Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn 2005, Congress failed the middle class.
This is the blunt assessment of the nonpartisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI), which today released its third annual scorecard, Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record. Aimed at assessing Congress's voting records on issues of concern to the nation's middle class and "those who aspire to a middle-class standard of living"--surely the vast majority of Americans--Congress at the Midterm is a forceful indictment of Congress's performance and the party in power.
"In vote after vote," the scorecard notes, "Congress disdained the concerns of middle-class Americans and opted instead to favor the already wealthy and powerful: a surefire recipe for a shrinking middle class." From the passage of a bankruptcy bill that benefited credit card companies but squeezed middle-class families already overwhelmed by debt, to the failure of legislation to raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, to the House's vote to repeal the estate tax on the nation's most privileged heirs, the scorecard paints a grim, but devastatingly accurate, picture of what our elected representatives have been up to under the Capitol Dome.
First and foremost, the scorecard illustrates the utter failure of the Republican rank-and-file to support their middle-class constituents. Embattled incumbents like Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (who earns a zero grade for casting not a single pro-middle-class vote) resolutely voted against a bill to reject deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt in any Social Security "reform" plan. And he was far from alone: 99 percent of GOP House members failed the scorecard completely. 95 percent failed in the Senate. And only four Republicans--Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey--even manage to earn a mediocre "C" grade under the scorecard's generous scoring system.
While the party in power clearly comes out looking the worst, Democrats also fall in for their share of blame. Democratic backing for the middle class was very good when it came to things like increasing the minimum wage, saving Social Security and averting dangerous budget cuts, but the same strong level of support was not in evidence on bills like the Energy Policy Act, the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act, and the Class Action Fairness Act--cases where, as DMI notes, "powerful industries lobbied for legislation that would increase their profits at the expense of the middle class." While there are nine scores of 100 percent among the Democratic Senators, and more among House members, 11 percent of Democratic representatives failed completely.
As we head into the 2006 elections, voters looking for a concise way to evaluate Congress on basic, bread-and-butter issues would do well to be armed with Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record. And more of them than ever will find out about it. With DMI's pioneering embrace of Google AdWords, web surfers from around the country will be alerted to their Congress member's record whenever they do a Google search for their representative's name in the next month. A search for "Katherine Harris" for example, reveals a little blurb in the upper left-hand corner of the screen linking to the 2005 House record of the woman Florida voters are considering sending to the Senate.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I followed the Google Ad link, and while I was already familiar with my rep's record on these issues, I found the feature instructive.
These are the kinds of utilities we need in learning the things that the MSM ignores, and they will change the face of our politics.
Posted by drhammer at 06/20/2006 @ 12:29pm
Thank you KVH. I think this theme should be replayed and replayed from now until November.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 12:30pm
Hey VanDumbEvil,
Another silly post. The American people have more money in their pockets due to the great tax cuts.Lowest unemplyment in decades (4.3%)...Low inflation...Low interest rates...a booming stock and housing market..Even JFK said tax cuts help the economy and bring in more money to the treasury(which is what has happened after B.J. Clinton's recession). Only a socialist would view our economy in such dire terms. You really are a laughable (rich) figure aren't you!!! Keep it up and watch your clocks get cleaned in November once again!!!!
THE CRACKUP OF THE LOONY LEFT IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD!!!!
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/20/2006 @ 12:33pm
Yes...we've seen "real job growth"..Now everyone needs 4 PT jobs to survive. Its no fucking wonder unemployment is low. Myself, I have to have my 2 PT "regular" jobs, plus two to four "freelance" bits on the side. Of course all with no benefits, no job security, and always the fear of being "outsourced" into oblivion.
Same old supply-side Reagan-esque voodoo economics. Feed the rich and maybe during their feeding frenzy some gobbets will fall to the masses.
It a wonderous new society! All hail the mighty "Golden Hamsters"
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 12:46pm
"Myself, I have to have my 2 PT "regular" jobs, plus two to four "freelance" bits on the side"
You would think a professional geologist would make a good living. You must not be too smart or you would make more money. Too bad. Survival of the fittist I guess. Fortunately I have owned my own company for over 20 years and make a wonderful living. Perhaps if you get more education you can make more money....might even educate yourself on the limitations of liberalism.
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/20/2006 @ 12:55pm
Well, Katrina's getting smarter. Knowing that the socialistic "Wealthy crush the working class" line just doesn't fool anyone, she now claim the GOP it is us, the middle class, ol' Joe average, that they are shafting. I'll remember that the next time I'm ever in a breadline.
And her source for this information? The "non-Partisan" Drum Major Institute? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I invite anyone to go to their sight-not the link K has here, but their main site. They claim to be "non partisan" progressives which is a contradiction in terms. Look at some of their stories: They are about as non partisan as a Nazi in a Synagogue.
Katrina must really think her readers were born yesterday.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/20/2006 @ 1:20pm
Not to change the subject or anything, but.....Guess what? Another Democrat has admitted a cocaine habit. Fabrizzi is his name and cocaine is his game. Now in keeping with the left's cute little slogans that they constantly throw out as political fodder because they don't have a leg to stand on, I'd like to introduce my own little slogan describing our favorite Dem's of recent years including none other than Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Marion Barry, Fabrizzi, Jefferson, and the majority of those lunatics in Hollywood that support them: "The culture of CONSUMPTION"!
Posted by barry25 at 06/20/2006 @ 1:27pm
Has anyone read about the cruise the Nation is hosting this December???Have you seen the prices of the cruise??? It will be a boatload full of socialists, communists and anti-american leftists....I guess their tax cuts they received this year will help them pay for that nightmare. Such pathetic hypocrites it really defies logic...Too bad there are no icebergs in the carribean
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/20/2006 @ 1:30pm
Now everyone needs 4 PT jobs to survive.
Exact same thing was said during the "Clinton economy." Were you spouting the same rhetoric then?
Posted by usc1 at 06/20/2006 @ 1:30pm
KVH - Your tax shelters are shafting the middle class! Greedy pig!!
Posted by woodyee at 06/20/2006 @ 1:37pm
"Katrina continues her weekly crocodile tears and moaning because the US is only on a slow pace to socialism instead of the complete overnight conversion she dreams of"
And the ironic thing about it all is that VanDumbEvil's family and herself are so wealthy it would make most leftists on this miserable blog puke in disgust if they only knew the true story...Thats what makes her class warfare posts so hypocritical and laughable if they were not so sad
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/20/2006 @ 1:50pm
Chip - That was a worthless contribution to the discussion. Do you actually have anything substantive to add? The purpose of the study was to axamine "Congress's voting records on issues of concern to the nation's middle class." So what is your gripe - DMI didn't tally the votes correctly? Or maybe you think the issues chosen were somehow biased? If so, please explain which ones you think are inaccurate, or which votes should have been included to make the study more objective. Examining how poeple actually voted on a range of particular issues seems pretty objective. Maybe you can explain the problems you see with DMI's methodology. Better yet, maybe you can offer up some support that Congress is helping the middle class (or working class/Average Joe).
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 1:51pm
Woodyee:
You bring up a good point. According to Wikipedia:
when (Jules) Stein (KVH's grandfather) died, a big chunk of his investments were safely sheltered in trust funds. However, one particular investment totaling $9 million, was not exempt. When the IRS discovered the unsheltered investment it imposed estate taxes on it. The family sued the IRS to avoid paying for the $2 million in estate taxes and fought the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled against the family.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
Posted by usc1 at 06/20/2006 @ 1:54pm
My problem with this is "the nonpartisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI)"....non-partisan?
True, they're not ostensibly labelled "Democratic Party", but they certainly ARE "partisan"...."Partisan" doesn't just mean "loyal or allied with one of the political parties"...it also means has a political viewpoint.
Annenberg or Pew Center might be called "non-partisan"...or the Red Cross...but not "Drum Major".
Posted by Mask at 06/20/2006 @ 1:59pm
Well, they spell better than you. axamine is spelled with an e and poeple they other way round, Einstein
And as for worthless? As Francisco D'Anconia once remarked, " be careful when expousing your opinions-You may be embarrased to learn their value to the listener".
CT
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/20/2006 @ 2:09pm
Jules Stein is the foremost benefactor in the world history of vision science and blindness prevention. He combined his love for music and medicine with a unique talent for analysis and organization to produce a lifetime of celebrated achievements as musician, physician, business leader and humanitarian.
Jules Stein died in 1981, leaving a legacy of hope to the world. Through his accomplishments and philanthropy, he created ever-replenishing resources for eye research and the means to preserve and restore sight for future generations.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 2:11pm
Chip, don't be petty correcting spelling, stick to the subject.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 2:12pm
USC1
Actually during the Clinto years I was doing OK...thanks
Traitor-boy
Never said I was a professional geologist (as in state-certified practicing) although I do have Bachelors degrees in Geology and Natural Resource Studies, and a Masters in Environmental Risk Assessment. I am currently working on my PhD in Analytic Organic Geochemistry and intend on teaching when I get done. However, with a family, etc. it requires multiple "PT juggling" which generally includes teaching as as adjunct at local Community Colleges. Sadly, FT, permanent teaching jobs are becoming ever more scarce as colleges and universities use grad students and term faculty to fill teaching loads....that way they don't have to pay benefits, have healthcare, etc. Of course the adminstrators are doing OK I hear. So now they are fully integrating in the new Dubya-wingnut economic structure.
As to your quip "Too bad. Survival of the fittist I guess. Well, I guess it shows your true nature of "compassionate conservatism" we hear so much about. But of course, we here already know what an asshat you are.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 2:13pm
Mask - I give you the same point I made to Chip. I'll accept that they have a progressive agenda, even if not aligned with one of the two major parties. So what? Out of the entire article and DMI's study, the biggest objection you can think to post about is KVH description of DMI as "non-partisan?" If you take issue with DMI's conclusion, you have to do more than that.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 2:14pm
Does the left get any more ridiculous than statements like this?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/20/2006 @ 1:46pm
...and the compassion rolls on. Why I can feel the warm waves of love from these compassionate Conservative Christians.
Oh, shit...sorry, it was just their fetid breath on my neck while they pluck my last dollar from my pocket. My mistake.
You may continue with your normally scheduled ranting now....
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 2:17pm
LOC:
And thus, everyone else must have been, too?
Posted by usc1 at 06/20/2006 @ 2:18pm
Excellent article! But there's more. There's a much more. It seems to me that the Bush Administration has supported everyone with an income greater than $2 million per year. They've done this at the expense of everyone making less than $2 million per year. As I wrote an op-ed piece to my local newspaper about hurricane Katrina several months ago, the Bush Administration has gone out of its way to remove any assistance that the poor may be getting. It is the same apparatus which has been taking apart the middle class. Whether it's tax cuts for the rich, bankruptcy protection or small-business loans, the Bush administration has declared war on everyone except the rich.
Posted by ecthompson at 06/20/2006 @ 2:20pm
since we seem to have a lot of reactionaries reading / writing today....
ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:
It appears that in 1999 there were 417 fines innitiated of EMPLOYERS hiring illegals.
As far as I'm concerned that is nowhere near enough fines and Clinton's INS should have done a much better job....
....so in 2003 there were 3 (three is not a typo) companies prosecuted for hiring illegals.
Republican's sure know how to screw middle class America.....they let companies hire illegals and turn a blind eye to it all.
They made the INS so pathetically inneffective by rolling it under the new DHS umbrella.
THANKS KING GEORGE.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/20/2006 @ 2:22pm
Chip:
Another worthless post. Since you hold spelling/grammar in such high regard on this board, I'll point out from your first post that "sight" should be "site" and "she now claim the GOP it is us" should be "she now CLAIMS." ... Einstein.
I think someone else said, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."
So now that we are both shown to be sloppy, would you care to answer the substance of my post to you?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 2:22pm
3. The Estate Tax punishes the middle class? This is laughable.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/20/2006 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person
No one said the estate tax punishes the middle class. The argument is that repealing the estate tax punishes everyone who will not inherit multi-million-dollar estates. The wealth of these estates were generated by capital gains which, if taxed, are not taxed at anywhere near the rate of FICA taxes on wages and income.
Both parties are sold out to corporate interests that don't give a damn about the regular citizens who have to go to work for a living. Anyone who has to earn their pay should not be on this blog defending the repeal of the estate tax, tax give-aways to banks, pharmaceuticals and defense contractors nor this unjust war to secure Middle Eastern oil reserves. Those who do are suckers.
Posted by bjkron at 06/20/2006 @ 2:35pm
LVLIBERTY:
Re: "Credit card debt and bankruptcy bills - so it is Congress' responsibility to make up for poor financial decisions."
Well, speaking of poor financial decisions let's not look any farther than our governments massive deficit spending.
No doubt some individuals are irrational with their money and credit. Not everyone though. There are nearly 30 million Americans with medical debt. Over half of all bankruptcy's in 2004 were because of medical debt, not irrational behavior.
Is it our elected representatives responsibility to represent impersonal forces such as major financial institutions or the people who actually elected them? The bankruptcy bill is a punishment of the middle class akin to what a corporate corrective action would be at work. People are viewed as subjects to be managed with corporate style policy. Our Congress is elected to represent people, not punish them.
The rights continuing claim that corporations who under a mixed economy have consolidated entire industries, control Americas wealth including much of her resources, and are somehow not responsible for social conditions is a tired argument.
When real wages have not grown much in two decades (yes, a corporate responsibility), housing prices have skyrockted pricing many potential new homebuyers out of the market unless they are willing to fork over 2/3 of their take home pay even with a risky ARM (this because of Fed policy and the Chinese/Japanese buying our debt to keep rates low and inflation slow which erodes financial independence for our country), and with 50 million people without health insurance which of course raises their personal health costs sometimes the only thing left to support themselves with is credit.
This includes "educated" people who have reasonably well paid corporate jobs such as the wannabe rich in places like my home county, the OC, where household credit card debt is last I saw around $20,000 and where most people, as you likely know, are Republicans. I suppose many of them believe it will all be okay because someday they will be rich when in reality most of them will never go higher than their mid-level corporate job. Assuming their job is not downsized and offshored.
The other tired cliche' argument of the right is that if people just got more "education" everything will be better. Well, that would be nice. I'm sure a single mother of two children already working full-time and still barely getting by would love to have the time and money to go to school... and have adequate day care for her children too since she isn't going to be around much. But no. That would require some tax breaks for her or some, oh god no, "social" spending.
Let's not forget student loan rates are rising. Read BusinessWeek sometime. Recently there have been many articles written about just how well recent MBA's are fairing in the job market. Their starting salaries don't even cover the cost of school, which for many was a loan that immediately saddles them with more debt... factor in high living costs... and guess what? They use credit cards. It's not just minimum wage people.
I should know. I used to work in credit card processing and know full well how the major banks basically conspired to issue only Visa & MC's to businesses and consumers so they could impose the Interchange rules on merchants who see their rates raised twice each year in an increasingly confusing set of qualifications.
In fact, there have been class action lawsuits against Visa & MC and other banks for that very reason brought by small business people and another by AMEX. You know, business owners and corporations. Hardly socialists.
But they have no responsibility for the quality of life issues Americans are now facing? I don't buy that line.
Posted by surflib at 06/20/2006 @ 2:39pm
good points Surf. the banks dangled credit cards, made a lot of bad loans, and then prevailed upon congress to change the rules. and like the craven lapdogs that they are, congress obliged.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 2:47pm
Posted by USC1 06/20/2006 @ 2:18pm
Well, I'm popular...but I don't think I know "everyone"...why do you? Besides...that wasn't your question.
ECT & SurfLib
Keep up the good work. Maybe, just maybe we can all together make them "see the light" of rationality! (Yeah...I'm an optimist, sue me.)
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 2:48pm
Sorry JR. Sometimes, as you know, its hard to do
CT
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/20/2006 @ 2:49pm
Mr. Stein is to be commended for his philanthropy, and am sure the world appreciates his contributions. But, does it say anywhere in his bio that he wishes he had given more of his wealth to government? I'm guessing not, since he placed so much of it in tax shelters.
Regardless, I have no beef with him since I don't know his politics. My problem is with his heir and her hypocrisy.
Posted by usc1 at 06/20/2006 @ 3:02pm
what hypocrisy? she musta been, what 20 years old when the estate was probated. you are grasping at straws
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 3:10pm
The entire premise of the Report is disingenerous, making any conclusions drawn from it unvalid. I am suppossed to believe that voting against a raise of the minimum wage is voting against the middle class? Obviously, the oppisite is true. When the minimum wage goes up, it makes many things more expensive for me, Mr. middle class. It makes it more expensive for me to have my lawn mowed, to stay at a hotel, to go out to dinner, etc etc etc. Yes the authors cover themselves by including "...and those who aspire to the middle class", but the two groups as I pointed out, are often at odds with each other and should not be grouped as one.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 3:10pm
LOC:
True. But my question was--were you spouting the same rhetoric during the "Clinton economy?" You avoided answering. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say you weren't complaining, since you were doing "OK." But does that have any bearing on whether or not this economy is better or worse? Of course not. In any economy people will gain and/or lose jobs. Depending on where you are in that equation will determine your outlook. But it is not to be confused with proof.
Posted by usc1 at 06/20/2006 @ 3:12pm
I always find it bizarre that every time Ms. vanden Heuval writes an article about taxation, the "conservatives" here immediately come screaming from the woodwork accusing her of somehow being hypocritical in advocating progressive tax policy from an (apparently) lofty state of financial affairs.
There's nothing hypocritical about it. In fact, as someone who would presumably be taxed at a much higher rate should any of her policy preferences be adopted, it seems like she's one of those rare principled advocates who is willing to place the better good of the social whole above her own personal fortunes.
Would that more of our elected officials think beyond the narrow self-interests of their own social and economic classes and corporate constituency.
Posted by breasonable at 06/20/2006 @ 3:14pm
when the working poor are ripped off by not indexing the minimum wage against inflation, you Mr middle class benefit unfairly, and you are therefor complicit in the theft.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 3:17pm
that's "Heuvel", not "Heuval." Whoops.
Posted by breasonable at 06/20/2006 @ 3:18pm
B, you are aptly named. I've probably used that one before, begging your pardon.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 3:19pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/20/2006 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person
Well, HMAN....if they have an admitted (by you, no less) "progressive agenda", then they're not "non-partisan" which was a "selling point" for Ms vanden Heuval. To, in effect, say "See, see...this 'objective' study shows how Congress is screwing the middle class".
While the truth is DMI would find the same results no matter what the facts are, because to do otherwise would undermine their own agenda. In other words, DMI would NOT post or publish a study delineating all the GOOD things about the economy (unless it was under "progressive" policy control, no doubt)....otherwise they under-cut their own beliefs.
This is like a (to reference another thread) using a "Move On.org" poll as justification or as generic sampling, when it obviously attracts a 99% progressive/liberal polling sample.
If Ms vanden Heuval wants to hammer home her point, she should use a REAL "non-partisan study" by a non-partisan group....then nobody could doubt the agenda behind the study.
But to use the obviously disengenous "non-partisan" label for "Drum Major" is to throw suspicion on their findings and her point.
Posted by Mask at 06/20/2006 @ 3:23pm
Ms. VanDumbEvil is a Elitist Nitwit who has as much in common with the "average Joe" as most of the leftists on this miserable website have with patriotism or love of this country....Nada...Zilch
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/20/2006 @ 3:23pm
JOHANNESROLF,
So, you agree with me then, that a vote for raising the minumum wage was a vote against the middle class. Exactly the oppisite of what the article claimed and pretty clearly puposely misleading!
You seem to think not indexing the minimum wage to inflation is "ripping off" the poor, I totally disagree, I think it gives the poor more job oppurtunities and the people that raise the minimum wage are the ones "ripping off" the poor, by eliminating and minimizing job oppurtunities.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 3:23pm
USC
My bad...I stand corrected. To answer. In a word "No" because as you surmised: a) I was "doing OK" and b) we didn't have a President then who wiped his ass with the Constitution like we have at present.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 3:24pm
If MS. VanDumbEvil is so "INTO" sharing her wealth....lets see how many free tickets she will give away to that miserable Commie cruise this December.....Its so easy for a elitist leftists to be generous with OTHER peoples money
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/20/2006 @ 3:25pm
JR:
20 years old, supposedly extremely bright, and we are supposed to believe that she doesn't understand that she stands to inherit millions more if she can get around the estate tax? If you believe that, then it's no wonder you're liberal.
But for kicks and giggles, let's say your'e right. We'll ask her more pertinent questions.
Hey, KVH. How much money did you inherit from your grandfather's tax shelters?
or
Hey, KVH. How much money do you have socked away in tax shelters while you demand others to pony up more money?
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she doesn't answer.
Posted by usc1 at 06/20/2006 @ 3:27pm
Aw, Usc, pack it in, you are a buffoon.who the hell cares about your sour posts.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 3:29pm
ZERO,
I already explained why no repsonsible news organization would pick it up, it is purposely misleading!
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 3:38pm
Boston, I could not disagree more. paying the poor worker less every year for the same work is theft.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 3:38pm
JOHANNESROLF,
I explained why I thought it wasn't, because I believe it provides more oppurtunity for more workers. Why do you think it is theft? I pay less each year for a television (that has more and better features, by the way, is that theft? Where is it written that digging a ditch should always be worth at least 5.10 and hour? Sometimes (when there are very few ditch diggers available, and lots of ditches to dig) it is worth $20 an hour. Other times, when there are few ditches to be dug and many ditch diggers, it is worth next to nothing. Why is that wrong? I am asking in earnest, I would like to know why that is wrong in your opinion.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 3:43pm
Boston:" I pay less each year for a television"
this statement says it all, I was discussing people, dads and moms
I'm sorry, let someone else explain it to you.
try googling John Stossel and rebuttal and you should come up with the goods.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 3:53pm
Why is that wrong?
because our gov't instituted a minimum wage over 75 years ago
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 3:54pm
JOHANNESROLF,
And once again the liberal runs....Is it so hard for you to realize that the television also represents real people? The people that are paid to build it and the people that own the shares inthe company that builds it then is forced to sell it each year for less. These are real people too, these are moms and dads too.So don't throw your hands up at me and try to make people think I don't care about people. You love to think you hold the moral high ground, but believe me, the market forces have done more for the poor over the centuries than minimum wage will ever do. The market forces create oppurtunity minimum wages diminush oppurtunity. I stand squarely on the side of more oppurtunity.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 4:01pm
Bush's critics incorrectly blame his tax cuts for "exploding deficits as far as the eye can see."
so what is responsible for the debts as far as the eye can see, o selfproclaimed wise one?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 4:02pm
JOHANNESROLF,
OH! now I get it, becuase the goverment instituted minimum wage over 75 years ago, that makes it the right thing to do! Lets see if everything else the goverment instituted 75 years ago is right thing to do. Lets start with "seperate but equal" I think the goverment instututed that about quite awhile back. The goverment was wrong on that one, and its wrong on the minimum wage as well.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 4:05pm
Boston, you are all over the place here. the minimum wage has worked well for 75 years, it's a minimum. what's the problem? it is a poverty wage. anything less, what the illegals get, is a slave wage.
everybody gets a cost of living increase, except the poorest workers. you see nothing wrong in paying a person less and less each year, while ALL costs go up. and you rant about TV sets. by payoing workers less very year no new jobs are created, the opposite is true. pay workers more, they spend it, creating more commerce.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 4:16pm
JOHANNESROLF,
(I'll number things so you can follow along and not believe I am "all over the place")
1)You state as fact "the minimum wage has worked well for 75 years". What makes you think it has worked well? I don't think it has worked well at all. I think it has stifled growth and limited oppurtunity.
2) You state "...while ALL costs go up" yet I already pointed out that tv's have gone down in price. So have most electronics, so has air travel and I could go on, but you get my point ALL costs haven't gone up.
3) You state "everyone gets a cost of living increase" well guess what, I don't and I haven't. I am on comission and I sell a product whose prices has declined over the years, so I don't get a cost of living raise and I am notcomplaining about it either. If I wanted to work someplace else, I would, end of story.
So, you made three points, and I Prove all three wrong, want to try again?
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 4:24pm
Zero, it wasn't me that said the minimum wage was good becuase the goverment instituted it 75 years ago, I think the minimum wage laws should change and change drastically, they should be eliminated.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 4:27pm
The sad part is that Re'pubic'ans don't bother with attempts to mask their plutocratic mindset. In today's Dallas Morning News, William McKenzie, in his "Letter to Karl [Rove]" he gives advice for power retention. One of his tidbits is: "Think 10 years out, not just tomorrow. You'll argue that the voter I envision doesn't exist in large enough numbers, the way "base" voters do. But go back to the administration's immigration approach. It recognizes that Republicans can't simply wall off Hispanics. Fantastic. Find more opportunities to broaden the GOP, like rethinking how you handle gay marriage. Not only do many families have gay relatives, gay and lesbian voters often are prosperous, which makes them natural Republicans. They'll never swing your way if you turn them into devils."
See? Prosperous = Republican. No attempts to woo day laborers. It's plain and simple. If you have money, we want you. Otherwise, we have no use for you, except to fill the slave-wage positions in our companies.
Posted by jlsolley at 06/20/2006 @ 4:30pm
Katrina continues her weekly crocodile tears and moaning because the US is only on a slow pace to socialism... (emphasis mine)
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/20/2006 @ 1:46pm
House of Representatives: Republican
Senate: Republican
President/VP: Republican
Supreme Court: Was 5 to 4 for Bush, now is 7 to 3 for Bush.
LUVLIBERTY: Supports Republicans.
So let's see here, the US is run by Republicans (all 3 branches) and is also on a slow pace to socialism. So Republicans must be driving the US to socialism.
LL supports the Republicans. Ergo, he supports a slow pace to socialism.
The verdict? LUVLIBERTY is a socialist!!!!!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 4:34pm
JR:
It is a counterpoint to all of you who say that conservatives are merely "stooges" for the wealthy in the estate tax debate.
What do you think you are doing when you jump in to defend KVH (or any of her ilk)? She already has her millions stashed away in trust funds, tax shelters, etc., safe from government's greedy paws, and yet has the audacity to proclaim (from her high horse...or yacht) that the "wealthy" are not paying enough in taxes. (Remind you of anyone? *cough* JohnEdwardsTheresaHeinzKerry *cough*) She feeds you lines about some people needing to pay their "fair share" when in fact that is exactly what she is avoiding.
And you're eating it up.
And BReasonable is calling her "principled."
Posted by usc1 at 06/20/2006 @ 4:35pm
Boston, please, don't be so simple minded. no one has to buy a new TV, they do however have to pay rent, take the train, buy health insurance, buy food etc. cost go up, it's called inflation.
you have not shown how the minimum wage stifles growth, that is an assertion. you have proved nothing.
"that tv's have gone down in price. So have most electronics, so has air travel"
these are not essentials, and a minimum wage worker has no chance to buy any of these.
you may be an exception, but we're not talking about you per se. every union worker, every gov't worker, and 99% or more of all workers get a cost of living increase. that doesn't seem to stifle growth and limit opportunity, does it?
and don't be so arrogant, you have proved nothing.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 4:36pm
Chip, don't be petty correcting spelling, stick to the subject.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/20/2006 @ 2:12pm
He has no answer for HMAN's excellent post, so he must resort to ad hominem attacks.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 4:36pm
JOHANNESROLF says "by paying workers less every year no new jobs are created, the opposite is true. pay workers more, they spend it, creating more commerce." And that on its face seems like a logical arguement, but it is short sighted and I will explain why. If there was only one worker it would be true, the more he gets the more he spends the more money into the economy, the more oppurtunity. But there are many workers and they ALL need jobs and the more of them that have jobs the more of them that are able to pay into the economy. There are more jobs with a lower minimum wage. Thus more people pay into the system and more money, not less is generated.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 4:36pm
it's so touching USC, how you man the front lines in the class warfare against the rich. after setting your sights on Katrina, maybe you could move on the Cheney and Bush, who I'm told are also wealthy.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 4:38pm
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she doesn't answer.
Posted by USC1 06/20/2006 @ 3:27pm
I have never seen KVH reply to anything on any of these threads, so your dare is meaningless.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 4:39pm
Frank:
If I may add to your discussion--
I recall reading a few years ago about a study comparing the relative cost of commodities 1950 v today. The relative cost of the vast majority of items have decreased compared to 1950s levels. The only product that had not, oddly enough, was refrigerators.
Posted by usc1 at 06/20/2006 @ 4:41pm
"There are more jobs with a lower minimum wage."
no there are not. the statistics don't jibe with you there.
when you pay all minimum workers more, a lot more commerce is created.
"But there are many workers and they ALL need jobs"
yes we all know those. illegals who are NOT protected by minimum wage laws get $3 an hour. that is a slave wage and these workers live in slave like conditions. so we already know what happens with no minimum wage, more slaves.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 4:43pm
To understand why I believe that minimum wage is bad for lower wage workers you can read this which is a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Report Summary. The full report is also linked there. They state "The most startling finding of the report is that the largest negative effects of a minimum wage increase are felt by minimum wage workers. At the time of an increase, if a minimum wage worker is working part time, they are more likely to be laid off than someone working full time. As companies look for ways to mitigate the impacts of an increase in labor costs, they eliminate part-time positions. In addition to the immediate impacts, inflation rapidly catches up to the rate increase, eroding the purchasing power of minimum wage workers within a year or two after the increase. "
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 4:47pm
Zero, it's a pleasure to be in the trenches with you, exposing these frauds.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 4:47pm
My aplogy here is the link: http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000425341.cfm?x=b11,0,w
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 4:48pm
Hey everyone, instead of quibbling about something of minor impact, such as the minimum wage, we need to be looking for large-impact initiatives to grow the middle class.
Since JOHN MAASCH is not here to do it, I will step in and propose the Fair Tax.
Listen up, all you libs and lefties who think MAASCH is an idiot: I think he is right on this one.
THE FAIR TAX IS MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM!
Poor people would pay no tax at all under the proposal, not even payroll tax. Our economy would grow by an estimated 10.5% the first year under the Fair Tax. It would be a boon to the poor, lower class, and middle class.
It is a revolutionary new idea, and a very progressive one, IMO.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 4:49pm
Zero, as you can see from the article I referenced and the Report, I am defending the working poor and it is you that are hurting them! Your policies while well intentioned, actually hurt them. My policy recomendation, while seeming to be cut throat, actually helps them. This is the real problem why we can't come to any agreement. I honestly believe conservative policies will help the working poor much more than a goverment handout (or subsidy) and you think I'm just saying that to cover up how greedy and immoral I am!!!!!!!!
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 4:52pm
Can the anti-war Democrats be having a worse week?
Zarqawi is dead. Hundreds of terrorists have been captured or killed in recent days. And now a document that purports to show the enemy weakened, demoralized, and linked to Hussein's thugs. Has a major political party ever been so wrong about so much? I can see it now -- Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi huddled together in some Capitol Hill office trying to figure out how to turn good news into bad news and progress into defeat.
And to think that just last week, Pelosi had all but ordered a new name-plate for the Speaker's door.
THE CRACKUP OF THE LOONY TRAITORS IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/20/2006 @ 4:54pm
Frank -
1. I don't think it has worked well at all. I think it has stifled growth and limited opportunity. That's hardly proof; it's you opinion.
2. tv's have gone down in price. So have most electronics, so has air travel and I could go on. I am not sure how you conclude that minimum wage workers are the ONLY overhead costs associated with making those products. Do you think supply/demand has anything to do with prices? Or the fact that most new innovations, like tv's inevitably come down in price as they saturate the market. Why does a plasma tv cost $1000s less today than two years ago? Simply because wages have remained fixed?
3. Simply because you choose to accept lower wages and do not want to negotiate a higher commission does not prove a thing about how cost of living increases in other fields has a negative effect.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 4:56pm
Frank (repost with proper emphasis on your quotes) -
1. I don't think it has worked well at all. I think it has stifled growth and limited opportunity. That's hardly proof; it's your opinion.
2. tv's have gone down in price. So have most electronics, so has air travel and I could go on. I am not sure how you conclude that minimum wage workers are the ONLY overhead costs associated with making those products. Do you think supply/demand has anything to do with prices? Or the fact that most new innovations, like tv's inevitably come down in price as they saturate the market. Why does a plasma tv cost $1000s less today than two years ago? Simply because wages have remained fixed?
3. Simply because you choose to accept lower wages and do not want to negotiate a higher commission does not prove a thing about how cost of living increases in other fields has a negative effect.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 4:57pm
LIBZHATEUSA went on the ignore list in record time! Three seconds.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 4:57pm
ILP: Did you catch that one link I gave you before on AFT?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 4:57pm
SPOKEN LIKE A PROUD STALINIST
Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/20/2006 @ 4:58pm
eroding the purchasing power of minimum wage workers within a year or two after the increase. "
now try nine years without an increase, THAT erodes the purchasing power something fierce.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 4:59pm
help the working poor much more than a goverment handout
setting a minimum wage is not a gov't handout. you are trying to sell shit as shinola.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 5:00pm
FRANK, Have you looked into the results of the living wage in places like New Mexico (Albequerque, I think...)? I wonder if the study you cite evaluated what happened there.
The city instituted a living wage, and their economy grew rapidly after that. Also, they experienced job growth. Wish I could remember all the details, but my memory isn't what it used to be.
Heard about it on Al Franken's radio show last year.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 5:01pm
HMAN, I missed it. Could you repost it please?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 5:02pm
MASK -
If you are totally unwilling to discuss the study because of where it came from, I think that is weak. Even if someone posts something from a right-leaning source that I do not agree with, I may mention what I see as an inherent bias in the source, but I at least try to refute the substance as well.
Would you care to do that? Did DMI pick the wrong measures to evaluate? Would you have chosen some additional measures? Which ones? Did they count the votes incorrectly?
Please, give us more than the back of your hand.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 5:02pm
Zero, you are a samurai, or at least John Belushi playing one, the way you slice these fools.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 5:03pm
JOHANNESROLF I said a handout or subsidy, it is equivilent to a subsidy in my opinion. I am not trying to dupe anyone, I am here to learn, but now I must leave the keyboard, thank you for letting me play in your sandbox.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/20/2006 @ 5:04pm
ILP:
here [tinyurl.com]
You have to scroll down to Bruce McCoy on January 3, 2006. It's just a review I saw on Amazon, but I thought it was pretty substantive nonetheless. It also does not have a liberal bent.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 5:09pm
FRANK: Come back soon. It is nice to talk to a conservative who tries to debate, rather than one that just hurls insults.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 5:12pm
whatta coincidence, the minimum wage subject discussed at Tompaine.com
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 5:14pm
JR:
Great link. There are many useful facts on the subject at tompaine.com.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 5:21pm
Sorry, HMAN, but this guy McCoy is just plain wrong on a lot of things. Unfortunately, his book review is so long that if I were to respond to all of it my post would make RESE's posts look concise.
But I will respond to a few of his criticisms.
The Fair Tax is a proposal to replace the income tax with a sales tax. McCoy's "criticism" is that we will wind up with both systems.
So his argument amounts to "You shouldn't try to do it because it can't be done." In other words, it really isn't a criticism, it is nay-saying. People said we couldn't land a man on the moon, either. They were wrong.
Then he says the sales tax rate would be 30%, not 23%. Well, that isn't a criticism of the Fair Tax plan, it is QUIBBLING OVER SEMANTICS! A thirty percent tax on a dollar makes the price $1.30, but a 23% tax on $1.30 makes the price $1. It is just semantics, there is NO difference! Either way, you pay a $1.30, and the retailer gets a buck and Uncle Sam gets the rest. McCoy is just using scare tactics.
Not only that, there is already a 23% embedded tax on the goods and services you purchase! So prices won't change!!! The only difference is that the embedded tax is replaced with one that the purchaser can see. No big deal.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 5:28pm
The Legislation: The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005 would have raised the federal minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 an hour to $5.85 an hour 60 days after the enactment of the bill. A year later, the federal minimum would increase to $6.55 an hour, and two years later, it would increase to $7.25 an hour.
Gallup Poll. Nov. 7-10, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you favor or oppose Congress passing legislation that would raise the minimum wage?"
http://www.pollingreport.com/workplay.htm
FRANK_BOSTON, 83% were in favor of raising the minimum wage and only 14% opposed raising the minimum wage. 83%? Damn! The "lower class" is f'n big in this country! Once you take out the "upper class" that leaves us with a 10% "middle class". Way to go Republicans- your dreams come true. A polarized society of haves and have nots. The kind of situation that could be loved by a neo-fascist-- watching others suffer and struggle . . . even if they're one of the deprived ones themselves. "Man does not live by bread alone." For some the psychopathology rules.
But the middle class is a lot bigger than 10%. The minimum wage is a middle class issue if the middle class overwhelmingly supports raising it. Are you truly incapable of rational thought? Do you truly have a psychopathological handicap that affects your ability to think?
To top it off:
"Just your best guess: What is the current minimum wage rate per hour worked?" Mean response $6.09 Median response $6.00
So, the minimum wage isn't as high as the average person thinks and they are still in favor of raising it.
Additionally, Wells Fargo did a study in California and half the businesses surveyed were in favor of raising the minimum wage. I had unskilled employees in a business in 1983 that I was paying $8.45 an hour. It's incomprehensible to me that a human being could think that paying someone more than $5.15 an hour today for labor is too much.
Face it, FRANK_BOSTON- you're trying to represent yourself as some sort of "typical" American but you are far from it. You're a member of a small, hateful fringe group. You shouldn't be surprised if that employee at the fast food restaurant puts more in your food than you asked for.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/20/2006 @ 5:35pm
HMAN, after reading a bit further, I can tell you that McCoy is full of shit. He calls the Fair Tax "regressive". That is just a plain lie!
The Fair Tax is actually MORE progressive than our current system, because the working poor pay NO TAXES, NOT EVEN PAYROLL TAXES.
McCoy's drivel doesn't warrent any further response from me.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 5:36pm
And, ZERO's earlier observation that very little of this anti-middle class behavior is reported in the mainstream media leads to a more important realization. The information industry is, by and large, a component of the political elite class that will serve only it's own privileged interests . . . up to the point that they are struck by fear of losing them.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/20/2006 @ 5:43pm
ILP: Fine, the poor pay nothing, what about the inreased burden on the lower and middle class?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 5:59pm
ILP:
I know it is long, but in fairness you only tackled the first two criticisms (one was admittedly an estimate, the other semantics if you will, but showing some disingenuous characterization on the authors of AFT).
Apart from the basic argument that AFT raises the tax burden of lower income people (which he did not raise, but I happen to think is a valid point), there were many other issues raised:
The study by Brookings about the likelihood that the rate will have to go as high as 67% to support spending.
The potential effect of inflation.
The unfairness to those retiring.
Increase in black markets; more regulation of private sales.
The prebate and necessary bureaucracy to maintain it.
Higher costs for new homes, cars and other products.
Invasion of privacy; increased monitoring of every purchase.
Increased round-the-year record-keeping for every citizen.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 6:00pm
ILP:
I have to run. If you don't agree with the conclusions of this particular reviewer, I understand. If I find time later, I'll rearm and return to give you a more thorough critique.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 6:09pm
On an unrelated note, Safavian was convicted. Ahhh, those highly moral and ethical Republicans are so misunderstood by juries, aren't they?
OKSG and LVLIBERTY, why do you vote for people who are crooks or who hire crooks? Is that what Jesus would do?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 6:25pm
ILP: Fine, the poor pay nothing, what about the inreased burden on the lower and middle class?
Posted by HMAN23 06/20/2006 @ 5:59pm
Why do you think the burden is increased? The lower and middle class also would pay no income tax and no payroll taxes, they would also get the tax rebate on necessities, and because the embedded tax would be removed from prices, they wouldn't pay much more for goods and services than they pay now.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 6:28pm
I'm fascinated by the goings-on in Mayor Ray Nagin's Chocolate City. The National Guard has descended on the violence-plagued city at Nagin's request and with Gov. Kathleen Blanco's blessing. Humvee convoys rolled into the Convention Center area today
What I find interesting is the total silence of civil liberties Chicken Littles who would be screaming "police state!" if Nagin were white and he and Blanco were Republicans sending convoys of armed military police officers into any other city in the country.
Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/20/2006 @ 6:33pm
A US air strike on a fleeing vehicle killed a senior al-Qaeda in Iraq leader on Friday in the same area where two American soldiers went missing a few hours later, a US military spokesman said.US forces had been on the trail of Mansur al-Mashhadani, identified as the top al-Qaeda religious leader in the country
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE GOOD GUYS AND ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR THE TERRORISTS AND THIER ALLIES ON THE LIBERAL LEFT
Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/20/2006 @ 6:37pm
I'm fascinated by the goings-on in Mayor Ray Nagin's Chocolate City.
Boy HateUSA you are just going out of your way to make friends here today!. And the garbage like: "THE TERRORISTS AND THIER ALLIES ON THE LIBERAL LEFT" makes you ever more endearing.
Is there anyone you DON'T hate by the way?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 6:40pm
...a bigot, moron, and wingnut all rolled into one...Wait, I know...you're a KK recruiter, right?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 6:41pm
oops...add another "K"
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 6:41pm
HMAN wrote:
...the other semantics if you will, but showing some disingenuous characterization on the authors of AFT
Why is it that AFT is disingenuous? If it is just semantics, as we both agree, then why isn't McCoy the disingenuous party?
Apart from the basic argument that AFT raises the tax burden of lower income people (which he did not raise, but I happen to think is a valid point),
Not so. Low income people (i.e., those making poverty-level wages or less) pay absolutely no tax. This relieves them of the current payroll tax burden of 7.65%
The study by Brookings about the likelihood that the rate will have to go as high as 67% to support spending.
Not so. The Fair Tax is revenue neutral. However, I should point out that the Federal government is under no obligation to support spending completely with tax revenue, which is why we have such high deficits right now.
Taken another way, what would income tax rates have to be to completely support spending? And would the american public stand for having their income tax raised to an amount that would pay off the nearly 10 trillion in debt that the US owes?
In other words, this criticism is true of ANY tax plan.
The potential effect of inflation.
How so? Inflation is mainly controlled by the Federal Reserve through interest rate adjustments. In the competitive international economy, few suppliers have the ability to control pricing. Thus, inflation is checked by competition and interest rates.
Actually, a national sales tax is one more tool the Congress could use to fight inflation, by lowering the rate when necessary.
The unfairness to those retiring.
Not so. The removal of embedded taxes from prices will result in only modest price increases. Plus retirees will also get the tax rebate on necessities.
Increase in black markets; more regulation of private sales.
We already have black markets. This criticism amounts to "people will cheat." But guess what? People already cheat! Arguing against a tax plan because of tax cheating is basically an argument against taxation itself.
The prebate and necessary bureaucracy to maintain it.
As opposed to the bureaucracy required for filing federal income tax returns every year? Give me a break. These criticisms are universal to all forms of taxation!
Higher costs for new homes, cars and other products.
Trivial. As has been proven, nearly everything you buy has embedded taxes in the pricing which amount to an average of 22% of what you pay. Basically, the Fair Tax will amount to about a 1% price increase, on average, for goods and services.
If you still don't like it, buy a used home.
Invasion of privacy; increased monitoring of every purchase.
Invasion of privacy? Are you kidding? Look at your 1040 and see how much personal info the government has on you. The Fair Tax would result in less violation of your privacy.
Increased monitoring of every purchase? How would this be different from the "monitoring" that results from a state sales tax??? I pay 8.25% sales tax in the state of NY. Should I be worried about monitoring?
Increased round-the-year record-keeping for every citizen.
File schedule A and B next year with your 1040 form and see if you don't change your mind. You might find this last point to be rather humorous afterward.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 6:48pm
LOC, Beat the Christmas rush and ignore him now!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/20/2006 @ 6:49pm
ILP
Think I will thanks....its kinda like trying to teach monkeys how to type. You just keep HOPING they'll catch on and then you start screeching back at them. And pretty soon you're BOTH slinging feces....
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 7:06pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/20/2006 @ 5:14pm
Good link. The free market faux-reasoning to justify an exraordinarily low minimum wage has no basis in the real world. It's in the same category as Ronald Reagan's legendary anecdotes/lies. As pointed out in the article the right-wing never runs around screaming like Chicken Little that the latest massive tax decrease for the plutocrats will cause the sky to fall but that's exactly what they do when a 70c increase in the minimum wage is brought up. The lack of basic evidence to back up their claim never deters them from spouting the identical rhetoric over and over again. It has nothing to do with economics. They simply hate the poor, especially if the poor are a different race or culture. It defines their lives.
That "disemployment" argument would be plausible, were it not for the fact that tons of careful research has disproved it. The federal minimum wage has been raised 19 times by Congress since its introduction in 1938. Twenty-one states, covering about half of the national workforce, have minimum wages above that of the Federal level.
In other words, more than any economic policy, we've had hundreds of "pseudo-experiments"--rare in economics--that allow us to test the impact of wage mandates on various outcomes. These experiments allow us to compare before and after, or, even better, compare nearby places that face similar economic conditions but have different minimum wage laws.
So what have these studies found? Here's the way economics Nobelist Robert Solow summarized the findings:
The main thing about this research is that the evidence of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small.
A great example comes from the last federal minimum wage increase, back in 1996-97. The usual suspects predicted massive job losses among those affected by the increase from $4.25 to the current level of $5.15. Instead, low-wage workers experienced the strongest job market in 30 years. Poverty fell to historic lows, particularly for the most disadvantaged workers, such as less-skilled minorities and single-mothers. What's more, small businesses--that traditional poster child for the opposition--actually did better in areas with higher minimum wages.
http://tinyurl.com/m2wg9
Posted by fromredbird at 06/20/2006 @ 7:14pm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html
the minimum wage, some facts
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 7:45pm
how low is the minimum wage? the lowest since at least 1955. for shame.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 7:49pm
Feed the rich, "F" the poor...they'll get crumbs and like it!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 7:54pm
""F" the poor"
Except Food stamps, welfare, free health care VIA emergency rooms and medicare, and no tax burdens and countless other county, state and federal programs geared to help the poor. Sounds like a socialist paradise...
Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/20/2006 @ 8:00pm
Can we assume that Frank_Boston has cleared out for the day? Thank God. Everyone did a swell job at swatting down his from the gut economic intuition, and by gut, of course, I mean deep down into the netherworld of the bowels and bladder. Too bad this site doesn't have some form of filter from rabid stupidity. But then, we'd never have had the pleasure of learning from CPT and NACL.
The internet is a wonder, a true open air forum for all methods of thinking, even those who forget that thinking is best done through their gray matter.
I have no substance to add, in case you were wondering. Just stopped by for an insult before game time. Amazing what a single post-work martini can do to impair one's ability and desire to engage in constructive debate.
Chip Thornton might want to note, however, that even in my lubed up state, I still know how to spell "embarrass". Asswipe.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/20/2006 @ 8:40pm
game time, TJ, Mavs in 7? maybe.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/20/2006 @ 8:50pm
The wonderful thing about his series is that it has so closely followed form (home team winning) and so blatantly surprised most "experts" almost every game. At this point I would hate to be an oddsmaker because I have no idea what to expect tonight. I can just as easily see Dallas self-destructing by rushing to shoot as I can seeing them dominate a complacent Miami.
Who knows? All I know is I hope it ends before 12:30pm EDT or 11:30pm CDT.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/20/2006 @ 9:01pm
Dear Lord,
Some bald man sitting in for Joe Scarborough is wondering where those of us who decried the abuse of Iraqi prisoners are when the topic of torture of Americans comes up? The same friggin' place: saying what are we doing there, by whose rules are we conducting our operations there, by what method will we demonstrate that we have the means to defeat these guys, and on what basis can we possibly attack the worst people in the world considering that we have put ourselves down at their level?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/20/2006 @ 9:05pm
ILP: Saw your post. I'll try to take AFT up with you later. some elaboration is necessary from my bullet point list, But, it's gametime.
TJB: I said the exact same thing to my wife at the time and am laughing with your post. Not sure what his name is, but he is a tool. Saw him last night for a little bit. He was a tool last night as well. JV material.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 9:57pm
O'Reilly's on teevee flogging the mutilation angle for all it's worth. He's trying to make an utterly stupid policy decision seem necessary. Kind of like a drunk driver who has his license revoked insisting that it's unjust and the only choice he has is to get drunk and drive again.
It's not so well known that American corpses found after firefights in Vietnam were sometimes mutilated. The O'Reilly's of then preferred to cover it up.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/20/2006 @ 10:07pm
Just checking - have any of the wingnuts posting here argued that Congress HAS acted in the interest of the middle class? I haven't read all the posts but a quick scan reveals discussion concerning the following (1) folks doing the study weren't "non-partisan" (2) Heuvel's family avoided taxes as does she, plus (3) the fatuous, ill-informed discussion about min wage (how long has this brainiac Frank_Boston been hanging around here?)
Any other substantive
Posted by Fishbite at 06/20/2006 @ 10:25pm
... reactions?
Posted by Fishbite at 06/20/2006 @ 10:25pm
"Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/20/2006 @ 4:49pm"
SWEET JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH...ILP..AGREE WITH ME???
I knew it....there is some hope here...and you DID answer Hmans questions and reservations.
What they don't understand is the fact that they are already PAYING 23% tax on everything now in addition to their income taxes...Good job, man...Where do you live? I travel everywhere and want to buy you a beer or whatever...
Posted by john maasch at 06/20/2006 @ 10:49pm
No, Fishbite. That about sums up the points. I've also had my typos corrected.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/20/2006 @ 10:57pm
Posted by LIBZHATEUSA 06/20/2006 @ 8:00pm
Sounds like a socialist paradise...
Apparently you've never had to deal with that segment of reality. Tthere are millions who "don't quite qualify" .. we are called the working poor. Not poor enough to get any help, not well-to-do enough to actually get ahead. Its day by day, and its the reality of way more American than the rosy-eyed right would ever care to admit. 17% of our population belwo the median income (of industrialzed nations, only Mexico and Russia report higher percentages) - of the 11 countries reporting the stat %ppl living below $11/day - again, 3rd from the bottom , and 12% below the poverty line [NationMaster.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 12:08am
1.1 MILLION PEOPLE FELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE CLASS AND INTO POVERTY IN 2004
Number of People Living in Poverty Increased by 1.1 Million in 2004. Approximately 1.1 million people fell out of the middle class into poverty in 2004, an increase of 5.4 million people living in poverty since Bush took office in 2001. The poverty rate has increased from 12.5 to 12.7 percent over the past year, increasing for the fourth consecutive year. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/30/05; Table B-1]
Nearly 1 in 5 American Children Lived in Poverty During 2004. 13 million children lived in poverty in 2004, an increase of about 1.4 million since the beginning of the Bush Administration. This comes on the heels of a 730,000 increase in the number of children living in poverty in 2003. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/30/05; Table B-2 ]
Disproportionately High Number of African Americans and Latinos Live in Poverty. Nearly 25 percent of all African Americans (9 million) lived in poverty in 2004, an increase of over 250,000 over the past two years. Nearly 22 percent (9.1 million) of Latinos lived in poverty, an increase of almost 500,000 over the past two years. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/30/05; Table 3]
1.9 Million More Americans Enrolled in Medicaid in 2004. As 1.1 million Americans dropped out of the middle class and into poverty in 2004, the enrollment rate in Medicaid increased from 12.4 percent of the population in 2003 to 12.9 percent in 2004. Without the safety net of Medicaid and SCHIP for people who dropped into poverty, the health insurance numbers would be even worse. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/30/05, page 16 ]
NEARLY 46 MILLION AMERICANS LACK HEALTH INSURANCE: NUMBER OF UNINSURED INCREASED BY SIX MILLION SINCE 2001
Posted by loveloki at 06/21/2006 @ 12:24am
fishbite, mr. boston is brand new here. lucky us!
Posted by loveloki at 06/21/2006 @ 12:26am
love,
What does it take to qualify as poor or poverty level in the US today? What is the measuring statistic?
Posted by john maasch at 06/21/2006 @ 12:31am
hey liberty
look at all this mess you are making
it your future home baby
Posted by Will C. at 06/21/2006 @ 01:17am
mr. maasch, here is some info on your question. i think this is to qualify for gov.t assistance.
2006 HHS Poverty Guidelines:
the first # is Persons in Family or Household
the next # is the 48 Contiguous States and D.C.
next is Alaska, then Hawaii
1 $ 9,800 $12,250 $11,270
2 13,200 16,500 15,180
3 16,600 20,750 19,090
4 20,000 25,000 23,000
5 23,400 29,250 26,910
6 26,800 33,500 30,820
7 30,200 37,750 34,730
8 33,600 42,000 38,640
For each additional person, add 3,400 4,250 3,910
there's more info on measuring poverty at the census bureau's site.
Posted by loveloki at 06/21/2006 @ 01:41am
all respect due to Dwayne Wade, it was his series. of the graduating class of 2003, Wade, LeBron, Carmelo Anthony, he is the best.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 08:15am
Obviously, a portion of the problem of the upward mobility of the poor and middle class is the employment competition coming from illegal immigrants.
And while talking head conservatives froth at the mouth to "protect our borders" (meaning just the Southern one) at enormous expense and knowing full well that many illegals are working here on expired tourist visas.
Obviously, the key would be to enforce the laws as they stand to properly penalize the employers rather than the employees.
So in 1999 we innitiated penalties against 417 companies.
In 2003 we innitiated penalties against 3 companies.
The Bush doctrine is to provide cheap labor to USA companies and damn the laws.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/21/2006 @ 08:34am
Hey Mask,
Read some of your posts yesterday on the objectivity of KVH's "sources". Right on the money. Tried to make the same point but you did a better job of it. I couldn't seem to get it across.
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/21/2006 @ 08:41am
Too many points made last night to adress them all. On minimum wage you can read this thoughtfull article which explains both side's arguements and comes down on my side (I am not saying it isn't biased) I am saying that it is thoughtfull.
http://www.mises.org/story/2130
Or you can try to follow the logic of the classic debating technique of making a reductio ad absurdum case. Basically saying if raising the minimum wage a little helps some people, why don't we raise it to $100 an hour and make everyone well off??? Huh guys why don't we do that????
I do love to be poked fun at and name called. I understand why that is done. If you can't out argue them, shun them, marginlize them, demonize them...do ANYTHING except debate them, because you'll lose......
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 09:11am
making a reductio ad absurdum case.
that's, well absurd.
tell us again about how giving the working poor LESS money is so good for them.
your case was easily shot down. I'm afraid you walked into the line of fire. this issue has been discussed here ad nauseam.
I will repeat, we already know what happens without a minimum wage. illegal workers, who are by definition without minimum wage protection, get $3 per hour, a slave wage. is that what you are advocating?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 09:17am
Boston, your whining notwithstanding, your post has drawn many reasoned and reasonable replies, as well as some others.
the question remains, why are you so eager to kick the poorest workers in the teeth?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 09:19am
Ms. VanDumbEvil is a Elitist Nitwit who has as much in common with the "average Joe" as most of the leftists on this miserable website have with patriotism or love of this country....Nada...Zilch
Posted by TRAITORLIBZ 06/20/2006 @ 3:23pm
I will say that there is one thing about KVH that forms a closer connection to the 'average joe' than your own:
She's got balls that are far more weighty and substantial than your puny, shrivelled up excuses for gonads.
Have a nice day.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/21/2006 @ 09:37am
Hey Mask, Read some of your posts yesterday on the objectivity of KVH's "sources". Right on the money. Tried to make the same point but you did a better job of it. I couldn't seem to get it across.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 06/21/2006 @ 08:41am
The "points":
My problem with this is "the nonpartisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI)"....
they're not "non-partisan" which was a "selling point" for Ms vanden Heuval
DMI would find the same results no matter what the facts are
DMI would NOT post or publish a study delineating all the GOOD things about the economy
This is like a (to reference another thread) using a "Move On.org" poll
should use a REAL "non-partisan study" by a non-partisan group
to use the obviously disengenous "non-partisan" label for "Drum Major" is to throw suspicion on their findings and her point.
Ms. vanden Heuvel's first sentence should have been quite clear to any but those irretrievably afflicted by coneheadism:
"This is the blunt assessment of the nonpartisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI), which today released its third annual scorecard, Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record. Aimed at assessing Congress's voting records on issues of concern to the nation's middle class and "those who aspire to a middle-class standard of living"--surely the vast majority of Americans--"
The Drum Major Institute did not produce a poll and referring to an enumeration of votes as a "study" is a stretch. It is exactly what Ms. vanden Heuvel referred to it as- an assessment. The issues listed WERE of concern or significance to "the vast majority of Americans" as I documented with the poll on the minimum wage issue. It was non-partisan because it gave Democrats lower grades when they voted against the interests or desires of "the vast majority of Americans" on those issues rather than glossing that over or enumerating only the votes of Republicans. MASK is all about "throwing suspicion". That's his one note song and he never comes up with anything substantive. He's a dim bulb with sound effects. He only looks good in comparison to CHIP THORNTON, who has even lower wattage.
MASK has for two days now displayed his incapability of refuting anything substantive in the DMI assessment. Why doesn't MASK put his money where his mouth is? Show us what you consider "a REAL "non-partisan study by a non-partisan group". Go ahead. Step up to the plate.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/21/2006 @ 09:42am
I do love to be poked fun at and name called. I understand why that is done. If you can't out argue them, shun them, marginlize them, demonize them...do ANYTHING except debate them, because you'll lose......
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/21/2006 @ 09:11am
You've been thoroughly refuted and you don't have a leg to stand on. Get up off your ass and go home.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/21/2006 @ 09:45am
I do love to be poked fun at and name called. I understand why that is done. If you can't out argue them, shun them, marginlize them, demonize them...do ANYTHING except debate them, because you'll lose......
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/21/2006 @ 09:11am
Does it feel good being among the 14% in America who think $5.15 an hour is too much to pay someone and that the only advantage of being a member of society is that it puts them in proximity to others who thay can exploit?
Posted by fromredbird at 06/21/2006 @ 09:51am
whom they
Posted by fromredbird at 06/21/2006 @ 09:52am
Chip - Your point was pretty clear. It just a point that doesn't go very far. You (and Mask) still haven't added anything substantive on the subject.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2006 @ 09:53am
The only point is the one on their heads which they have some sort of compulsion to continually come here and sharpen.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/21/2006 @ 09:56am
JOHANNESROLF your question about "kicking the working poor in the teeth" has been asked and answered. I believe I am helping the working poor and that it is YOU that are kicking them in the teeth. As support for my arguement I offerred two links to two articles that support my arguement.
You can type "your case was easily shot down" and you can even believe that to be true, but your writing it, and your believing it doesn't make it true. My case hasn't been shot down. The only way you were able to attack my reductio ad absurdum case is to make a joke about it, hoping to laugh it off, because you can't compete with it honestly on an intellectual level.
I just reread all my posts and I never suggested we should "give the working poor LESS". It is my firm opinion that paying less per hour for some jobs helps the working poor as a group. It allows one of their 16 year old sons to get a part time job that might not exist if the wage was forcibly higher. That part time job might provide the son with the skills to get a higher paying job in the future. That is one way paying less per hour for some jobs helps the working poor. I have answered your questions, you would rather call me names (slave wages is obvious heated rhetoric) or make a joke out of my arguments then to respond to them. Why is that? I think it is because you can't respond to them in a manner that refutes them. Prove me wrong!
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 09:56am
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/21/2006 @ 09:56am | ignore this person
FRANK_BOSTON on ignore. There's no law or principle that says I have to listen to yammering idjits.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/21/2006 @ 10:00am
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 06/21/2006 @ 09:42am | ignore this person
Not my job FROMRED (BTW, thought you "Ignored" me?!?!?)....
Ms vanden Heuvel wrote this article and used the term "non-partisan" to refer to Drum Major Institute, not I.
She was being dishonest, basically. DMI IS partisan, just not affiliated with the Democratic Party. It has a partisan "progressive agenda" outlook (as admitted earlier), ergo it's "assessments" are not likely to be objective, but tend to reinforce their beliefs.
It's like if some right-wing author said "Here's a study from the NON-PARTISAN Heritage Foundation, which shows that most Americans think America's moral fiber is crumbling and that voluntary prayer in school would help bolster it".
Would YOU accept the HF as "non-partisan" or their "assessment" on face value?
Posted by Mask at 06/21/2006 @ 10:02am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 06/21/2006 @ 08:41am | ignore this person
Also. CLICK!
Posted by fromredbird at 06/21/2006 @ 10:02am
Oh please, Boston. this was a long way of saying nothing. what about the HUGE working population without minimum wage protection. you fail to address that one entirely.
you have been eviscerated, the only question is that you don't want to admit it.
since you're so fond of reductio ad absurdum , let's try another one;: why don't we pay them...NOTHING. according to you that will create lots more opportunity for the workers AS A GROUP.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:05am
As long as I behave in a civil manner I consider every ignore I get affirmation that liberals have no interest in honest debate. Its, "agree with us, or we will shun you". And then they wonder why some people consider them unamerican. What is more unamerican than to ignore, marginalize and demonize people whose opinions differ from yours?
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 10:05am
Boston, where did I call you names?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:06am
And then they wonder why some people consider them unamerican.
another slime attack, by"some people"
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:08am
JOHANNESROLF your last message just shows your lack of understanding of creating a logical arguement. Paying them nothing isn't the reductio ad absurdum arguement against not raising the minimum wage, eliminating the minimum wage is the proper reductio ad absurdum arguement. The country did just fine without a minimum wage for many many years. It was in those years that this country got its reputation as the "land of oppurtunity). So yeah, I have no problem at all with eliminating the minimum wage.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 10:10am
You have been trying to tar me with "slave wages" for two days....
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 10:11am
Frank, You should have given economic lessons to Ford, who, in order to create a growing market, for his products, cars, raised his workers wages so they could buy the cars they were building.
All that on the principle that, the more he sells, the less it cost. Of course an essential variable was that the workers had to increase substantially the productivity.
But of course the keynesian economy works really fine only in a closed economy... not a global one
PS: how many people do you think are working in TV factories.... (beside robots i mean)
Posted by Fabrice_ at 06/21/2006 @ 10:14am
B, that's not at all true. I said that $3 an hour is a slave wage. nothing more. you are a liar .
"The country did just fine without a minimum wage for many many years. It was in those years that this country got its reputation as the "land of oppurtunity)."
now you're gettin stupid. sweatshops , child labor, shooting strikers and union organizers, yes the country was a paradise then for robber barons. you live in a dream world. you want to help the group of workers by choking the individual, nice.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:15am
nice point Fabrice.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:16am
"It was in those years that this country got its reputation as the "land of oppurtunity)."
yeah like the depression, with 80% unemployment, that's some oppurtunity(sic)
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:20am
Do you understand the phrase "trying to tar me with"? It means that you are inferring that I promote slave wages by promoting the elimination of the minimum wage. If I promote slave wages, I am tantamount to a slave owner. You knew and know what you are doing, you cannot hide behind the semantics. You also previously inferred that I was an "exploiter". Now you have called me a liar as well. You do seem to be having a problem controlling your invectives, is something getting under your skin?
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 10:22am
So yeah, I have no problem at all with ignoring this dolt
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:22am
I inferred nothing, you are getting cranky. I said that the minimum wage is a poverty wage and the illegal's going rate $3 is a slave wage. the rest is in your mind.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:24am
Now a dolt, man I am getting pretty close to ignore #2, gee JOHANNESROLF, do you have ANY legitimate responses left in you?
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 10:26am
This is a quote from you JOHANNESROLF "we already know what happens with no minimum wage, more slaves." Since I have advocated no minimum wage, it follows then from that statement that I am advocating for more slaves. Tell me again how you "inferred nothing"
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 10:31am
you're paranoid, I inferred no such thing. Ruck mir den Buckel runter
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:37am
Mask:
If you are going to criticize the conclusion, it is "your job" if you feel like persuading anyone. Consistent with what I said earlier, if someone cites to a study by the Heritage Foundation, I may point out that the Heritage Foundation leans to the right, but I would also at least try to articulate a rebuttal based on the underlying methodology of the study itself.
Take a simple example: The best friend of the defendant testifies as an alibi witness for the defense. The prosecutor will rightly bring out the potential or even likely bias of the witness. But, if the prosecutor doesn't ask ANY questions about the substance of the testimony, why it is wrong, or why the witness in this case is not telling the truth, the jury likely will not be persuaded.
If you think the study is a crock, tell us why.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2006 @ 10:37am
Posted by HMAN23 06/21/2006 @ 10:37am | ignore this person
Okay...so I throw in non-energy inflation....the unemployment rate...home ownership....interest rates...etc,etc,etc.
Then we debate how "Those aren't REAL indicators of how the economy is doing" (despite their use during the Clinton years) and you cite some OTHER "non-partisan" study that shows that "they're ALL 'Wal-mart jobs'" and we go round and round on that for a while.
Point is...that DMI is still not "non-partisan" and I could get some right-wing group to refute their assertions.
Ms vanden Heuvel wanted to set up a premise, that of DMI being "objective" so as to throw any suspicion away from the assessment as partisan. And in doing that, she was being disengenous.
If the "facts" from DMI are objective and non-partisan...then a non-partisan, objective group should be able to confirm it...no?
Posted by Mask at 06/21/2006 @ 10:45am
It is interesting to me that many of the post are sterotyping anyone who is a liberal. This is not the way that positions can be changed. If you have a point to make please lay it out, but do not sterotype and think that you have solved the problem. The truth hurts and we need to discuss issues not point the finger and make sterotypical statements.
Pointing the finger at someone is not the way to influence his/her point of veiw.
So lets get serious and talk in depth about the issues.
Posted by helpline at 06/21/2006 @ 10:46am
help, I don't think positions can be changed here. I think it is rather a dialogue for the benefit of those who do not yet have a position on a given issue, or have not given it much thought. I do agree with the rest of your post. a case in point is the poster with a handle such as fuklibs, etc, who comes here flinging excrement, expecting what?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:55am
et tu, Frei? a conspiracy theory? oh yes I remember, something with banks. they used to just blame the jews for everything. that was kinda cute, they were blamed for both revolutionary bolshevism as well as being the bankers who controlled everything, neat trick that.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 11:15am
NY Time August 2003
Growing numbers of job applicants are finding that positions with benefits are scarce. And unlike Ms. Lee, many young college graduates - and even some older workers wishing to make career changes - are taking jobs without health insurance or retirement plans because, they say, they cannot find anything with more security. ************************************************************************ **** Title of an Economist article:
America's economy : Danger time for America Jan 12th 2006 From The Economist print edition
The economy that Alan Greenspan is about to hand over is in a much less healthy state than is popularly assumed.
************************************************************************ **** THIS JUST IN (excerpts from full article)
CNN.COM 6/21/06 11:21 EDT
Congress stiffs working Americans By Lou Dobbs
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Without much fanfare, the House of Representatives last week voted to give members of Congress yet another pay raise, as it has done almost every year for nearly a decade.
For some reason, our elected officials decided against holding a news conference. Maybe that's because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that they raise their own salaries almost every year while refusing to raise the pay of our lowest-paid workers.
One of this country's greatest business innovators, Henry Ford, made history almost a century ago by raising the salaries of his production-line workers far beyond the prevailing wage. Ford not only paid his employees well enough to buy the products they built, but he kept his employees loyal and productive. That's also very good business.
The myth that raising the minimum wage will lead to job cuts is just that: a myth. In fact, research suggests just the opposite. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1998, states with higher minimum wages experienced better job growth than states paying only the federal minimum wage. Among small retail businesses in those higher minimum-wage states, job growth was double the rest of the country.
"I think it's disgraceful that we waited nine years to do this," says Rep. David Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin. "We have seen gas prices go up by 140 percent since the minimum wage was increased. We have seen home heating oil go up by 120 percent. We have seen health care go up by almost 45 percent."
This administration, our Republican-led Congress and the dominant corporate interests in this country want cheap labor. And to achieve that goal they're outsourcing middle-class jobs, importing illegal labor and cutting retirement and health-care benefits.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 11:21am
Posted by HELPLINE 06/21/2006 @ 10:46am
VERY apres observation (not that I haven't myself hurled an epithet or two, but it is most often in response)
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 11:22am
"We have seen gas prices go up by 140 percent since the minimum wage was increased. We have seen home heating oil go up by 120 percent. We have seen health care go up by almost 45 percent."
but TVs have gotten cheaper,hahahahahaha
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 11:28am
Once again, saying something is true, doesn't make it so. Just because states with higher minimum wages experienced better job growth than states paying only the federal minimum wage doesn't mean that they would not have had even higher job growth if the minimum wage had been lower. It is not a casual effect. I get very tired of having to explain this to people.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 11:32am
Right wingers are forever talking about the left's jealousy of their power, their posessions, their cash. I got news for those clowns. I don't care what they have. All I want is them off my back, an end to their stupid barbarian war, their phony "president" whose phony hick accent is an insult to the people he claims to represent, their fucked up opposition party that can't even raise hell about the attempted war of extermination their government is conducting in Iraq. And I will have them off my back, by god, by whatever means are neccessary, and whatever that costs me in the way of life, property, and sacred honor, as the old school put it. Why in the hell would I be jealous or envious of doodybrains like the right? They don't have any idea what anything important means, for them, freedom is what they own. Fuck that shit. All their howling about negative utopias, what about the corporate thief paradise they claim is nirvana? Fuck that shit. Envious of them? One might as well be envious of a cabbage, which at least offers nutrition.
Posted by JRJunior at 06/21/2006 @ 11:33am
Frei, not just the poor. so what's yer point?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 11:33am
JOHANNESROLF you continue to try to mock me regarding the TV comment. It was a simple comment that disproved your staement the "all prices have gone up". I wasn't trying to say that no prices went up, or that there is no such thing as inflation. I was proving your statement, your particular statement, was wrong. If you don't want your statements proved wrong so easilly, try to refrain from blanket statements.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 11:38am
Boston, sure flog that inane comment. let me just remind you, this is not about me. just address the points.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 11:46am
Mask -
Yes, throwing all those things "in there" would be an attempt to support your point - exactly what I am getting at. But, you put your thoughts in a dismissive opening paragraph. So, you've had a couple days now. Go find those right wing sources and we can talk about them. Set forth your argument. Defend it. But keep in mind that DMI was analyzing CONGRESS and its actions, not the economy as a whole.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2006 @ 11:50am
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/21/2006 @ 11:32am
The lack of causal effect is understood. What you don't understand is how this works against your argument.
But even ignoring statistics such as these, which are often too full of variables to draw any very specific conclusion, the arguments against what you promote are obvious. You sense either our dismissal or our ignoring of your posts. Feel free to take this as a victory. What it is, however, is exhaustion. Your ideas are nothing new here, though you believe somehow that you have brought a beacon into the darkness.
We can decrease the minimum wage to a point of your liming (or, say, that of the National Association of Manufacturers or the Chamber of Commerce). We can decrease it on a scale over a number of years down to pennies. Will this increase employment? It seems like simple math: you lower the cost of capital and suddenly capital becomes more attractive. But we are told over and over that our unemployment rate is effectively a representation of full employment. We see the statistics demonstrating unprecedented productivity from the average American worker. We have macroeconomic numbers thrown at us that indicate a solid economy with healthy profits.
So what is the real incentive for lowering the minimum wage? Are employers in need of additional workers but unable to hire them due to their costs? Are we afraid that India and China will soon develop standards of living that we will envy?
You speak about the American Dream existing before the advent of the minimum wage. But after we stopped being a frontier, the American Dream changed from being the owner of a parcel of dirt somewhere to became simply economic security and all of the real and abstract things that compose it. Did that definition of The Dream exist prior to 1938? Only to a very small point. We brought in the tired, poor and huddled who came here to get the best possible shake at "the good life". But what they still faced until was an economic system that allowed employers to treat their workers in ways that I think we can see now were not representative of what we want the American workplace to be. I am going to be a lightweight here and not look up any statistics, but it seems to me that the Dream became defined as we think of it now after 1938 and particularly after 1945. The Dream of moving out of an urban slum or off the field took shape only at that time. And the minimum wage has been both a real and symbolic influence on the growth of this country in the last 60-70 years.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/21/2006 @ 11:53am
JR
"One might as well be envious of a cabbage, which at least offers nutrition."
Hey, now thre's a thought. Republican soup. To a pot of stock add three coarsely chopped Republicans, a head of cabbage, and bit of diced onion and season to taste.
Serve with crusty bread although what wine would go with it? Hmmmm. Republicans, the other white meat!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 11:56am
That's "JRjunior...."
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 11:56am
The Dream of moving out of an urban slum
Tj, that was actually a big lie perpetrated by the car culture, and was responsible for the destruction of many of our great cities, a destruction which only now is being reversed in my Gotham.
I do agree with you, as I usually do. I'm trying to place you geographically, if you don't mind, Louisiana?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 12:04pm
Frei, your pulling some fast ones here rhetorically. but I'll play.
for your info, when I moved into my apartment 15 years ago, I paid market level rent. not many people wanted to live in Washington Heights then. this was a big jump in rent for me then, but as a friend put it, I grew into it. since then my rent has gone up a rent stabilized increase of around 8% every two years, depending on the landlord's increased cost.
since then many more people have moved into the nabe, and yes their market level rent is higher than mine.not a lot higher, but higher. supply and demand here. most of them are now also rent stabilized, and so the pattern repeats.
now what was your point?
I should NOT be rhetorically concerned about the working poor? in other words I should be more like you? perhaps you can share your real estate circumstances with us, to shed some light why you aren't concerned with the lives of the working poor, rhetorically speaking.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 12:13pm
Frei, you know nothing about living in NYC or any big city it appears. ownership of apartments is not unheard of here. the conditions that people moved out of were not slum like. the slums in that case came as a result of the flight to the suburbs.
we had an URBANE culture, one that definitely was not replicated in the suburbs. come play anytime.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 12:18pm
I said nothing about a conspiracy. the car culture was and is a destructive force, the price of which we have not begun to pay. it can be a destructive force without being a conspiracy.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 12:20pm
TJBEHRENS1 you answered your own question. You ask "So what is the real incentive for lowering the minimum wage", but in the previous paragraph you state "we are told over and over that our unemployment rate is effectively a representation of full employment. We see the statistics demonstrating unprecedented productivity from the average American worker. We have macroeconomic numbers thrown at us that indicate a solid economy with healthy profits. " All that has come into being over the last few years while the minimum wage has been decreasing (due to inflation) The point of continuing to lower it, is to continue to see all those good things you mention happen.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/21/2006 @ 12:22pm
Frei,
A snippet of American history for you....
The car manufacturers systemmatically bought the trolley car operators in various USA cities. They then dismatled them.
Many years later the car manufacturers were found to be guilty in court of anti competitive practices and were fine one United States Dollar for destroying inner city transportation systems.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/21/2006 @ 12:24pm
Frank,
Can you seriously still be discussing minimum wage and not be discussing the endless additional illegal workforce?
Companies are not being fined for hiring illegals. That is a fact as evidenced by there being 3 fines innitiated in 2003 (there were 417 in 1999) against companies hiring illegals.
Of course the corporatocracy doesn't want a minimum wage or wants one as low as possible. They also want as many illegals happily working here as possible.
Have no fear Frank, the corporatocracy always does and always will get what it wants. Democracy is for sale to the highest bidder.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/21/2006 @ 12:31pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/21/2006 @ 12:24am
Very good...not too many people know this snippet. In fact only three remain, and of these only two (well, one right now) is in regular use - San Fran. I think the NO one is still off-line
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 12:39pm
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/21/2006 @ 12:22am
And you have now done what you disparaged others of doing: taking a non-causal effect and trying to cause it up. Feel free to share with us the economic studies that link national economic growth to the lack of real value in the minimum wage. During the 1980s the economy had good years and not so good years after the hike of 1981. The hikes of Oct '90 and Oct '91 (very gentle hikes) led to those bad economic years that followed during the decade I suppose. The hikes of '96 and '97 led to a rather murky economic period when 9/11 is considered.
Like I said, I would like to read the studies. You'd think that after a full lifetime of minimum wage laws, someone in authority would have figured out that it does the damage that you and others imagine it does.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/21/2006 @ 12:43pm
That is the real fact behind the min wage argument. The approx 1% of the population working for the min wage of which about half are teenagers. This is so far below being a real issue for Americans and especially the middle class.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/21/2006 @ 12:40am
Seems silly, then, to get all worked up about it.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/21/2006 @ 12:45pm
JR, "and yes their market level rent is higher than mine.not a lot higher, but higher. supply and demand here. most of them are now also rent stabilized,.."
Do you own your apartment? What does "rent stabilized" mean? If I owned the building, does that mean I can raise my rents as I see fit? If the supply is short, then could I raise rents as high as the market demaned? If not, then am I not being cheated out of my market demanded rents and not being allow the freedom to do with my property as I see fit for me and mine?
" the slums in that case came as a result of the flight to the suburbs"... I thought slums came about by the people who moved in, not those moving out...I don't see how if I move out of some place it gets worse...unless those who have moved in are worse...I guess,...explain please.
Posted by john maasch at 06/21/2006 @ 12:51pm
"When the minimum wage goes up, it makes many things more expensive for me, Mr. middle class. It makes it more expensive for me to have my lawn mowed, to stay at a hotel, to go out to dinner, etc etc etc."
(Great examples.)
Posted by drhammer at 06/21/2006 @ 12:53pm
Per the US Dept of Labor (and 202 is as recent as they have)
According to Current Population Survery estimates for 2002, some 72.7 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.6 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, about 570,000 were reported earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.6 million were reported with wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
To this you would need to add most illegals as well...
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 12:54pm
DR,
Actually, that is true as far as hotels, restaurants, and any job that relies on hourly wages that start at entry level...it does raise the prices...
Posted by john maasch at 06/21/2006 @ 12:55pm
DRH
a snippet drug forward from Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/21/2006 @ 11:21am
"According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1998, states with higher minimum wages experienced better job growth than states paying only the federal minimum wage. Among small retail businesses in those higher minimum-wage states, job growth was double the rest of the country."
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 12:57pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/21/2006 @ 11:50am | ignore this person
HMAN, again missing my point.
If I got to "Conservative Alliance.com" and come up with 15 points of refutation of "Drum Major Institute's" assessment....that's fine, but still two PARTISAN groups/organizations fighting it out, taking the facts they find, highlighting some/playing down others, etc.
Ms vanden Heuvel with her "the non-partisan Drum Major Institute" was attempting to FOOL people reading her article into thinking "See, see, even a NON-PARTISAN study shows how terrible things are".
it's the FOOLING that's the problem, not DMI's spin on the economy or Congress or anything else.
Wanna have "Battle of the Think-Tank Stars", okey-doke. But don't tell me the leftist ones are "non-partisan" when they're not.
Posted by Mask at 06/21/2006 @ 1:00pm
What they don't understand is the fact that they are already PAYING 23% tax on everything now in addition to their income taxes...Good job, man...Where do you live? I travel everywhere and want to buy you a beer or whatever...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/20/2006 @ 10:49pm
Thanks, JOHN, I'd like to return the favor, and I know one of the top five beer bars in the country where we can buy rounds for each other - Mahar's Public Bar, in Albany, NY (my home town for now)
You can e-mail me at tippingpoint2050@yahoo.com if you ever come this way.
Of course, HMAN23, JR and others are welcome too!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 1:02pm
Point is...that DMI is still not "non-partisan" and I could get some right-wing group to refute their assertions.
Posted by MASK 06/21/2006 @ 10:45am
Then why haven't you?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 1:10pm
LV,
How convenient that corporations figured out that the "they have fake ID" excuse works just fine now that corporate friendly Bush has rolled the INS into the pathetically ineffective DHS.
Recall of course that the DHS's INS has taken on the marvelously qualified Julie L. Myers (niece of..... well you know who). Your administration made this shameful appointment in recess as even the lapdog Republican Senate was not going to stoop that low!
In other words, LV, fake ID's have been around a lot longer than Bush, but a free pass for hiring illegals hasn't.
And, a system could be implemented to check SSN's in about 2 days.....but it will not be as it wouldn't be in the corporatocracy's best interest.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/21/2006 @ 1:11pm
Maasch, you see what we have here is an experience gap. you don't know my experience and I'm sure I don't know yours. here's the story.
No, I don't own my apartment. many apartments in this area are owned, mostly coops.
here in NYC we have two kinds of rent control. it has to do with how long you've been in your apartment, and is in some way a protection for seniors. so if you're in your place since '67 you are rent controlled. your rent goes up very little, if at all. my octogenarian friend and neighbor probably pays around $400 for a lovely spacious two bedroom flat. when these apartments are turned over they become rent stabilized. as long as the rent is under $2000 a month. also if your income is over $100 000 for one or 200 000 for a family, the apartment reverts to market level. in the last years hundreds of thousand apartments have escaped the rent control system, to the delight of the landlords.the rent control system is in place as long as the vacancy rate is under %5.with a great shortage of apartments the renter is thus protected from rent gouging. now you have to remember this has been the case since after the war, so when a landlord buys a building, he knows very well what the score is. so he is limited in how much he can increase the rent. the increase is voted on by politicians, with the landlords screaming it's too little, and the tenants screaming it's too much. now you may interpret these things as you see fit, but these are some of the facts. I'll address the flight to the suburbs later.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 1:12pm
OK, guys, I was being facetious.
I thought it telling that the examples given by Mr. Boston were luxuries, things generally out of the reach of those whom he expected to do the task for $5.15/hr or less.
I've often wondered why, if one's landscaping is so important, how can you expect someone else to do it for less than a living wage?
Posted by drhammer at 06/21/2006 @ 1:13pm
Hey, now thre's a thought. Republican soup. To a pot of stock add three coarsely chopped Republicans, a head of cabbage, and bit of diced onion and season to taste.
Serve with crusty bread although what wine would go with it? Hmmmm. Republicans, the other white meat!
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/21/2006 @ 11:56am
Republicans in the soup? Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to clean one of those things?
Posted by fromredbird at 06/21/2006 @ 1:13pm
sorry I forgot to indent
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 1:14pm
Just because states with higher minimum wages experienced better job growth than states paying only the federal minimum wage doesn't mean that they would not have had even higher job growth if the minimum wage had been lower. It is not a casual effect. I get very tired of having to explain this to people.
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/21/2006 @ 11:32am
Come on, FRANK. Now it is you being disingenuous.
The job growth is cited to disprove your argument that the minimum wage causes a decline in the number of jobs.
It is NOT intended to "prove" that increasing the minimum wage leads to job growth.
In other words, the information is given not to prove my point, but to contradict your assertion.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 1:14pm
Posted by JRJUNIOR 06/21/2006 @ 11:33am
Good to see you are posting again, with your righteous indignation unabated!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 1:16pm
KvH and, yes, GWB, all create victims. Why else would anyone need either of their remedies? (world socialism, KvH, and war on terror, GWB.)
Posted by FREIHEIT 06/21/2006 @ 11:58am
KVH created world socialism? The victims of world socialism are KVH's victims?
Are you serious, FREI?
To quote Tommy Lee Jones from The Fugitive: Do you want to change your bullshit story?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 1:21pm
LL, what is your proposal for how to deal with the millions of illegals in the US? Do you want to deport them all?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 1:31pm
This minimum wage post just in:
The Notion new! The Minimum We Should Do Katrina vanden Heuvel
Posted by fromredbird at 06/21/2006 @ 1:32pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/21/2006 @ 1:02pm
Born in Albany; relatives are still there. Began my 35 years of research on the efficacy of using peanuts to prevent hangovers at the Lark St. Tavern.
Posted by drhammer at 06/21/2006 @ 1:33pm
By the way, Johnannesrolf,
Louisiana is a good possibility. Anywhere south of the Potomac and west of the Rio Grande is also a good possibility. Wherever the land and voters are red and fertile, you shall find me.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/21/2006 @ 1:35pm
LV,
You are being naive.
Corporations don't want to discover that Jose is not legal....they want to see his fake card so they can claim that they thought he was legal in the instance where Jose is injured and OSHA is brought in (because we both know the INS is not going to make a spot check since its been gutted and headed by a popular General's niece).
And your administration is complicit in this endeavor.
You will never admit that Clinton was better at enforcing our laws but he has 417 fine innitiations in 1999 to your boys 3 in 2003 (and there was fake ID in 1999).
Posted by freedomplease at 06/21/2006 @ 1:37pm
Liberty:
I'm confused. Frank Boston claims that increasing the minimum wage will increase production costs for cars, tv's and other goods, and you say the wage has no effect on the middle class because the vast majority of those earners are teenagers. Are the teenagers working at GM and the like?
And members of the unions are largely middle class not minimum wage workers. So, logically, it's an issue in direct terms for the middle class. Otherwise, why would the unions push for an increase that had no effect on its members.
BTW - where do you get that the vast majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers? Statistics I have seen say that over 70% are adults.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2006 @ 1:38pm
Born in Albany; relatives are still there. Began my 35 years of research on the efficacy of using peanuts to prevent hangovers at the Lark St. Tavern.
Posted by DRHAMMER 06/21/2006 @ 1:33pm
Excellent! Although the Lark St. Tavern isn't on Lark anymore - go figure.
I am sure you tossed back a few pints at Lionheart's as well. Sadly, their happyhour price went up to $3 a pint, so I just go to Mahar's, usually.
How's the research going?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 1:50pm
LL, not as extreme as I expected your position to be.
My main gripe with the border is not illegals coming in to work, but the possibility of Al Qaeda coming in to do nefarious deeds.
So many Mexicans are extremely diligent and very hard-working, so I'd like to see a guest worker program with a very large capacity - say, in the millions.
I just have a soft spot in my heart for people who come here to work hard and provide for their families.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 1:55pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/21/2006 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person
Because it'd be a waste of time, ILP. Think there are NO right-wing think tanks that would refute the DMI's take on "Social Security benefit cuts", "minimum wage", "corporations profiting over the middle class", etc. and any of the couple of liberal economic issues that DMI found lacking in our Congress?
No, I could post (again) on the unemployment rate, inflation less gasoline, interest rates, etc.....and you and Ms vanden Heuvel and DMI would say "Don't count those" or "Those things are flawed"...and we'd be in a PARTISAN data analysis war.
But not a "non-partisan" one, with DMI as the "objective, taking no sides, totally balanced and fair" side in it.
Posted by Mask at 06/21/2006 @ 2:06pm
I just have a soft spot in my heart for people who come here LEGALLY to work hard and provide for their families.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 2:06pm
No, I could post (again) on the unemployment rate, inflation less gasoline, interest rates, etc.....and you (emphasis mine - ILP) and Ms vanden Heuvel and DMI would say "Don't count those" or "Those things are flawed"...and we'd be in a PARTISAN data analysis war.
Posted by MASK 06/21/2006 @ 2:06pm
If you have already decided what I am going to say, why bother coming to this website at all?
save us all some time, oh great mindreader, and log off.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 2:17pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/21/2006 @ 1:50pm
In as much as I feel it would be imprudent to rush a study of such import, I have not yet published my conclusions.
(Uuuhrrpp...)
Posted by drhammer at 06/21/2006 @ 2:29pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/21/2006 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person
I'm sorry, ILP for prejudging your response.
Okay...here's a fact...the unemployment rate is 4.7%, Clinton type number, and pre-Clinton considered INCREDIBLY low.
So....you now agree that DMI was wrong, on some aspects of the economy seem pretty good under this Congress?
(Just a guess here...no "mind-reading", but I'm suspecting that you'll have some comment on how that low unemployment figure...isn't "all that great"?....Again, just guessing...Hmm?)
Posted by Mask at 06/21/2006 @ 3:58pm
MASK,
I for one do not argue that the administration is a failure on the economy, although there is much room for improvement. (For example, as a fiscal stimulus the 2001 tax cut was idiotic.)
But the report is about how Congress has failed the middle class. The bankruptcy bill being an excellent case in point.
I am sure there are many conservatives who will talk about fiscal responsibility. They are ignorant dupes. The main reason people resort to bankruptcy is catastrophic, unanticipated medical bills. It has nothing to do with personal responsibility when your appendix ruptures and your medical bills total $25,000 or more.
Yet instead of retaining a bankruptcy code that had worked fine for many, many years, Congress buckled to the credit card lobby.
Did you here any rightwingers railing and complaining about corporate responsibility? How companies shouldn't give out credit so easily? No!
The bankruptcy bill was nothing but a bailout for incompetent business people.
Anyway, I could go on, but this is already too long of a post anyway.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/21/2006 @ 4:17pm
Mask:
No, I could post (again) on the unemployment rate, inflation less gasoline, interest rates, etc.....
What do those things have to do with Congress?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2006 @ 4:23pm
Mask:
First paragraph: This is the blunt assessment of the nonpartisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI), which today released its third annual scorecard, Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record. Aimed at assessing Congress's voting records on issues of concern to the nation's middle class and "those who aspire to a middle-class standard of living"--surely the vast majority of Americans--Congress at the Midterm is a forceful indictment of Congress's performance and the party in power.
And your response is, "some aspects of the economy seem pretty good." A relevant comeback? The subject is Congress and the votes they cast on certain issues.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2006 @ 4:29pm
"issues of concern to the nation's middle class"
If they "concern" the middle class, why aren't the House and Senate leaders TERRIFIED at the way they just "ignored the middle class"?
No...DMI SAYS they are "issues of concern to the nation's middle class", doesn't make it so.
Seriously....you and ILP mentioned the Bankruptcy Bill. If that was such an "outrage" to the majority of American voters, wouldn't it be turning up in some...oh, I don't know...POLLS?
DMI a "progressive-biased" group says that Congress failed to address or voted "wrongly" on issues that DMI thinks are "the major concerns of the middle class".
yet the middle class may vote back in 98% of that Congress without batting an eyelash.
Odd for people whose "major concerns" are being ignored or even rejected?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/21/2006 @ 4:44pm
it's amazing how a discussion of minimum wage laws brings 'em out of the woodwork here. I can imagine the heartless ones, sitting in a restaurant, looking over the busboys and saying to themselves:" that SOB is making too much money". or passing a construction site, checking out the guy with the pallet of bricks on his shoulder:" can't this boss figure out a way to pay this guy less?"
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 4:50pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/21/2006 @ 4:17pm
Reminds me of the John Stossel types who want to attack old people for being such willing dupes of scam artists. I don't understand why some people are more gullible than others, but it takes a special kind of snob to let them suffer at the hands of either con-men, con-institutions (MBNA, Citicorp, etc.) who offer credit cards to people with little regard to credit history, or con-mortgage brokers selling people on the American Dream with interest only loans that will devestate borrowers within a few years.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/21/2006 @ 5:05pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/21/2006 @ 5:03pm
They do tend to be more crooked, don't they?
Cheers, MBB!
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/21/2006 @ 5:06pm
Mary, that was not a literal pallet but a figurative one. not having worked in construction I don't know the name for that thing they carry the bricks on, for all I know they may not even be carrying bricks anymore. one thing I do know. union workers make considerably more, but many construction sites use non union labor, and they are the ones where a wall falls on a worker, and are then revealed to have numerous safety violations. now what was your point again?
Oh and for many of us gay marriage is not an issue that affects us, we cherish our gay friends who cherish each other. cherish is a word.... cue music
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 5:25pm
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'd be willing to bet $20 at leat 90% of the firms that were fined were owned by Republicans who donated to Republican candidates.
that is what is known as a slur and a slime, which is also what I call those who make this kind of drive by attack.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 5:27pm
It's also a completely unsubstantiated allegetion. Facts on your side would help MBB.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2006 @ 5:40pm
It is about "class warfare" and not about which class you came from prior to taking sides.
Just as some of the landed gentry in our country did not become, or stay, tories, but, sided with the Revolution - who cares about KVH's financial beginnings or endings. She speaks to the decidedly unlevel economic playing field and the uneven tax burden shared in the supreme money game (a life and death game). Even the fabulously rich Bill Gates is sensitive enough to realize that the "free" market, bolstered by lobbyists with inordinately excessive amounts of money for political capital, helped in his financial attainment. He feels it is his civic obligation to provide to the public sphere a portion of his wealth and does not oppose the estate tax. Imagine, someone as wealthy as Bill Gates thinking about the public sphere of the future and is not looking for yet another tax break that steals from civil society.
Corporations in this country, due to offshoring and other diffuse tax sheltering mechanisms received, pay less than 10 percent toward meeting the yearly US federal budget. Certainly it is our defense contractors who receive the 500 billion dollar defense budget investment that they have paid so little toward. So who pays the bulk of the budget (a defense budget that represents nearly half of all the money spent in the world on defense - over $1,100 per every American man, woman, and child)? How is it that corporations with legal rights as individuals (why is this court precident still applicable?), pay so little and gain so much?
I find it offensive that a common theme to shore up your position and striving in the middle class is: education. Our national commitment toward supporting those without the financial ability for higher education continues to wane damatically. Oh yeh, we can have tax deferred savings accounts for educational saving, that is, along with the 401k we need for retirement since corporations are decidedly eliminating defined retirement benefits.
Is it only me that has felt the processes of wage suppression when the real buying power of our earnings has been stagnate for three decades? How can we even speak of what we consider a reasonable minimum wage and be serious? What has happened to living wage discussions? Wage suppression has been clearly a business fiscal policy.
It is good to look at what the middle class is loosing and will continue to loose in this country. I for one have a "fear of falling", since I did not have money growing up and have previously lived on wages close to the minimum (and not as a teenager). It was my education that carried me into the "middle class." Unfortunately, it is also my education that feeds a feeling of betrayal as I'm continually slipping and falling back as a middle class individual due to "market forces" - market forces!!! - as if we are speaking about gravity when it is the rich and power squeazing the less fortunate and less powerful.
Isn't the middle class that's the American hegemony in the world who wishes to be like us? Well, pay attention world, because as the monied in this country have taken from the poor and move on to strip the middle classes, you have been, and will continue to be screwed, also.
It is about class. Fuck you smug, self-satisfied, folk out there who have taken a wrong side to the class war. Thanks for keeping this war in perspective KVH.
Posted by steve3 at 06/21/2006 @ 6:12pm
Mary, weell in that case, it was so funny I forgot to laugh.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 6:34pm
a non-issue.
that a joke too, Mary?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 6:36pm
Mary, that was not a literal pallet but a figurative one. not having worked in construction I don't know the name for that thing they carry the bricks on
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/21/2006 @ 5:25pm
That would be a "hod."
Just trying to move the debate along.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/21/2006 @ 8:08pm
thanks, Man
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 8:16pm
I for one believe the minimum wage has been at the current level far too long. Don't agree to a $2 increase, but it should be raised.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/21/2006 @ 9:05pm
wmd"s FOUND IN iraq! 500 CHEMICAL WARHEADS FROM THE REPORT I GOT! MUSTARD AND SARIN GAS ARE WMD'S, LOSERS! IT'S A FACT! PLEASE SEND ALL APOLOGIES TO GEORGE W. ( FOR WINNER ) BUSH AND ALL AMERICANS FOR DBETRAYING YOUR COUNTRY AND TAKING THE SIDE OF THE ENEMY! AFTER YOU SEND YOUR LETTERS OF APOLOGY, MOVE TO FRANCE, YOU TRAITOROUS BASTARDS!
Posted by barry25 at 06/21/2006 @ 9:37pm
Pridey, that's very generous of you. that $2 raise kicks in by 2009 and brings it just about to the inflation adjusted wage, the last time it was raised. so $2 sounds just about right.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 9:37pm
J, it's Pride. Take your cute little nicknames and shove 'em.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/21/2006 @ 9:43pm
I understand that every Conservative George Bush defender here is a self-made millionaire. Socialism didnt put you out of business. Bill Clinton didnt shut down your business. Bill Clintons largest tax hike in the history of the world didnt put you out of business. I understand that all Conservatives are self-made millionaires - you have to be a millionaire to get a tax cut from George Bush.
Conservatives hate the middle class, they hate workers, wealth creates work - work doesnt create wealth. Conservatives put down the middle class, they say middle class people dont work hard. Conservatives come here to defend the harm that Conservative ideology has caused us, and they just say liberal liberal liberal, communist communist communist, thats really the best they can do. Then they put down the middle class, say if you worked hard you would be a self made millionaire like all Conservatives are. How hard did the Bin Laden family work to become business partners with the Bush family to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars? How much do soldiers make? Do US Soldiers work hard?
Posted by LiberalPride at 06/21/2006 @ 9:55pm
johannesWRONG! how's it feel? not much to say about WMD"S today, huh? well TRAITOR, you have been proven wrong! 500 chemical warheads ( mustard and sarin gas ) found, smartguy! These ARE WMD"S! Hurry up, think of some spin...change the argument! SUCKS TO BE YOU TRAITOR!
Posted by barry25 at 06/21/2006 @ 9:57pm
B-troll-25
This was to LL on another thread, but as you are off-topic:
Read it...its "old stuff" Per the reports its past its "shelf life" which is probably woefully shorter in the desert heat. (My daughter called on Father's Day. 136 degrees...and next month its supposed to be hot.
The Big Story for a news conference being held by Congressmen Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), declaring that WMDs had been found in Iraq.... He forgot to mention UN Weapons Inspectors who declared in 2004 that there were no WMDs of any significance in Iraq.
"Since 2003 coalition forces have recovered about 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."
... according to Scott Ritter, UNSCOM Weapons Inspector in Iraq for 7 years, Sarin has a shelf life of five years and as of the writing of "What Team Bush doesn't want you to know" in 2002, any Sarin that hadn't been found would have been "useless, harmless, goo." (p. 33) And from BBC News,
Key findings of the report: * "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 10:00pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/21/2006 @ 6:32pm
Intentional skew to numbers as you can really only count percentage of working adults, ....subtract the unemployment rate tally. Besides, I think I will accept the Labor Boards % rather than LLs.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2006 @ 10:03pm
LOC, oh my god, you prove my point! Spin, spin , spin! Are they WMD's or not?
Posted by barry25 at 06/21/2006 @ 10:07pm
Pridey, you may not censor my posts. you may ignore me, retaliate by making up any name for me you like, but you may NOT censor my posts.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:24pm
I do so love it when I get under the skin of braindead Tories, I know it's naughty.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:25pm
J, I thought it was about mutual respect.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/21/2006 @ 10:25pm
oh braindead Tories, that's an oxymoron isn't it?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:25pm
Checkmate.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/21/2006 @ 10:28pm
checkmate, that's when you have a beer in an english pub and you want your friend to pay the tab, check, mate
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:33pm
Take your cute little nicknames and shove 'em.
is this what you mean by mutual respect, Pridey?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:34pm
USAwhatever, if you had asked nicely, I'm sure we could have come to some kind of accommodation.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 10:58pm
STRONG REPUBLICAN ECONOMY
Take one $26 dollar an hour union job with profit sharing and full health benefits, eliminate it and create two $9 an hour jobs with personal investment accounts and a share-pay HMO. What to do with the leftover $8 and hour? That's easy. At least three dollars would go to investors such as stockholders and one dollar would cover the CEO's initial company stock purchase and compensation package. Another dollar would pay for public relations and lobbiests in Washington to bribe Congress into reforming OSHA, change labor and pollution laws and freeze the $5.15 minimum wage. Why freeze the minumum? The best way to make workers happy and feel good about their nine dollar an hour job is to constantly remind them that others are paid much less. The CEO's first order of business is to post the minimum wage on large placards in the lunchroom and HR office. Two dollars would cover the cost for outsourcing high-liability tasks to China and Mexico and create new customer service centers in India. With one dollar left, fifty cents would pay for the extra accountants, lawyers and consultants needed to protect itself from bankruptcy, worker injury and sexual harassment lawsuits. The last fifty cents could be split several ways. But for the sake of simplicity, one quarter is divided to tax deductible charities such as food pantries and local churches, bonuses and other perks for non-management employees and waste. Finally, the last quarter is given to the RNC to keep this ball rolling. I may have missed something but you get the idea. We have low unemployment because of the "double" jobs created and a work force on the edge with little leverage. What about the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? Where did that money go? Hey, someone's got to buy those second and third vacation homes and expensive cars.
Posted by Lou Kaye at 06/21/2006 @ 11:11pm
I second that: Check Mate!
Posted by barry25 at 06/21/2006 @ 11:17pm
the interest on the second home is also tax deductible, a subsidy very few minimum wage workers avail themselves of.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2006 @ 11:33pm
Posted by BARRY25 06/21/2006 @ 10:07pm
Go back- read and think at the same time. If the big words are too much, spell them out loud.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 12:20am
LKay
"have low unemployment because of the "double" jobs created and a work force on the edge with little leverage. "
Can I get an Amen people!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 12:22am
"What about the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? Where did that money go? Hey, someone's got to buy those second and third vacation homes and expensive cars. "
It stayed in the hands that earned the money in the first place. And if they used it to buy expensive cars and more homes, then that is good for the workers and company who made the cars and homes and therefore good for the entire economy and good for the country...unless you think some hack in government should have stolen the same moey from the hands that earned it and spent it on something you think is important..
You must mot be a participant in the econmy,but complain about those who manage to make a lot of money.....unless you tax the shit out of them you are not happy= jealousy.
Posted by john maasch at 06/22/2006 @ 01:39am
oh braindead Tories, that's an oxymoron isn't it?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/21/2006 @ 10:25pm
Or redundant.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/22/2006 @ 06:20am
Skeleton, I always get those two mixed up and this is not the first time I've been corrected.thanks.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 08:32am
"unless you think some hack in government should have stolen the same moey from the hands that earned it"
Maasch, the government is not some hack, it is our gov't, elected by you and me. I don't like this version, and I work to change it. the reason I don't like this one is because it shovels financial favors on the rich, who really don't need any help at all. like the home interest deduction, for instance. now I can understand one home, though the poor and renters don't get this help. but the second home?
now when we let the wealthy keep more of their money than last year and the year before, the gov't has a lot less money. so they cut services. god forbid they should cut the military, that bloated bloodsucking beast. when the service cuts fall disproportionally on the poor that is a very bad thing.
so while it may be pleasing to you that some very very rich person keeps more of his money, that must be seen in the greater context. when a poor person keeps his money, or god forbid should get more, that has the same effect of stimulating the economy etc as that of a rich person, more in fact, because the poor person must spend his money, unlike the rich one.
I know no one will ever convince you of these ideas, but I just want you to hear what a reasoned response sounds like.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 08:43am
Conservatives want low-income workers to justify why they should make as much as $6 per hour without asking the guys earning eight and nine figures per annum to do the same. If Maasch thinks that the super wealthy "earned" what they've got, then he's also stating that the lowest paid workers have earned (read: deserved) what they've got.
Nice to believe that there's a divine Market out there which knows the proper income for all. Let's all pray to The Market.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/22/2006 @ 09:03am
let's call the minimum wage increase letting the working poor KEEP MORE of their money. that the Tories will understand. they earned that money with their sweat, but that bad inflation has stolen a big part of it. raising the minimum wage at least gives back the loss in the future. the loss in the past, well I guess it's just their tough luck, life isn't fair, as the most unfair of us never tire of pointing out.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 09:08am
hey TJ, we should probably knock off the posting and use our talents and time to write the great american novel, what say?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 09:09am
How the Middle Class Shafts Itself
although it is true that the iniquities of the upper class have a greater ultimate negative effect on the course of our rapidly degenerating and devolving civilization (as a result of their great wealth, almost perfectly positivlely correlative to power and therefore influence) and therefore are possessed with a greater noblesse oblige to act in responsible ways (which they increasingly eschew), greed, vanity, lust, pride, rage, sloth, gluttony, and ignorance are monopolies of no single socio-economic clas in this here democratic imperium known as the united states of america. the wealthy are no more nor less morrally bankrupt and self destructively hedonistic than niether the poor nor the middle class, with of course, many sterling individual exceptions.
the "poor", who with the exception of certain cardboard box denizons, (the majority of which are still substance abusers, mentally ill for whom society has eschewed responsibility, or some combination of the two, though increasing numbers of honest down and outers are joining the ranks) are not, in reality, poor. they are "poor", only relatively so, and although they do have every right to complain and lobby for a more equitable distribution of wealth and the benefits of a too-wealthy-for-its-own-moral-health society (as the evil ayn rander nihilists will readily point out - you gotta look out for # 1 - selfishness is good), far too many american "poor", sitting in air conditioned and heated housing projects or singlewides, choose to watch their cable tv, drive their cars, commit petty violent crimes, dream about winning the lottery while nickel and diming their realtively meager wages on penny anty state supported gambling, eschew the opportunities available for a good education, and complain to the uncaring cosmos about how unfair it all is rather than take positive action to improve their situation. despite their noble poverty and with some noble exceptions they are every bit as degenerate and pathetic as are the wealthy and middle class.
the middle class, meanwhile, whiles away its precious, meaningless lives engrossed in any number of self destructive activities itself. on the one hand it idolized fame and fortune, emulating the worst of the upper class, especially the rich AND famous, whining about how declase, lazy, and crime ridden the poor are, and continually overestimating their own persoanl worth and moral rectitude even as they endebt themselves for the chimerical happiness of more stuff. on the other hand, their spoiled and pop culturally lobotomized spawn do ever emulate the worst and most self destructive mentalities, habits, and passions of the lower classes. then, they complain about an educational system which fails to magically impart knowledge into their increasingly pop-culturally ADD "challenged" brains without an ounce of effort or sacrifice on their own part. and then they complain how their own children will fail to have spectacularly better standards of living than they and so on, ad infinitum, as if such a state of affairs is some kind of birthright or natural order of the universe. they whine about taxes, they whine about dissappearing government benefits. they whine about government while a) doing nothing but whine and b) getting anally raped by the corporations to whom they sell their souls and hold up as so virtuous. they begrudge an ounce of assistence to those less fortunate than themselves, pretending to work hard and have common sense while gladly electing a reverse robin hood government. they wave flags and tribalistically revel in the fleeting imperial power of their nation, its ability to "make a parking lot of any other team - er, country", who so much as dares not think we are the greatest thing since recreational sex, need constant reassurance that they are the most wonderful folk ever spewed out by woman's vagina. they take great pride in having the fortune to be born in the "greatest country in the world" ever built on the blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice of earlier, hardier, more realistic, and tougher generations. they do ever seek diversions and fantasy realms where they can hide from uncomfortable realities and tremble like toadies anytime anyone (government, business, or religion) reminds them of the ever present ugly realities of life, at which point they gladly cough up life savings and precious freedoms for the false security which allows them to safely return to their petty fantasy realms of meaningless diversion (most specifically pop cultural idiocy).
and among many many other shortcomings and tidings of impending civilizational collapse, the american middle class does ever endeavor to destroy itself by wishing for a ever self regulating government that will not require their attention (so monopolized and engrossed by trivialities and fantasy), while ever electing obverse democratic fascists who tell them what they want to hear about themselves (they are so great), scare the sweet bejebus out of them (by reminding them that one day, somehow, even they will die - shhh), and then screwing them over in a thousand ways while ignorant, trivialized, wealth and fame worshipping, proud, slothful, rageful, greedy, lustful, vain, and gluttonous homer simpson schmuk nation (the middle class, that is) thanks their economic overlords for the honor to be cornholed.
with many noble exceptions, of course...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2006 @ 09:22am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/22/2006 @ 01:39am
The mere fact that the uppermost segment of the economic structure (Corporate CEOs, etc) incomes have bloated astronomically relative to the working people who fed these bloated toads, shows just how self-serving, and uncaring the capitialistic system can be. Here is a brief article on the disparity of pay twixt top and bottom of the $$$food chain $$$$$$$
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 09:26am
Hey John great article explaining how BILL CLINTON screwed things up...You will note the copyright is 1999, correct? That the ten years they are studying were mostly under your man BILL?
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/22/2006 @ 10:03am
Skeleton, I always get those two mixed up and this is not the first time I've been corrected.thanks.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/22/2006 @ 08:32am
Oh, 'oxymoron' still applies, in the sense that most Tories are idiots due to oxygen deprivation at birth
Posted by skeletonman at 06/22/2006 @ 10:25am
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/22/2006 @ 10:03am
of course bill clinton screwed things up. he couldnt keep his pecker in his pants, thereby giving corporate owned media, at the goading of his self riteous, self promoting, hypocritical, political enemies, an opportunity to obfuscate and derail any meaningful policy initiatives and reforms he MIGHT have wanted to put in place. who knows what he might have been able to accomplish without the multibillion dollar TAXPAYER FUNDED witch hunt that ultimately found nothing worthwile? who knows what, in his heart of hearts, he originally really wanted to accomplish? in fact it is amazing he was able to preside over a peaceful, prosperous, golden age when the vast majority of his political talents and energies were taken up with fighting to survive a small minded, vicious political assasination by wicked hypocrites.
ultimately, in terms of policy results, with bill clinton, we ended up with a president, the observable results of whose politics were to the right of richard nixon, who had a fantastic opportunity to change things for the better, but blew it on a blow job. this sad reality in no way, however, shed any positive light whatsoever on his simpering, lying, obverse democratic fascist opponants.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2006 @ 10:36am
this sad reality in no way, however, shed any positive light whatsoever on his simpering, lying, obverse democratic fascist opponants.
Ibble
Don't hold back now...tell us how you really feel! (lol..and not that I disagree mind you)
Indeed it is sad that Bill was lambasted for having human frailies, and we expect our leader not to have these....of course, now we have a bushel full (alcoholic, draft dodging, AWOl coke-snorting, pathologic liar!)
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 10:49am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/22/2006 @ 10:49am
;) heehee...
i'm currently vacationing, on a stanislaw lem inspired rampage. life is good...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2006 @ 11:03am
Ibble...
Have fun bro...reality (such as it is) will be a-waiting.
To all...should be "frailty", not "fraily" (guess not spell chaecking is one of my own!)
And I just noted my own "Freudian pun"...a "Bushel full!" Nyuk, nyuk
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 12:18pm
Bullseye! Van Heuval's discovery of the U.S. Congress's contract on Americans is long overdue.
I can't fault her for taking so long to get at the heart of our demise...what with all the 'liberal vs conservative' screaming that's been going on for the last twenty years. In my half-century of life enjoying the blessings of the most fortunate country in history, I had become mystified as to how the long understood principles of republicanism could be banished by our national leaders who's party fly it's flag - the GOP. Worse yet, how could the loyal opposition - the Democrats - so reliably and persistently help them?! I think I understand better, now. And I think the so-called 'independents' are the first to get it, too.
The truth is 'liberals vs conservatives' is just theatre masking the real game. The real game is back for the first time since the robber barons. The real game is greed. Greed for the aggregation of personal power. Personal power in America is routinely obtained in two ways - by force of the state (through election), and by the aggregation of great wealth. If you get either one, the other one comes to you naturally. Witness Joseph Kennedy and George W. Bush.
Our country is now led, and our liberty protected, by thieves wearing suits with lapel flags and institutional titles that empower them to defy the law the rest of us are constrained by. Whether one examines the conduct of Darth Cheney and Karl Rasputin on the national stage or the Michael Wiseguy and Dan Thuggish in your own local municipal government, our duely elected politicians are stealing everything that isn't nailed down, converting it to cash and literally depositing it in the bank accounts of their friends in the WIFM (what's-in-it-for-me) Club. And they are using partisan theater as the facade that obscures our view of the robbery.
Witness the Dubai ports fiasco that appears to have been facilitated by Bill Clinton! Witness Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (Bush's former OMB Director) 75-year lease of state highways (at 30% of net present value) to a Spanish-Australian partnership that was upheld by the stunningly corrupt Indiana Supreme Court. Now, get ready for a second Dubai gambit for America's national infrastructure in which this oil-producing state-owned airline, Emirates Airline, is attempting to take a position in the American commercial airline passenger industry. Would you want to fly an American flag carrier who legally has to compete with an Arab airline that can fuel its jets for free?
I think the root reason that these suits are successfully emptying our treasury and our childrens' future is that we're watching Fox News's rant on the 'liberals vs conservative' theatre instead of watching the bastards running the bank. Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton are both spinning in their graves screaming at us to follow the money.
The late Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil said infamously, "All politics is local." I have come to understand that he meant that the way politicians behave in D.C. is no different from the way politicians behave in Littletown. The scale and complexity is greater, but they all involve the same shenanigans of lying, cheating and stealing. It seems to me that we can all behave like 60% of the American colonists did in 1776 - defending the legitimacy of the British Crown and Parliament (who happened to be using the Roman Empire's formula for expropriating colonial wealth) or we can rise up like the 20% of those colonists who kicked the bastards out and established the most broadly satisfied middle class on earth - ever.
They didn't do it by ridiculing liberals - like my friend TRAITORLIBZ does. We didn't do it by calling the founders traitors like my friend TRAITORLIBZ calls all liberals. We didn't do it by equating liberalism with stupidity and freedom-hating as my friend TRAITORLIBZ does. And we didn't do it by submitting ad hominem sarcastic diatribes at Van Heuval six times in one day. GET A LIFE, asshole. How's this for a retort to my friend TRAITORLIBZ and all the mindless frothing Fox News ludites who run with him:
Some things are knowable to homo sapiens - like where the sun rises or that real science can literally carry man to the Moon. Idiots are called idiots because they believe in things that don't work. You apparently believe that it's a good thing to abuse fellow citizens who want to discuss changing our government. But your diatribes don't banish liberals and they won't stop change any more than they will raise the sun in the west. They just spew hate. Hate doesn't help your country. You are an idiot.
You are also a bully, much like the guy in the SUV who gives other drivers the finger while screaming down the interstate in rush hour traffic. Do you think you can projectile vomit on this site because nobody knows where you sleep? Of course YOU CAN because liberals haven't yet lost your First Amendment rights, despite the fatcats' sucess in castrating the Fourth Estate and because Van Heuval is courageous enough to let you rant.
But KNOW this, Mr. Smartypants. All bullys are cowards. Until you realize that ad hominem attacks are among the cheapest cheats in the public square (or otherwise finally understand the message of all the prophets), you will continue to abuse your neighbors. As long as you abuse your neighbors' opinions, you will remain a bully. As long as you remain a bully, you remain a coward. And as long as you remain a coward, you will remain a trembling mental midget. No amount of frothing, alone or with your pack of rabid reactionaries, will free you from your fear of being discovered that you are an idiot.
So much for ad hominem.
After the readers have taken a shower they may want to consider a different paradigm for our political eco-system. For at least twenty years, the American domestic political dialogue has revolved around the tension in the so-called 'liberals vs conservatives' contest. I think this entire construct is a fraud.
Liberalism historically refers to a philosohpy that guides an individuals approach to analysing the world. It is derived from the Enlightenment values pertaining to reason over faith. No reasonable analysis of any issue begins before there is CONFIRMATION on the facts. No reasonable debate can take place until there is AGREEMENT on the facts. Discovery of the facts is preceisely the hard work prerequsite to making conclusions that actually work. That is, while liberalism is indispensable to the advance of science that has advanced the condition of man more in the last 250 years than the last 6000, the 'L' word has been coyly hijacked by badly educated but highly clever politicians to distract responsible analysis of their rule-making. Don't you get the feeling that we've been screaming past each other for years?
I believe that most Americans, regardless of party affiliation and unlike the rest of the world, actually believe in the rule of law. I believe that individuals from all over the world detect this basic sincerity that is otherwise seen as naivete in other countries. Well, if we don't punish elitism now, then when? If we don't punish them now, then the rest of the world is right and all but the wealthiest of Americans are just suckers. Worse, we're the suckers who failed all the men and women who died in the last two centuries to render freedom real.
The real political dynamic is a continuum more like: Progressive-Conservative-Reactionary
The Progressive reflex sees the world as it is and tries to improve/advance it through change(reform).
The Conservatives reflex sees the success we already have and tries to preserve it by resisting change and is suspicious of reform.
The Reactionary reflex sees the world as inherently wrong and always wants to destroy the existing order. It matters not whether anarchist, libertarian, republican, monarchy, feudal or socialist. They always chant an inspired ideology while secretly believing in nothing but the value of power. Whatever the existing world order, they must replace it with something salvific. Our most recent experience with these characters has been in the rise of Islamic Jihadists, the take-over of the GOP first be the Christian Right and then a simbiotic combination with Neo-Conservatives. After WW2, it was the matastisis of Communism around the world. In 1937, the rise of the militent Socialists of the Nazi party. Before that it was the rise of Teddy Roosevelt vanquishing the robber barons and later the rise of organized labor.
The further to the left one moves on the continuum, the more one appeals to reason, the historic liberal ideal. The further to the right one moves, the more one appeals to force, the historic reality. I am remided of George Washington's admonition that "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force."
The amazing thing to me is that we all find ourselves skating across the full breadth of this continuum all the time, depending upon the issue at hand. Why not recognize that we declare ouselves anything to characterize our reflexes, but all call ourselves Americans - equally commited to republican priciples no matter what the issue. Let us outgrow the false paradigm of 'liberla vs conservative' and recognize that we're all born into the greatest achievement of homo sapiens to date - self-governance as expressed by the Founders' Grand Experiment and stood upon the apex product of the Enlightenment - The Constitution of the Untied States of America.
The good news in America is that we really do get the government we want. The bad news is that we get government that we deserve. We chose Bush/Rove/Cheney/Haliburton/Rumsfeld/Iraq/Abrahmof/Vencete Fox with our eyes wide open - twice. No excuses. This mess is the world's to endure but the Founders made it so it is also the voters' to fix. For 1460 continuous days, we pay our taxes, pray for our leaders and hope they tell us the truth. Then for 1 quiet trepidatious day, they have to sit down, shut up and wait while we decide whether to fire them. If we don't fire all these so-called experts from both sides of the isle in November, then we deserve to give them yet another 1460 days to empty our estates. And give ourselves at least a full generation to redeam ourselves with our allies.
Let us, Republicans, Democrats and independents alike, for our parents and for our children, do right by the rule of law instead of the rule of elites. The Courts are now packed with institutionalists protecting government agencies while the remaining Constitutionalists are now in the minority and face the heaviest undertow in protecting our liberty.
Pay close attention to the new generation of 30-Somethings in the House. They're really very brite. They are my hope that perhaps its time for the 60s generation to hand the reigns of power to the next generation. Vote for all 55 of the new Democrat candidates who are Vietnam and Iraq veterans who mean to replace the absolute power and gross dishonesty of the GOP with a balance of power that forces our Legislature to negotiate among liberals, conservatives and the reactionaries. Isn't this the practical constraint on absolute power that extreme partisanship has always feared?
The good news in America is that we really do get the government we want. The bad news is that we get the government that we deserve. We chose Bush/Rove/Cheney/Haliburton/Rumsfeld/Iraq/Abrahmof/Vencete Fox with our eyes wide open - twice. No excuses. This mess has become the world's to endure but the Founders made so it is also the voters' to fix. For 1460 continuous days, we pay our taxes, pray for our leaders and hope they tell us the truth. Then for 1 quiet trepidatious day, they have to sit down, shut up and wait while we decide whether to fire them. If we don't fire all these so-called experts from both sides of the isle in November, then we deserve to give them yet another 1460 days to empty our estates. And at least another generation to redeem ourselves with our allies.
In November, let us begin the purge with Hastert, Pelosi, Frist and Ried.
Posted by spiritof 76 at 06/22/2006 @ 12:27pm
Posted by SPIRITOF 76 06/22/2006 @ 12:27am
Wow...good stuff my friend. A bit long-winded perhaps, but good stuff nonetheless - (and you gotta give props to anyone who uses "Darth Cheney". Hell, I thought I was the only one...)
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 12:36pm
Posted by SPIRITOF 76 06/22/2006 @ 12:27am
what i have to ask is this...
is an ad hominum attack on someone like libtraitors or whatever it calls itself now, actually, according to the latin definition of "hominum", an ad hominum attack? and even if it is, whats so bad about opposing, baiting, and insulting, irritating and harmful vermin aping simians? such activity, within the limits of moderation, is counted amongst the loftiest diversions and duties of the aspiring moral overman.
thus spake ibblethustra
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2006 @ 12:38pm
now, enough of this high minded mental masturbation! i must be off to renew my drivers license else my ability to assist in the destruction everything we hold sacred and holy be impaired by my lack of the legal right to drive!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2006 @ 12:41pm
All
Too good not to share...Psychologist reports that some aspetct of hard core Conservatism may be a mental disorder! Loons
Not a joke by the way....honest.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 2:20pm
Just for Rio
from Infoplease:
Although federal minimum-wage laws were at first held unconstitutional in the United States, a strong fight by organized labor for enactment culminated in the passage (1938) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set minimum wages at $.25 per hour for workers engaged in interstate commerce (with some exceptions); the act also set up industry committees to recommend rates for every industry.
so you see Rio....its not unconstitutional....at least not since 1938 (now stop playing Living in the Past by Jethro Tull)
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 2:29pm
...Turns out the actual study noted above |Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/22/2006 @ 2:20pm| is available on-line:
Psyched [tinyurl.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 2:34pm
i disagree with an earlier post about how the majority of poor are mentally ill, substance abusers or gamblers. i know a lot of poor people. wal-mart is the second largest employer here in beautiful butte (soon to be poked fun at on the daily show). they work hard. and they go without a lot. i volunteer at the food bank. these people are not what you describe.
i find the post a far cry from nietzche and a vastly farther cry from buddhism. it smacks of the repulsive mental illness that is southern baptism. man i feel for those poor daughters of yours.
Posted by loveloki at 06/22/2006 @ 2:43pm
loc, thanks for the study. very amusing and true!
Posted by loveloki at 06/22/2006 @ 2:44pm
The decision has been made that a large middle class that can support democracy and freedom is no longer needed in the US in the "global economy". This makes what we are seeing happen make sense. All of the political class is complicit. There is more to be said, but I don't think anybody understands or cares.
Posted by pete1949 at 06/22/2006 @ 2:45pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/22/2006 @ 2:20pm
This is an interesting field of study. Here are some others:
Link: How to spot a baby conservative [tinyurl.com]
"Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative."
Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism.
"But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed. "I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members."
That last is not exactly a brilliant comment. Who ever accused members of the Chinese Communist Party of being liberals? Oh, wait, that's right . . . all the whiners did.
Link: Comments on the Jost study [tinyurl.com]
By the way, I posted one of these before and LOVE LIBERTY/lvliberty1 threw a tantrum. He might take a crap right in the middle of the thread.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/22/2006 @ 2:58pm
Interesting post SPIRITOF 76, there are ideas in there that I tend to agree with, however there are some real wedge issues that keep the fair minded liberals and fair minded conservetives apart for legitimate reasons. The gulf on these issues is so wide that a compromise is impossible. Some of these issues are so important to both sides that they become pretty much single issue voters.
How do we comprimise on these issues and thus combine our power to vote in better politicians?
I offer as an example abortion. There are many conservatives that believe abortion is murder. Allowing the state to sanction the murder of 3700 people a day in the US is simply unacceptable for any reason. If you believed the US Goverment was sanctioning the murder of 3700 inoccent humans a day, wouldn't you feel it imperative to stop that? Pretty much at any cost? I don't have any idea how to compromise on that. I don't think it will ever happen. So you liberals out there would have to give up on that one and allow the conservatives to outlaw abortion if you ever want any chance of having them vote with you. Just to let you know, I don't personally feel this way about abortion,but I know many really good people that do.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/22/2006 @ 3:15pm
Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded." http://tinyurl.com/hu7w
I guess the ones who are can be identified by the fact that they loiter around The Nation's blogs.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/22/2006 @ 3:16pm
Ibble, it's ad hominEm
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 3:18pm
Boston, there are some really good people in saudi Arabia who believe the appropriate punishment for adultery is stoning to death the woman. the man gets a stern lecture.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 3:21pm
The decision has been made that a large middle class that can support democracy and freedom is no longer needed in the US in the "global economy". This makes what we are seeing happen make sense. All of the political class is complicit. There is more to be said, but I don't think anybody understands or cares.
Posted by PETE1949 06/22/2006 @ 2:45pm
"Political class" as in Antonio Gramsci/Gaetano Mosca? Gramsci identified a democratic society as one in which the political class was renewed by accepting the entrance of members of the lower classes. That isn't happening anymore in America. Just the opposite. So, you're right. The political class is shrinking it's membership.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/22/2006 @ 3:22pm
Spirit, somebody elected Bush, with some help from the supreme court and a lot of dirty tricks the first time, and the big lie and a lot of dirty tricks the second time.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 3:24pm
LOL! Nice study. I believe these three paragraphs pretty much explain how that "study" works:
Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.
The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.
Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.
So what they really did was to define conservatives as people that don't like change, then act like the discovered some deep ingrained new truth when the "study" finds that lo and behold, conservatives don't like change!!!! THAT is laughable.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/22/2006 @ 3:25pm
JOHANNESROLF how is that information relavent to my question on compromise? All it does is show to me that you will not ever compromise on your "right" to an abortion. Because from your example you make it clear to me that you don't respect the opinion of those conservatives that believe abortionis murder, you think they are wrong. They think you are wrong. No one is EVER going to budge. You made my point!
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/22/2006 @ 3:29pm
Boston, there are some really good people in saudi Arabia who believe the appropriate punishment for adultery is stoning to death the woman. the man gets a stern lecture.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/22/2006 @ 3:21pm
The Quran does not make any allowance for stoning to death in the case of adultery. It prescribes flogging for both the man and the woman. It also requires four witnesses to the act.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/22/2006 @ 3:37pm
FRBird
Thanks...really like the "Baby Conservative" piece, and the latter is an analysis of the study I posted...not a social scientist myself, but interesting points.
>b>Johann
JOHANNESROLF 06/22/2006 @ 3:18pm
...and if we set it to angry bass-thumping music is it ad hominEminmem?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 3:38pm
Death by stoning for adultery IS prescribed in Mosaic law.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/22/2006 @ 3:39pm
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/22/2006 @ 3:25pm
So then you're saying that even liberals become conservatives when given power....oh dear god, there IS no hope!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 3:40pm
Thank you fromredbird. But I don't think we can refocus the discussion in a meaningful direction. Lots of people are going to wake up as time goes on and ask: what happened? We have learned nothing from history and we will pay a huge price as will those who come after us. Thanks for trying to inject some real content into the discussion.
Posted by pete1949 at 06/22/2006 @ 3:42pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/22/2006 @ 3:18pm
english spelling is an oxymoronic concept
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2006 @ 3:43pm
I find it interesting that as a group most of you seem to think I am a conservative. I am not, at least I don't think of myself as one. I lean toward libertarian. Ofcourse that would explain why I don't like the minimum wage, I always lean toward no regulation whenever possible. Regrettably, the democrats rarely put up a candidate that is more libertarian then the republicans. So I tend to vote republican.
However, with all the goverment intrusion Bush has sanctioned, I despise him. GULP! I almost wish I had voted for Gore......
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/22/2006 @ 3:49pm
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/22/2006 @ 3:25pm
So then you're saying that even liberals become conservatives when given power....oh dear god, there IS no hope!
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/22/2006 @ 3:40pm
More likely that a "conservative" personality can be attracted to a dictatorial social movement of whatever kind. Look at Rumsfeld and Bush. They're political parasites. If this country had been militarily occupied by either Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union do you think they would be in the resistance movement? There's no way. They'd be collaborating with the powers that be and would be Princes of the Party if it was within their power. Regardless of which party it was.
Stalin wasn't a liberal before he seized power.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/22/2006 @ 3:49pm
Fromredbird how about Castro?
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/22/2006 @ 3:52pm
very funny, Lefty
Ibble, I don't usually correct errors in spelling. in this case I was trying to share my 5 years of latin education.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 4:02pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 06/22/2006 @ 3:37pm
Not that I endorse flogging for adultery, witnesses or not.
Posted by fromredbird at 06/22/2006 @ 4:03pm
Boston, it was relevant to your "I know some really good people..."
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 4:04pm
All it does is show to me that you will not ever compromise on your "right" to an abortion.
how do you know that? it's nowhere in my post. You have not been around long enough to know what my position is.
that said, I believe it is most of all a privacy issue. medical issues and decisions are between the patient and the doctor. the gov't has no right to intervene. I think the "right to life" should more accurately be called forced pregnancy.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 4:39pm
How is it a medical decision when a perfectly healthy woman wants to terminate a pregnancy? You and I agree that it is privacy issue. The goverment should not intervine, but I can't bring the doctor's into for most abortions aren't for (physical) medical reasons.
None the less, we agree for provacy reasons. Now, do you extend that privacy to other areas? I have always felt if abortion is a private matter, then so should committingsuicide, injecting drugs, selling your body etc. Would you agre those are all privacy issues too, and that the goverment should stay out of them? And isn't what rent I charge a willing buyer also a privacy issue? What I do with my body AND my possesions are my business,right?
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/22/2006 @ 5:04pm
Boston, you might try not to drag so many diverse issues into the argument.
as a matter of fact I do believe that drug use and abuse, suicide and prostitution should all be legalized. they are simply not law enforcement issues in my view. many european countries have led the way in this. not that this has been problem free, it's just a better approach.
The "war on drugs" is a war on people and has been a spectacular failure. gambling which used to be in that group you identified, is now a gov't approved vice and has been sanitized as gaming. if two consenting adults choose to have sex, and one of them is financially compensated, what business is it of the gov't or you or I.
what this has to do with housing is not clear.
"How is it a medical decision when a perfectly healthy woman"
it's still a medical decision whether she is perfectly healthy or not. you're not making any sense here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 5:48pm
Boston, the economic laissez faire model has been tried and discarded.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 5:57pm
Boston
The suicide enigma has been around since Greco-Roman times. Is it not the epitomy of self-determination? I mean the whole pain and suffering argument (especially in certain medical instances) is IMHO valid. Who has the right to claim such a choice irational? In fact, most arguments are rooted in the Judeo-Christian sin myth which...well, have some issues let us say.
Other than that I am more or less w/Johann on most of these. Prostitution...sure, regulate it as a trade cause it is anyway (Works in Reno!), Drugs...well, gotta watch that one ther are disease aspects, but regulation of such things HAS worked pretty well in the European nations (gods...I can hear the nut jobs geting ready to jump on this...but oh well) and our puritanical sexual mores are what drive many marginal loon jobs to illegal sex acts. Most of the European nations have lax regs on what is "porn" and you don't have near the sex crimes. They view sex as healthy and natural....we (meaning the good old orthodox Judeo-Christian types) have that "sex is dirty" - closed door, closed mind thing going on...
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 11:33pm
Lefty, when something is very heavily forbiden, it becomes very attractive, especially to the young. porn is a good example. I remember when "dirty" books could only be purchased form mob controlled bookstores near 42nd street. it held a powerful attraction. now that it is all over the internet it has lost some of that allure.
remember prohibition. that is an example of criminalization run amok, and the country suffered heavily from it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:54pm
There's a whole slew of issues upon which we agree, but only the libertarians would ever profer up a canidate willing to aliagn themsevles with such controversial issues.
We libertarians line up well with liberals on these issues. However, when we libertarians try to take the next step. Which is to say that not only should the people have domminion iver their bodies,but they should have domminion over our possessions as well. That is why I mentioned the rent issue. Libertarians don't believe the goverment should be able to dictate to us what we charge for rent. We belive that is tantamount to invading our privacy. It seems to me the liberals are asking me to give up some of my domminion over my possesions for the greater good. They want to force me to wear a seatbelt. I always laugh to myself when one of my sisters argues for abortion, then in the same breath endorses seat belt laws.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 08:15am
Boston, you have a habit of comparing apples to oranges. seatbelt laws? the state regulates drivers on roads which it built. it licenses them. seat belts save countless lives. the state also maintains emergency rooms. sometimes the greater good outweighs libertarian concerns.
now the thing with rent control. being a landlord in NYC is a business that is heavily regulated. you don't believe that no regulation in anything is proper, do you? back to the landlord. he is by law required to provide a safe dwelling, provide heat, hot water etc. the state in return maintains a court system to kick out the tenant for non payment or other offenses against the landlord.
it also provides for many other financial issues the landlord may have. in my case the landlord is able to replace all the windows every 25 years. the cost of this is added to the rent in perpetuity. so a long term tenant continues to pay for the cost, which has already been amortized, and then is charged for the next windows, also in perpetuity.
without the state's regulation chaos would ensue.in a city of 8 million there is a great apartment shortage. this favors the landlord, who without regulation could gouge the tenants. you seem to believe in a dog eat dog world. believe me, it has been tried, but we have moved on. how about you?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 09:14am
"willing to aliagn themsevles with such controversial issues."
sometimes controversial issues become less so over time. see my points about prohibition and gambling.
as far as rent control goes, I would say most places in the US do not have it and do not need it. in NYC and SF, for instance it works well, despite some abuses on both sides.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 09:34am
So much to disagree with, I'll take on a couple and start with that. Its Friday and I'm feeling lazy. You say "the state regulates drivers on roads which it built" and that just shows me how differently we view the world. Yes, "the state" built the roads, but who is "the state"? Who paid for those roads? It is an affront to me to be told that to use the roads that the people paid for, the people have to cowtow to "the state". I understand reasonable laws protecting safty, but seat-belt laws go beyond that.
On the rent again we see the world very differently. You say "without the state's regulation chaos would ensue. in a city of 8 million there is a great apartment shortage. this favors the landlord, who without regulation could gouge the tenants.
I say let them gouge, the people being goaged shouldn't rent, they should move! Where is it written that NYC has to have 8,000,000. Maybe if those rent laws hadn't been in place all those years, NYC would have 5,000,000 instead of 8, and many that would be a good thing.
You are perfectly happy allowing 3700 potential lives be detroyed a day in the name of "personal liberty" but not a bit of chaos in the rental situation in NYC. I belive that is inconsisent andborderline hypocrital. It makes me belive that liberals use the Personal liberty arguement when it suits them, but use the "greater good" arguement when it suits them more. Remember those "good people" I mentioned regarding abortion? Well they believe it is in the greater good for a baby to be born. They believe that greater good trumps the privacy issu. Just like you seem to think the greater good trumps the seat-belt issue. I am much more consistent.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 09:40am
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
the state is us, surprised?
"I say let them gouge"
your views are positively antedeluvian.
it's not a baby until it is born. you are so doctrinaire,it borders on nonsense. I don't see any future in discussion. Marie Antoinette had nothing on you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:03am
let me get this straight, you object to the state forcing you to wear a seatbelt, but have no objection the forced pregnancy? you are not a libertarian at all, you are a joke.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:11am
And there we have it. "I don't see any future in discussion" Call me names (little minded and antedeluvian) and shut off discussion. I've seen this before.....
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 10:13am
I DID NOT say that I have no objection to forced pregnancy. i said WE AGREE on abortion why would you try to twist me words so? To demonize me perhaps? To make me look as inconsistent as you. I said WE AGREE on abortion, it is a privacy issue, then I went on to point out other issues I believe are privacy issues. Read back, reversing my words is shamefull!
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 10:16am
yes it is shameful, it was also inadvertent, my apologies.
that thing with new york, that was antedeluvian, and ignorant to boot. you are way out of your depth here, and really silly.
again I apologize for misconstruing your views on the abortion issue.
you see any issue as all or nothing. reality is far more complicated. the balance between the greater good and personal privacy and liberty must be struck anew with each specific issue, and over time. it is your black and white approach that makes discussion almost impossible. but I'm willing to try.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:29am
your posts are insufficient in addressing my points, you are so enamored with stating your views.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:31am
Without consistency we end up with all these single issue politicians and voters. IT IS NOT WORKING! The politicians understand the game, suck people into voting for them on an issue or two and in the name of stiking anew the balance between the greater good and personal privacy and liberty they create a system so complicated that they can always wriggle out of comittments, pit one voter against another and be held totally unaccountable. If you would be willing to address things from the perspective of lets be more consistent, we would have a better way to guide our politicians and courts. It would make some dam sense! We wouldn't be told on the one hand that yes, ofcourse it is your body and you should have diminion over it, then told on the other hand, but don't you dare use that body to drive a car without a seat belt.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 11:05am
apples and oranges. address my points.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 11:13am
Macintosh apples and red delicious apples, show some consistency!
I am not sure which points you feel are unaddressed at this point.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 11:25am
well for one thing I was very specific on the rent control issue. and I was very specific in saying the state is us. you speak mostly in generalities. and that seeing every issue in stark black and white terms, no nuance for you, I guess.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 11:34am
You say "I was very specific on the rent control", what did you say other then chaos without it (I addressed that), it works (that is an opinion, might work better without out it, how do you know?) Its fair to landlords (so is no rent control), So I haven't heard any over riding reason the pricible of personal liberty should be trumped to allow for rent control. No convincing arguements there, issue addresed.
On the statement you made: "the state is us, surprised? " I have no clue what statement you are making that I need to address. It seemed a sarcastic throw off to me.
I'm ready willing and able to address some specifics, how about you address my arguement that the system as you envision, (lacking consistency in favor of deciding issues one at a time over time) isn't working.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 11:43am
I cannot argue with your blanket statements. each issue must be examined individually. we seem to have reached an impasse here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 11:45am
I say "I'm ready willing and able to address some specifics, how about you address my arguement that the system as you envision, (lacking consistency in favor of deciding issues one at a time over time) isn't working. "
You say: "I cannot argue with your blanket statements. each issue must be examined individually. we seem to have reached an impasse here."
You wish we were at an impasse, so you could drop the conversation and call it a draw. We are only at an impasse because you are tired of having to defend your beliefs with someone that can actually make you examine them a bit. It is painful I realize.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 12:12pm
your blanket statements and my individual assessment. what more can be said?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 12:13pm
consistency means nothing. you are wrong on the seatbelts. hundreds of thousand lives saved. you are wrong on rent control, New york is the most vibrant city in the world and landlords are doing quite well, not that they wouldn't like more. we agree on abortion, drugs, prostitution etc. what other issue would you like to examine? and don't pretend you are a winner of anything, a wiener perhaps.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 12:17pm
has there been a more absurd statement than yours about Ny and chaos? that alone disqualifies you from further serious discussion.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 12:22pm
"You are wrong on the seatbelts. hundreds of thousand lives saved" 100,000's of lives saved because of seatbelt laws? Where did you get that #? Even if it is true, why is that so important to you? Shouldn't people have the right to klill themselvs, or harm themselves? How is the right for them to not have dominion over their body to save them from themselves. This is the same issue. It is impossible for me to seperate them like you do. THEY ARE THE SAME. I explained to you waht happens when we make them different. You have no interest in touching that one.....
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 12:34pm
why is that so important to you?
you're statements are getting more absurd. I live in a real world, not some abstraction like you, trying to shovel everything into your narrow philosophy.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 12:40pm
let me try this again. I pay taxes. some of those taxes support hospitals and emergency rooms. people who don't wear seatbelts not only get killed, but also get injured, and are sent to emergency rooms.
let's extend this to a related issue. people drink and drive. that is against the law. that law is designed to protect me from them. same with talking on a cell phone while driving . also against the law, also to protect me. we live in a society, not some abstract construct.
your point about highways was equally absurd. we are the gov't , we built those highways.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 12:46pm
People get injured everyday doing allsorts of things. Some of those things are reckless even, these people end up in the emergency room too. To live in your world I will have to be constantly vigilant that my elected representatives won't get caprisious and outlaw all sorts of things. If we have to go issue by issue then I have worry that I won't be allowed moutain bike,or ski or "run with scissors! Nope I am not buying it. Unless there is some consistency in the laws goverment becomes too repressive. It already has and it always seemto get more so than less so. Who has thetime to fight every little issue against every special interest group. I should not have to defend my rights constantly.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 2:28pm
it's a matter of scale. you are demonstrating the limits of your one size fits all world view. some things are more important than others. the number of highway fatalities dwarfs those you mentioned.
funny you should mention scissors. you and I are not allowed to take them on planes, we even have to take our shoes off to be allowed on a plane. again the greater good trumps your individual liberty.
you are an absolutist, just like those on the other side.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 2:38pm
"To live in your world I will have to be constantly vigilant that my elected representatives won't get caprisious and outlaw all sorts of things."
we live in the same world.
the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Thomas Jefferson
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 2:40pm
To live in your world I will have to be constantly vigilant that my elected representatives won't get caprisious and outlaw all sorts of things.
gotcha
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 2:45pm
but seriously, what is the alternative?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 2:46pm
The alternative is to make it very very difficult for goverment to take away any liberty with the courts protecting the basic right to be left alone except in extrodniary circumstances. Not just because some lives might be saved. Not just because it will make NYC run more fairly for tennants and landlords, not just because it will make life better (presumably) for workers.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 2:56pm
Ofcourse I knew that Jefferson quote was coming my way. I point you right back to De Tocqueville. He anticipated democracy would have a problem with this. With the special interests (squeaky wheels) becoming an oppressive minority. In todays world not even constant vigilence is enough. Too much happened before my watch. After the Great depression there was a sea tide of change that hasn't finished washing up. Nope, constant vigilence won't do it, the only hope I see is to stack the courts with judges willing to strip away all the false "self protection" laws and goverment intervention. All this goverment intervention that doesn't have to do with protection from a foreign enemy could be swept away with a few good rulings. The only way I see enough people voting in executives to do that is to push the consistency arguement.
Posted by Frank_Boston at 06/23/2006 @ 3:08pm
some lives might be saved.
don't trivialize this.
you are not specific as to your solution, figures, you speak in generalities. the first half of the above I can get behind. now we just have to define extraordinary circumstances. and that we'll have to do on a case by case basis. and these things are never simple.
another example: motorcycle helmet laws. some states got em, some don't. when people are brain damaged, no helmet plus accident, the society, not to say state since that offends you so much, is liable for long time care as well as the emergency room. I like riding sans helmet, the hair in the wind and all that rot. but I support helmet laws, the greater good.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 3:11pm
you mention de Toq. but do not cite him, not fair. I too have read him, but I have no idea what you are referring to.
the only hope I see is to stack the courts
unfortunate choice of words.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 3:13pm
Posted by FRANK_BOSTON 06/23/2006 @ 08:15am
When you start to bring property rights into the fray, yes things get messy. You have a river...do you have the right to shit in it if it also crosses my land? You say "yes, it's MY river." However, your act of defecation fouls MY use of the same shared resource.
Granted a vulgar analogy, but it cuts to the heart of many environmental issue in that much of the "commons" is indeed shared at some level by most / all people (and/or plant animals depending what we are discussing.)
Of course, the parenthesized "non-human" rights brings up a whole other facet of the debate. Does the "environment" itself have any "right" to be left in a sustainable condition? (Intrinsic rights) Or is "rights" so human a concept that only what "we want" matters?
I see a significant diveregence in Liberal / Libertarian mindsets here, do I not?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/23/2006 @ 3:18pm