Add a Comment
Email This
Hey now, let's not pick on the Dems. I mean, just look at the major issue-of-our-times biggest single problem facing our nation that they have tackled in their first 100 hours- raising the minimum wage. Yup. Their mandate by the American people- as opposed to their individual constituents, who actually voted for them (please ignore Lieberman, as his reelection as an independent over rabid-anti-war candidate Lamont tends to skew the theory)- is to raise the minimum wage. Heh.
Just for those that are curious ... I remember from my high school economics class there was actually quite an argument against minimum wage. It was one of those actions that looks good in the short-run and provides an immediate assist while carrying serious long-run implications. Just trying to remember all the issues, I came across this.
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm
It's actually a very simple thing, when you think about it. Mr. Smith runs a small business that employs x number of people at minimum wage, and pays out y amount of yearly wages. Congress raises minimum wage, now Mr. Smith sees an increase in the amount of wages paid with no parallel increase in income. Does he a: raise prices, thus making him less competitive, b: suck up the wage hike, reducing his profit or c: fire some of his workers? Why is this so hard for politicians to figure out, and why do they harp on this during the election cycle? I saw ad after ad saying that horrors! Rick Santorum voted against the minimum wage! Are politicians so out of touch that they figure most Americans make minimum age?
C'mon, its typical politician crap. What are they trying to accomplish? They are trying to buy votes. Now, let me go out on the politically incorrect limb and say that most of your folks making about minimum wage didn't really pay attention in high school economics. All they know is they're gonna get an extra $2 an hour for their hard work at the drive through. And I don't blame them. I do blame the corrupt politicians that take advantage of the ignorance of the lower classes in order to keep themselves in that particular seat. Embarassing, really.
Slightly more scary would be if these idiots actually believed the garbage the spew - but I don't think they could be that dumb, I'll push the evil, corrupt politician theory first.
I think I say this everytime we talk about this topic, but here goes again: Lets hear it for stricter enforcement of the Electoral College!
Of course they were buying votes. Were they not buying votes, the wage would have increased in American Samoa as well.
Are politicians so out of touch that they figure most Americans make minimum (w)age?
My initial thought is no, but "most Americans" don't have to be making minimum wage for a politician to benefit from advocating a MW increase or demonizing those who oppose it. My theory is that the main benefit comes not from the MW-workers themselves (in fact, I'd venture to say that the majority of them can't/don't/won't vote anyway), but rather from the middle- and upper-class voters who favor a MW increase because it makes them feel philanthropic or something--eases a little of their guilt for being a "have" (as opposed to a "have-not"), if you will.
It's much easier to categorize business owners who oppose a MW hike as Scrooge-like meanies who only want to fatten up their own bottom lines than to actually think about the second- and third-order effects of such an action.
With regard to Minimum Wage:
Seems to me that the Dems in the House passed it. The Dems in the Senate did NOT. Senate wins. No escalation. I also underdtand that this showboating was thinly vieled in an attempt to make lower wage states raise the MW when in fact the high wage states already had in place ceilings higher than those being proposed.
As I remember it, congress voted to support the president's decision to go into Iraq.
True - but that was the prior congressional body.
If they want to change their minds and force him out of it, they have the power, they just have to muster the votes. Ultimately congress can do whatever it wants,
They sort of have an agenda for such "just do it" reforms - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, "What we want to do in the first 100 hours is do exactly what we promised the American people that we would do and that we debated over the last six months ... taking America in a new direction."
So that's what makes me wonder. Like you said, they were bitching an moaning about Bush's speech for increasing our Iraqi presence. It is completely within congress' power to include as part of their 100-hours-of-sweeping-reforms to can the entire operation. So the sheer fact that they don't, means the blame really ought to lie with them.
Now I know it's been discussed before that Iraq was actually not even in the top three reasons voters gave for replacing the congressmen. But the democrats in power sure seemed to make it sound like it was. So as I see it, everyday they do not undo Bush's operations, is a day they are equivalent to the republicans acquiescence.
Kinda funny too, hearing the Dems bitch about the troop increase, when, in their own words:
Pelosi: "What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are. And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there. It's very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground."
Reid: "If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it."
Biden: "Not enough troops. Not enough people. And the inability to seal the border with Syria. And having squandered 18 months in a real definite training program for the Iraqi police and the Iraqi military. They're the reasons I think we're behind the curve, in addition to not distributing the money to reconstruct."
Reyes: "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan"
The Democrats want a huge military but don't want to send it anywhere.
The Republicans want a tiny military, but want to send it everywhere.
RSS
As I remember it
As I remember it, congress voted to support the president's decision to go into Iraq. If they want to change their minds and force him out of it, they have the power, they just have to muster the votes. Ultimately congress can do whatever it wants, even make an official ren & stimpy day if they wanted to. They just need the votes. So, it seems the Democrats are saying, "We want you to listen to us because America voted us into power....but America didn't vote us into power enough to override all of your decisions, but you should do that anyway because that's what America was really trying to say without actually saying it."
Anyway, if you want my humble opinion, the Democrats love to bitch, but I'm not sure if they know how to do anything else. And really they can't even come up with sensible bitches. It seems to me that Democrats act like little tiny kids when it comes to Bush. All they do is whine and make plans to raise taxes. Besides raising taxes and pushing abortion, they can't come up with a single idea.
I hope America is really happy. Just to get back at the Republicans for their bonehead run in congress, we've got to put up with who knows how many years of Pelosi and Reid running the show. Why don't we just hand the country to Osama? At least that'd save time.
View Full Discussion