Time For Us To Go
Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006.
And we thought Clinton had no self-control
By Joe Scarborough
When The Washington Monthly reached me at my office recently, a voice on the other side of the line meekly asked if I would ever consider writing an article supporting the radical proposition that Republicans should get their brains beaten in this fall.
“Count me in!” was my chipper response. I also seem to remember muttering something about preferring an assortment of Bourbon Street hookers running the Southern Baptist Convention to having this lot of Republicans controlling America’s checkbook for the next two years.
Maybe that’s because right-wing, knuckle-dragging Republicans like myself took over Congress in 1994 promising to balance the budget and limit Washington’s power. We were a nasty breed and had no problem blaming Bill and Hillary Clinton for everything from the exploding federal deficit to male pattern baldness. I suspected then, as I do now, that Hillary Clinton herself had something to do with “Love, American Style” and “Joanie Loves Chachi.” And why not blame her? Back then, Newt Gingrich felt comfortable blaming the drowning of two little children on Democratic values. Hell. It was 1994. It just seemed like the thing to do.
Subscribe Online & Save 33%
The terminally rumpled Dick Armey (R-Whiskey Gulch) even went so far as to suggest that the Clintons might be Marxists, drawing an angry personal rebuke from Bubba himself. But 12 years later, it is Armey’s fellow Republicans who should be sobered by the short and ugly history of Republican Supremacy.
Under Bill Clinton’s presidency, discretionary spending grew at a modest rate of 3.4 percent. Not too bad for a Marxist, even considering that his worst instincts were tempered by a Republican Congress. (Well, his worst fiscal instincts.)
But compare Clinton’s 3.4 percent growth rate to the spending orgy that has dominated Washington since Bush moved into town. With Republicans in charge of both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, spending growth has averaged 10.4 percent per year. And the GOP’s reckless record goes well beyond runaway defense costs. The federal education bureaucracy has exploded by 101 percent since Republicans started running Congress. Spending in the Justice Department over the same period has shot up 131 percent, the Commerce Department 82 percent, the Department of Health and Human Services 81 percent, the State Department 80 percent, the Department of Transportation 65 percent, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 59 percent. Incredibly, the four bureaucracies once targeted for elimination by the GOP Congress—Commerce, Energy, Education, and Housing and Urban Development—have enjoyed spending increases of an average of 85 percent.
It’s enough to make economic conservatives long for the day when Marxists were running the White House.
This must all be shocking to my Republican friends who still believe our country would be a better place if our party controlled every branch of government as well as every news network, movie studio, and mid-American pulpit. But evidence suggests that divided government may be what Washington needs the most.
During the 1990s, conservative Republicans and the Clinton White House somehow managed to balance the budget while winning two wars, reforming welfare, and conducting an awesome impeachment trial focused on oral sex and a stained Gap dress.
The fact that both parties hated each another was healthy for our republic’s bottom line. A Democratic president who hates a Republican appropriations chairman is less likely to sign off on funding for the Midland Maggot Festival being held in the chairman’s home district. Soon, budget negotiations become nasty, brutish, and short and devolve into the legislative equivalent of Detroit, where only the strong survive.
But in Bush’s Washington, the capital is a much clubbier place where everyone in the White House knows someone on the Hill who worked with the Old Man, summered in Maine, or pledged DKE at Yale. The result? Chummy relationships, no vetoes, and record-breaking debts.
As a political junkie who wept bitter tears the night Jimmy Carter got elected and shouted with uncontrolled joy when Ronald Reagan whipped his sorry ass four years later, I find myself ambivalent for the first time over a national election. After six years of Republican recklessness at home and abroad, I seriously doubt Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or the aforementioned Bourbon Street hookers could spend this country any deeper into debt than my Republican Party. With any luck, Democrats will launch destructive investigations, a new era of bad feelings will break out, and George W. Bush will stop using his veto pen to fill in Rangers’ box scores and instead start using it like a conservative president should.
link
***
Let’s quit while we’re behind
By Christopher Buckley
Excerpt:
Anyone who has even a passing personal acquaintance of Bush 41 knows him to be, roughly speaking, the most decent, considerate, humble, and cautious man on the planet. Also, the most loving parent on earth. What a wrench it must be for him to pick up his paper every morning and read the now-daily debate about whether his son is officially the worst president in U.S. history. (That chuckling you hear is the ghost of James Buchanan.) To paraphrase another president, I feel 41’s pain. Does 43 feel 41’s? Does he, I wonder, feel ours?
...
Six years later, the White House uses the phrase about as much as it does “Mission Accomplished.” Six years of record deficits and profligate expansion of entitlement programs. Incompetent expansion, at that: The actual cost of the President’s Medicare drug benefit turned out, within months of being enacted, to be roughly one-third more than the stated price. Weren’t Republicans supposed to be the ones who were good at accounting? All those years on Wall Street calculating CEO compensation....
Who knew, in 2000, that “compassionate conservatism” meant bigger government, unrestricted government spending, government intrusion in personal matters, government ineptitude, and cronyism in disaster relief? Who knew, in 2000, that the only bill the president would veto, six years later, would be one on funding stem-cell research?
A more accurate term for Mr. Bush’s political philosophy might be incontinent conservatism.
link
***
Idéologie has taken over
By Jeffrey Hart
Excerpt:
Today, the standard-bearer of “conservatism” in the United States is George W. Bush, a man who has taken the positions of an unshakable ideologue: on supply-side economics, on privatization, on Social Security, on the Terri Schiavo case, and, most disastrously, on Iraq. Never before has a United States president consistently adhered to beliefs so disconnected from actuality.
Bush’s party has followed him on this course. It has approved Bush’s prescription-drug plan, an incomprehensible and ruinously expensive piece of legislation. It has steadfastly backed the war in Iraq, even though the notion of nation-building was once anathema to the GOP. And it has helped run up federal indebtedness to unprecedented heights, leaving China to finance the debt.
Perhaps most damaging to the ideal of conservatism has been the influence of religious ideology. During the fight over whether to remove the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who had been in a vegetal state for 15 years, politicians began to say strange and feverish things. “She talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort,” Majority whip Tom DeLay said of a woman for whom cognition of any kind was impossible. (Oxygen deprivation had liquefied her cerebral cortex.) Senate Majority leader Bill Frist examined Schiavo on videotape and deemed her “clearly responsive.” As Schiavo’s case fought its way through the courts, Republicans savaged judges for consistently sanctioning the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube. “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,” threatened DeLay.
...
As Bush’s ideology leads from one disaster to another, one might ask: How far can it go? It has already brought us to Baghdad, an adventure so hopeless that Buckley recently mused, “If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or resign.” The more we learn about what happened behind the scenes in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, the more apparent it becomes that evidence was twisted to fit preconceived notions. Those who produced evidence undermining the case for war were ignored or even punished. It was zealotry at its most calamitous.
On the subject of democratizing Iraq and the Middle East, Bush has voiced some of the most extraordinarily ideological statements ever made by a sitting president. “Human cultures can be vastly different,” Bush told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute in February 2003, shortly before the invasion of Iraq. “Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on earth…For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.”
Happy thoughts, breathtakingly false.
...
At this dangerous point in history, we must depend on the decisions of an astonishingly feckless chief executive: an empty vessel filled with equal parts Rove and Rousseau.
Successful government by either Democrats or Republicans has always been, above all, realistic. FDR, Eisenhower, and Reagan were all reelected by landslides and rank as great presidents who responded to the world as it is, not the world as they would have it. But ideological government deserves rejection, whatever its party affiliation. This November, the Republicans stand to face a tsunami of rejection. They’ve earned it.
link
***
The show must not go on
By Richard A. Viguerie
Excerpt:
With their record over the past few years, the Big Government Republicans in Washington do not merit the support of conservatives. They have busted the federal budget for generations to come with the prescription-drug benefit and the creation and expansion of other programs. They have brought forth a limitless flow of pork for the sole, immoral purpose of holding onto office. They have expanded government regulation into every aspect of our lives and refused to deal seriously with mounting domestic problems such as illegal immigration. They have spent more time seeking the favors of K Street lobbyists than listening to the conservatives who brought them to power. And they have sunk us into the very sort of nation-building war that candidate George W. Bush promised to avoid, while ignoring rising threats such as communist China and the oil-rich “new Castro,” Hugo Chavez.
Conservatives are as angry as I have seen them in my nearly five decades in politics. Right now, I would guess that 40 percent of conservatives are ambivalent about the November election or want the Republicans to lose. But a Republican loss of one or both houses of Congress would turn power over to the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Dare we risk such an outcome?
The answer is, we must take that chance.
link
Conservative Republicans on: Why the Demo's Should Win
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
I sent the above to a rightwing friend. My response to his:
-- Bill wrote:
> I can agree with some of the things mentioned
> in the articles you cited;
> such as the lack of action on illegal
> immigration, and the runaway
> government spending. But by what reasoning
> would anyone believe that the
> Democrats would be more fiscally conservative,
> (they never have been)
DAR
Of course they have been. What were you smoking in the 90's? Every budget Clinton submitted was balanced. Not a single one of Reagan's or Bush junior's was. Bush's spending and increase in size of government is vastly greater than Clinton's. Perhaps you didn't read the article carefully.
BILL
or
> that they would restrain illegal immigration,
> (they have encouraged it)
DAR
I think immigrants are great. Give them amnesty like Reagan did. The laws for "legal" immigration are unworkable. If you are from Mexico and had a family member in the US apply for you in 1994, the government hasn't even looked at your paper work yet.
BILL
or
> that they would have a better strategy for
> winning the war in Iraq?
DAR
There is no winning strategy. Only bad options and worse options. It's Bush's mess and always will be and I imagine he will only make it worse during his remaining days. Perhaps the new congress can help lessen the damage, a little. Bush has killed more Americans than Osama, more Iraqi's than Saddamn.
BILL
The
> Democratic party is in disarray and cannot
> agree on a clear message to rally
> support.
DAR
You just keep telling yourself that. A little article:
***
Pelosi Says She Would Drain GOP "Swamp"
By David Espo
The Associated Press
Friday 06 October 2006
Washington - Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.
As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats - in her fondest wish - win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds - "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."
"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.
More:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100606R.shtml
***
BILL
About all they agree on is that they
> hate Bush and his policies.
DAR
As do all thoughtful conservatives. And with good reason.
BILL
> And you really want Nancy Pelosi as speaker of
> the house? That is scary.
DAR
I think she is going to be a great first lady speaker of the house.
Lets contrast her with one of your republican speakers:
***
By Glen Greenwald
Today's tour around the mind of the Bush follower
(1) Newt Gingrich argued yesterday that Republicans should remind the electorate that "Republicans are right to favor traditional American conservative social values, and the left is completely wrong to put San Francisco left-wing values third in line to be President by electing Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to speaker of the House."
Nancy Pelosi's "San Francisco left-wing values":
"Upon graduation in 1962, she married Georgetown University graduate Paul Pelosi." "Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, a native of San Francisco, have five children: Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul and Alexandra, and five grandchildren."
Newt Gingrich's "traditional American conservative social values":
In 1981, Newt dumped his first wife, Jackie Battley, for Marianne, wife number 2, while Jackie was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. Marianne and Newt divorced in December, 1999 after Marianne found out about Newt's long-running affair with Callista Bisek, his one-time congressional aide. Gingrich asked Marianne for the divorce by phoning her on Mother's Day, 1999. [Source: New York Post, July 18, 2000, Newt's Ex Wife Aiming to Pen Book by Bill Sanderson, available on lexis].
Newt (57) and Callista (34) were married in a private ceremony in a hotel courtyard in Alexandria, Va. in August, 2000. . . .
"He famously visited Jackie in the hospital where she was recovering from surgery for uterine cancer to discuss details of the divorce. He later resisted paying alimony and child support for his two daughters, causing a church to take up a collection. For all of his talk of religious faith and the importance of God, Gingrich left his congregation over the pastor's criticism of his divorce."
The consistency in reasoning is at least impressive. Those who evaded military service during wars they cheered on are brave, courageous, resolute warriors. Those who fought for their country in combat are cowards and appeasers.
Those who repeatedly dump their wives for new and better versions, and run around engaging in the sleaziest and most unrestrained sexual behavior, are stalwart defenders of traditional American and Christian values. Those who stay married to their original spouse for their entire lives and raise a family together are godless, radical heathens who represent "San Francisco values" and seek to undermine the country's moral fiber and Christian traditions.
Link:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006 ... -bush.html
D.
-- Bill wrote:
> I can agree with some of the things mentioned
> in the articles you cited;
> such as the lack of action on illegal
> immigration, and the runaway
> government spending. But by what reasoning
> would anyone believe that the
> Democrats would be more fiscally conservative,
> (they never have been)
DAR
Of course they have been. What were you smoking in the 90's? Every budget Clinton submitted was balanced. Not a single one of Reagan's or Bush junior's was. Bush's spending and increase in size of government is vastly greater than Clinton's. Perhaps you didn't read the article carefully.
BILL
or
> that they would restrain illegal immigration,
> (they have encouraged it)
DAR
I think immigrants are great. Give them amnesty like Reagan did. The laws for "legal" immigration are unworkable. If you are from Mexico and had a family member in the US apply for you in 1994, the government hasn't even looked at your paper work yet.
BILL
or
> that they would have a better strategy for
> winning the war in Iraq?
DAR
There is no winning strategy. Only bad options and worse options. It's Bush's mess and always will be and I imagine he will only make it worse during his remaining days. Perhaps the new congress can help lessen the damage, a little. Bush has killed more Americans than Osama, more Iraqi's than Saddamn.
BILL
The
> Democratic party is in disarray and cannot
> agree on a clear message to rally
> support.
DAR
You just keep telling yourself that. A little article:
***
Pelosi Says She Would Drain GOP "Swamp"
By David Espo
The Associated Press
Friday 06 October 2006
Washington - Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.
As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats - in her fondest wish - win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds - "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."
"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.
More:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100606R.shtml
***
BILL
About all they agree on is that they
> hate Bush and his policies.
DAR
As do all thoughtful conservatives. And with good reason.
BILL
> And you really want Nancy Pelosi as speaker of
> the house? That is scary.
DAR
I think she is going to be a great first lady speaker of the house.
Lets contrast her with one of your republican speakers:
***
By Glen Greenwald
Today's tour around the mind of the Bush follower
(1) Newt Gingrich argued yesterday that Republicans should remind the electorate that "Republicans are right to favor traditional American conservative social values, and the left is completely wrong to put San Francisco left-wing values third in line to be President by electing Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to speaker of the House."
Nancy Pelosi's "San Francisco left-wing values":
"Upon graduation in 1962, she married Georgetown University graduate Paul Pelosi." "Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, a native of San Francisco, have five children: Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul and Alexandra, and five grandchildren."
Newt Gingrich's "traditional American conservative social values":
In 1981, Newt dumped his first wife, Jackie Battley, for Marianne, wife number 2, while Jackie was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. Marianne and Newt divorced in December, 1999 after Marianne found out about Newt's long-running affair with Callista Bisek, his one-time congressional aide. Gingrich asked Marianne for the divorce by phoning her on Mother's Day, 1999. [Source: New York Post, July 18, 2000, Newt's Ex Wife Aiming to Pen Book by Bill Sanderson, available on lexis].
Newt (57) and Callista (34) were married in a private ceremony in a hotel courtyard in Alexandria, Va. in August, 2000. . . .
"He famously visited Jackie in the hospital where she was recovering from surgery for uterine cancer to discuss details of the divorce. He later resisted paying alimony and child support for his two daughters, causing a church to take up a collection. For all of his talk of religious faith and the importance of God, Gingrich left his congregation over the pastor's criticism of his divorce."
The consistency in reasoning is at least impressive. Those who evaded military service during wars they cheered on are brave, courageous, resolute warriors. Those who fought for their country in combat are cowards and appeasers.
Those who repeatedly dump their wives for new and better versions, and run around engaging in the sleaziest and most unrestrained sexual behavior, are stalwart defenders of traditional American and Christian values. Those who stay married to their original spouse for their entire lives and raise a family together are godless, radical heathens who represent "San Francisco values" and seek to undermine the country's moral fiber and Christian traditions.
Link:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006 ... -bush.html
D.
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
DOUGBILL
or
> that they would have a better strategy for
> winning the war in Iraq?
DAR
There is no winning strategy. Only bad options and worse options. It's Bush's mess and always will be and I imagine he will only make it worse during his remaining days. Perhaps the new congress can help lessen the damage, a little. Bush has killed more Americans than Osama, more Iraqi's than Saddamn.
Right. There's a civil war, no accounting of where the money has gone to rebuild Iraq, thousands of weapons unaccounted for, thousands of U.S. troops dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, etc. etc.
And the Republicans challenge anyone to do better? The Three Stooges could hardly do worse.
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Bush and cronies have been LYING about the war from day one, with full knowledge that people will be killed because of their lies.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
The RWs mindlessly regurgitating R-talking points is scary and always has been. My best friend's husband is a rabid Libertarian. I try not to say anything to him about much of anything. The number of flat-out lies he puts out - and always with such authority! - make it impossible to even have a conversation with him.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
What I don't get is why anyone would argue "Oh you're just a Bush Hater". Bill O'Reilly does this, maybe he started it and mindless bushbots like LV Ash just follow suit. But it doesn't make sense as an argument. I mean, yes, OK, I hate Bush....BECAUSE of all these things he's done. It's like their only defense is an offense....that doesn't make sense.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
More Bill roast:
-- Bill wrote:
> DAR
> Of course they have been. What were you
> smoking in the 90's? Every budget Clinton
> submitted was balanced. Not a single one of
> Reagan's or Bush junior's was. Bush's spending
> and increase in size of government is vastly
> greater than Clinton's. Perhaps you didn't read
> the article carefully.
>
> BILL - I am aware of the surplus that Clinton
> enjoyed. He was reaping the
> benefits of Reagonomics.
DAR
The huge deficit Reagan racked up (he actually insisted on spending MORE than the Demo's in congress wanted to spend) from '80-'88 caused the 236 billion Clinton surplus of fiscal 2000? You know you are ridiculous don't you?
BILL
But the Democratic
> party's history is NOT one of
> fiscal conservatism.
DAR
It is now.
> BILL - My grandparents were immigrants, and
> that is fine.
DAR
We had more immigrants per capita then than we do now. So I say immigrants now are fine.
BILL
What must be
> controlled is ILLEGAL immigration. So there is
> a waiting list for
> immigrants; Hasn't that always been the case?
DAR
No.
> It just shows that we have a
> country that many people want to come to. So
> you think that the solution is
> to "open the floodgates?"
DAR
Did I say the solution is "open the floodgates"? No.
BILL
and just let them all
> stream in without any kind
> of scrutiny or screening?
DAR
Did I say that? No. Don't make stuff up.
BILL
Look at the crime
> rate in El Paso and other border
> cities.
DAR
Okay, I will. El Paso
Murder
Is 0.47 times the National Average
That means 1/2 the national average.
Rape:
Is 1.03 times the National Average
That means the same as the national average
Robbery:
Is 0.45 times the National Average
That means it is less than 1/2 the national average.
Aggravated Assault:
Is 1.26 times the National Average
Slightly over.
All Violent Crime
Is 1.00 times the National Average
Same.
Burglary
Is 0.44 times the National Average
Less than half.
All Property crimes:
Is 0.84 times the National Average
See the rest here:
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp ... o&state=TX
How hard to you have to work at it to get such crap instilled into your head?
BILL
- Neither of us is qualified to discuss
> military strategy in Iraq.
DAR
Speak for yourself. You cannot impose a free democratic society upon a group of people who have a considerable population of people that hate you so much they will give their lives to kill you. Period. Iraq is a diaster and nothing like what the neo-cons pretended it was going to be. You don't need to have any special qualifications to know that when Bush said there would be no casualites, he was showing once again, that he is an idiot.
BILL
Some
> Dems want to "cut and run",
DAR
Name a Dem that wants to "cut and run" and support your assertion with evidence. You can't do it. You are just parroting a Republican lie. Murtha's plan of redeployment is now being embraced by many leading republicans. Here is the plan he gave a year ago:
http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_mu ... 7iraq.html
Remember, as John Kerry pointed out today. More than half of the deaths in Vietnam (58,000) occurred after the leadership knew they could not win and the strategy was hopeless (see McNamara's "The Fog of War"). How many more lives are we going to piss down the drain so gutless Chicken Hawk cowards like Bush and Cheney can try to save face?
BILL
others are pushing
> for a withdrawal deadline,
> (which I think even you would agree is not
> wise) and others are not even
> venturing a strategy at all.
DAR
Your last option obviously refers to Bush.
BILL
The
> Democratic party is in disarray and cannot
> agree on a clear message to rally
> support.
Bill - Interesting that you do not take issue with the above point.
DAR
Of course I did. When you said they were in disarray and didn't have a clear message I gave you a list of what they plan to accomplish in the FIRST 100 HOURS. Pay attention.
BILL
- Every time the minimum wage is raised,
> it means that entry level
> jobs, (such as McDonalds, Wendy's, etc.) are
> curtailed.
DAR
That's false.
BILL
An employer will
> just hire fewer persons, and in some cases,
> prices have to be raised. What
> should the minimum wage be?
DAR
$7.25 seems reasonable.
BILL
Let's just make it
> $10.00 an hour. That would be
> a good minimum wage, wouldn't it?
DAR
And here you go with the ditto-head strawman and slippery slope fallacy. Yawn. I have roasted you on this before.
BILL
Or better
> yet, let's make it $15.00 an
> hour, even better.
DAR
From a previous roast:
"There are two fallacies lurking in this absurdity which should be obvious to everyone. The Strawman fallacy, because no one suggests this as a minimum wage. Something around $6.50 or $7.50 is usually suggested. So this is not responding to a serious argument but instead one constructed of straw.
The idea that if the minimum wage was moved up a little, that it might lead to [a higher] per hour minimum, is the slippery slope fallacy. You can read about it here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... slope.html
They even give this as an example:
"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
Just substitute "minimum wage" for "tuition."
Try to avoid arguments loaded with fallacies.
Maybe instead of hambugers going up to $10, CEO's could take a little less of the cut? Consider:
"Chief executive pay in the US has risen dramatically over the past 25 years, going into overdrive during the 1990s boom.
Figures published by the labour federation, the AFL-CIO, show how far the gap has grown. In 1980, a chief executive made $42 for every dollar earned by a blue-collar worker. By 1990, that gap was $85. But the real gains in the boardroom were made in the decade that followed as firms ramped up share options. By 2000, chief executives were earning $531 for every dollar taken home by a typical worker."
--http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0, ... 00,00.html
BILL
Then we could pay $10 for a
> hamburger. When the minimum
> wage is raised, it raises another question. If
> a person is not worth $5.25
> or $7.25, does that mean that he/she does not
> deserve to have a job at all?
DAR
You obviously have very little understanding of the subject. You might start here:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issue ... nwagefacts
An excerpt:
***
There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
* A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
* Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
* New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
* A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
***
DAR
And this affects a lot of people in Arkansas:
"Some 56,000 workers — retail clerks, nursing home and hospital orderlies, fast-food workers, janitorial workers, even a few manufacturing employees — would get a small raise this summer [if minimum wage was increased to $6.50). They would still fall far below a poverty-level income."
--http://www.arkansasleader.com/2005/03/e ... nimum.html
D.
-- Bill wrote:
> DAR
> Of course they have been. What were you
> smoking in the 90's? Every budget Clinton
> submitted was balanced. Not a single one of
> Reagan's or Bush junior's was. Bush's spending
> and increase in size of government is vastly
> greater than Clinton's. Perhaps you didn't read
> the article carefully.
>
> BILL - I am aware of the surplus that Clinton
> enjoyed. He was reaping the
> benefits of Reagonomics.
DAR
The huge deficit Reagan racked up (he actually insisted on spending MORE than the Demo's in congress wanted to spend) from '80-'88 caused the 236 billion Clinton surplus of fiscal 2000? You know you are ridiculous don't you?
BILL
But the Democratic
> party's history is NOT one of
> fiscal conservatism.
DAR
It is now.
> BILL - My grandparents were immigrants, and
> that is fine.
DAR
We had more immigrants per capita then than we do now. So I say immigrants now are fine.
BILL
What must be
> controlled is ILLEGAL immigration. So there is
> a waiting list for
> immigrants; Hasn't that always been the case?
DAR
No.
> It just shows that we have a
> country that many people want to come to. So
> you think that the solution is
> to "open the floodgates?"
DAR
Did I say the solution is "open the floodgates"? No.
BILL
and just let them all
> stream in without any kind
> of scrutiny or screening?
DAR
Did I say that? No. Don't make stuff up.
BILL
Look at the crime
> rate in El Paso and other border
> cities.
DAR
Okay, I will. El Paso
Murder
Is 0.47 times the National Average
That means 1/2 the national average.
Rape:
Is 1.03 times the National Average
That means the same as the national average
Robbery:
Is 0.45 times the National Average
That means it is less than 1/2 the national average.
Aggravated Assault:
Is 1.26 times the National Average
Slightly over.
All Violent Crime
Is 1.00 times the National Average
Same.
Burglary
Is 0.44 times the National Average
Less than half.
All Property crimes:
Is 0.84 times the National Average
See the rest here:
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp ... o&state=TX
How hard to you have to work at it to get such crap instilled into your head?
BILL
- Neither of us is qualified to discuss
> military strategy in Iraq.
DAR
Speak for yourself. You cannot impose a free democratic society upon a group of people who have a considerable population of people that hate you so much they will give their lives to kill you. Period. Iraq is a diaster and nothing like what the neo-cons pretended it was going to be. You don't need to have any special qualifications to know that when Bush said there would be no casualites, he was showing once again, that he is an idiot.
BILL
Some
> Dems want to "cut and run",
DAR
Name a Dem that wants to "cut and run" and support your assertion with evidence. You can't do it. You are just parroting a Republican lie. Murtha's plan of redeployment is now being embraced by many leading republicans. Here is the plan he gave a year ago:
http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_mu ... 7iraq.html
Remember, as John Kerry pointed out today. More than half of the deaths in Vietnam (58,000) occurred after the leadership knew they could not win and the strategy was hopeless (see McNamara's "The Fog of War"). How many more lives are we going to piss down the drain so gutless Chicken Hawk cowards like Bush and Cheney can try to save face?
BILL
others are pushing
> for a withdrawal deadline,
> (which I think even you would agree is not
> wise) and others are not even
> venturing a strategy at all.
DAR
Your last option obviously refers to Bush.
BILL
The
> Democratic party is in disarray and cannot
> agree on a clear message to rally
> support.
Bill - Interesting that you do not take issue with the above point.
DAR
Of course I did. When you said they were in disarray and didn't have a clear message I gave you a list of what they plan to accomplish in the FIRST 100 HOURS. Pay attention.
BILL
- Every time the minimum wage is raised,
> it means that entry level
> jobs, (such as McDonalds, Wendy's, etc.) are
> curtailed.
DAR
That's false.
BILL
An employer will
> just hire fewer persons, and in some cases,
> prices have to be raised. What
> should the minimum wage be?
DAR
$7.25 seems reasonable.
BILL
Let's just make it
> $10.00 an hour. That would be
> a good minimum wage, wouldn't it?
DAR
And here you go with the ditto-head strawman and slippery slope fallacy. Yawn. I have roasted you on this before.
BILL
Or better
> yet, let's make it $15.00 an
> hour, even better.
DAR
From a previous roast:
"There are two fallacies lurking in this absurdity which should be obvious to everyone. The Strawman fallacy, because no one suggests this as a minimum wage. Something around $6.50 or $7.50 is usually suggested. So this is not responding to a serious argument but instead one constructed of straw.
The idea that if the minimum wage was moved up a little, that it might lead to [a higher] per hour minimum, is the slippery slope fallacy. You can read about it here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... slope.html
They even give this as an example:
"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
Just substitute "minimum wage" for "tuition."
Try to avoid arguments loaded with fallacies.
Maybe instead of hambugers going up to $10, CEO's could take a little less of the cut? Consider:
"Chief executive pay in the US has risen dramatically over the past 25 years, going into overdrive during the 1990s boom.
Figures published by the labour federation, the AFL-CIO, show how far the gap has grown. In 1980, a chief executive made $42 for every dollar earned by a blue-collar worker. By 1990, that gap was $85. But the real gains in the boardroom were made in the decade that followed as firms ramped up share options. By 2000, chief executives were earning $531 for every dollar taken home by a typical worker."
--http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0, ... 00,00.html
BILL
Then we could pay $10 for a
> hamburger. When the minimum
> wage is raised, it raises another question. If
> a person is not worth $5.25
> or $7.25, does that mean that he/she does not
> deserve to have a job at all?
DAR
You obviously have very little understanding of the subject. You might start here:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issue ... nwagefacts
An excerpt:
***
There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
* A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
* Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
* New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
* A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
***
DAR
And this affects a lot of people in Arkansas:
"Some 56,000 workers — retail clerks, nursing home and hospital orderlies, fast-food workers, janitorial workers, even a few manufacturing employees — would get a small raise this summer [if minimum wage was increased to $6.50). They would still fall far below a poverty-level income."
--http://www.arkansasleader.com/2005/03/e ... nimum.html
D.
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
What these nimrods don't get and never have is that raising the minimum wage to a "living" wage increases GDP - partially through the labor increases, but even more because the increase in wages goes right back into the economy. They BUY stuff - instead of picking it up from the charitable organizations (and they buy more expensive stuff than the charitable organizations can afford to give out). Even some CEOs are coming out and saying that an increase in minimum wage would be good for the economy. Too bad the people who might benefit from raising the base are too - illogical - to see it.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
that was very interesting and educational, darrel. i especially liked the way you said, "okay, I will" when he said "look at El Paso" as if he knew for a fact that the crime rate was exceptionally high there, and it turns out there was nothing to look at in El Paso. HOpefully that will wake "bill" up as it is perfect proof that he is just regurgitating nonsense some other clueless neo-con regurgitated to him, and "bill" -- and others who read your post -- will learn to do a little research on his own before he does that again.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DARBetsy wrote:HOpefully that will wake "bill" up...
Nope, Bill doesn't learn. I have roasted the daylights out of him for nigh a decade. It is truly amazing. I have never met someone as consistently wrong as this Bill. But he doesn't seem to learn new things that conflict with his beliefs.
Here is some fresh roast from this morning:
***
BILL
> I did some digging for crime rate numbers last
> night
DAR
You don't provide a link.
BILL
for El Paso and this is
> what I found. (Infoplease) In the following
> categories, El Paso surpassed
> New York City.
DAR
How is that relevant? NYC has nice low crime
rates now. You're thinking of the old days. My
stats showed that El Paso, *in relation to the
nation* has less than half the murder rate, less
than half the robbery rate, less than half the
burglary rate and "all property crimes" were 16%
below the national average.
***
MORE:
Bill wrote:
> A few articles re: minimum wage.
>
> Santa Cruz restaurants predict doom if minimum
> wage wins reelection.
> http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archiv ... ries/01loc
> al.htm
DAR
That link doesn't go to the article. I give you scientific studies, emperical data, you cite newspaper articles.
BILL
> A fairer wage or lost jobs?
>
http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=22523
DAR
An important quote from the above article citing a study I am familiar with:
***
So who’s right and who’s wrong? The report from the Economic Policy Institute sides with Proposition B’s supporters, noting that comparing the economies of states with and without minimum wages higher than the federal standard provide empirical evidence.
“These studies typically find that the job losses predicted by opponents have never materialized, and job growth has not been dampened in the 22 states with minimum wages higher than the federal level,” according to an article published by the Economic Policy Institute. It cited a 2003 study by the Fiscal Policy Institute that found “between 1998 and 2004, the job growth for small businesses in states with a minimum wage higher than the federal level was 6.2 percent compared to a 4.1 percent growth rate in states where the federal level prevailed.”
***
Note:
*States with a higher minimum wage have higher job growth for small businesses.*
BILL
> I also looked at the National figures for crime
> rates. El Paso surpassed the
> National figures in the following categories.
DAR
You don't address my points at all. At least you have given up the NY analogy. If you take a dart and throw it at a US map and hit a city, chances are you will find that the city has higher than average crime in some categories and lower than average crime in other categories. This is to be expected. Again:
My stats showed that El Paso, *in relation to the
nation* has:
a) less than half the murder rate,
b) less than half the robbery rate,
c) less than half the burglary rate and
d) "all property crimes" were 16% below the national average.
I didn't cherry pick my data so I also acknowledged that:
a) Rape is the same
b) Aggravated Assault is 1.26 times the average
c) "All Violent Crime" is EXACTLY THE SAME as the national average.
Taken together these facts show that your implied claim that one should look to El Paso as an example of immigration created high crime, is false.
D.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
I have invited Bill to come here.
More response:
-- Bill wrote:
> Re: minimum wage. Why complicate the issue? If
> an employer is forced to pay
> a higher wage for employees, he has three
> choices.
>
> 1. He can "eat it." Absorb it into his profit
> margin. Not an attractive
> option for anyone who owns a business. That has
> definite limitations.
DAR
People living on a minimum wage have been "eating it" for years. It's time to bring the base pay up.
BILL
> 2. He can "pass it on." Raise prices to his
> customers. We all know about
> that.
DAR
Yes, "he" has been raising his prices along with inflation for years, and minimum wage workers have been making up the difference. Time to bring the base pay up.
BILL
> 3. He can hire fewer employees.
DAR
Or have them work less hours. Or increase efficiency. Course if they are making a little more perhaps they won't need to work as many hours, or as many jobs, to not live in poverty. Bottomline, you duck rather than address the points I have made (from your own article):
*States with a higher minimum wage have higher
job growth for small businesses.*
BILL
Now explain to me if you can, if there are any other options. And explain to
> me how any of these options can be good for the
> general economy.
DAR
People who are poor and spend all of their money have more money to spend in the economy. That's good. A knowledgable friend once posted this to a forum on this issue. It's quite good so I saved it.
Comment from: Barbara Fitzpatrick:
"Minimum wage, when first enacted in the 30s, was sufficient for one person to live on - not palatially, but live - as it was in the 40s and 50s. By the 60s it started slipping, and by the 90s, even with the most recent rise to $5.15/hour, it was barely making it in two-income households - IF there was no need for daycare. From the day it was introduced in Congress the RWs of the time (which have included Southern Dems before they bolted to the Rs in the late 60s & early 70s) have ranted about how it was going to shut down "bidness" and put people out of work. It never has. The minimum wage is the base upon which all, especially lower class, wages are set. Companies who just want bodies and don't care about turnover pay minimum wage, companies who want to keep employees pay above it, companies who want stability pay a whole lot above it and offer benefits and training. If you take away the base (or allow the base to get too far below "standard"), it drives wages down - and increases the number in poverty and on welfare. Like any other structure, the state's economy must be built on a sound base. Minimum wage is the base - it's up to us to make it sound."
BILL
And explain
> to me what happens to people whose skills are
> not worth $7.25 per hour or
> whatever the minimum wage is. Do they not get
> to work at all?
DAR
"Worth" is a very subjective thing we get to make up. Is a CEO "worth" $10,000 an hour? $20,000 an hour? Some of them have gotten a 1,000 % increase in pay in the last few years. Are they worth it? Really? How come? We as a society can decide that we are not going to have millions of people toiling at below poverty slave wages. We can say, you know, this is a wealthy country, if you work all day, you shouldn't have to decide between eating dog food and diapers or health care. If we decide that the value of a human working for an hour in this country is going to begin at the base pay of $7.50 an hour, then that's what it is worth. Simple.
BILL
> About the crime rate statistics. I never
> claimed that El Paso surpassed in
> ALL categories.
DAR
Of course not. But as I have shown, it hardly serves as an example of a city with bad crime. About average or less in most important categories. Bad example. Incidentally, I really didn't care. You just challenged me to check and I did. If it did have high crime it wouldn't follow that it was due to illegal immigrants. And even if it was due to illegal immigrants, it wouldn't follow that we should stay on the present course regarding immigration. People who come here illegally are forced to live in a subculture and can't function as regular citizens. It's easy to see that a Reagan type amnesty plan could change such a situation for the better IF illegals were causing a great deal of crime (which I don't believe and you haven't shown).
BILL
You on the other hand, would
> admit of NO areas in which El
> Paso was higher in crime rate.
DAR
Of course I did! Read for comprehension. One example (of a couple I gave):
"b) Aggravated Assault is 1.26 times the average"
BILL
> Since you are much more in sympathy with
> illegal immigrants than I am, and
> yet in favor of raising the minimum wage, does
> that mean that illegals would
> be paid that minimum wage, or "under the
> table", below minimum wage, as is
> often the case?
DAR
It seems to me that not being legal they would not be protected by minimum wage laws. It is true that illegals drive wages down. It is also often the case that employers rip them off and don't pay them or rather than pay them a large sum they owe them, turn them in. I know of first hand experiences. A friend who used to work at INS told me it happens all the time.
D.
More response:
-- Bill wrote:
> Re: minimum wage. Why complicate the issue? If
> an employer is forced to pay
> a higher wage for employees, he has three
> choices.
>
> 1. He can "eat it." Absorb it into his profit
> margin. Not an attractive
> option for anyone who owns a business. That has
> definite limitations.
DAR
People living on a minimum wage have been "eating it" for years. It's time to bring the base pay up.
BILL
> 2. He can "pass it on." Raise prices to his
> customers. We all know about
> that.
DAR
Yes, "he" has been raising his prices along with inflation for years, and minimum wage workers have been making up the difference. Time to bring the base pay up.
BILL
> 3. He can hire fewer employees.
DAR
Or have them work less hours. Or increase efficiency. Course if they are making a little more perhaps they won't need to work as many hours, or as many jobs, to not live in poverty. Bottomline, you duck rather than address the points I have made (from your own article):
*States with a higher minimum wage have higher
job growth for small businesses.*
BILL
Now explain to me if you can, if there are any other options. And explain to
> me how any of these options can be good for the
> general economy.
DAR
People who are poor and spend all of their money have more money to spend in the economy. That's good. A knowledgable friend once posted this to a forum on this issue. It's quite good so I saved it.
Comment from: Barbara Fitzpatrick:
"Minimum wage, when first enacted in the 30s, was sufficient for one person to live on - not palatially, but live - as it was in the 40s and 50s. By the 60s it started slipping, and by the 90s, even with the most recent rise to $5.15/hour, it was barely making it in two-income households - IF there was no need for daycare. From the day it was introduced in Congress the RWs of the time (which have included Southern Dems before they bolted to the Rs in the late 60s & early 70s) have ranted about how it was going to shut down "bidness" and put people out of work. It never has. The minimum wage is the base upon which all, especially lower class, wages are set. Companies who just want bodies and don't care about turnover pay minimum wage, companies who want to keep employees pay above it, companies who want stability pay a whole lot above it and offer benefits and training. If you take away the base (or allow the base to get too far below "standard"), it drives wages down - and increases the number in poverty and on welfare. Like any other structure, the state's economy must be built on a sound base. Minimum wage is the base - it's up to us to make it sound."
BILL
And explain
> to me what happens to people whose skills are
> not worth $7.25 per hour or
> whatever the minimum wage is. Do they not get
> to work at all?
DAR
"Worth" is a very subjective thing we get to make up. Is a CEO "worth" $10,000 an hour? $20,000 an hour? Some of them have gotten a 1,000 % increase in pay in the last few years. Are they worth it? Really? How come? We as a society can decide that we are not going to have millions of people toiling at below poverty slave wages. We can say, you know, this is a wealthy country, if you work all day, you shouldn't have to decide between eating dog food and diapers or health care. If we decide that the value of a human working for an hour in this country is going to begin at the base pay of $7.50 an hour, then that's what it is worth. Simple.
BILL
> About the crime rate statistics. I never
> claimed that El Paso surpassed in
> ALL categories.
DAR
Of course not. But as I have shown, it hardly serves as an example of a city with bad crime. About average or less in most important categories. Bad example. Incidentally, I really didn't care. You just challenged me to check and I did. If it did have high crime it wouldn't follow that it was due to illegal immigrants. And even if it was due to illegal immigrants, it wouldn't follow that we should stay on the present course regarding immigration. People who come here illegally are forced to live in a subculture and can't function as regular citizens. It's easy to see that a Reagan type amnesty plan could change such a situation for the better IF illegals were causing a great deal of crime (which I don't believe and you haven't shown).
BILL
You on the other hand, would
> admit of NO areas in which El
> Paso was higher in crime rate.
DAR
Of course I did! Read for comprehension. One example (of a couple I gave):
"b) Aggravated Assault is 1.26 times the average"
BILL
> Since you are much more in sympathy with
> illegal immigrants than I am, and
> yet in favor of raising the minimum wage, does
> that mean that illegals would
> be paid that minimum wage, or "under the
> table", below minimum wage, as is
> often the case?
DAR
It seems to me that not being legal they would not be protected by minimum wage laws. It is true that illegals drive wages down. It is also often the case that employers rip them off and don't pay them or rather than pay them a large sum they owe them, turn them in. I know of first hand experiences. A friend who used to work at INS told me it happens all the time.
D.
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
DOUGDarrel wrote:It is also often the case that employers rip them off and don't pay them or rather than pay them a large sum they owe them, turn them in. I know of first hand experiences. A friend who used to work at INS told me it happens all the time.
Undocumented workers don't drive down wages. Employers of undocumented workers hire them and pay lower wages. And many of those employers are Republicans, which is why the immigration issue has split the Republican party.
And yes, I can tell you with confidence that many employers turn in their own undocumented workers so they don't have to pay them. The workers toil for weeks bringing in the lettuce, onions, etc. from the field, told that they'll be paid at the end of the harvest, and then they don't get paid at all because the Border Patrol shows up. I'm from South Texas, and this is not uncommon.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
JamesH
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:41 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Springfield, MO
Higher wages just seems to go against the nature of most business owners and it cut across all business-skilled or un-skilled. Every once in a while you run across a business that goes against the grain and increase benifits and wages then they notice that productivity goes up and absentism goes down and turn over goes down. Then the profitability goes up! But to most people, and most business owners are people, have the initial knee jurk reaction that this is going to cost me more money.
I would have to compare it to smoking bans that various cities have passed. (I am not speaking our for or against such bans just the end results) Many of the resturants after the smoking ban are inacted report and increase in business even though the bans look on the surface like they would cause them to loose the business of smokers.
So unless you are running some business that is just skidding by anyway raising the minimum wage will not have the doomsday effect that business owner believe. Nothing will cause a person more stress than worring if they will have enough money to pay the bills each month and all of us have been there at one time or another in our lives. A well paid worker will be a happy worker. So just like the myths of religion, business owners need to get over the myth of raising wages will ruin thier business.
It also come down to greed. Some people are just so greedy that they can not see the forest for all trees and a very short sited mentality in this country.
I would have to compare it to smoking bans that various cities have passed. (I am not speaking our for or against such bans just the end results) Many of the resturants after the smoking ban are inacted report and increase in business even though the bans look on the surface like they would cause them to loose the business of smokers.
So unless you are running some business that is just skidding by anyway raising the minimum wage will not have the doomsday effect that business owner believe. Nothing will cause a person more stress than worring if they will have enough money to pay the bills each month and all of us have been there at one time or another in our lives. A well paid worker will be a happy worker. So just like the myths of religion, business owners need to get over the myth of raising wages will ruin thier business.
It also come down to greed. Some people are just so greedy that they can not see the forest for all trees and a very short sited mentality in this country.
JamesH
"Knowledge will set you free, but freedom comes with responsibilities." I know that someone had to say that before me.
"Knowledge will set you free, but freedom comes with responsibilities." I know that someone had to say that before me.
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Bidness owners, in general, have always been short-sighted when it comes to labor (and yes, I do know of some exceptions that "prove the rule") and it's done nothing but get worse since the corporate world started buying and selling stock based on quarterly reports (in my youth it was the annual report, and that was short-sighted enough). NOTHING looks good on a quarterly report except firing people. It's the major reason the auto industry is in trouble. They cannot, without having their stock drop through the floor, make any of the capital expenditures necessary to compete with the foreign companies - they can't afford the cost of retooling lines to make smaller cars, hybrid cars, EVs, flex-fueled cars. It costs them millions to make a small change they can claim is the "great" new year's model's benefits.
(I'm honored Darrell used my post on this. My research is good for something - sort of, since Bill doesn't pay any attention.)
(I'm honored Darrell used my post on this. My research is good for something - sort of, since Bill doesn't pay any attention.)
Barbara Fitzpatrick
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
-- Bill wrote:
The
> Democratic party is in disarray and cannot
> agree on a clear message to rally
> support. About all they agree on is that they
> hate Bush and his policies.
DAR
I found out where you got this ridiculous idea.
An excerpt from my "weekly update from Media Matters for America"
***
As Media Matters for America has noted (and corrected) repeatedly, one of the basic storylines the political media have peddled for longer than we care to remember is that Democrats lack a positive agenda. MSNBC's Chris Matthews, for example, recently belittled Democrats by saying of the party, "Do you know what the difference is between a grown-up and a kid? You got to sit in the front seat and drive the car." Back in April, CNN's Blitzer asked Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, "Why are you, the Democrats, having such a hard -- tough time convincing Americans that you do have a set of policies for the country?" We wrote at the time:
Regrettably, Dean didn't answer, "Because of you, Wolf. Because we do have policies, and we do everything we can to draw attention to them, but you ignore it. Because on March 29, Democrats unveiled our new national security agenda -- and you, Wolf, you and your network virtually ignored it. You showed two minutes of House Democratic Leader Harry Reid speaking at the press conference -- and nearly two hours of President Bush speaking. We have a hard time 'convincing Americans' that we have 'a set of policies' because you, Wolf, ignore those policies -- then assert that we don't have any."
Later, Blitzer teased a replay of the interview by declaring: "Plus, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean. He's also in The Situation Room. With the Republicans facing so much trouble, why does it seem that Democrats can't get their act together? I'll ask him."
Why does it seem that Democrats can't get their act together? The same reason that Democrats have a "tough time convincing Americans" that they have a "set of policies" -- because of Wolf Blitzer and his colleagues. A new AP-Ipsos poll finds that:
By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress.
That 16-point Democratic advantage is the largest the party has enjoyed in AP-Ipsos polling.
How much more does Blitzer think Democrats can get their act together? If they open up a 20-point lead, will he finally conclude that they have their act together? How about 25 points? Thirty?
The Democrats did open up a 20-point lead in the generic ballot; recent polls put their lead between 11 and 19 points. But Blitzer and his colleagues still can't bring themselves to report that the Democrats have gotten "their act together." CNN's Candy Crowley, for example, recently declared that if Democrats win control of Congress, "it will be through no fault their own."
So when CNN's Lou Dobbs introduced a November 1 segment by congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel by promising some "estimates as to what the House and Senate would look like, should the Democrats win majorities in both houses," we had some hope that perhaps CNN would finally tell us, clearly, simply, and without snide editorializing, what the basic differences are between the candidates and leaders of the two major political parties.
That hope was quickly dashed.
Instead of a straightforward report about what Democrats want to do, Koppel offered the Republican version of what Democrats want to do, complete with repeated use of the label "liberal." Koppel began:
KOPPEL: They're among the most liberal politicians in America: Nancy Pelosi, Alcee Hastings, John Conyers, Henry Waxman and Charlie Rangel. And if Democrats win back the House next week, they're set to rocket to the top positions in Congress. Republicans have seized on the prospect of liberal lawmakers running the House as a way to fire up their base on the campaign trail. The president singled out New York's Charlie Rangel, though not by name.
Koppel then made clear that her focus was not what Democrats would do, but rather what Republicans say Democrats would do by playing a clip of President Bush attacking Democrats over taxes ... then a clip of a Republican candidate's radio ad attacking Democrats ... then (finally) a clip of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) responding to the attacks ... then a clip of (yet another) Republican, who according to Koppel "doesn't buy" Pelosi's statement.
Finally, Koppel shifted away from Republican tax attacks ... and turned to Republican attacks on Reps. Hastings (D-FL) and Conyers (D-MI). Never once, in the entire segment -- billed as a look at "what the House and Senate would look like" if Democrats win -- did Koppel tell viewers what Democrats want to do. She did, however, conclude by announcing that, while some Republicans "have more moderate voting records," the Democrats in line to be committee chairs "are all extremely to the left of their party."
Koppel didn't say a word about what Democrats want to do; the whole segment was a simple recitation of GOP spin. She repeatedly asserted that the potential Democratic leaders are liberal, even "extremely to the left," but offered not a single, solitary word to back up the label.
That isn't reporting; that isn't news. That's acting as a shill for the Republican Party.
Since Koppel and so many of her D.C. political journalism peers seem to want to keep it a secret, here's a quick look at a few things that many Democrats say they want to do:
* Raise the minimum wage for the first time since 1997. The current federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour means that a person working five days a week, 52 weeks a year would earn a mere $10,712 a year. Republicans have refused to raise the minimum wage without including massive tax breaks for the rich. According to a recent Gallup poll (subscription required), 86 percent of Americans would approve of such an increase of the minimum wage.
* Extend health coverage to the uninsured: Gallup found that 79 percent would approve of such legislation.
* Allow the purchase of imported prescription drugs, which are often cheaper: According to Gallup, 72 percent of Americans would approve.
* Implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission: According to Gallup, 62 percent of Americans would approve.
And that doesn't even include such basics as pushing for a renewed focus on finding and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and forcing a desperately needed change of course in Iraq policy. (Gallup found that 63 percent of Americans now favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.)
So, while political reporters like Koppel insist that Congress, under Democratic control, would be a hotbed of wild-eyed liberalism far out of touch with the American people, the reality is that the Democratic agenda enjoys massive public support.
As a further measure of that support, Newsweek recently conducted a poll in which it asked which party voters "trust to do a better job" handling a variety of issues. Democrats enjoyed double-digit leads on health care, stem cell research, gas and oil prices, federal spending and the deficit, Iraq, and the economy. They also had leads outside the margin of error on immigration, abortion, and same-sex marriage, and small leads on crime and guns. The parties were tied on moral values, and Republicans had a one-point edge on the issue of the "war against terrorism at home and abroad." That Newsweek poll was no outlier: a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in October found Democrats with at least a 20-point lead on health care, gas prices, government corruption, the economy, and Iraq, and leads of five or more points on immigration, moral standards, and terrorism.
That's the reality of what Democrats say they'll do, and what the public thinks of it. While Koppel paints a picture of out-of-touch liberals, the American people support the Democrats' agenda. While Candy Crowley insists that Democrats won't deserve credit for any victories they may enjoy next week, polls consistently contradict her.
The Gang of 500 won't tell you any of this, though. They'll just sneer at John Kerry, repeat bogus GOP spin about Nancy Pelosi, and occasionally toss around empty pejorative phrases like "extremely to the left," as though that counts as a substantive analysis of issues and proposals.
It doesn't. You deserve better. So don't base your decisions on what the media tells you. Look into the candidates and parties for yourself.
***
The
> Democratic party is in disarray and cannot
> agree on a clear message to rally
> support. About all they agree on is that they
> hate Bush and his policies.
DAR
I found out where you got this ridiculous idea.
An excerpt from my "weekly update from Media Matters for America"
***
As Media Matters for America has noted (and corrected) repeatedly, one of the basic storylines the political media have peddled for longer than we care to remember is that Democrats lack a positive agenda. MSNBC's Chris Matthews, for example, recently belittled Democrats by saying of the party, "Do you know what the difference is between a grown-up and a kid? You got to sit in the front seat and drive the car." Back in April, CNN's Blitzer asked Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, "Why are you, the Democrats, having such a hard -- tough time convincing Americans that you do have a set of policies for the country?" We wrote at the time:
Regrettably, Dean didn't answer, "Because of you, Wolf. Because we do have policies, and we do everything we can to draw attention to them, but you ignore it. Because on March 29, Democrats unveiled our new national security agenda -- and you, Wolf, you and your network virtually ignored it. You showed two minutes of House Democratic Leader Harry Reid speaking at the press conference -- and nearly two hours of President Bush speaking. We have a hard time 'convincing Americans' that we have 'a set of policies' because you, Wolf, ignore those policies -- then assert that we don't have any."
Later, Blitzer teased a replay of the interview by declaring: "Plus, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean. He's also in The Situation Room. With the Republicans facing so much trouble, why does it seem that Democrats can't get their act together? I'll ask him."
Why does it seem that Democrats can't get their act together? The same reason that Democrats have a "tough time convincing Americans" that they have a "set of policies" -- because of Wolf Blitzer and his colleagues. A new AP-Ipsos poll finds that:
By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress.
That 16-point Democratic advantage is the largest the party has enjoyed in AP-Ipsos polling.
How much more does Blitzer think Democrats can get their act together? If they open up a 20-point lead, will he finally conclude that they have their act together? How about 25 points? Thirty?
The Democrats did open up a 20-point lead in the generic ballot; recent polls put their lead between 11 and 19 points. But Blitzer and his colleagues still can't bring themselves to report that the Democrats have gotten "their act together." CNN's Candy Crowley, for example, recently declared that if Democrats win control of Congress, "it will be through no fault their own."
So when CNN's Lou Dobbs introduced a November 1 segment by congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel by promising some "estimates as to what the House and Senate would look like, should the Democrats win majorities in both houses," we had some hope that perhaps CNN would finally tell us, clearly, simply, and without snide editorializing, what the basic differences are between the candidates and leaders of the two major political parties.
That hope was quickly dashed.
Instead of a straightforward report about what Democrats want to do, Koppel offered the Republican version of what Democrats want to do, complete with repeated use of the label "liberal." Koppel began:
KOPPEL: They're among the most liberal politicians in America: Nancy Pelosi, Alcee Hastings, John Conyers, Henry Waxman and Charlie Rangel. And if Democrats win back the House next week, they're set to rocket to the top positions in Congress. Republicans have seized on the prospect of liberal lawmakers running the House as a way to fire up their base on the campaign trail. The president singled out New York's Charlie Rangel, though not by name.
Koppel then made clear that her focus was not what Democrats would do, but rather what Republicans say Democrats would do by playing a clip of President Bush attacking Democrats over taxes ... then a clip of a Republican candidate's radio ad attacking Democrats ... then (finally) a clip of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) responding to the attacks ... then a clip of (yet another) Republican, who according to Koppel "doesn't buy" Pelosi's statement.
Finally, Koppel shifted away from Republican tax attacks ... and turned to Republican attacks on Reps. Hastings (D-FL) and Conyers (D-MI). Never once, in the entire segment -- billed as a look at "what the House and Senate would look like" if Democrats win -- did Koppel tell viewers what Democrats want to do. She did, however, conclude by announcing that, while some Republicans "have more moderate voting records," the Democrats in line to be committee chairs "are all extremely to the left of their party."
Koppel didn't say a word about what Democrats want to do; the whole segment was a simple recitation of GOP spin. She repeatedly asserted that the potential Democratic leaders are liberal, even "extremely to the left," but offered not a single, solitary word to back up the label.
That isn't reporting; that isn't news. That's acting as a shill for the Republican Party.
Since Koppel and so many of her D.C. political journalism peers seem to want to keep it a secret, here's a quick look at a few things that many Democrats say they want to do:
* Raise the minimum wage for the first time since 1997. The current federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour means that a person working five days a week, 52 weeks a year would earn a mere $10,712 a year. Republicans have refused to raise the minimum wage without including massive tax breaks for the rich. According to a recent Gallup poll (subscription required), 86 percent of Americans would approve of such an increase of the minimum wage.
* Extend health coverage to the uninsured: Gallup found that 79 percent would approve of such legislation.
* Allow the purchase of imported prescription drugs, which are often cheaper: According to Gallup, 72 percent of Americans would approve.
* Implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission: According to Gallup, 62 percent of Americans would approve.
And that doesn't even include such basics as pushing for a renewed focus on finding and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and forcing a desperately needed change of course in Iraq policy. (Gallup found that 63 percent of Americans now favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.)
So, while political reporters like Koppel insist that Congress, under Democratic control, would be a hotbed of wild-eyed liberalism far out of touch with the American people, the reality is that the Democratic agenda enjoys massive public support.
As a further measure of that support, Newsweek recently conducted a poll in which it asked which party voters "trust to do a better job" handling a variety of issues. Democrats enjoyed double-digit leads on health care, stem cell research, gas and oil prices, federal spending and the deficit, Iraq, and the economy. They also had leads outside the margin of error on immigration, abortion, and same-sex marriage, and small leads on crime and guns. The parties were tied on moral values, and Republicans had a one-point edge on the issue of the "war against terrorism at home and abroad." That Newsweek poll was no outlier: a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in October found Democrats with at least a 20-point lead on health care, gas prices, government corruption, the economy, and Iraq, and leads of five or more points on immigration, moral standards, and terrorism.
That's the reality of what Democrats say they'll do, and what the public thinks of it. While Koppel paints a picture of out-of-touch liberals, the American people support the Democrats' agenda. While Candy Crowley insists that Democrats won't deserve credit for any victories they may enjoy next week, polls consistently contradict her.
The Gang of 500 won't tell you any of this, though. They'll just sneer at John Kerry, repeat bogus GOP spin about Nancy Pelosi, and occasionally toss around empty pejorative phrases like "extremely to the left," as though that counts as a substantive analysis of issues and proposals.
It doesn't. You deserve better. So don't base your decisions on what the media tells you. Look into the candidates and parties for yourself.
***
Last edited by Dardedar on Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
As I have been saying for years, it all comes down to - who owns the media? Which is why, when I hear Dems and other progressives fuming at Kerry, or Clinton (either one), or Pelosi, or any of the Dem "leaders" about "they shoulda said..." I remind them "they DID say... " - it wasn't reported. At this point, only the net gets the truth out - and only to those who use it.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
GOP Must Go, according to American Conservative mag
GOP Must Go
The American Conservative | Editorial
20 November 2006 Issue
Next week Americans will vote for candidates who have spent much of their campaigns addressing state and local issues. But no future historian will linger over the ideas put forth for improving schools or directing funds to highway projects.
The meaning of this election will be interpreted in one of two ways: the American people endorsed the Bush presidency or they did what they could to repudiate it. Such an interpretation will be simplistic, even unfairly so. Nevertheless, the fact that will matter is the raw number of Republicans and Democrats elected to the House and Senate.
It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen-in America and the world at large-as a decisive "No" vote on the Bush presidency is the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W. Bush's failed effort to jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress or the assaults on the Constitution carried out under the pretext of fighting terrorism or his administration's endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why-thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.
As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush's decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration's calculation-as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides-the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran's hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel's northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.
The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason than the feckless president can't face the embarrassment of admitting defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, America's image in the world, its capacity to persuade others that its interests are common interests, is lower than it has been in memory. All over the world people look at Bush and yearn for this country-which once symbolized hope and justice-to be humbled. The professionals in the Bush administration (and there are some) realize the damage his presidency has done to American prestige and diplomacy. But there is not much they can do.
There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which will stain our country's reputation for a long time. But the process of recovering our good name must begin somewhere, and the logical place is in the voting booth this Nov. 7. If we are fortunate, we can produce a result that is seen-in Washington, in Peoria, and in world capitals from Prague to Kuala Lumpur-as a repudiation of George W. Bush and the war of aggression he launched against Iraq.
We have no illusions that a Democratic majority would be able to reverse Bush's policies, even if they had a plan to. We are aware that on a host of issues the Democrats are further from TAC's positions than the Republicans are. The House members who blocked the Bush amnesty initiative are overwhelmingly Republican. But immigration has not played out in an entirely partisan manner this electoral season: in many races the Democrat has been more conservative than the open-borders, Big Business Republican. A Democratic House and Senate is, in our view, a risk immigration reformers should be willing to take. We can't conceive of a newly elected Democrat in a swing district who would immediately alienate his constituency by voting for amnesty. We simply don't believe a Democratic majority would give the Republicans such an easy route to return to power. Indeed, we anticipate that Democratic office holders will follow the polls on immigration just as Republicans have, and all the popular momentum is towards greater border enforcement.
On Nov. 7, the world will be watching as we go to the polls, seeking to ascertain whether the American people have the wisdom to try to correct a disastrous course. Posterity will note too if their collective decision is one that captured the attention of historians-that of a people voting, again and again, to endorse a leader taking a country in a catastrophic direction. The choice is in our hands.
***
LINK
The American Conservative | Editorial
20 November 2006 Issue
Next week Americans will vote for candidates who have spent much of their campaigns addressing state and local issues. But no future historian will linger over the ideas put forth for improving schools or directing funds to highway projects.
The meaning of this election will be interpreted in one of two ways: the American people endorsed the Bush presidency or they did what they could to repudiate it. Such an interpretation will be simplistic, even unfairly so. Nevertheless, the fact that will matter is the raw number of Republicans and Democrats elected to the House and Senate.
It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen-in America and the world at large-as a decisive "No" vote on the Bush presidency is the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W. Bush's failed effort to jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress or the assaults on the Constitution carried out under the pretext of fighting terrorism or his administration's endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why-thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.
As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush's decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration's calculation-as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides-the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran's hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel's northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.
The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason than the feckless president can't face the embarrassment of admitting defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, America's image in the world, its capacity to persuade others that its interests are common interests, is lower than it has been in memory. All over the world people look at Bush and yearn for this country-which once symbolized hope and justice-to be humbled. The professionals in the Bush administration (and there are some) realize the damage his presidency has done to American prestige and diplomacy. But there is not much they can do.
There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which will stain our country's reputation for a long time. But the process of recovering our good name must begin somewhere, and the logical place is in the voting booth this Nov. 7. If we are fortunate, we can produce a result that is seen-in Washington, in Peoria, and in world capitals from Prague to Kuala Lumpur-as a repudiation of George W. Bush and the war of aggression he launched against Iraq.
We have no illusions that a Democratic majority would be able to reverse Bush's policies, even if they had a plan to. We are aware that on a host of issues the Democrats are further from TAC's positions than the Republicans are. The House members who blocked the Bush amnesty initiative are overwhelmingly Republican. But immigration has not played out in an entirely partisan manner this electoral season: in many races the Democrat has been more conservative than the open-borders, Big Business Republican. A Democratic House and Senate is, in our view, a risk immigration reformers should be willing to take. We can't conceive of a newly elected Democrat in a swing district who would immediately alienate his constituency by voting for amnesty. We simply don't believe a Democratic majority would give the Republicans such an easy route to return to power. Indeed, we anticipate that Democratic office holders will follow the polls on immigration just as Republicans have, and all the popular momentum is towards greater border enforcement.
On Nov. 7, the world will be watching as we go to the polls, seeking to ascertain whether the American people have the wisdom to try to correct a disastrous course. Posterity will note too if their collective decision is one that captured the attention of historians-that of a people voting, again and again, to endorse a leader taking a country in a catastrophic direction. The choice is in our hands.
***
LINK
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0