It is doubtful a MW increase would pass. As for the removal of subsidies to the oil companies, they don't set their prices, so costs should remain unaffected. It may hurt with the construction of clean coal plants though (there's a huge subsidy for them).
It is doubtful a MW increase would pass. As for the removal of subsidies to the oil companies, they don't set their prices, so costs should remain unaffected. It may hurt with the construction of clean coal plants though (there's a huge subsidy for them).
it's doubtful that they'd instituate a hike in the minimum wage effective immediately. rather, pass a law that says $X.XX by a certain date, so that it can be gradually adjusted upward yearly.
getting a bit off topic, but it seems to be that if the republicans are so convinced that the democrats are going to screw up congress, they'd WANT the dems in power to give them a platform to run against in '08 ("here's why the democrats are bad for the country and why you should vote republican" with actual examples)
I've got my fingers crossed for the Dems, if only so that it serves as a rejection of the Rovian scorched earth policy politics. I'd much rather see the '08 campaign revolving around centrists and moderates on both sides of the aisle rather than which canidate can appeal to their radical base more.
getting a bit off topic, but it seems to be that if the republicans are so convinced that the democrats are going to screw up congress, they'd WANT the dems in power to give them a platform to run against in '08 ("here's why the democrats are bad for the country and why you should vote republican" with actual examples)
I've got my fingers crossed for the Dems, if only so that it serves as a rejection of the Rovian scorched earth policy politics. I'd much rather see the '08 campaign revolving around centrists and moderates on both sides of the aisle rather than which canidate can appeal to their radical base more.
So if it will have absolutely no effect, what is the point of rolling them back? As much as I know it wouldn't happen, I would like to see the government involve themselves actively in finding alternative energy sources. Especially if they can't have impact on the price we're paying.
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
- yeah, let's strip out freedom of speech from the Constitution.
- Let' keep medling with the open market by regulating it some more.
- Americans aren't responsible, we must hold their hands.
- We know what's best for business and "hard-working americans" :roll:
- And pick up the costs from where?
- But not any other industry, like say....farming
- I have no comment
- And pick up the costs from where?
my guess would be from #6 on the list combined with chosing to not renew the Bush tax cuts.
my guess would be from #6 on the list combined with chosing to not renew the Bush tax cuts.
Funny thing is, I don't see any mention of raising taxes, impeaching Bush or withdrawing troops from Iraq. Despite what the dittohead/hannetized freeper morons seem to be chanting.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: loki8481
you need to look harder and/or get your eyes checked
Oh trust me I understand what all of these mean and what they will do. It's the folks who support them that need to "look harder".
I see the democrats continue to play Santa Claus.
You prefer useless wars that accomplish little more than lining the pockets of Halliburton and other profiteers?
I think CPA has posted perhaps the best example yet of the right wing's errors, so let's look at his post.
RIght now, we've stripped out representative government from the constitution, by allowing our system to require so much money to get elected - money available only from those who stand to make a profit by getting special interest laws passed - that our representatives are forced to represent special interests, not the people.
The constitution's freedom of speech was a right designed for the citizens, not for corporations to dominate the system.
Since when is using the law to say that a buyer must pay the full list price of a product, and cannot let market forces allow negotiation, not 'meddling with the market'?
You have this one exactly backwards: the government is spending money and should be able to use the market to get the best deal; the republicans regulated the transaction by adding a law saying that the prices cannot be discounted. This was an out and out corrupt giveaway to the republicans' largest donor industry at taxpayers expense.
You're in the radical minority who fail to realize that Social Security is an extremely successful, efficient program that has nearly eliminated poverty for elders, disabled, etc.
The repulblicans' motive in destroying the program is political, and not the public interest:
- Repeal the single biggest program that reminds people the democrats represent their interests more than the republicans
- Use it as a wedge issue to appeal to young voters during the difficult baby boomer period coming, since other republican policies are not attractive
- Use it as a huge taxpayer handout to Wall Street to profit off of with 'private' accounts, run with far higher overhead costs that go to Wall Street profits
]q]- We know what's best for business and "hard-working americans" :roll:[/quote]
Too inane for responding to
Rep-prioritized budget. This is an *investment* in the nation that will pay off, the way the democrats have build our strong economy with other investments.
One improvement is better than none; make repealing farm subsidies politicall feasible and we'll talk.
RIght now, we've stripped out representative government from the constitution, by allowing our system to require so much money to get elected - money available only from those who stand to make a profit by getting special interest laws passed - that our representatives are forced to represent special interests, not the people.
The constitution's freedom of speech was a right designed for the citizens, not for corporations to dominate the system.
Since when is using the law to say that a buyer must pay the full list price of a product, and cannot let market forces allow negotiation, not 'meddling with the market'?
You have this one exactly backwards: the government is spending money and should be able to use the market to get the best deal; the republicans regulated the transaction by adding a law saying that the prices cannot be discounted. This was an out and out corrupt giveaway to the republicans' largest donor industry at taxpayers expense.
You're in the radical minority who fail to realize that Social Security is an extremely successful, efficient program that has nearly eliminated poverty for elders, disabled, etc.
The repulblicans' motive in destroying the program is political, and not the public interest:
- Repeal the single biggest program that reminds people the democrats represent their interests more than the republicans
- Use it as a wedge issue to appeal to young voters during the difficult baby boomer period coming, since other republican policies are not attractive
- Use it as a huge taxpayer handout to Wall Street to profit off of with 'private' accounts, run with far higher overhead costs that go to Wall Street profits
]q]- We know what's best for business and "hard-working americans" :roll:[/quote]
Too inane for responding to
Rep-prioritized budget. This is an *investment* in the nation that will pay off, the way the democrats have build our strong economy with other investments.
One improvement is better than none; make repealing farm subsidies politicall feasible and we'll talk.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I numbered them to make it easier to reply.
1. Nothing wrong with that idea, although it will put Harry Reid's sons on unemployment.
2. Sounds like a good idea, have not heard anything negative about the idea, has anyone heard a reason why this is a bad idea?
3. Wasn't there a bipartisan commission that said privatization is the way to go? Right now Medicare is a mess, maybe privatization will improve it maybe not, but both these issuers are essential scare the old people into voting for us, or else they will lose their benefits.
4. waste of time.
5. Student loan rates are already VERY low and if you go to a public school the costs are not that high. The biggest problem with this idea is that it costs a ton.
6. It thought were we all for alternative energy and all that? You Exxon is going to spend money on stuff like that for fun? (How much money do they get anyway?)
7. Is there a list some place of what has not been put into place? What is the reasoning behind that? I wonder how many bill the Democrats have introduced to enact these missing recommendations?
Of course they leave off the big issues that most Americans are voting based on.
1. They want to raise taxes
2. They want to pull troops out of Iraq, or remove the spending on those troops
3. They may spend the next 2 years on investigation mania looking for things to impeach Bush on.
Oh?and Craig my friend, Whoozyerdaddy?s line ?And then there's you? was spot on, Calling the Republicans ?ideologues? and Democrats ?rational? is a little dishonest. Both sides look at the other and make the same claim. And while you may not admit it or know it you are much farther out of the mainstream than many of the Republican/conservatives on this board.
You're misunderstanding how the minimum wage increases will affect the economy.
The republicans like to argue that tax hikes at the top will 'spur the economy' when instead they weaken the economy by taking out money from where it helps below, and putting in the hands who use it mostly to just bid up prices on acquiring ownership of companies and real estate, and some of it to invest in building factories oversease, etc.
The minimum wage actually does help the economy, not to mention helping the people who need it so that people are not in poverty as much.
Any issue with 'inflation' is greatly exaggerated and many times the opposite happens; the minimum wage is a tiny bit of money paid to workers, and it creates new spending.
Consider your logic about raising prices. If it's true, how about we start giving the oil companies double the subsidies we do now, since that might lower prices even further?
Oh, you don't support that? Then why do you support the subsidies at all? Again, they're a corporate welfare handout to one of the republicans' biggest donors.
The democrats will represent the middle class far better than the republicans, as they have since FDR.
Remember, George Bush has never passed a tax cut. He's passed tax borrowing: borrow the money from China which must be repayed with interest, and hand it out now.
And even that money is going in a very redistributionist manner to the most wealthy, to be repaid by the tax base generally.
No, John, it was a cheap, assinine insult.
I'd referred to how rational people would broadly support this, and he made the insult. If you or he can show that my arguments are irrational, go ahead, otherwise drop the lying insults.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I saw it as a joke. Sorry that you are so offended.
I think the point is that some people see those ideas as "rational" (like you) and some see them as the ideas of "ideologues" like me and whooz.
BTW: If you are offended by that be glad you are not me, look at the insults and crap that flies my way.
Federal spending has dramatically increased under this Republican administration. And it isn't just the war, other federal spending is up nearly 25%, the greatest increase seen since Nixon.
If you saw it as a joke, say that, not that it was "spot on" when it was a lie.
Don't make the mistake of qequating all attacks of being 'ideologues'. Some are true and some are not. Just saying they're all equally true or wrong is an error; some are each.
Finally, I agree that you get *some* excessive attacks aimed at you, but that has nothing to do with excusing more excessive, wrong attacks.
Don't make the mistake of qequating all attacks of being 'ideologues'. Some are true and some are not. Just saying they're all equally true or wrong is an error; some are each.
Finally, I agree that you get *some* excessive attacks aimed at you, but that has nothing to do with excusing more excessive, wrong attacks.
Only a third of the additional spending has anything to do with 'military/homeland security' as questionable as much of that is.
The republicans have mastered the political technique of fooling people and then shearing them of their wealth (including in the future, as they borrow and steal, borrow and steal).
It's like when you say a charismatic snake oil salesman come to town, and one person tries to war others, and gets attacked - because the people are fooled.
You can say all you like, the truth about what the republican leadership is doing, and the duped followers will criticize you because they're fooled. Oh, no, they'll say, the snake oil salesman just wants to help sick people. Why do you hate sick people so much?
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe increasing minimum wage will drive prices up (depending on how high they raise minimum wage) a considerable amount. There was a discussion about this previously, if you add expenses to the business owners they aren't just typically going to eat that expense. They will pass that expense on to the consumer. Meaning our cheeseburgers go up a few cents, each product we buy at wal-mart goes up a little bit due to having to pay the assembly line workers more and other things. Now, i'm not saying this will lhappen overnight. If I get paid 8.50 an hour currently, do you think i'm not going to ask for a raise if I am making nearly minimum wage? This is a chain reaction, once people realize that the high school kid is making as much, or more than you, unions will kick into gear getting pay raises for the truck drivers, for the drafters, for the MIS groups, etc.
Unfortunately for me, i'm under a contract. My pay gets reevaluated every two years. It was recently reviewed. If things go up around me, including minimum wage, I won't see a penny more on my paycheck. But I will be forced to pay that extra amount on everything I buy. It is a sad situation for me.
While I do agree that if you put money in the hands of those who need it they will spend it, this isn't addressing the inflation issue at all.
I didn't say that I'm in favor nor against the subsidies. In fact, I don't even have an opinion on it at this point which is why I was asking questions to those who maybe know more about it than myself. This is the problem with this forum, if you say you aren't sure about the policies of a side, you are immediately labled as someone who agree's whole-heartedly with the other.
Anyhow, from an economic standpoint, all I care about is if the government wants to involve themselves in driving down energy prices, they should only do things that will do such a thing. My question was how will this affect me? I simply didn't see how taking away money from the oil companies will cause a lowering in price. And if it doesn't make any difference at all, then sure, i have no issue with removing the subsidies as we don't need to be spending money that will not be making an impact on people.
1. John, our taxes were raised *by Bush* when he increased the borrowing, *which must be paid back with tax money later, with interest*, to hand to the wealthy now as a handout. That's not a tax cut, it's a tax and steal.
Paying our bills now to avoid paying more taxes with interest later is not a tax increase, it's a tax cut. Repealing Bush's irresponsible, borrowed wealth redistribution to the wealthy is a net savings to the nation.
2. The democrats are not united on Iraq policy. They do want to stop letting our troops instigate more war and create more terrorists there. So do most Americans.
3. Oh, darn, if this were true - they want to enforce the law against the criminals and uphold the constitutional responsibilities the current congress has not.
But it's not true, since Pelosi said impeachment is 'off the table' against Bush while she is speaker. Does that leave open a crack that she could be replaced as speaker and impeachment happens? I hope so, by that point, as investigations confirm grounds for impeachment, it's deserved. But she said no impeachment, so you're pretty wrong here.
John, side question, are you one who is so radically on the right that you think Nixon's imminent impeachment was wrong, or was his impeachment justified?
Bush has raised taxes on the middle class AND increased Federal spending. Tax and Spend Republicans.
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-2-150
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-2-150
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
The only way you call that BS is if you only get your news from the MSM and don't listen to anything coming from the right/conservative media. Which I assume is the case here.
1. Charlie Rangel who will lead the Ways and Means committee has stated a desire to roll back the Bush tax cuts, or at the least not renew them when they expire. (either way taxes will go up) Rangel is also the man who introduced the draft resolution.
2. So you are saying Dems are not for withdrawal from Iraq? Democrats have already tried to get measures passed that call for our withdrawal. link
3. John Conyers, who will chair the judicial committee "My goodness, please look at H.Res. 635, which calls for an investigation that could lead to impeachment. But I cannot call for impeachment now, before we have investigated all the facts."
Get it? What in my post is incorrect?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter