Friday Talking Points [302] -- Give America A Raise!
There was a lot of political news this week, most of it pretty good for Democrats. In the Senate, Democrats forced Republicans to filibuster a minimum wage bill (more on that in a bit), and then the week ended with some very good news in the unemployment numbers.
Some of us in the punditocracy have been predicting for a while now that the midterm races might not be as centered on Obamacare as the Republicans think it will -- that the improving economic news and which party is fighting for the middle class may be the real front-and-center issue during the campaign. It is now not outside the bounds of possibility that the unemployment figure could fall to below six percent before the election, which would certainly allow the Democrats to start playing a lot stronger offense, out on the hustings. While one month of really good news does not a trend make, we'll see if continued good employment news starts to shift the focus of the political conversation by summer or fall.
Before we really get into this week's news, though, we have three follow-up items to point out. Last week we called for a whole raft of new constitutional amendments that Democrats should propose, so we've got to say it is heartening to see at least one of them advancing to a Senate vote -- one that would effectively overturn Citizens United and all the other Supreme Court "money is speech" rulings. Chuck Schumer announced this upcoming vote, on a proposal by Tom Udall (see the full text of his amendment, if you're interested), so kudos to both senators.
The second update is on the campaign in Mississippi for businesses to proudly show that they don't discriminate, after a "religious freedom" law was passed to preserve the "right" of discrimination. It now seems that others in Mississippi are very upset that their neighbors are not as bigoted as they are, and are loudly complaining about it. "Boo freakin' hoo" is our response, personally.
And the third update is how quickly John Boehner had to backtrack from his epic mocking of his fellow House Republicans last week (once again, if you haven't seen it, you simply must check out the video). Boehner's new position? "There was no mocking." Really, John? Well, we have to say that we know mocking when we see mocking, and "mocking" is actually the nicest way you could put it, no matter what you try to sell to the people you just mocked.
In other news, the Obamacare numbers just keep getting better and better. Even in states that refused to set up their own exchanges. And -- more importantly for Democratic midterm chances -- even in states with the toughest Senate races.
What else? A voter ID law was overturned by a federal court, which is important for why it was struck down.
OK, we've just got a few quick reports of Republican follies, and then we'll get on with this week's awards. The infamous "kissing congressman," Republican Vance McAllister, says he won't be seeking re-election. I don't know why -- Louisiana voters re-elected Senator David Vitter, even after his romps with prostitutes were made public. Just kissing a woman who isn't your wife seems a lot tamer than that, right?
Not all Republicans shirk from running for office after scandals, which includes David Rivera, who will be running to return to a House seat from Florida even though he's still under F.B.I. investigation for alleged shenanigans during the 2010 election.
And then there is Republican House member Michael Grimm of New York, a former F.B.I. agent and former owner of a health food restaurant named Healthalicious, who was under arrest this week on charges of employing illegal immigrants and evading taxes at his restaurant. Wait... what? There's a House Republican who used to own a restaurant called "Healthalicious"? Wow. How very "crunchy granola" of him!
And finally, an ominous report from Nevada that fans of racist rancher Cliven Bundy had set up their own checkpoints and were stopping people on the roads and checking for local identification. Ominous when this sort of thing happens in faraway places like the Ukraine, but even more ominous right here at home.
We have a lot to get to with the awards this week, so let's dive in.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew was in front of a congressional committee this week, which took a surprising turn when some Republicans wanted to question him about marijuana -- in specific, the new Justice Department guidance on banks doing business in states that had legalized some form of marijuana use. Lew, to his credit, backed up the Justice Department's position. However, he only gets an Honorable Mention for doing so, since in Colorado they've found even the new position unworkable (and are trying to pass some sort of alternative banking scheme to fix the problem).
President Obama also wins an Honorable Mention this week, for his remarks after the Senate Republicans filibustered a raise in the minimum wage, but since two of our talking points are from these remarks, we'll have more on it later.
For the first time in many months, we've got a tie for the coveted Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. We honestly couldn't choose between these two candidates, who were both impressive for different reasons.
Our first winner is Pennsylvania state senator Daylin Leach, who staged a sit-in in the Republican governor's office, since the governor had ignored letters from families with sick children who were urging him to sign a new Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Act. Leach, who is running for U.S. Congress, had sponsored the bill which passed the legislature even though the governor threatened to veto it. Leach announced his plans for a sit-in on Monday. By Thursday, Governor Tom Corbett had met with some parents, and announced a complete reversal of his position -- he will now sign the bill.
That's an amazing and impressive feat of political theater, folks. We certainly wish Leach well in his run for the House, and hope that bragging about his first-ever MIDOTW award will help.
Our second award goes to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who gave a speech on the Senate floor this week that pointed out that while the National Basketball Association deserved praise for acting so swiftly on racism in the ranks of its team owners, the National Football League deserved nothing but condemnation for refusing to act to force the Washington Redskins to change their highly offensive team name. I already wrote about this earlier this week (where I added in to the mix the even-more-offensive Cleveland Indians mascot "Chief Wahoo"), but Reid deserves all the credit for pushing the issue to the spotlight and tying it to the Clippers owner's lifetime ban. By the end of the week, even John McCain was getting on board (showing how potent this issue could become).
For stepping up and making a connection which now seems obvious, Harry Reid has earned his seventeenth Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Harry's right -- racism simply should not be allowed in professional sports. Period.
[Congratulate Pennsylvania state senator Daylin Leach on his official contact page, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]
We also have four award winners in the disappointing category as well, this week.
The head of the Los Angeles chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. announced his resignation this week, which was entirely appropriate since his organization was about to hand the disgraced Clippers owner his second "lifetime achievement" award. The whole story is pretty sordid, a tale of a racist trying (and succeeding, to a large extent) to buy respectability with donations. On his way out the door, we'd like to award a well-deserved (Dis-)Honorable Mention to Leon Jenkins, for falling for it.
The White House deserves their own (Dis-)Honorable Mentionaward for refusing to even consider paying their interns. When pushing for a better minimum wage, this is kind of hard to explain, folks, especially as it seems to mean that the only interns who can survive while doing the White House's menial work are those with wealthy enough parents to support them while they do. Not exactly the political message the White House should really want to be sending right now, to put it mildly.
We've got a tie in the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week category this week. First up is Brett Husley, a state representative who is also a current Democratic candidate for governor in Wisconsin. To protest the "racist policies" of the state Republicans, he is going to stand outside the state's Republican convention and hand out "white Ku Klux Klan-style hoods." In his own words: "It's a Wisconsin Republican Party hat, and people can interpret it any way they want."
That's bad enough, but it gets worse when you add in the fact that Husley pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct two years ago for taking unwanted photos of a 9-year-old boy. Husley's only defense was that he didn't "touch or molest" the child.
Getting back to the events of this week, however, there is good political theater and there is bad political theater. Passing out K.K.K. hoods falls into the second category, no matter what you think of your opponents' politics. Other Wisconsin Democrats denounced his stunt, as well they should. Brett Husley crossed a line he shouldn't have, and by doing so earns a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.
Our final award was a no-brainer, really. Here's the whole sordid story:
A former Illinois state representative who resigned from office last month is now facing federal child pornography charges.
Keith Farnham, a Democrat who represented suburban Elgin, used a phony email account to send and receive videos and images of children as young as six months old being sexually abused, a criminal complaint filed Monday claims, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
The 66-year-old also bragged that he sexually abused a 6-year-old girl in a web chat, according to the complaint. He also allegedly said in a separate web chat that "12 is about as old as i can handle ... i love them at 6 7 8," the Chicago Tribune reports.
He wanted "all the vids and pics ever made" of kids, he allegedly said in another message.
No further comment is really necessary on this one. Except to award Farnham his very own Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.
[Contact Wisconsin state representative Brett Husley on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions. Since Keith Farnham has already resigned, so he is now a private citizen and our policy is not to provide such contact information. Probably just as well.]
Volume 302 (5/2/14)
Let's get on with our weekly talking points, which are mostly designed this week to be used by Democratic candidates running for office. We're in for a whirlwind couple of months of state primary elections, which is the real kickoff point for the general election season for the rest of the year. So it's a good time to hone the message.
Before we begin, however, we have to give some "credit where credit is due" praise -- even though it is for a Tea Party candidate's ad. Yes, you read that right. I wrote about this earlier this week, because the ad from J. D. Winteregg, who is challenging John Boehner in the Republican primary in Ohio, is the funniest yet seen this election cycle. In what is actually no more than an extended "boner joke," the ad is well produced, has an homage to the Tubes song "What Do You Want From Life?" and is nothing short of hilarious. Because we're always impressed with clever messaging (no matter the origin) we had to at least point it out for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. Even if we likely disagree with everything Winteregg stands for, we still have to tip our hat to whomever came up with this brilliantly funny ad.
Enough of that, let's get on with the Democratic talking points!
Six point three
This morning brought the best news of the week, of course.
"Unemployment has now fallen to 6.3 percent, the lowest it has been since 2008. The rate dropped four-tenths of a point in a single month -- the biggest drop in two years -- showing that after the lag of this year's brutal winter, employers are hiring once again. Almost 300,000 jobs were created last month, in fact. We could even see the rate go below 6.0 percent this summer, which would signal a return to a healthy job market, after the longest recession since the Great Depression. To all the Republicans who have built their 2014 election campaigns around prophesies of doom and gloom, I would suggest you get a little more optimistic about America's future."
Saying "no" to giving America a raise
These next two talking points are taken directly from President Obama's reaction (full transcript) to Republicans filibustering the minimum wage bill.
After 14 months since I've called on Congress to reward the hard work of millions of Americans like the ones who we have here today to raise the federal minimum wage, we saw this morning a majority of senators saying "yes," but almost every Republican saying "no" to giving America a raise. They blocked a bill ... that would have gradually raised the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. By preventing even a vote on this bill, they prevented a raise for 28 million hardworking Americans. They said "no" to helping millions work their way out of poverty -- and keep in mind, this bill would have done so without any new taxes, or spending, or bureaucracy. They told Americans like the ones who are here today that "you're on your own" -- without even looking them in the eye.
Nobody who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty
Again, from the president's remarks on the minimum wage filibuster bill. He makes the case in a very clear and fundamental way.
So Americans have been way out in front of Congress on this issue. In fact, about three in four Americans support raising the minimum wage. And that's because we believe that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, nobody who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. That’s a basic principle. And at a time when those at the top are doing better than ever, while millions of Americans are working harder and harder just to get by, that three out of four Americans understand that America deserves a raise. ...
So far Republicans in Congress disagree. In fact, some of them want to scrap the minimum wage entirely. One House Republican said, "It's outlived its usefulness. I'd vote to repeal the minimum wage." A Senate Republican said he doesn't think the minimum wage helps the middle class.
This is a very simple issue. Either you're in favor of raising wages for hardworking Americans, or you're not. Either you want to grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up so that prosperity is broad-based, or you think that top-down economics is the way to go.
$174,000 salary "not that much"
This tidbit should immediately follow any discussion on the minimum wage, for full effect.
"A Republican candidate for Senate in Iowa recently said in an interview, and I quote: 'I don't think U.S. senators make that much money.' For the record, a senator's pay is $174,000 per year, in addition to many expensive perks. Someone from his campaign admitted that the candidate had 'never really looked into how much U.S. senators make.' This is the Republican one-percenter attitude on full display, folks. The median household income in Iowa is $49, 427, just for the record. While the Republican Party is fighting hard against a minimum wage raise, they field candidates who can't even be bothered to find out what the job they're running for actually pays, because they're so wealthy it doesn't make any difference to them. I wonder if Mitt Romney has endorsed this guy yet, because it would be entirely appropriate."
Snake oil!
This is a point every Democrat should be making, whenever the Obamacare subject comes up.
"My opponent is running on a platform of total repeal of Obamacare. For years now, Republicans have been promising that they're going to offer a magic replacement plan that achieves the same things the Affordable Care Act does. Republicans won big on this issue in 2010, in fact, and took control of the House of Representatives. It has been four years -- but we still have yet to see a single bill from them detailing their replacement plan. They can't agree on one. They haven't voted on a single bill because their replacement plan simply does not exist. You know, back in the old days, there was a term for a magic cure-all product to solve all health care problems. It was called 'snake oil.' The Republicans took the House promising large doses of snake oil, and the public was fooled. As the numbers for Obamacare keep getting better and better, Republicans flounder around with nothing to show for it but a snake oil pitch. You know what? I think the public is tired of electing nothing short of snake oil salesmen to Congress. Four years of nothing but snake oil promises is enough!"
Obamacare even saving Fox News viewers' lives
There were two other stories worth mentioning on this subject as well.
"Did you see the recent news from Florida? The Republican governor went trolling for Obamacare horror stories among some senior citizens. Instead of the getting stories of woe he was hoping for, what he got instead was praise for Obamacare and seniors agreeing that on the whole it was beneficial to them and their loved ones. Up the coast in Philadelphia, a committed Fox News viewer had resisted signing up for Obamacare, even though his health was in a pretty dire state. A friend of his finally 'staged an intervention' and got him signed up on an insurance plan. He then was able to have surgery to have a heart valve replaced, which saved his life. As he put it, without Obamacare, 'I probably would have ended up falling over dead.' He was asked if Fox News had slanted his outlook, and he said he's now changed his mind, stating: 'I really do have a different outlook on it. It's really wrong that people are making it into a political thing. To me, it is a life-and-death thing. I didn't care for Obama. I can't say nothing bad about him now because it was his plan that probably saved my life.' These are the stories that are emerging from people helped by Obamacare, and even when Republican politicians go looking for campaign fodder for ads, this is what they're getting as feedback."
Banning guns -- by force!
The hypocrisy is so thick on this one, it's almost unbelievable.
"Conservatives usually get -- quite literally -- up in arms over any suggestion that a certain model of firearm be banned by law. But what is interesting is that two gun shop owners have now been forced -- by death threats, no less -- to halt plans to sell a certain model of gun. Yes, you heard that right: some gun enthusiasts are threatening deadly violence if gun shop owners don't voluntarily ban a certain type of weapon -- what's been called a 'smart gun,' that cannot be fired except by its owner. The hypocrisy was not lost on the Maryland gun shop owner -- the second such businessman who has had to back down after receiving threats on his life. Earlier, he had argued against this hypocrisy, saying -- and I quote: 'To me that is so fricking hypocritical. That's the antithesis of everything that we pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment people should be. You are not supposed to say a gun should be prohibited. Then you are being no different than the anti-gun people who say an AR-15 should be prohibited.' After repeated threats on his life, he has backed down and now says he has not sold any of the guns and will not do so. So it appears that banning certain guns is now taking place not through government tyranny or jackbooted federal agents, but through anonymous murderous threats. Ironic, isn't it?"
-- Chris Weigant
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post
citizens united was absolutely a power grab. but what's interesting about the proposed amendment to undo citizens united is the nature of the power it tries to grab back. there's nothing in the text of the amendment about money being speech or corporations being people; only the right of the LEGISLATIVE branch to take back a power to make laws that the JUDICIAL branch took away.
JL
Wonderful column as always, thank you!
Some of us in the punditocracy have been predicting for a while now that the midterm races might not be as centered on Obamacare as the Republicans think it will
The Republicans are stuck with it now. They've spent not months but years working their base up into a frenzy about what a wicked socialist plot Obamacare is. [TP5] Ted Cruz is still promising to repeal every word of it without replacement on his grand tour of the red states. I've been saying for months now that the Republicans didn't just paint themselves into a corner, they bricked themselves in. This is their millstone and they deserve it. I hope it breaks their necks politically.
[TP6] I love that the good news stories are now filtering through, especially the one about Fox viewer, Dean Angstadt, who has become a very vocal convert to Obamacare!
In a future talking point, you may want to consider including the stories of those who, because of Obamacare, have been able to leave the job they didn't like and set up their own businesses. There are two such stories here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/04/29/301839951/obamacare-enrollees-emboldened-to-leave-jobs-start-businesses?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews
These stories have a nice tie-in to falling unemployment figures [TP1] because these folks are creating job vacancies and I dare say they're doing it much more effectively than the 1%. How about a tax cut for them instead?
[TP2&3] Senate Democrats did a lovely job maneuvering Republicans into effectively saying NO! to a minimum wage hike! The House Republican who said, "It's outlived its usefulness. I'd vote to repeal the minimum wage" is just the cherry on the cake.
Is there anyone in the Republican camp who is pulling their hair out right now? There should be. The polls are showing a very clear majority in favor of a minimum wage raise and it's very popular in those states which have passed it as law already or who are about to do so. Not so much Oklahoma which banned wage raises at the municipal level. That's just playing right into the Democratic candidates hands.
[TP7] I read about this - unbelievable! I'm glad you included it as a talking point.
As a side note, I posted two links regarding "Operation American Spring" in the comments section of Tea Party’s Influence On The Wane? The second one shows a connection with the Bundy militia.
Labour Day marchers in Geneva. Photo: Annabel Durand/RTS
Labour Day marchers rally for minimum wage
Published: 01 May 2014 23:38 GMT+02:00
Updated: 01 May 2014 23:38 GMT+02:00
Demonstrators carried banners and pickets in support of a proposed minimum wage of 4,000 francs ($4,550) a month at Labour Day rallies in major Swiss cities on Thursday.
May The 4th Be With You...
Happy Star Wars Day to all Weigantians...
Remember.. The 4th Will Be With You.... Always...
Michale
Thanks, Michale!
@Michale [3]
Good to see you, Michale.
Michael, is that really you or just a hologram?
Great post, Sorry time is short so....
The only other thing that really also needs to be mentioned in the same breath as the republicans voted against raising the minimum wage, is, they also voted against a pay raise for the "middle class".
It is great that people are talking about the plight of the bottom class but I feel they are missing a great moment to really spur a populist moment by not pointing out that when the salary floor rises so do all of the other wages.
The democrats should be pointing out that the economic growth and the belief in the "American Dream" that fueled our parents or grandparents prosperity were all due to the fact that every time the salary floor rose so did everyone's. The true beauty of the argument is that it is nothing but factual.
Unfortunately the dems have never been good at this type of pivot and so will allow the argument to continue to be driven by the right, but still they should try ....
Michale,
Just in case you haven't yet noticed, we miss you! :)
It's nice to be missed. :D
And, since I am here...
"Conservatives usually get -- quite literally -- up in arms over any suggestion that a certain model of firearm be banned by law. But what is interesting is that two gun shop owners have now been forced -- by death threats, no less -- to halt plans to sell a certain model of gun. Yes, you heard that right: some gun enthusiasts are threatening deadly violence if gun shop owners don't voluntarily ban a certain type of weapon -- what's been called a 'smart gun,' that cannot be fired except by its owner. The hypocrisy was not lost on the Maryland gun shop owner -- the second such businessman who has had to back down after receiving threats on his life. Earlier, he had argued against this hypocrisy, saying -- and I quote: 'To me that is so fricking hypocritical. That's the antithesis of everything that we pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment people should be. You are not supposed to say a gun should be prohibited. Then you are being no different than the anti-gun people who say an AR-15 should be prohibited.' After repeated threats on his life, he has backed down and now says he has not sold any of the guns and will not do so. So it appears that banning certain guns is now taking place not through government tyranny or jackbooted federal agents, but through anonymous murderous threats. Ironic, isn't it?"
This is one of those completely out of context TPs...
What Democrats DON'T want ya'all to know is that by marketing the so-called "Smart Gun", it would "trigger" (get it?? Gun?? 'Trigger'?? Wow, tough room.. :D) very restrictive gun laws in the state of New Jersey and, if successful, likely elsewhere..
As always, the details and the context (IE logic and rational thought) defeats hysteria and emotionalism EVERY time...
"Dad!!! There is this awesome game in the arcade!!! I put in a dollar and I win 4 quarters!!! EVERY TIME!!!!!"
-Chris Griffin, FAMILY GUY
:D
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Feels good... :D
GT,
The democrats should be pointing out that the economic growth and the belief in the "American Dream" that fueled our parents or grandparents prosperity were all due to the fact that every time the salary floor rose so did everyone's. The true beauty of the argument is that it is nothing but factual.
According to reports and polls (standard caveats apply) Americans are coming to believe that the American dream is dying..
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-11/americans-say-dream-fading-as-income-gap-hurts-chances.html
The income gap that is causing these feelings have widened considerably under Obama and the Democrats..
Can't blame THAT one on Bush...
Well, Democrats CAN... But it would be awful lame...
Michale
@Michale [9]
So you are supportive of anonymous murderous threats to stop gun sales because you believe they would lead to restrictive gun laws?
So you are supportive of anonymous murderous threats to stop gun sales because you believe they would lead to restrictive gun laws?
Supportive of anonymous murderous threats??
What do you think I am??? A Democrat!!??? :D
I merely point out that the equivalency given by the gun shop owner is a very false equivalency..
Something Democrats excel at...
It's nothing but spin, with a total disregard for the facts and for reality..
I am also constrained to point out that there wasn't "repeated" threats, but rather one threat by some obviously psycho lunatic..
But, as usual, the Left takes the actions of one psycho loon and attempts to paint an entire group...
It would the same as if I said that all Democrats are racist because of the statements of Sterling..
There are very good reasons why this smart gun should not be on the market.
If people are passionate about things and sometimes get carried away, well... That type of hysterical histrionics is not the sole province of the Right.
Wouldn't you agree???
Michale
Michale,
What Democrats DON'T want ya'all to know is that by marketing the so-called "Smart Gun", it would "trigger" (get it?? Gun?? 'Trigger'?? Wow, tough room.. :D) very restrictive gun laws in the state of New Jersey and, if successful, likely elsewhere..
Heh.
You share a great sense of comedic timing with none other than ... wait for it ... President Obama! You could both take that show on the road!
Michale,
Sterling is a Democrat!?
Sterling is a Democrat!?
Yep.. Donated millions to Obama, Democrats and the NAACP...
He's an 80-yr old Democrat..
OF COURSE he's a racist... I mean... Duuuhhhhhh
You share a great sense of comedic timing with none other than ... wait for it ... President Obama!
Now yer just being mean!! :D hehehehehehehe
Michale
OF COURSE he's a racist... I mean... Duuuhhhhhh
Sorry, Liz.. I am out of practice..
That should have had a ' :D ' after it..
Michale
I knew that. :)
nypoet22 [1] -
Yeah, I noticed that too. It seemed to be more technincal than a flat-out declaration "corporations are not people; money does not equal speech".
Maybe it would do the trick, but I still have doubts.
Mopshell [2] -
You're right, the "I started my own business because of Obamacare" is a powerful argument. Some Dems have caught on to this, and I will keep an eye on it too...
As for minimum wage, I've been saying this is the strongest card in the Dems' hand for a while now.
-CW
palmharbor [3] -
First off, welcome to the site!
I apologize for the delay in posting, your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post instantly, as long as you don't post more than one link per comment (multilink comments are automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam).
-CW
Michale [4] -
OK, now... everyone don't make any sudden moves or loud noises... I think we can coax him out of his lair...
Heh.
:-)
Good to see you again, buddy! And I do mean that quite sincerely...
-CW
Michale [4] -
Kidding aside, may the fourth be with you, too.
"I am your father, Michale"...
Heh. Now wouldn't THAT be something...
:-)
-CW
goode trickle -
Oh, I agree. The last Dem to do so successfully was JFK's "a rising tide lifts all boats," really...
Michale -
Because I'm in a good mood (to see you back) I will admit I did indeed gloss over the whole NJ law thing. But seriously, why are smart guns such a threat to the NRA (other than the NJ law, I mean)?
Anyway, allow me to add my voice to the chorus welcoming you back.
Seriously, while you do provide a valuable service here, it is most valuable to me, on a personal level. Without your comments, I would have to wade through the swamps of the right wing websites to see what crazy-ass things they were currently obsessing over. You do a GREAT job of boiling down the right's arguments to their key points, and hammering on lefty weaknesses in their own arguments.
This, frequently, gets me thinking. And it makes me defensive. And it puts my mind in the "how can I counter that argument?" frame of thinking. Which hones my own arguments. And makes my writing better (at least, in my own humble opinion).
I have honestly missed this since you have been gone.
When the Pope recently announced the canonization of JP2 and John XXIII, they also announced they had eased the process. Everyone else focused on the "only one miracle" thing, but what caught my attention is that they got rid of the "Devil's advocate" (yes, it's a real Catholic thing, advocatus diaboli in Latin...) and that was kind of shocking to me. You ALWAYS should have someone making "the other case," because it tests and proves (in the original sense of the term) your case.
You, Sir, are my own Devil's Advocate (so to speak). Ever since our first interaction, we have been (mostly) respectful of each other on a personal level, while we have torn apart each other's position on a daily basis. This has, I can say without fear of you contradicting me, engendered a certain amount of respect on both sides.
We both know we're never going to convince each other. You should know that you're in the minority here, and that you're not going to convince anyone of much of anything. But that doesn't subtract from the fun, does it?
You come here because you can poke a stick at lefties and you haven't been banned from commenting. I don't ban you because you keep within certain guidelines of not attacking commenters directly and personally (mostly).
For everyone else -- for the rest of us lefties here, to put it another way -- Michale is also allowed a lot of leeway because he is one of the biggest financial supporters of this site. He pays his dues -- every December. Without him, the site would not now be self-supporting.
Call me a whore for giving Michale leeway for his donations, and I can accept that. That's why I publicly admit it -- to keep my own conscience clear.
To sum up this whole screed...
We've missed you, Michale. We LOVE arguing with you, on some deep level. We are glad you're back.
And, seriously, how many other lefty sites are ever going to say that to you?
:-)
-CW
CW [18],
No, the amendment wouldn't work. The use of the term "appropriate legislation" in section 4 is exactly the same hook SCOTUS used to gut VRA section 5 legislation. And nothing in the amendment addresses SCOTUS' newly self-conferred authority to veto or repeal legislation it considers "inappropriate."
As I've said repeatedly, you cannot address SCOTUS' refusal to honor the Constitution by amending the Constitution. That falls into Einstein's insanity definition--doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
The Constitutional remedy for SCOTUS misbehavior is impeachment. Its the only practical remedy. Justices who cannot be trusted to be objective, and honor the Constitution, are worse than useless. There's no point in even attempting to correct them. They simply require replacement.
Until Congress, and the people, accept that basic truth, SCOTUS will be unchecked and out of control. Sitting around pretending that Justices are infallible and incorruptible is no more effective, or realistic, than any other means of burying ones head in the sand and refusing to face reality.
The Founders never believed for a second that the honor system would prevent ANY branch of government from abusing its authority. Rather, they took it as a given that any branch of government that could abuse its authority WOULD abuse it. They had historical precedent on their side in forming that belief, and all the evidence since continues to corroborate it.
Michale,
"Welcome to the party, pal!"
--John McClain
:D
TS,
Michael, is that really you or just a hologram?
This isn't the Weigantian Commenter you are looking for.. Move along
:D
CW,
"I am your father, Michale"...
Heh. Now wouldn't THAT be something...
Now THAT would be a hoot!! :D
But seriously, why are smart guns such a threat to the NRA (other than the NJ law, I mean)?
Two words.
"Government Control"
You don't think the NSA could hack "smart guns"??
You recall the Battlestar Galactica remake, right??
For those who don't, after the first Cylon war, the Colonials had to redesign their weapons of war because the weapons were overly dependent on computer networking. Since the Cylons were AI machines to begin with, they could easily disable the Colonials weapons systems. That's why Adama made Galactica a completely non-networked battlestar..
Now apply that lesson to the here and now..
In the eyes of the NRA and 2nd Amendment supporters, what is the entire idea behind the 2nd Amendment??
A well-armed America is an America better suited to defend themselves from threats both Foreign AND DOMESTIC
Now imagine that the "well-armed" America is armed with guns that the government can turn off at will..
Not so well-armed, eh??
If personal weapons can be hacked and be turned off, then they really aren't that effective a weapon beyond a club, eh??
If New Jersey is successful in it's bid to make all guns smart guns, based on their availability anywhere in the country, how long do you think it's going to be before other states follow NJ???
That's the danger here. And, while I will concede that it doesn't justify the threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the passion that it invokes is logical, considering the stakes..
Michale
CW,
Re:#22
I am honestly moved and honored by your comment.. You should know that I was never really "gone", that many MANY comments had me straining at the self-imposed leash to rip off a retort...
After weeks of that, I just came to realize that, while winning by forfeit :D can be pain, it's infinitely preferable to not being in the game.
I apologize for abdicating my responsibilities here :D I promise it (probably) won't happen again. :D
Michale
LD,
"Welcome to the party, pal!"
--John McClain
:D
Now THAT was funny!!! :D
Thanx... Sincerely..
Michale
PalmHarbor,
A fellow Floridian, per chance??
As is my norm...
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
Demonstrators carried banners and pickets in support of a proposed minimum wage of 4,000 francs ($4,550) a month at Labour Day rallies in major Swiss cities on Thursday.
Ya know, back in the good old days, there was a reason that minimum wage jobs WERE minimum wage jobs.
There weren't meant as a means of support, but rather a stepping stone to bigger and better things..
But people have gotten lazy and don't want to strive to better themselves. They want to be paid handsomely and rewarded excessively for doing nothing more than flipping burgers..
If people want to earn more money, here's a wild and radical thought..
WORK HARDER!!! STRIVE FOR SUCCESS!!!
Consider this..
An E-5 in Afghanistan makes approx $2500 a month base pay.. Hazard Duty pay, etc etc let's say for the sake of the argument is around $500.. That's being generous..
So an E-5 in Afghanistan makes about $3K per month.. When one takes into account that, in a TOP, a soldier is "working" 24 hours a day, that $3K a month translates out to a little more than $4 an hour...
So, let's look at stateside..
Democrats want to pay some teen fresh out of high school over $10 per hour to flip burgers and/or empty trash cans..
Hmmmmmmmmm
A soldier putting his (or her) life on the line protecting this country makes $4 an hour....
A guy (or girl) flipping burgers wants over $10 per hour...
Is it just me or does that seem a little incongruous to anyone??
I'll finish where I started..
In the good old days, if people wanted better pay they worked harder..
In the here and now, Democrats want to simply hand people better pay... No extra work required at all, let alone HARD work...
Democrats want to pay someone who flips burgers almost THREE TIMES as much as someone who is risking their life for this country...
Call me silly, but that is whacked.. Utterly and completely whacked...
Welcome to Weigantia :D
Michale
As for minimum wage, I've been saying this is the strongest card in the Dems' hand for a while now.
When you consider that the CBO has stated that such a raise in the minimum wage would eliminate up to 1 billion jobs???
Not so much....
The idea is to CREATE jobs..
Not eliminate jobs..
Didn't Democrats get the memo???
Michale
One other point..
(Sorry, there is a lot of back-pressure built up.. Things will equalize momentarily :D)
Democrats have three major initiatives going..
1. Amnesty for illegal immigrants that will create up to 30 million new citizens.
2. Pardons for millions of drug-related criminals.
3. Eliminating ID requirements for voters to facilitate fraudulent voting.
Isn't it odd that the ONE thing all those actions have in common is that they will create millions and millions and millions of new freshly-minted Democrat voters...
What an AMAZING coincidence, eh??
All those actions are very bad for the country, but they are very VERY good for the Democratic Party..
Iddn't that strange??
Michale
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-speaks
Doesn't anyone wanna talk about the Right's alleged "war on women"??
Because THAT right there was a true "war on women"...
And it was being waged fully and completely by the entirety of the Democratic Party....
So, once again... Something about stones and glass houses comes to mind..
Michale
Michale,
Your view of minimum wage history is, unsurprisingly, a fantasy. Like the rest of your right-wing beliefs. There have always been employers exploiting workers by refusing to pay them what their labors were worth. The minimum wage wasn't created to provide start-up jobs, as you claim. It was created to mitigate and reduce worker exploitation by employers.
Oh, and when I served in the military, during the draft, the average pay was $.040 per hour. E5s are "supervisors", "management" not minimum wage workers. Do you REALLY think $4 an hour is worth risking your life for? (Not that it IS $4/hr! There are non-cash compensations.)
So you're comparing entry-level workers salaries to entry-level management salaries. Comparing cash compensation, minus non-cash benefits, to TOTAL compensation. And comparing salaries subject to minimum wage laws to salaries that are NOT subject to minimum wage in order to come to the conclusion that since soldiers are exploited EVERYONE should be exploited AT LEAST as much?!
No national military can afford to pay soldiers what its "worth" for them to risk their lives. And soldiers aren't doing it just for the cash. Your "logic" is as faulty as always.
Minimum wage laws are about fair compensation. There is no job for which employers are entitled to command 40 hours a week of workers' time without paying them enough even to live on. "Entry level" does not mean jobs you work for free until you get one that pays. If you require live workers you must pay a "living wage." Its as simple as that.
YOU'VE got it backwards. Employers who can't pay a living wage are not entitled to workers, not workers who don't "work harder" aren't entitled to a living wage. In order to get the minimum wage you must supply 40 hours per week in services. WHAT those services are is irrelevant. Take up nearly one third of anyones life and they deserve a living wage from you no matter how YOU choose to use their time.
The minimum wage wasn't created to provide start-up jobs, as you claim. It was created to mitigate and reduce worker exploitation by employers.
I am not talking about creation..
I am talking about reality of the here and now..
A person signs on to a job at McDonalds flipping burgers and emptying the trash..
It's an ENTRY LEVEL position... It's not designed to be a way of life...
If someone wants better pay, LET THEM WORK FOR IT...
You go on and on about "living wage"...
Define "living"??
For you and the rest of the Democrats, "Living" means a jacuzzi, a 60" wide screen TV and two cars...
Now, I have all those things, but I worked HARD to EARN them..
THAT is the point you seem to want to ignore..
If you want a better wage, then EARN it..
Don't just expect it to be handed to you on a silver platter...
Do you REALLY think $4 an hour is worth risking your life for? (Not that it IS $4/hr! There are non-cash compensations.)
Of course not.. And any service member who is in it JUST for the money is nothing more than a mercenary...
But the point is, higher wages are a REWARD for hard work...
Ya'all just want to hand higher wages, simply because people exist...
Where is the incentive to strive for something better if Democrats are simply going to hand it to everyone on a silver platter???
Democrats want to pay someone $1600 a month JUST to show up to work and pick their nose...
Here's a radical idea..
Let those people EARN that kind of pay...
Michale
You see, the idea is to CREATE jobs!!
Now see how many jobs Obama and the Democrats can destroy!
Michale
And, Michale,
The CBO never said raising the minimum wage would eliminate 1 billion jobs. That's absurd.
Jobs don't disappear because workers have to be paid. They never have, they never will. Your belief in the pyramid theory of capitalism, that you can freely exploit workers because they'll always be someone else to sell to, is what led to worldwide economic collapse.
You have to pay workers in order to have customers. And DEMAND is what creates jobs. This country, and the world, flourished under the Henry Ford theory of economics. While Reganomics has crashed the economy, nationally and globally--repeatedly. Enriching the wealthy at the expense of workers does NOT "trickle-down."
The CBO never said raising the minimum wage would eliminate 1 billion jobs. That's absurd.
Really???
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/
Jobs don't disappear because workers have to be paid.
POTENTIAL jobs DO disappear when employers have to pay entry level positions so much that they have no capital to invest in other skilled/unskilled jobs...
So, yes...
Raising the minimum wage will cost between 500,000 and 1 billion jobs...
As I said.. The idea is to CREATE jobs...
Not DESTROY jobs...
Of course, the Democrat goal of creating a class of people totally dependent on freebies and handouts from the government is perfectly in keeping with destroying the job-creating ability of the American private sector...
Michale
Like with everything I listed in #30, Democrats are simply trying to buy more Democrat voters...
Apparently outright bribery is not beneath them...
Color me surprised... :^/
Michale
Jobs don't disappear because workers have to be paid.
Picture ACME Electronics.. They are embarking on a new and revolutionary new design that will END Global Warming.. er.. I mean Climate Change... er I mean Climate Disruption...
All ACME E has to do is higher a couple new scientists and technicians and they will have it made in the shade...
THE END OF GLOBAL WARMING!!! er, I mean CLIMATE CHANGE!!! oh wait.. CLIMATE DISRUPTION!!!
But wait.. Now they have to pay their janitors and trash dumpers and floor sweepers 30% more for the same entry level work..
Oh well.. I guess there won't be a cure for Global Warming..
OR Climate Change...
OR Climate Disruption...
Democrats had to buy more voters so now the world is going to hell in a handbasket and will likely end Day After Tomorrow...
Too bad, so sad...
Michale
For the record, there is nothing wrong with increasing the minimum wage...
COL changes require that the minimum wage keeps up...
But TEN BUCKS an hour!?? For flipping burgers or sweeping floors or emptying garbage???
Are you frakin' KIDDING me!!
If someone wants to earn TEN BUCKS an hour, let them put their nose to the grind stone and EARN it!!
Ya know, hard work and perseverance are NOT dirty words...
They are commendable qualities that should be NURTURED and ENCOURAGED....
Michale
Hay CW,
Maybe you should rename this FTP:
MICHALE UNLEASHED!!!
:D
Michale,
First, the CBO is in the business of making forecasts. And, unlike you, THEY know it! They NEVER "predict" ANYTHING "will" happen.
And a cite that the CBO forecasts raising the minimum wage "might cost 500,000 jobs" hardly translates into "will cost 1 billion jobs." And that's without even getting into the fact that what they ACTUALLY said is that it might cost 500,000 NEW jobs. Or the fact that even THAT is in dispute because of differences of opinion regarding offsetting CREATION of new jobs, and the fact that NEITHER is accurately quantifiable.
So you take a "guestimate", exaggerate it, and misrepresent it.--Like I said, the CBO never said raising the minimum wage would cost 1 billion jobs.
Jobs are created by people with money in their pockets to spend. Jobs are NOT created by people with money in the Caymans and Lichtenstein to hide.
You wingers like to pretend that little "details" like--facts--and, the truth, don't really matter. That everything is just "spin." They do. They aren't. And your lies are just lies.
First, the CBO is in the business of making forecasts. And, unlike you, THEY know it! They NEVER "predict" ANYTHING "will" happen.
You don't seem to make that distinction when the CBO says that TrainWreckCare is going to be awesome! :D
Why not??
And a cite that the CBO forecasts raising the minimum wage "might cost 500,000 jobs" hardly translates into "will cost 1 billion jobs." And that's without even getting into the fact that what they ACTUALLY said is that it might cost 500,000 NEW jobs. Or the fact that even THAT is in dispute because of differences of opinion regarding offsetting CREATION of new jobs, and the fact that NEITHER is accurately quantifiable.
Now who'se splitting hairs??
To get the economy back on track, this country NEEDS "NEW" jobs...
Raising the min wage to that obscene height will COST this country "UP TO" 1 BILLION of those desperately needed NEW jobs... THAT is what the CBO says...
And, as I am always pointing out, you people LOVE what the CBO says...
WHEN it supports ya'alls agenda...
Michale is proven right once again... :D
Jobs are created by people with money in their pockets to spend.
Exactly..
And if those people have to pay the lowest skilled worker the cost of a skilled worker, then those people WON'T have the money to create the jobs..
It's not rocket science, LD...
I mean, honestly.. Why don't we REALLY allow these people a "living wage" and raise the min wage to $20 an hour!!
Then these newly minted and purchased Democrat voters can REALLY live, right??
$20 an hour for min wage is ridiculous, right??
So is $10 an hour...
That's all I am saying....
Michale
Face the facts, LD...
The ONLY reason that the Democratic Party is pursuing this is so they can pander to the low-information, greedy and lazy voter.
They people whose votes can be bought.
And the Dem Party is going to make sure that THEY are the ones who buy the votes and the voters...
It's bribery, pure and simple...
Michale
The ONLY reason that the Democratic Party is pursuing this is so they can pander to the low-information, greedy and lazy voter.
Add that as #4 in comment 30...
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck.......
It USED to be that political Partys would do GOOD for their country as a means of appealing to the masses...
Once again, the "good old days"...
Michale
It's an economic fact that raising the price floor on labor does tend to reduce job-hours. but that doesn't matter if the equilibrium wage is so low that people can't feed their families, and basic needs like food, shelter and a doctor aren't met. fact is, ten dollars an hour doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, barely subsistence with the cost of living being what it is.
JL
It's an economic fact that raising the price floor on labor does tend to reduce job-hours. but that doesn't matter if the equilibrium wage is so low that people can't feed their families, and basic needs like food, shelter and a doctor aren't met. fact is, ten dollars an hour doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, barely subsistence with the cost of living being what it is.
Then, that being the case, the only logical course of action would be to raise the minimum wage to something higher that WOULD have the "purchasing power" to be a "living wage"....
Wouldn't you agree????
Michale
The American economy is less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last three decades. That's the conclusion of a new study out from the Brookings Institution, which looks at the rates of new business creation and destruction since 1978.
Not only that, but during the most recent three years of the study -- 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- businesses were collapsing faster than they were being formed, a first. Overall, new businesses creation (measured as the share of all businesses less than one year old) declined by about half from 1978 to 2011.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/05/u-s-businesses-are-being-destroyed-faster-than-theyre-being-created/?hpid=z5
Ya'all see the danger???
Now, let's force businesses to pay their entry level low-skilled workers 30% more...
What could POSSIBLY go wrong!???
Michale
What ya think, CW??
Too much, too soon?? :D
Michale
Aww right... I am done for the day...
JACK... IS.... BACK..... :D
Michale
LOL
Michale [25] -
OK, that makes a certain amount of sense. Hadn't considered the "hackability" of the currently-available smart guns. But if they ever perfect the palm-print-reading gun, I don't think that could be easily hacked. What would you think about palm readers? And, to make it interesting (I see your Battlestar Galactica, and raise you...), may I hasten to point out that this is how Judge Dredd's weapon (his "Lawgiver") works -- which is why he's never scared of some perp snatching it from him, because it self-destructs when they attempt to use it.
M [26] -
Well, I did try to coax you out... I even wrote in defense of a Tea Party candidate!
Heh.
M [28] -
That's a false parallel, since the burger-flipper isn't provided with food, shelter, clothes, health care, and life insurance. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but you've got to at least add in the perks.
M [29] -
Nope. The CBO said "between zero and one million jobs would be lost" and then they took a stab in the dark and called it 500,000. We'd need the population of China or India to even HAVE a billion jobs to lose, after all!
:-)
Economists disagreed with the CBO, as most of the more recent studies have shown no job loss at all -- when one state or one city raises their minimum wage, it has no effect whatsoever on total jobs.
M [31] -
How was a consensual affair a "war on women"? I mean, OK, Clinton was a dog and boffed the intern, but how does that change any other women's lives other than Hillary's and Monica's?
GOP policies are aimed at ALL women. That's the difference.
As for the minimum wage thing, here's another way of looking at it. WalMart and fast food workers are told to apply for food stamps, since they're making sub-poverty wages. What this means, in essence, is that your taxes subsidize cheap workers in certain industry. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for benefits these companies should be providing, so that minimum wage = above poverty, and not eligible for food stamps?
M [34] -
So far, I believe over 9 million jobs have been created under Obama. Oh, and Obamacare doesn't seem to be destroying jobs, either, as the GOP predicted.
M [36] -
it's "million." With an "M"... not "B"...
Seattle's thinking about raising their min. wage to $15/hr. Didn't you used to live up there? Heh. Couldn't resist.
-CW
DOh!!!
Did I mix up my Bs and Ms!!!
Crap, I hate when I do that...
How was a consensual affair a "war on women"? I mean, OK, Clinton was a dog and boffed the intern, but how does that change any other women's lives other than Hillary's and Monica's?
It's not that B Clinton boffed an intern.
It's how H Clinton TREATED that intern after the fact...
Put another way. If it had been a Republican that had treated Lewinsky in that manner, ya'all would have said it's just another example of the Republicans "War On Women"...
If it's a WoW if a Republican does it, it's a WoW if a Democrat does it.
No??
But if they ever perfect the palm-print-reading gun, I don't think that could be easily hacked.
You don't think that the government will require that all Smart Guns be made with a government controlled back door??
And, to make it interesting (I see your Battlestar Galactica, and raise you...), may I hasten to point out that this is how Judge Dredd's weapon (his "Lawgiver") works -- which is why he's never scared of some perp snatching it from him, because it self-destructs when they attempt to use it.
Didn't LOGANS RUN do it first?? :D
That's a false parallel, since the burger-flipper isn't provided with food, shelter, clothes, health care, and life insurance. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but you've got to at least add in the perks.
Fair enough. But that doesn't negate the point.
We're talking about flipping burgers... 10 bucks an hour??
And, as Joshua points out, even THAT high of pay won't do diddley squat...
So, you have to make the min wage a LOT higher for it to have the desired effect...
But doesn't it make sense to make the economy stronger first?? THEN we can adjust the min wage??
But, you see, it's not about helping people. It's about the Democratic Party trying to buy voters and votes...
THAT's why it has to be this way.. Dems are petrified of the coming mid-terms.
They KNOW that they are gonna get shellacked...
So, they are trying to buy voters and votes...
The evidence to support this conclusion is simply too conclusive to ignore. :D
Michale
Speaking of Democrat's and their War On Women BS..
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/24/female-dem-candidate-accuses-democrats-of-war-on-women/
Comments???
Michale
And, to make it interesting (I see your Battlestar Galactica, and raise you...), may I hasten to point out that this is how Judge Dredd's weapon (his "Lawgiver") works -- which is why he's never scared of some perp snatching it from him, because it self-destructs when they attempt to use it.
Yea... I think I saw Sylvester Stallone demonstrate that in the Judge Dredd movie..
:D Hehehehehehehehe
Michale
Hey Michale! Welcome back ... been wondering where you've been.
I've been on a bit of a hiatus meself trying to wrap up a big project and commenting sometimes takes a lot of energy.
Instead of getting into it on anything, I'll limit myself to a welcome.
Good to see you!
-David
Thanx David..
Ain't it a bitch when work intrudes upon our fun??
:D
Michale
And, in other news...
Obama supporters in my hometown (San Diego, CA) claim that if someone doesn't like Mexican food, that means they must be racist...
:^/
All Hail To Political Correctness run amok...
Michale
Michale [54] -
Oh, you just had to go there, didn't you?
The more-recent Dredd movie is a lot better... and I think it still has an exploding hand in it somewhere from a perp trying to use a Lawgiver...
:-)
-CW
Oh, you just had to go there, didn't you?
hehehehehehehe
I honestly haven't seen the new DREDD movie. I hear it has Karl Urban as DREDD. Urban was pretty good as McCoy in the STAR TREK (gag) reboot and as a cop in ALMOST HUMAN (since cancelled :( )...
So I might check it out on my next day off on Monday
Michale