Democrats & Liberals Archives

Democrats Fight for the Common-Interest

The American Prospect magazine states that the big overriding issue that represents what Democrats stand for and what they should fight for is the common-interest. Yes, indeed, the common-interest represents the Democratic Party just as neatly as self-interest represents the Republican Party.

Self-interest is the essence of the Republican Party and Republicans make no bones about it. They push laissez faire because they think self-interest is good for America. They advocate self-reliance: take care of yourself and don't expect help from anyone else. They take care of those who have made it, the rich and successful, since these are the guys from whom they get the money to stay in power.

Republicans in the House and Senate have shown that their party is the party of self-interest by the legislation they passed. Here are 4 major bills passed:

  • TAX CUTS - The vast majority of the benefit of the tax cuts went to the richest 1%. The rest of us saw a reduction in services and a ballooning of the deficit for which we will pay later

  • BANKRUPTCY BILL - Here the Republicans socked the consumer by making it tougher for those who are not credit-worthy, even those suffering from a catastrophe. Bankruptcy rules for businesses are more lenient

  • ENERGY LEGISLATION - This is an $88 billion bill where big oil, gas and coal companies got billions of dollars in subsidies and hundreds of millions of dollars in loan gurantees. The consumer got almost nothing

  • MEDICARE DRUGS - Originally estimated to cost $400 billion and now at about $800 billion, this is a giveaway to pharmaceutical and insurance companies. It's hard to believe that it specifically does not allow the government to negotiate cheaper prices for drugs!
Contrast the above 4 Republican bills that concentrate on self-interest with 4 bills Democrats would like to see enacted that enhance the common-interest:
  • MINIMUM WAGE - A decent wage for the poorest will have the effect of improving the welfare of all workers, who represent a majority of the population. Business will benefit too, since it will be faced with greater demand

  • UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE - We need a new system that takes care of the 45 million uninsured and improves healthcare for all of us. A universal system would improve living conditions and make our society more harmonious

  • ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - Our entire foreign policy is distorted because we depend on oil from rogue nations. Also fossil fuels are making our environment sick. Development of sustainable energy sources will allow us to grow more prosperous and more healthy and happy

  • CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM - By removing money as the biggest influence in election campaigns, we will reduce corruption, improve our democracy and make our entire society more civil
You will notice that there is a big difference between Republican and Democratic initiatives. Republicans design their initiatives so that some people (their friends) win. Democrats, however, design their initiatives, for the most part, in a way that makes most people win.

It may all be summarized by saying that Republicans fight for self-interest and Democrats fight for the common-interest.

Posted by Paul Siegel at April 20, 2006 4:33 PM
Comments
Comment #141984

One will note that Universal health care, energy independence, a decent minimum wage and campaign finance reform are none of them very palatable to the Big Money People in the US. This is why the Democratic party is always way behind the Repiglicans…they have to depend on contributions from the Little Guy, who doesn’t have any money to spare, while the Repiglican coffers are loaded.
What is desperately needed in the US is complete Constitutional change and Campaign Reform, so that Money does not play a part in campaigns.
Here is my suggestion:
1) Each candidate needs 50,000 signatures to run (or 100,000, or 500,000…whatever number is appropriate)
2) Upon gathering these signatures, that candidate, regardless of “party”, receives 1 hour of broadcast prime-time on National Television (paid for by the Federal Government), during which time he may make his speech and state his positions and platforms on the issues. This speech must be written BY THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF, not a team of Spin-Doctors.
3)After that, the candidates must SHUT UP. No speeches, no signs, no baby-kissing or fundraisers….NOTHING! The media is free to repeat, re-hash, and analyse the speeches to their hearts’ content.
4) 1 month later (2 weeks…next day, whatever is suitable), the election is held, using PAPER BALLOTS ONLY, which have been standardized for universal use.
5) The “Electoral College” is abolished, as it is completely obsolete and can (and has) led to “wins” by candidates who actually LOST, thus negating Democratic Process.

All of a sudden, Voila!…the playing field is LEVEL.
Whaddaya think?

Posted by: capnmike at April 20, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #141990

capnmike,

excellent. I mean it. Now we just have to get congress to pass it.

ouch!

Posted by: reed at April 20, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #141992

Well, maybe if we can get enough Dems elected this year, we could PASS something like this. It’s time to get the Big Money out of pur government, a problem the magnitude of which the Founding Fathers apparently did not anticipate.

Posted by: capnmike at April 20, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #141995

So, Ken Lay (ENRON) was Bush’s biggest contributor in 2000. Jack Abramoff - one of Bush’s biggest fundraiser in 2004 was also had Tyco as a client.

Anybody see something in common…???

Posted by: tony at April 20, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #141998

Why do dems insist on this ridiculus argument that a higher minimum wage would help “everyone” out. It would just drive up the cost of doing buisness, causing workers to be laid off because there employer couldn’t pay everyone this new higher wage. The employers could always just hire illegal imigrants to do the work under minimum wage though.

Posted by: Jeff at April 20, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #142001

Paul and Cap’nmike: How Excellent!!!

One thing: I would like to insert an Item in each of your lists of proposed changes (I could do dozens but they are, after all, your lists):

For proposed Democratic legislation: a Maximum Wage law: no Corporate Executive may earn over 25x the amount of his corporation’s lowest-paid employee’s annaul income. Thus, if the Mail Room Clerk makes $20,000 per year, the CEO may not make over $500,000 per year. If the CEO wants to increase that figure, he must raise the Lowest Paid Wage within his organisation to do so. :o)

For changes in Campaigning: I would like to see at least one (preferably two Debate(s). Conducted in the Old Style (from, say, the mid-19th century). No candidate who is not willing to Debate may continue to Run. (And, no candidate incapable of pronouncing the word “Nuclear” may be elected to be Commander In Chief). Without debate, we can’t really see the candidates defending their positions whilst under fire. (Oh, and, we might want to require at least one Pancake-Flip as well - just to weed out the Gary Bauers amongst the Candidates. Come to think of it, we might also want to throw in a Pretzel-Eating Contest…) :o\

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 20, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #142003

Jeff -

Right now, the minimum wage is below the poverty wage (i.e. - people who get paid at or near the minimum wage are considered poor and can receive various government assistance.) So, if we want to move people off these government programs, doesn’t it make sense to set a hourly wage that allows for that? Or should we continue to allow the Government to subsidize these employers. As far as illegal workers - isn’t that another thing we are trying to rid ourselves?

Posted by: tony at April 20, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #142005

capnmike-

Your suggestions are wonderful, if not realistic. Do you really believe that 535 entrenched incumbents are going to vote for several Constitutional amendments that will threaten their wellbeing? Good luck, and lay off the funny tobacco.

Paul- One, the Democrats will never get organized enough to runn on a platform like this. Two, most of your suggestions are far future, if ever. One answer to reducing our energy dependence is nuclear power. Modern designs for power plants are much safer than the old style( such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl). Other proposals for reducing dependence and/or green house gas emissions would have a devastating effect on the economy. I know, I know. We must suffer a little in order to save future generations. However, try selling that to Joe Six-Pack when his paycheck doesn’t come close to covering his living expenses because of drastic price increases caused by our attempts to “save the future.”

Your proposal on Universal Healthcare is doable, if we can figure out a way to make sure that it is not granted as a right of residency. All social services should be reserved for CITIZENS. We are the greatest nation on earth, but we are patsies when it comes to some things. And, for those of you who think that other countries are much more enlightened than we are, check out the immigration policies in Europe, Asia, and South and Central America.

Posted by: John Back at April 20, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #142019

Betty, the excellence in spelling and grammar,

I’ve never had to declare my “annaul” income to the IRS, so is that some new thing the tax and spenders require? And just an FYI, organization is not spelled “organisation” in AMERICAN English, anyway. ;->

Posted by: Duano at April 20, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #142021

The stench of socialism on this blog is overpowering.

Posted by: traveller at April 20, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #142023

“The stench of socialism on this blog is overpowering.”

I’ll ever understand the irrational fear of particular forms of government. (It’s the people running the government - not the flavor of government - that determines how good or bad or how foul the stentch of it is.)

Even the best form of government, if run by idiots, is a bad thing.

Posted by: tony at April 20, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #142028

Indeed. tony is right. The GOP tends to forget that Comrade Tito’s Communist Yugoslavia provided one of the most stable and wealthy (for a communist) countries anywhere. Communism allowed the central government to hold the ethnic races together for nearly 50 years.

That all ended when democracy took over.

Posted by: Aldous at April 20, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #142029


Tony-

Repeat after me: “Socialism is not a government, it is an economic theory”.

Now, as to why most people, including me, are afraid of or against socialism. Because it puts my economic well being into the hands of those who I do not know or trust. There has never been a successful socialistic country. Primarily because someone has to make decisions and, as we have seen, people don’t always make sound decisions. There is also the power factor. If I have the power to make decisions regarding the economic future of my country, I might well be tempted to make decisions that will benefit me, not you.

Socialism takes away incentives to excel. I might be a talented artist. But if a committee does not like my work, I may not be able to make a living as an artist, whereas under a capitalistic system, the market determines how much I make. I still might be a starving artist but at least I am creating on my terms, not a committees.

Posted by: John Back at April 20, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #142030

Jeff
The argument that raising the minimum wage will hurt everyone lost it’s power the last time it was raised. Everyone and most of the businesses survived it. The ones that didn’t were almost gone anyway.
Bette
The idea of the CEO’s making a wage comparable to the worker is great. If only it could be done. I myself see no reason why people in management should make an excess of money off of the people responsible for making the product that the company sells.

Posted by: Sherri at April 20, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #142031

… Because it puts my economic well being into the hands of those who I do not know or trust.

And capitalism doesn’t?? Socialism is working just fine in Scandinavia, and other parts of Europe. And when capitalism essentially collapsed in the thirties, there was a president who wasn’t adverse to use socialism to get the country back on it’s feet.

This country is heading towards economic meltdown, the way we’re putting our debts on future generations. Why? Because of unrestrained greed. You don’t think capitalism will be challenged in the near future? With the growing gap between the haves and the have nots, stagnant wages, and a government that lies so it can rip off the middle and lower classes? Keep watching, the trip is just starting to get interesting.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 20, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #142032

The stench of socialism on this blog is overpowering.

No, that’s the smell of new ideas—I can see why you’re offended.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 20, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #142036

“Repeat after me: “Socialism is not a government, it is an economic theory”.”

Any concept used to run or organize a country/state/community is by definition a form of government.

“Primarily because someone has to make decisions and, as we have seen, people don’t always make sound decisions. There is also the power factor. If I have the power to make decisions regarding the economic future of my country, I might well be tempted to make decisions that will benefit me, not you.”

And that differs somehow from our present government? NSA spying, no bid contracts with blatant conflicts of interests, corruption, “rich get richer, poor get poorer” - the CEO making $150k per day giving you a pink slip because it boosts his stock options…

Posted by: tony at April 20, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #142039

Did you hear about the CEO who got $150k PER DAY in RETIREMENT while asking the Courts to void the retirement benefits of his company’s long-term employees?

That’s Capitalism, Republican style…

Posted by: Aldous at April 20, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #142052

BULLSHIT Paul

Posted by: troll at April 20, 2006 04:52 PM

Couldn’t have said it better.
The last time the Democrats represented the common interest NONE of us were even alive yet.
That is unless your somewhere around 1,000 years old.
Them and their bed follows the Republicans have been self serving for so long that they don’t know anything different.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 21, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #142055

capnmike
The thing I find interesting is that while the Democrats controlled Congress they weren’t for campaign reform. The Republicans were the ones wanting it.
Now the Republicans control Congress and guess who’s hollering now for campaign reform and who’s only giving lip service to it.
Of course neither party wants true campaign reform because that’ll mean that they’d have to give up their fat cat contributors.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 21, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #142056

John says…

Now, as to why most people, including me, are afraid of or against socialism. Because it puts my economic well being into the hands of those who I do not know or trust. There has never been a successful socialistic country. Primarily because someone has to make decisions and, as we have seen, people don’t always make sound decisions. There is also the power factor. If I have the power to make decisions regarding the economic future of my country, I might well be tempted to make decisions that will benefit me, not you.

To wit I say…

Now, as to why SOME people, LIKE me, are afraid of CORPORATIONS. Because it puts my economic well being into the hands of A FEW who I do not know or trust, OR VOTE FOR.

I may add we are currently living in a MIXED economy. That’s not all bad… Do you really want the fire departments to be run by for profit corporations? Generally, when the private sector takes over the functions of the state, those companies require more from the participants, and there is a reduction to the service being rendered. The difference is their profit. As a bonus they also make the state more DEPENDENT on them not only for those services, but any DECISIONS on who/when/how someone gets those services. And remember, we can’t vote out those corporate crooks!

I don’t want to go 100% socialist, but a mixed economy is a good thing. Especially if the product we want is a public service for the common good, rather then profit to the hands of a few.

Also,


If I have the power to make decisions regarding the economic future of my country, I might well be tempted to make decisions that will benefit me, not you.

This is happening right now… The CEO of Exxon Mobil (Lee Raymond) gets to retire now with a $400 MILLION retirement package. As Paul mentioned, we (tax payers) has given Exxon BILLIONS of dollars. We also give him that in record energy prices (some say gouging). That $400 Million is paid by you and me!

What side of that equation are you on?

Posted by: Patrick Howse at April 21, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #142073

Patrick Howse:

You forgot to mention that Exxon Mobil is asking the Courts to VOID the Retirement Benefits of its past and present Employees!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 21, 2006 2:29 AM
Comment #142078

You know, Paul, the fly in your ointment is so glaringly obvious I almost missed it.

Those agenda items are Democrat’s meal ticket to power. If and when they regain power, their political party machine and leadership will abandon those agendas in a heartbeat for their true #1 priority, exercising and keeping power. Not all Democrats all the time, but, most, and most of the time. Eventually Democrats will get leadership which sees ideology or power as their first priority and they will put the screws to other Democrat politicians who want to put the people’s or the nation’s interests first.

Then we anti-incumbents will grow our numbers and throw your party out on its ass again, as we are about to do, yet again, to the GOP. And so it goes with the inherent flaw of the political party system which seeks voter party loyalty instead of voter common sense and seeks money to alter the people’s common sense through PR and Spin instead of appealing to it, when they are in power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 21, 2006 2:50 AM
Comment #142082

im my honest opinion of todays crap we are seing… we need to look back at history and do what out ancestors did when corporations took control …very much like today. back then they did a total strike and shut down the nation to demand fairness and equal pay and formed unions! i think to day this needs to be done and the corpand government needs to listen. (remember we control this government not them)

Posted by: chas at April 21, 2006 3:10 AM
Comment #142085

chas said: “(remember we control this government not them)”

Only in your dreams, chas. There is a reason 100’s of millions of dollars are sent by political parties and candidates and politicians to Public Relations and advertising firms and think tanks. It is called return on investment which simply means, they get and keep control over the public most of the time on most issues.

If the public were in control of politicians, poll ratings would not be so low, and incumbency election rates would not be between 94 and 97%.

Now if you want to help our growing numbers of anti-incumbent voters turn this around, support Vote Out Incumbents organizations and vote for your own incumbent’s challengers in Nov. as a means of telling you are taking charge.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 21, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #142091


IMO, the best form of government and economic model is an amalgam of capitalism and socialism. Capitalism with restraints on unfettered power and socialism to make sure that the welfare of all citizens is provided for. Capitalism provides incentives for success, socialism can make sure that everyone has at least the basics of life.

The problem is getting and keeping the balance right. Too much unrestrained capitalism and we get the excesses and corruption that we have seen recently (Enron,etc), while too much socialism stifles economic growth and can lead to a stagnant economy and society.

Posted by: John Back at April 21, 2006 6:21 AM
Comment #142098

It pains me but I have to agree with Ron Brown, but I do.
The Democratic party would abandon their “let’s fix government” platform as soon as they took over.
The reason Clinton was so successfull was the Republican counter-balance maintained the checks and balances we need in a Democracy.
We do not have that. We have a bunch of crooked yes-men in Congress and the Senate.
The Republican party having control of the government has demonstrated their allegiance to corporate America and their inability to rule for the people. They have confirmed our suspicions that they are slaves to the military industrial complex, pharmaceutical companies, “Big Oil”, HMO’s and Insurance companies and every other wealthy, greed driven fat cat that funds their campaigns. The Democrats are different but the same.
Our government is no longer ours. Those who throw their hands up and say we are powerless to make changes and to seize power are part of the problem, not the solution.
The Democrats are a short term solution. We must put the Democrats in a position to get rid of Bush. WE must hold them to their “let’s fix the government platform and finally we must expand our government to include 4-5 parties and force transparency and level the playing field. THE VOTERS should help design campaign reform. THE TAX-PAYERS should help design a just tax system.
THE PEOPLE should decide when we fight and when we use diplomacy. WE need to vote on immigration laws, not hope our government does the right thing.
WE need to take money out of politics because IT has replaced OUR VOICES. WE used to matter to them.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 21, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #142109

Tim Crow,
What new ideas? About all that’s on this thread is partisan fantasy and a rehash of old ideas that have been tried and failed repeatedly.

Posted by: traveller at April 21, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #142149

Andre-

When half of us don’t even bother to vote it’s hard to complain….

Posted by: George in SC at April 21, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #142160

Duano: get a Life. “annaul” is obviously a faStfingered Typo - whereas consistent mis-spellings are the indication of a Little Mind (see famous quote from R.W. Emerson). As for “organised” (and: colour, humour, honour, neighbour, licence, traveller, practise, etc.) - these are English words, yes? From what Language? Invented by Whom? From what region in the World? (You do know that there is a World out there, beyond America, don’t you?) I am a simple Irish girl, but I did learn how to use English properly, thank you very much. If you want to use your bastardised American patois to communicate with then, by all means, do so!

I’ll stick with the Original.

P.S.: still feeling the sting of my calling you on your hypocrisy, are you? Good, good

:oD

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 21, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #142161

It was said above that a higher wage would drive a buisness out. Who is that dummy? Do they think that it would happen overnight? We would know about it months before hand and a buisness could compensate their company to make the change. Anyone who has ever run or worked in a company knows that a price increase is certian to happen. Since 97 all of our products have gone up in price but our wage stays the same. Who is getting the money? Certianly not the people working for min. wage.

Posted by: joe at April 21, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #142188

Betty,

As I’ve stated before, I couldn’t be more proud of all those great gems of truth I posted, and I stand by all of them. The fact that you had enough time on your hands to go through the archives and look up all those statements explains why you favor socialist policies, so people who actually work can pay for you to spend your life on the internet. ;-]

Posted by: Duano at April 21, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #142194

“What new ideas? About all that’s on this thread is partisan fantasy and a rehash of old ideas that have been tried and failed repeatedly”

I don’t think social and economic justice is a partisan fantasy. I don’t think of discussions about the shanghai-ing of American Democracy by Corporate agendas and moneyed interests are a rehash of old ideas. The debasement of the American idea and democracy by oligarchy is a battle that needs to be renewed every generation—if it is not renewed, we have political and economic and environmental crises that could very well swamp the Republic’s ability to correct and cope.

Civilization is not a given. It must be nutured, tended, and most of all, believed in.

Are you willing to contribute, or sneer?

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 21, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #142195

I don’t know what form of government it is, but I’d like a cushy job in the ministry of truth since history was always written to serve someone’s self interest.

The food in the cafeteria should be high-quality and one shouldn’t have to sneak around to meet a nice self-absorbed girl.

I want an apartment with central heat and air and good pluming.

The wine should be excellent and the tobacco should be a blend that stays in the paper when you light it.

And for heaven sakes I’d like to be able to turn off the telescreen for at least 30 minutes a day. A little down time keeps one sane.

What’s good for the party should be good for the proles too. We all can be happy here can’t we?

Posted by: ken at April 21, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #142196

Duano:

Socialism is the pure, raw, firery demand for economic and social justice—for all. But socialsim must not be allowed to run things. Just as free-market, law-of-the-jungle capitalism running everything is the bane of human liberty.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 21, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #142244


The world is filled with successful socialist countries.Sweden ,France, Austria….. It depends largely as to your definition of socialist. All countries have some socialist aspects. Some more,some less. We have the post office,a federal retirement system,public education etc. Most first world countries have universal healthcare,more direct government control of key industries etc. You really should not let the mere mention of the word “socialism” terrify you. An overreaction to 50 years of cold war propaganda perhaps? There have been some great Americans who proudly called themselves “socialist.” Helen Keller and Jack London to name just two.It is pretty hard to argue that we should not of nationalized the oil industry in the thirties when we had a chance.

Posted by: BillS at April 21, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #142246

BillS:

Excellent point! Lest I misrepresent myself—on my good days I’m a Social Democrat. On my bad days, I’m anti-captitalist.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 21, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #142269

>>As I’ve stated before, I couldn’t be more proud of all those great gems of truth I posted, and I stand by all of them.

Posted by: Duano at April 21, 2006 05:38 PM

Go home, Cheney/Bush…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 21, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #142287

Truism: The wealthy must control the mechanisms of government. It is a class imperitive. Like fish need water or dogs need sleep. They will do so by any means necessary. Always have and always will under any form of government.This has been true of this country from the beginnig. The founders were all white men of property.
The big problem now is that the particular band in control are of the Anne Rand/social Darwinist/Malthusian cult.Not much different than the devine right of kings crap. More thoughtful and compassionate people of wealth can and have served . FDR and JFK come to mind.
Democracy or representitive democracy has the best record of modifying control by the wealthy toward benefitting the common person. This can occur with an active,informed citizenry voting THEIR best interest. When this happens the people in power can only stay in power by ascenting to the will of the people and they will stay in power. When they manage to convince most of the people not to vote and use lies,fear and propaganda to convince those that do to vote against their group interest you get what we have now.
A proposal: Raise everyones taxes say $100 or so. Give everyone a tax credit of the same amount for voting. Use the money to publicly fund campaigns less the cost of providing proofs of voting and additional vote tabulating.Many details to work out but any real ,sustainable change must start by getting people back in the voting booth and this is one way to do it.

Posted by: BillS at April 22, 2006 1:26 AM
Comment #142326

Tim Crow: Well said!

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 22, 2006 10:05 AM
Comment #142379

Joe-

First, I agree that a raise in the minimum wage is due. And, depending on the amount of the raise, it would have a beneficial effect. However, the downside is that too large an increase all at once could very well jeopardize some small businesses. The average Mom and Pop grocery could not raise prices enough to compensate for the added payroll and payroll taxes that a large increase would trigger. Ditto for you average corner gas station or convenience store.

When we start agitating for an increase in the minimum wage, let’s not forget the little folks.

Posted by: John Back at April 22, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #142410

>>The average Mom and Pop grocery could not raise prices enough to compensate for the added payroll and payroll taxes that a large increase would trigger. Ditto for you average corner gas station or convenience store.

When we start agitating for an increase in the minimum wage, let’s not forget the little folks.

Posted by: John Back at April 22, 2006 05:07 PM

Businesses in China, Pakistan, Mexico, etc. are successful because of forced, sweatshop labor. I would hope that if a small business in America cannot survive without sweatshop labor, it really doesn’t need to remain in business. A living wage is the cornerstone of a free market system. Without a living wage there are no customers to purchase the goods produced…hence, no market…Republicans conveniently forget that salient fact when they talk down the nose about the market stresses of raising the minimum wage. Not raising the minimum wage only puts short term profits into the pockets of those whose pockets are already stuffed. In the long run, the market suffers.

When the market adjusts to a higher wage, and it must do so or fail, many of those who have had to survive on a non-living wage have fallen through the cracks into homelessness or death.

Raising the minimum wage has never, in its history, caused any kind of meltdown in the economy or failures in a significant number of small businesses.

Those who are against raising the wage are small minded, unthinking fools.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 22, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #142417

Good article Paul…very to the point. While our current administration is busy trying to put Iraq back together, they are completely ignoring the pressing issues we face at home. If our government is more willing to take care of Iraqis than us…where does that leave us…shit out of luck. We are collectively becoming poorer by the minute, rising gas prices are going to bankrupt the average consumer, and we have MILLIONS of people in our own country who cannot afford health insurance. We pride ourselves for being such a powerful, wealthy nation…but where is that wealth? Because I can assure you, many of us do not see it. I truly hope the idiocy of the Bush administration will cause voters to think very hard about their choice come 2008. It is very clear to me that we need Democrats to clean up the mess that Bush has made and return our country to something we can really be proud of.

Posted by: Tyla at April 22, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #142426

we need Democrats to clean up the mess that Bush has made and return our country to something we can really be proud of?

What scares me most about reading these posts - is not entirely the mis-statements and illogical rants. It’s that I can assume most of you vote.

Posted by: LLE at April 23, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #142528

People should look at GWBush in relation to David Milch’s writing. They supposedly were in a fraternity together at Yale. From some of GWBush’s statments, I would guess that he admires Milch’s television shows a great deal, and has probably been influenced by them. (Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue, and currently Deadwood) Or alternatively, Milch’s current characters may be based on GWBush. Bush probably thinks of himself as Al Swearingen, capitalist entrepeneur tough guy, not getting that Milch is criticizing the qualities in the characters that Bush would admire.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 23, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #142633
Bush probably thinks of himself as Al Swearingen …

Swearingen, being a Genuine Historical Figure, like many in the “Deadwood” series

http://adamsmuseumandhouse.org/answers/alswerengen.html

would eat either George W. Bush or Dick Cheney up like a Gold Stream Trout and spit out the Buttons in a South Dakota minute.

Bush didn’t have a Texas accent until he ran for Governor!

LOL!

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 24, 2006 3:35 AM
Post a comment