebody other than you pay. You could take the tried and true class envy approach and make those “rich people” in Magnolia and Queen Ann pick up the tab. Remember, a “fair tax” in moonbat parlance is a tax that the other guy has to pay.
4) Or just keep quiet and hope I go away. That’s not gonna happen.
Cutting tax rates INCREASES federal revenue.
Roger Rabbit is full of shit when he denies the link between cutting tax rates and subsequent increases in federal revenue.
http://www.treas.gov/press/rel.....growth.jpg
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....s_R/R1.cfm
Check out McGavick’s personal page on MySpace.com: http://www.myspace.com/mikemcgavick … is he trolling for underage girls? I’m not saying he is; just wondering.
My gosh. There is an echo in here. When one has nothing to say, is it a common tactic to repeat the same thing over and over again. It still has no meaning, but the speaker has at least made himself feel better.
I am sure by now Stefan has been to the Post Office claiming his invite to the program was stolen, lost or mutilated. By the LeftWing conspiracy, of course.
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat and partially on topic.
Mark the Red Nekkid Asshole @ 4:
It is only taunting when you are getting a desired response. I have seen no such response. Your “taunting” has the same effect as when you fart on an elevator alone. The only one affected, is you!
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat
Carl, Michael Moore tells us that there is no war on terror. Now……… Go with the nice masked Muuuuuuuslims with the AKs!!!!!!
Hello ello ellllo elllllllo. That echo is cool ool ooool oooooool
“The mischief springs from the power which the monied interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining…and unless you become more watchful in your states and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of government have been given or bartered away….
– Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, 1837â€
’nuff said!!!!!
(pussypud is gonna’ be upset again)
ROGER RABBIT EXPLAINS MINIMUM WAGE
Here’s how the Republican minimum wage bill works. Let’s say a restaurant owner pays Wendy Waitress $7.36 an hour. Wendy hustles to keep your coffee cup full, never fails to smile and ask if “everything is all right,” etc., and you leave her a tip. So do all the other customers.
Let’s say averages $5 an hour in tips. So, she’s making $12.36 an hour, right? Not great money, but she’s eking out a living on it (don’t forget, waitresses don’t get 40 hours a week; they typically work 32 or 36 hour weekly shifts).
The Republicans in Congress want to change that system — and do it on the sneak. They buried it in an estate tax bill hoping nobody would notice. What Republicans intend to do is take that $5 an hour of tips and put it in the restaurant owner’s pocket. Yes, Wendy is still guaranteed $7.36 an hour. But now she has to average $7.36 an hour in tips before she gets to keep a penny of her tips. Now her income is $7.36 an hour instead of $12.36 an hour. That’s a 40 percent pay cut for someone who is living on the economic margin to begin with.
Notice I said “her” tips. When you leave a tip for Wendy, you’re tipping her, not her boss. You pay her boss at the cash register on your way out. The table tip is supposed to be part of Wendy’s pay, not part of the restaurant’s profit. Why would you donate to the restaurant’s profit, when they’re already charging you for their profit in the menu prices?
When restaurant patrons find out their tips are going to the restaurant instead of the waitress, what do you think will happen to tipping? Do you really believe customers will double or triple their tips, so Wendy can still make her $5 an hour of tips (after the restaurant takes the first $7.36)? More likely they’ll just quit tipping. Why leave money on the table for the waitress if it won’t go to her? Or they’ll pay the waitress under the table — “pssst! here’s your tip, don’t let the boss see it!”
Mark the Redneck tries to justify this immoral ripoff by making the technical argument that the Republican bill doesn’t “cut” the minimum wage because Wendy will still make $7.36 an hour. My answer is, you can go either of two ways here, but you can’t have it both ways.
Alternative A: If the restaurant deducts Wendy’s tips from the $7.36 an hour the restaurant is legally obligated to pay her, then the restaurant is paying her $2.36 an hour, and that’s a $5 cut in the minimum wage.
Alternative B: If the restaurant pays Wendy $7.36 an hour but keeps her tips, then the restaurant is stealing her tips.
I say “stealing” because the restaurant owner didn’t wait on the customers, Wendy did. The customer tipped Wendy, not the restaurant owner. The customer probably doesn’t even know the restaurant owner is pocketing the tip money, or he wouldn’t leave the tip in the first place. There is a tradition in our society that you tip people working in certain occupations if the service is satisfactory, because they receive only a low base pay from the employer and the tip income is part of their pay for the work they perform. There is no tradition in our society of tipping the employer while the worker lives only on the low base pay. And when you deceive the public into thinking the worker is getting the tip when, in fact, the employer is taking money you intended the worker to have, that’s stealing.
Except for Mark and the other dishonest trolls, it ought to be as clear as daylight that the intent of the Republican bill is to allow employers of people working in tipped occupations to cut the pay of these workers for their own profit.
Any questions?
Mark the Liar probably will respond with some “invisible hand” blather. As I’ve pointed out in previous threads, the main function of Mark’s “invisible hand” is beating his meat, since no woman will have him. Not even Republican women. But Mark probably will come up with some Adam Smith argument that the market will take care of Wendy’s income.
The “invisible hand” argument works something like this. We don’t need a minimum wage law to start with because employers the “free market” will force employers to pay waitresses at least $7.36 an hour, anyway.
My question is, if that’s so, why not just raise the federal minimum wage to $7.36 an hour, let waitresses keep their tips, and let it go at that? Why do we need the Republican bill, if the market will force employers to pay more than the bill requires them to?
Roger Rabbit,
‘Nuff said, Roger.
Greedy fucking bastards!
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat ’nuff said.
(Pussypud, did you notice, I got it in this post TWICE?)
And I suppose Mark or some other troll will jump in here and say, why not raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour? or $50 an hour?
And I will respond, because the purpose of the minimum wage law is to keep employers from shifting their labor costs to taxpayers. If the employer can’t charge a high enough priceto cover the labor costs and still make a profit, then his product or service is uneconomic, and subsidizing its production makes the economy less efficient and pulls down our living standard.
Waitresses can’t work for free. It costs them money to provide their labor. They need food, housing, clothing, medical care, and transportation. Sometimes, they need child care, too, because they can’t work if they have to care for their children themselves. Many waitresses are single mothers. Not necessarily by choice. They get abused or abandoned by immoral males who don’t know how to treat women and don’t have the decency to support their own kids unless a government enforcement agency gets after them, and then the woman has to go out in the world and support herself with any job she can get. Often that’s a low paying entry-level job like waitressing or housekeeping, where tips are an important part of the worker’s income.
Republicans want to steal your tips from their lowest-paid workers and put that money in their own pockets. Shame on them! And these selfish, greedy, bastards call themselves “Christians?”
Here’s what happens when employers pay less than a living wage. The workers survive by getting earned income tax credit, housing vouchers, food vouchers, and child care vouchers from the government. In other words, we pay taxes to support waitresses so their employers can buy their labor at a 50% discount. A typical minimum wage worker in the U.S. has an income of roughly $20,000 a year, and about half of that comes from the federal goverment, under the programs described above. The employer is putting that half of his labor cost in his own pocket. It’s not profit, it’s a transfer payment from taxpayers to the employer.
And Republicans want to cut taxes of rich business owners, financed by debt, with the principal and interest to be paid by future generations of workers, while those who enjoy the good life on minimally taxed or untaxed capital gains, investment income, and inheritances skate.
That’s why I call Republicans F R E E L O A D E R S and CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVES. Because that’s exactly what they are, people who want to buy labor at less than cost, with taxpayers picking up the difference, so they can make a lot of money without working for it.
Republican = FREELOADER
Any questions?
16
Don’t forget to mention they’re LIARS, too.
Mark the Lying Redneck also claimed that cutting taxes always increases revenues. Let’s recap what happened after Bush cut taxes in 2001:
2000 – $1,372,376,000,000 (baseline year)
2001 – $1,297,063,000,000
2002 – $1,152,413,000,000
2003 – $1,069,364,000,000
(Data from official sources)
Redneck has 4 engineering degrees, so he can’t possibly be this bad at math. He was lying when he said tax cuts always increase revenue. $1.29 trillion is less than $1.37 trillion, and $1.15 trillion is less than $1.29 trillion — does anybody have any questions about that? Redneck is a LIAR. It’s right there in black and white, he was LYING when he said cutting taxes always increases revenues.
You must always remember that Mark the Retarded is a consortium of Rethuglican semi-professionals. . .either that or he has a serious schizoid personality. One of him is a physician fixated on one statistical test, the Chi squared arguement you have heard him rant about. He’s actually called Mark. Another of him is a severely misogynistic engineer, not-Mark, named Jeff. . .
4
Redneck sez:
“Mayor Nickels’ unprecedented tax increase proposal … really puts Goldy and the rest of you seattle moonbats in a helluva predicament.”
Reality check:
1. I’ve already posted that I oppose Mayor Nickels’ road maintenance tax, because I don’t see why he needs $1.8 billion to pay for a $500 million backlog of road and bridge maintenance, and I think there’s $1.3 billion of gold-plating in there.
2. The Seattle Times editorial that Redneck linked to says, “All six liberal Democrats running in the heated 43rd Legislative District in Seattle told The Times’ Editorial Board they oppose the mayor’s $1.6 billion roads improvement levy on property taxes.” Don’t you read the articles you link to, Redneck? Apparently not.
3. I don’t recall Goldy (or any liberal poster here) endorsing Nickels’ tax package.
So what’s the “predicament?” That we agree on something? It’s about time you agreed with us on something. What took you so long? Stupidity? Ignorance? A contrary personality streak?
I’m glad you’re going to vote against Nickels’ tax, Redneck. The more, the merrier! I hope that sucker gets hammered bad. It not only doesn’t deserve to pass, it deserves to get crushed. Do you want Nickels’ head? You can have him.
Now that I’ve succeeded in getting you on board against Nickels’ sneaky dishonest tax ripoff, Redneck, what will it take to bring you around on minimum wage? What do I need to do to get you on board against the GOP Congress’s sneaky dishonest minimum wage ripoff? How about if I take up a collection on HA to send you to a Jesus Camp to learn some Christian values? No, I don’t mean the one run by that woman in North Dakota who is training kids to be jihadists. I have in mind one of those laid-back places in California where you sit in a circle and sing “Kumbaya” while camp counselors help you purge your greedy and selfish demons, and get right with the Lord. I won’t even call you a FREELOADER for going on our dime — I’ll overlook that bit of freeloading if you’ll just do it. I’m trying to save your soul, Brother. If you don’t cooperate, Hell is a hot place, and you’ll be there for a long time.
I’ll put in $5 if Redneck agrees to go to a Jesus Camp to purge his demons and get right with the Lord! Who else here will contribute to the Save Redneck’s Soul fund? Send all contributions c/o Goldy.
Lemme look around here, perhaps Jesus General has a boot camp for Yellow Elephant Mark. . . . .
23
If he refuses to go, we’ll transfer all contributions to the beer fund.
24
Yep, I think the General could straighten him out.
In an amazing twist of irony, only one of Mark the Retardeds multiple personalities gets to vote for or against the Seattle Tax Package. . .’course, I’ll have consult Sucky Politics voter rolls to even confirm that. . . .
Day 207 (?) PAY UP REDNECK!
When is this dishonest jerkoff going to settle the bet he challenged Goldy to and HE LOST!
I tell you when – never! Because he’s a lying, cowardly hypocrite!
Hey Rabbit – Why do you only show data up to 2003? Because you’re a lying motherfucker? Notice on the links I posted that the curve turns back up once the effect of tax cuts fully kicked in?
I think you guys should sit out the vote on the prop tax hike. After all, this blog is founded on the idea of hate for the guy that gave you the right to vote on these things. You make the point pretty consistently that policy issues are far too complex for the average voter to understand, and this is no exception. I think you should let the rulers of seattle do whatever they want because they know what’s best and you obviously don’t.
First, Lieman did not give me the ‘right’ to vote on anything. The US Constitution, and subsequently the Washington State Constitution give me that right. Read them some time.
So typical of a lying, welshing, rightwing trollfuck. . .’policy issues are far too complex for the average voter’. No one here of a liberal persuasion feels that. Getting out the information is what we are about here.
Suppressing votes, and elevating a hereditary aristocracy seems to be what you are about.
PAY YOUR GAMBLING DEBT, WELSHER
29
See the new thread. Your questions are answered there.
Mike McGavick has a page on MySpace.Com, which includes this candid admission:
“Right now I am currently running for the United States Senate. I left Safeco back in January to focus on the campaign.”
http://www.myspace.com/mikemcgavick
29
Oh, what the hell.
2000 – $1,372,376,000,000 (baseline year)
2001 – $1,297,063,000,000
2002 – $1,152,413,000,000
2003 – $1,069,364,000,000
2004 – $1,146,664,000,000
2005 – $1,279,114,000,000 (estimate)
(Data from official sources)
As you can see, revenue in EVERY year since Bush began cutting taxes in 2001 is less than it was in 2000.
29
Where’s the lie, Redneck? I’ll tell you where. You said cutting taxes ALWAYS increases revenues. That’s a lie. Where you’re confused is I didn’t tell that lie, you did. You’re the motherfucking liar.
36 correction
Redneck is not a motherfucking liar. Even his mother won’t fuck him. No woman will. The only way Redneck can get fucked is if he fucks himself.
What’s a nobody like Reynolds doing on the same show as Goldy?
I usually like to remain above the fray. However, after reading over my husbands shoulder I feel the need to comment here.
The only piece of ass (I hate that term) that Mark the Redneck or John Craig get is when their fingers slip through the toilet paper while wiping. I can tell you that no member of the female population would every touch one of these losers. Even the hookers are “busy” when they call.
Congrats, Goldy
This will be very cool to see.
I usually like to remain above the fray. However, after reading over my husbands shoulder I feel the need to comment here.
The only piece of ass (I hate that term) that Mark the Redneck or John Craig get is when their fingers slip through the toilet paper while wiping. I can tell you that no member of the female population would every touch one of these losers. Even the hookers are “busy” when they call.
Commentby Mrs Left Foot […….Dear Mrs. Carl Grossman, Does “Tookie” Williams still give you 9 inches of “Democrat retal Tookie love”? Does Mr. Grossman “get off” watching? Can I purchase the “You Tube” video? Just “axing”???]
I usually like to remain above the fray. However, after reading over my husbands shoulder I feel the need to comment here.
Commentby Mrs Left Foot […..Gee, what a surprise!! The Jewish wife is back from shopping and “needs to make a comment”. Classic, Mrs. Grossmanstein. After Carl drops from high blood pressure, I can see you with blue hair in a condo in Miami. Typical!!]
Let me be the second to congratulate you, Goldy. Quite an accomplishment! It’s too bad everyone else on this thread has been too busy talking about their pet complaints.
Hey Goldy,
Congratulations! I look forward to hearing the BBC piece.
Yes, I’ll look forward to the BBC hit piece. Too bad no one will ax the BBC why they biased reported the Israeli/Hezbollah skirmish to the Hezbollah side? It would beeeeeeeee too embarassing.
So Goldie, I missed your show (on purpose of course)! Did you open your show with a few condolence moments for the 49 people who died in Kentucky Sunday morning? Did you talk about how compaaaaaaaassionate you libruls are. Did you speak to the symmmmmmmmmmmmmmpathy you have to the surviving relatives? I wonder if the BBC reads this will they ax those questions too?
Maybe the BBC will ax Goldie on his random thoughts regarding:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00553.html
“The truth is that none of these Democrats can resist dumb economic populism. Even though we are not in a recession, and even though the presidential primaries are more than a year away, the DLC crowd is pandering shamelessly to the left of the party — perhaps in the knowledge that the grocery workers union, which launched the anti-Wal-Mart campaign, is strong in the key state of Iowa.
For a party that needs the votes of Wal-Mart’s customers, this is a questionable strategy. But there is more than politics at stake. According to a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag, neither of whom received funding from Wal-Mart, big-box stores led by Wal-Mart reduce families’ food bills by one-fourth. Because Wal-Mart’s price-cutting also has a big impact on the non-food stuff it peddles, it saves U.S. consumers upward of $200 billion a year, making it a larger booster of family welfare than the federal government’s $33 billion food-stamp program.
How can centrist Democrats respond to that? By beating up Wal-Mart and forcing it to focus on public relations rather than opening new stores, Democrats are harming the poor Americans they claim to speak for.”
Maybe the BBC will ax Goldie on his random thoughts regarding:
http://apnews.myway.com/articl.....DJVG0.html
German terrorism. Since we know Atta lived in Hamburg, what does Goldie think about this now?
Maybe Goldie could ax the BBC why “When an ICM poll of Britain’s Muslims in February this year revealed that some 40% (that is, about 800,000 people) wished to see Islamic law introduced in parts of Britain”? Is it because the BBC promotes the Muslim agenda with their biased reporting?
I realize Goldie is one of theose femi-men and has lost his balls regarding the real issues facing the Western Culture. We will be latinized soon per Pat Buchanan!
Maybe the BBC will ax Goldie on his random thoughts regarding:
http://porkbusters.org/secrethold.php
Since Maria and Patty said it wasn’t them, ax him his thoughts on if it’s a donkocrat who placed the secret hold on the Pork ID bill?
Right now the count is 17 R – No vs 10 D – No. Since Bill Frist tried to bring the bill up before the August recess, it looks like a donk has stopped progress. Maybe it’s Robert King of Pork Byrd?
Maybe the BBC will ax Goldie on his random thoughts regarding:
http://porkbusters.org/hall_of_shame.php
Maybe Goldie will opine why three of the biggest whiffs are moonbats!
Maybe the BBC will ax Goldie why he was looking for a Merry Fitzmas on Karl Rove? Why not ax Goldie on the strange indictment of Scotter Libby?
http://article.nationalreview......U4NjIwMDc=
“Why did Armitage keep the information from Fitzgerald? In Hubris, Armitage’s allies hint at the same defense that Lewis Libby’s lawyers use to explain why he didn’t tell investigators everything: that Plame was a relatively inconsequential part of a big story and was not, as administration critics say, the focus of a White House conspiracy. “My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat,” State Department intelligence head told Corn and Isikoff, saying that Armitage had simply “f—-ked up.”
Whatever Armitage’s motives, the fact that he was the Novak leaker undermines — destroys, actually — the conspiracy theory of the CIA-leak case. According to Isikoff, in an excerpt of Hubris published in Newsweek: “The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone…”
It’s an extraordinary admission coming from Isikoff’s co-author Corn, one of the leading conspiracy theorists of the CIA-leak case. “The Plame leak in Novak’s column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about the prewar intelligence,” Corn and Isikoff write. “The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework.”
No, it doesn’t. Instead, Corn and Isikoff argue that after Armitage “got the ball rolling,” his actions “abetted” a White House that was already attempting to “undermining” Joseph Wilson. That’s a long way from the cries of “Traitor!” that came from the administration’s critics during the CIA-leak investigation.
WHY LIBBY — AND NOT ARMITAGE?
Of course, investigators knew that all along. So why did the investigation continue? And why was Libby ultimately indicted, and not Armitage?
It appears that Libby’s early statements raised investigators’ suspicions. Early on, once the FBI started asking questions, Armitage told investigators he talked to Novak. Rove told investigators he talked to Novak. The CIA’s Bill Harlow told investigators he talked to Novak. Their stories, along with Novak’s description of how he learned about Plame (Novak talked to investigators at the same time, describing the process, but not naming sources), all lined up pretty well.
And then came Libby. During that same October time period, Libby — who was not Novak’s source — told investigators he learned about Plame from Tim Russert. According to the Libby indictment, Libby said that “Russert asked Libby if Libby was aware that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.” Although Libby wasn’t one of Novak’s sources, his story didn’t fit with the others, and that would most likely make investigators suspect that somebody wasn’t telling the truth. In this case, it probably appeared that person was Libby.
Ultimately, Libby was indicted on perjury and obstruction charges. But at the time Fitzgerald indicted Libby, at the end of October 2005, he did not know that Armitage had not told investigators about his, Armitage’s, conversation with Woodward. According to Hubris, Fitzgerald then re-investigated Armitage, finally deciding not to charge him with any crime.
Why? Certainly it appears that no one committed any crimes by revealing Plame’s identity, and one could argue that the Justice Department should not have gone forward with a wide-ranging investigation after it discovered Novak’s sources. But if Fitzgerald was going to indict Libby, then why not Armitage, too?
The answer may lie in the bitter conflict inside the administration over the war in Iraq that is the backdrop to the entire CIA-leak affair. Armitage’s allies have made it clear that they believe Armitage is a “good” leaker while Rove, Libby, and others in the White House are “bad” leakers. We do not know what CIA and State Department officials told Fitzgerald during the investigation, but we do know that fevered imaginings about the terrible acts of the neocon cabal were not the exclusive province of left-wing blogs; they were also present inside the State Department and CIA. Fitzgerald may have chosen the course that he did — appearing to premise his investigation on the conspiracy theorists’ accusations — because he was pointed in that direction by the White House’s enemies inside and outside the administration.”
Hubris, the new book by the Nation’s David Corn and Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff is written by moonbat MSM.
Maybe the BBC will ax Goldie on his random thoughts why he can’t refute his librul friends
Roger Rabbit- One technical flaw and one real ommission in your analysis of minimum wage and tip credit.
The Federal minimum for tipped employees is $2.13, not zero. It affects your math a bit, but not you basic points.
But we need to remember that tip credit is a bipartisan failing. Only seven states- Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Montana, Nevada, and Minnesota- require the full minimum wage to be paid to tipped employees. The other 43 states, plus D.C., still provide for the tip credit.
It is not just “red” states like Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, or Arizona that allow tip-slavery. It is also those “blue” states like New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Yes, waiters and waitresses in “blue” states- including those who waited on the DNC in Chicago- are working for $2.13 plus tips.
We were right to be outraged at the attempt to roll our tipped employees back into tip=slavery, but in most states the chains have never been broken.
Perhaps we should be boycotting the tip-slave states ntil they see the light.