Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Kerry Documentary

Recommended Posts

quote:

EXACTLY and that's exactly why this nation needs a Democrat in the White House. When that happens we'll get back the watchdog element in the Congress. THANK YOU! Thank you Steve, you are SO RIGHT!

I think we agree on the points, but differ on the conclusions.

You appear to feel that the reason to have a Democrat in the White House is that the press favors the Democrat and government would operate more smoothly with a Democrat due to the press going back to doing their job with a Democrat.

I feel that the press's favoritism is compromising their ability to do their jobs either way. The press also shifted away from traditional watchdog roles during the Clinton Administration because he kept inviting them to all the lavish state dinners that he threw. The press started cozying up to Clinton (and the Democrats by extension) because they wanted access to the White House and felt that if they were too critical they would lose that access to a competitor (plus lose access to the good parties).

One of the first criticisms of the DC elite after Bush was elected was how the nightlife died. Bush goes to bed early and there aren't the lavish parties that Clinton used to throw.

I think another reason that you might think that Congress would go back to traditional oversight with a Democrat is that Democrats feel that the positions of power are rightfully theirs, and that the Republican control is an aberration. This is why they are stalling on everything, hoping to delay judges until a Democrat regains control, and now hoping to delay confirming a new CIA chief until Democrats regain control. I feel that it is wrong to give into a Democrat just because the Democrats are obstructing the normal flow of operations and that electing a Democrat would stop the obstructing. That's almost extortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

You appear to feel that the reason to have a Democrat in the White House is that the press favors the Democrat and government would operate more smoothly with a Democrat due to the press going back to doing their job with a Democrat.

I feel that the press's favoritism is compromising their ability to do their jobs either way. The press also shifted away from traditional watchdog roles during the Clinton Administration because he kept inviting them to all the lavish state dinners that he threw. The press started cozying up to Clinton (and the Democrats by extension) because they wanted access to the White House and felt that if they were too critical they would lose that access to a competitor (plus lose access to the good parties).

One of the first criticisms of the DC elite after Bush was elected was how the nightlife died. Bush goes to bed early and there aren't the lavish parties that Clinton used to throw.

I think another reason that you might think that Congress would go back to traditional oversight with a Democrat is that Democrats feel that the positions of power are rightfully theirs, and that the Republican control is an aberration. This is why they are stalling on everything, hoping to delay judges until a Democrat regains control, and now hoping to delay confirming a new CIA chief until Democrats regain control. I feel that it is wrong to give into a Democrat just because the Democrats are obstructing the normal flow of operations and that electing a Democrat would stop the obstructing. That's almost extortion.

Nope it had nothing to do with cocktail parties. When I mention the Congress what I mean to say is that when you put a Democrat in the White House the Congress is going to wake up and start LOOKING at what the guy is doing. With Bush in there they just give him carte-blanche to do what he wants. Even if there is a Republican Congress you would expect that SOMEBODY in that group would have the BALLS to say, "You are the President but we're the Congress and you have to work through us to get what you want done." To the contrary the Republican Congress has totally relinquished its power and does whatever this President requests of them. The only time you hear anybody stand up to this guy the words are being uttered by McCain who isn't Republican enough or who collaborated with the Vietnamese (Bush Campaign 2000). Even with this amazing amount of power Bush has done LITTLE on the domestic side of things and has instead used this cooperation between the Legislative and Executive branches to prop up two sham democracies on a foundation of cow chips. That's why we need a Democrat in there right now... so that we have a government engaged in checks and balances and DEBATE.

As for the press, I think this has a lot less to do with parties and a lot more to do with the FCC and media deregulation. If you think this media is critical of Bush I have to say I don't agree, not one bit. If anything it is apparent that those that play ball with Bush get favors and when you're busy building media monopolies you need to be careful about your criticism. Journalism has suffered on many fronts. You have diminished competition with the major players seeming to be content with playing follow the leader. Whoever steps into a story the others just seem to fall in behind. None of them has a command over investigative reporting as I don't believe any of them legitimately do it. I think the only network that is TRULY capable of being considered anti-Bush is CBS and I have to tell you that's why I watch 60 Minutes. The rest of them... come on. CNN was liberal when Turner ran it but now its Time Warner and not so liberal. Fox News is run by Murdoch... an arch conservative. Fair and balanced might be the most brilliantly deceptive catch phrase ever devised. Aside from these two major players (CBS/Viacom and Fox/NewsCorp.) the rest of them fall into a middle ground that is a no man's land of mediocrity where partisanship is not rightly seen. That's why I cannot agree with you that journalists are anti-Bush. That might fly with a Dittohead but I see a rather gentle press that timidly approaches Bush in an effort not to be tossed from briefings or a detriment to the corporate brass that are thinking expansion and merger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

You appear to feel that the reason to have a Democrat in the White House is that the press favors the Democrat and government would operate more smoothly with a Democrat due to the press going back to doing their job with a Democrat.

I feel that the press's favoritism is compromising their ability to do their jobs either way. The press also shifted away from traditional watchdog roles during the Clinton Administration because he kept inviting them to all the lavish state dinners that he threw. The press started cozying up to Clinton (and the Democrats by extension) because they wanted access to the White House and felt that if they were too critical they would lose that access to a competitor (plus lose access to the good parties).

One of the first criticisms of the DC elite after Bush was elected was how the nightlife died. Bush goes to bed early and there aren't the lavish parties that Clinton used to throw.

I think another reason that you might think that Congress would go back to traditional oversight with a Democrat is that Democrats feel that the positions of power are rightfully theirs, and that the Republican control is an aberration. This is why they are stalling on everything, hoping to delay judges until a Democrat regains control, and now hoping to delay confirming a new CIA chief until Democrats regain control. I feel that it is wrong to give into a Democrat just because the Democrats are obstructing the normal flow of operations and that electing a Democrat would stop the obstructing. That's almost extortion.

Nope it had nothing to do with cocktail parties. When I mention the Congress what I mean to say is that when you put a Democrat in the White House the Congress is going to wake up and start LOOKING at what the guy is doing. With Bush in there they just give him carte-blanche to do what he wants. Even if there is a Republican Congress you would expect that SOMEBODY in that group would have the BALLS to say, "You are the President but we're the Congress and you have to work through us to get what you want done." To the contrary the Republican Congress has totally relinquished its power and does whatever this President requests of them. The only time you hear anybody stand up to this guy the words are being uttered by McCain who isn't Republican enough or who collaborated with the Vietnamese (Bush Campaign 2000). Even with this amazing amount of power Bush has done LITTLE on the domestic side of things and has instead used this cooperation between the Legislative and Executive branches to prop up two sham democracies on a foundation of cow chips. That's why we need a Democrat in there right now... so that we have a government engaged in checks and balances and DEBATE.

As for the press, I think this has a lot less to do with parties and a lot more to do with the FCC and media deregulation. If you think this media is critical of Bush I have to say I don't agree, not one bit. If anything it is apparent that those that play ball with Bush get favors and when you're busy building media monopolies you need to be careful about your criticism. Journalism has suffered on many fronts. You have diminished competition with the major players seeming to be content with playing follow the leader. Whoever steps into a story the others just seem to fall in behind. None of them has a command over investigative reporting as I don't believe any of them legitimately do it. I think the only network that is TRULY capable of being considered anti-Bush is CBS and I have to tell you that's why I watch 60 Minutes. The rest of them... come on. CNN was liberal when Turner ran it but now its Time Warner and not so liberal. Fox News is run by Murdoch... an arch conservative. Fair and balanced might be the most brilliantly deceptive catch phrase ever devised. Aside from these two major players (CBS/Viacom and Fox/NewsCorp.) the rest of them fall into a middle ground that is a no man's land of mediocrity where partisanship is not rightly seen. That's why I cannot agree with you that journalists are anti-Bush. That might fly with a Dittohead but I see a rather gentle press that timidly approaches Bush in an effort not to be tossed from briefings or a detriment to the corporate brass that are thinking expansion and merger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Congress: That's the difference between either: 1) split chambers, 2) split branches, and 3) one-party control. The difference, to me, is that they are all the result of the vote, so if the people choose to elect the same party to all branches, then what they want is alignment of policy. If the people choose to split the chambers/branches, then they are saying that they want gridlock. Right now, by a thin margin, they appear to want alignment.

Now, one can also argue the law of unintended consequences. Gerrymandering of House districts by incumbants has virtually locked in the current Republican majority until 2010. That is not the fault of Republicans or Democrats, but of incumbants protecting their own power.

On the Senate side, that chamber was broken by the 17th amendment that made Senators popularly elected instead of appointed by state legislatures. You'd get more cooperative government if the Senators didn't all behave like mini-Presidents. With state appointment of Senators, they would be less likely to run around chasing national party issues at the expense of their own state issues.

The media: Have you forgotten the days of Rick Kaplan as the head of CNN? Kaplan was the biggest Friend Of Bill that there was. CNN was the favored press outlet for the Clinton Administration. Why else would they have both James Carville and Paul Begala as political pundits? Also, when Kaplan was at ABC, he brought in George Stephanopoulis to run their Sunday show THIS WEEK, ousting Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson.

So, this administration chose to prefer FNC instead of their predecessor's favored CNN. Is that a crime? It seems to me to be sour grapes by fallen-from-grace CNN that they are no longer first in line for scoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Congress: That's the difference between either: 1) split chambers, 2) split branches, and 3) one-party control. The difference, to me, is that they are all the result of the vote, so if the people choose to elect the same party to all branches, then what they want is alignment of policy. If the people choose to split the chambers/branches, then they are saying that they want gridlock. Right now, by a thin margin, they appear to want alignment.

Now, one can also argue the law of unintended consequences. Gerrymandering of House districts by incumbants has virtually locked in the current Republican majority until 2010. That is not the fault of Republicans or Democrats, but of incumbants protecting their own power.

On the Senate side, that chamber was broken by the 17th amendment that made Senators popularly elected instead of appointed by state legislatures. You'd get more cooperative government if the Senators didn't all behave like mini-Presidents. With state appointment of Senators, they would be less likely to run around chasing national party issues at the expense of their own state issues.

The media: Have you forgotten the days of Rick Kaplan as the head of CNN? Kaplan was the biggest Friend Of Bill that there was. CNN was the favored press outlet for the Clinton Administration. Why else would they have both James Carville and Paul Begala as political pundits? Also, when Kaplan was at ABC, he brought in George Stephanopoulis to run their Sunday show THIS WEEK, ousting Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson.

So, this administration chose to prefer FNC instead of their predecessor's favored CNN. Is that a crime? It seems to me to be sour grapes by fallen-from-grace CNN that they are no longer first in line for scoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we are of topic but Echo makes some good points that seem to have gone unanswered. Most Americans want a job and dont want a free ride. However they deserve the chance to make a living wage. Many of these 7.00$ positions use every tactic in the book to skirt job protection of any kind.

If we as American have to learn to accept being second class citizens to be viewed as patriotic that's a tonic I'm unwilling to swallow. Meanwhile I have not seen many figure that indicate a decrease of upper management salaries in the corporate sector. The rich as they say get richer. That's one issue Bush won't flip flop on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

OK, I am ignoring little grasshopper for this one, and going straight to the heart of Races Post, because he is right, what Echo said needs to be addressed.

First of all, those that work at MINIMUM wage, normally are the young, in High School, just out of college, or working through college etc.

The percentage of the American population that work at or below minimum wage is miniscule compared to the population at large.

The LARGEST portion of minimum wage earners are in fact Teenagers, who A: live at home, B: do not have ANY working skills to speak of, and C: do not NEED to make more then $4-5 an hour to make their ends meet.

Minimum wage requirements are in fact UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the federal government was not given ANY power over wages within the constitution, it is NOT their job, the States can do it if they want, but the fact of the matter is, they will INCREASE their nonworking poor, NOT decrease their nonworking poor.

The rhetoric is nice, over 80% of the American people agree with the minimum wage, but the fact is that the results of such legislation is EXACTLY backwards of what they are trying to do.

The BEST way to increase workers salaries are A: cut business taxes B: give tax incentives to business to hire low skilled workers, and C: give incentives to business's to educate their employees to make them more valuable assets.

With a Minimum wage requirement you A: cut the amount of jobs that there are in minimum wage.

Why? let's say that there are 8 minimum wage jobs at my business, I am paying each of my minimum wage empoyees 5.00 an hour. The government comes in and tells me that I must pay them $7.00 an hour, OK, so, I was paying $40 an hour total for this unskilled labor, that I TRAINED in what I wanted them to do, now the government is coming in and telling me that I now must pay $48.00 an hour for these employees, well, sorry, I budgeted $40 an hour, NOT $48, so 2 of these minimum wage jobs HAVE to go. SO I now HAVE to lay off 2 Minimum wage workers, in order to afford to pay the rest their $7 an hour.

I trained these employees, I spent money and time, getting these UNSKILLED workers up to speed on what I needed them to do. They could raise thier salaries in a heartbeat, it's called getting a raise from my competition next door. I trained them, and am paying them $5 an hour, and he doesn't HAVE to train them, so, and he can afford to pay them $6.50 an hour.

They just got a raise in their wages..... And it didn't take the government to make it happen.

Capitalism works, and works well, it is when the government starts playing with it that it starts doing cartwheels and things go haywire.

I give the medical industry as a PERFECT example of this.

Fact, medical costs rose with the rate of inflation, UNTIL, the government came in with medicare and medicaid, and then the costs for healthcare SKYROCKETED, and have been EVER since.

If the government would get OUT of the way, and let business's do what they do, we would not have any of these problems.

People raise their wages with their feet, or by going to the boss and telling him. "hey, I got a better offer, can you meet or beat it?"

I have done this SO MANY times, that it is insane, but with government regulation and skyrocketing healthcare costs, tax laws that take a flock of lawyers to deal with etc, it just wasn't worth it anymore.

I now make more working BY myself,and FOR myself, then I EVER made working for someone else.

THe government regulation and taxes are not nearly as burdensome, because I am a 1 man band, then it would be if I worked for someone else.

Besides the fact that $7 an hour minimum wage, actually RAISES the costs of employee, some as much as 50%, compared to $5 an hour.

It actually looks like it does some good, but RESULTS are what matter, and results of PAST minimum wage increases show that it does the EXACT opposite of what it is supposed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Racists and Unions Support Minimum Wages

by Walter Williams (November 12, 2003)

quote:

Presidential aspirant Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., unwittingly performed a public service in his address to the Teamsters Local 238 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last month. He revealed the true agenda behind so much of the support for minimum wages. He pledged that if he became president he'd press the World Trade Organization to establish an international minimum wage -- one that he says is high enough so that American workers are not competing with slave, sweat-shop and child labor around the world.

History has seen many calls for minimum wages for the same reason -- to eliminate competition with workers who'd work for less. During South Africa's apartheid era, white unionists argued "in absence of statutory minimum wages, employers found it profitable to supplant highly trained (and usually highly paid) Europeans by less efficient but cheaper non-whites."

One South African union leader said, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances I support the rate for the job (minimum wages) as the second best way of protecting our white artisans."

The South African Nursing Association condemned low wages received by black nurses as unfair. Some nurses said they wouldn't accept wage increases until the wages of black nurses were raised. These are but several of numerous examples of calls for minimum wages cited in my 1989 book, South Africa's War Against Capitalism. You can bet the farm that these calls for minimum wages for blacks didn't represent white compassion for the welfare of blacks. Minimum wages are simply one of the most effective tools in the arsenals of racists everywhere.

I'm not charging Gephardt with racism. He claims he just wants to end policies that have left millions of Americans suffering economically and workers overseas denied opportunity for a better standard of living. That's his stated intention, but when we analyze the effects of policy, we can almost always ignore policy intentions.

One effect of minimum wages is that of discrimination against the employment of less-preferred workers. A worker might be less-preferred in the eyes of a particular employer in a number of ways. He might be low-skilled, less intelligent, or a different nationality or race. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If the law requires me to pay, say, $9 an hour, no matter whom I hire, does it pay me to hire someone who has skills enabling him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most people would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition.

Are low-skilled workers made better or worse off as a result of the $9 minimum wage? It's almost a no-brainer to conclude that being hired at $5 an hour puts more food on the table than not being hired at $9. What's more, minimum wages reduce training opportunities. Most of us gain skills through on-the-job-training. Minimum wage laws deny that opportunity.

A more insidious effect of minimum wages, as racists everywhere know, is that it lowers discrimination costs. Say a white and a black were equally productive and an employer prefers white workers to black workers. Since he has to pay $9 an hour no matter whom he hires, the cost of discriminating against the black worker is zero. But if it were legal for the black worker to offer a lower price, there'd be a cost to discrimination. That's precisely why South African whites demanded that blacks be paid the minimum wages -- they wanted to cheapen discrimination costs.

Gephardt's speech is to be commended for its public service, namely that of revealing the underlying motive for minimum wages: making sure that one class of workers doesn't have to compete with another.

Following the theme, from The Walter Williams Interview:

quote:

John Hawkins: Can you explain why the minimum wage is a bad idea?

Walter Williams: First, Congress can indeed legislate that people get a higher wage. But, they can't legislate that people are more productive. For the most part, in a free market economy, wages are related to a workers productivity. For example, if a worker can produce six dollars worth of productivity per hour, if that's all he can produce, and you legislate that he must be paid eight dollars and hour, then it's a losing proposition to pay someone eight dollars an hour when he can only produce six dollars worth of value. So the employer may have several different responses. Either he's going to discriminate against the employment of low skilled workers who can only produce six dollars worth of value and hire someone who can produce eight dollars worth of value or he's going to automate. Both responses mean lower employment for low skilled people. So, the minimum wage law discriminates against low-skilled people.

Minimum prices in general tend to discriminate against the lesser skilled person or the less preferred item. Let's say ten workers show up and you only can hire five. Well, you can't discriminate based on price because you have to pay them all eight dollars an hour. So you may hire according to what you like. So if you prefer Catholics to Jews or whites to blacks, you'll have a tendency to indulge your preferences. You can apply that phenomena to anything.

If we made a law, let's call it a "minimum steak law"
, that is, fillet mignon and chuck steak both sell for $10. Well, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak would be zero, because you have to pay $10 anyway. The way that less preferred things compete with more preferred things is by having a lower price. Even though people prefer filet mignon to chuck steak, chuck steak doesn't have any problems selling at all.

[ 08-14-2004, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

It actually looks like it does some good, but RESULTS are what matter, and results of PAST minimum wage increases show that it does the EXACT opposite of what it is supposed to do.

Only thing is during the minimum-wage hikes in 1991, 1996 and 1997 there were no employment declines among teenagers.

A argument for minimum wage is that it gives some assurance that employers are not "taking undo advantage" of vulnerable, low-skilled workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is nobody saying that minimum wage effects prices as well. If minimum wage goes up, employer can also raise prices to compensate, which leads to artificialy induced inflation, which means things cost more, which means less disposable income for me, which decreases my standard of living. It's the same thing as taking money away from my paycheck in taxes to give to someone else in wellfare, medicare, or to support their kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect example of that is the pizza place I used to work at when I was a teen. I still drop by there, have a pizza and talk to the owner. He raised prices recently AGAIN. Why? Because he has to pay more for labour, taxes are up, utility bills are up and his raw material costs (flour, cheese...ect..) went up. Hence the price increase. Why do you think his raw material costs went up? Because the businesses who produce the flour and cheese had the same expense problems, their profits decreased due to increase in taxes, fees and other costs, most of them government caused increases. That's exactly why you pay more at the store, pump and utilities. Like I said before, government raises taxes or imposes fees, businesses raise prices too. The only problem is there's so many idiots in the US that think when a democrat says higher taxes for the rich it means it's a good thing and has no effect on him, but only the rich, and when you try to explain to them that it all rolls down hill he will go "rolls where now?, I dunno, just givie more govenment check so I can go store, buy food, and watch springer baby"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Why is nobody saying that minimum wage effects prices as well.

I've been waiting for someone to say just that. So you raise the minimun wage, now the shop owners must raise their prices to still make a good profit. Raising these prices make the raise in pay null and void and people are right back where they were before the Minimum wage increase. It's a vicious cycle. Sure making $7 and hour is better than $6 and hour on paper but in reality it's still as if you are making $6 an hour because the prices of what you buy has just gone up too.

Example: I live in NY okay I got a $1 an hour raise. Since then the Subway Fare went up to $2.00 (up 50 cents), pizza is up to $2.00(up 50 cents) a slice, bread is up to $1.79-$2.00 (up 50 cents) and milk has gone up to $4.00-$4.19 a gallon (up $2 dollars or more). And these are just a few things that have gone up. Some much for the raise.

[ 08-14-2004, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK... this would all be great if it were true... but it isn't. You guys seem to think that keeping the minimum wage low somehow insures that prices stay low. This is not a factual economic principle. First of all, since a good portion of your working force falls into this minimum wage area if you keep their spending power low you keep their ability to infuse capital into the system low. Workers that make the minimum wage are in affect a GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZE WORK FORCE. What I mean by this is that they put in the least amount in taxes and they use the most in SERVICES. So while you bust a nut and think that minimum wage workers deserve what they get you are being taxed to keep this workforce educated (their kids) and medicated. Bush gives you a tax cut in the form of a $300 - $600 rebate (which is a shell game in and of itself because while government tucks that check in your front pocket it is pulling it out of your back pocket), then he goes and BORROWS money that WE WILL ALL HAVE TO PAY BACK and then supports IMMIGRATION which floods the job market and keeps wages artificially low. It just makes no sense. Of the 1.3-1.4 million jobs supposedly created something like 25-30% of them went to non citizens and illegals... wow we'll see some great tax revenues from those won't we? But let's put that all aside and just work from simple logic which is what you guys seem to be trying to do.

Wages in this country have been stagnant for a couple of years now but amazingly prices have INCREASED. That kind of throws a wrench into your argument doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Wages in this country have been stagnant for a couple of years now but amazingly prices have INCREASED. That kind of throws a wrench into your argument doesn't it?

Uh, No, prices have NOT gone up that far, and wages have NOT been stagnant, just because you say it is so, does NOT make it so.

Inflation is down in the low .025%, and wages have NOT been stagnant, they have actually risen. THe problem was 911, that has thrown a monkey in the works, and is now working itslef out as well.

THis months numbers are going to show a marked difference from what you just said, you're in for a little surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×