# Pelosi's first 100 hours
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [October 6, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517 "2006-10-06T17:33:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/21 "2006-10-06T18:57:17Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#):
>
> I’d probably be okay with a raise to 40% if we keep the estate tax dead once it reaches 0% in 2010. I’d also be comfortable with a return to higher rates on capital gains, although not indefinitely, but for a period of years in order to try and alleviate the deficit.
Interesting! Maybe I’m wrong about whether fiscal conservative Republicans could be an audience for such proposals.
I still say, though, that they need to be geared toward a set of priorities very distinct from the Pubs, just as the CwA was distinct from Dem priorities; even if there are things thereint hat appeal to some Pubs, that shouldn’t be the goal. The goal is to present a clear alternative.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/22 "2006-10-06T19:05:03Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#):
>
> I’d probably be okay with a raise to 40% if we keep the estate tax dead once it reaches 0% in 2010. I’d also be comfortable with a return to higher rates on capital gains, although not indefinitely, but for a period of years in order to try and alleviate the deficit.
I suppose this is getting a bit off topic, but why not look at the government being ‘handcuffed’ and not able to spend in another light. There are loads of programs out there that are inefficient, unneccessary or just plain stupid. Why not force congress to cut out/stop funding these programs at crunch time instead of ‘having the flexibility to dip into the red’? I would think, if framed in these terms, you could get fiscal conservatives dry humping this ‘pay as you go’ proposal.
---
### Author:  [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/23 "2006-10-06T19:10:59Z")
> [@spazattak](#):
>
> I would think, if framed in these terms, you could get fiscal conservatives dry humping this ‘pay as you go’ proposal.
Like a three-balled terrier. If the Dems could actually offer (and follow-up) a program of efficiency and responsibility in spending, I’d vote for them in a heart-beat. But I need to see some substantial action and commitment here, not just talk and smoke. C’mon, Dems…stand for something!
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/24 "2006-10-06T19:13:33Z")
> [@spazattak](#):
>
> I suppose this is getting a bit off topic, but why not look at the government being ‘handcuffed’ and not able to spend in another light. There are loads of programs out there that are inefficient, unneccessary or just plain stupid. Why not force congress to cut out/stop funding these programs at crunch time instead of ‘having the flexibility to dip into the red’? I would think, if framed in these terms, you could get fiscal conservatives dry humping this ‘pay as you go’ proposal.
Sure–that would be a great platform for Republicans. Or for Democrats, but Republicans are likely to have a much broader definition of “unnecessary” than Dems will.
The Dems need to stand for something, but again, it doesn’t need to stand for the things that the Republicans used to stand for. There are plenty of great traditional issues for which they can stand; Pelosi mentioned a few of them.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/25 "2006-10-06T19:15:45Z")
> [@spazattak](#):
>
> I would think, if framed in these terms, you could get fiscal conservatives dry humping this ‘pay as you go’ proposal.
Is it still technically dry humping if I’ve already creamed my jeans over such an idea?
But we’re pulling away here. I think this is a very good and strong overall proposition by Pelosi. It sets some clear ideas as to what Democrats want to accomplish, most of which fall into “sane and obvious” ideas that will easily appeal, while still throwing a bone or two to the liberal edge that needs to be mollified, and throwing a bone to disaffected conservatives.
Her timing is also pretty darn good - not just in relation to the Foley scandal, but because it’s going to be hard for Democrats to get pinned down on some of the vaguer concepts (what new rules will “break the link between lobbyists and legislation”, anyways?) before the election.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/26 "2006-10-06T19:48:26Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> I’ve repeatedly criticized the Democrats for not having specific, visionary suggestions for what they offer the country. This is exactly the sort of thing they should be doing.
Nitpick: The word “visionary” is more often used in a pejorative sense, to mean “unrealistically idealistic.” Not quite the opposite of “specific,” but pretty near.
---
### Author:  [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/27 "2006-10-06T19:48:48Z")
> [@John Corrado](#):
>
> Is it still technically dry humping if I’ve already creamed my jeans over such an idea?
> But we’re pulling away here.
You mean pulling out? 😛
> [@](#):
>
> I think this is a very good and strong overall proposition by Pelosi. It sets some clear ideas as to what Democrats want to accomplish, most of which fall into “sane and obvious” ideas that will easily appeal, while still throwing a bone or two to the liberal edge that needs to be mollified, and throwing a bone to disaffected conservatives.
>
> Her timing is also pretty darn good - not just in relation to the Foley scandal, but because it’s going to be hard for Democrats to get pinned down on some of the vaguer concepts (what new rules will “break the link between lobbyists and legislation”, anyways?) before the election.
I agree, and as I stated about McCaskill, if all/most of the Democratic hopefulls start hammering these issues and using the some of the same wording, and start backing it up with concrete 'how’s, this could be huge.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/28 "2006-10-06T20:17:29Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#):
>
> Only to a degree. I do not believe Bush will ever sign off an increase in the minimum wage, in fact I think a minimum wage of $7.25 could be disastrous for the economy.
A number of states already have minimum wages in the range of $7.25, some are even higher. And I’m sure that, adjusted for inflation, there were times when the minimum wage was higher than $7.25. Right now its worth the lowest it has been in a very long time.
I think there is actually significant support for raising the minimum wage, and since Bush doesn’t actually enjoy being unpopular, maybe that would bring him around.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/29 "2006-10-06T20:22:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Nitpick: The word “visionary” is more often used in a pejorative sense, to mean “unrealistically idealistic.” Not quite the opposite of “specific,” but pretty near.
😕 It may be used in a pejorative sense sometimes, but that’s clearly not how I’m using it, and I’m not using it in any sense as an opposite of specific. CwA was a visionary, specific document.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/30 "2006-10-06T20:38:47Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step.
Why not go whole hog and make $10.00 or $20.00 or even more?
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/31 "2006-10-06T20:49:35Z")
> [@spingears](#):
>
> Why not go whole hog and make $10.00 or $20.00 or even more?
What are you trying to say here? “Any increase in the minimum wage would be catastrophic?” If you’re going to try for a slippery slope argument, can you at least tell us where the slope is?
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/32 "2006-10-06T21:09:19Z")
> [@spingears](#):
>
> Why not go whole hog and make $10.00 or $20.00 or even more?
Because that’s stupid, that’s why.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/33 "2006-10-06T21:15:27Z")
In other words, more socialism.
---
### Author:  [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/34 "2006-10-06T21:17:53Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#):
>
> In other words, more socialism.
You might wanna include an actual argument here.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/35 "2006-10-06T21:25:45Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#):
>
> In other words, more socialism.
That’s right. I encourage you Republicans to trumpet loudly about your opposition to the minimum wage, and to equate the minimum wage with Socialism whenever possible. It’s a surefire issue!
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/36 "2006-10-06T21:45:22Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#):
>
> In other words, more socialism.
😕 Nothing of the kind under Day 1, Day 2, or “time remaining.” (I’m sure you are not one of those impenetrable idiots who would classify a minimum wage hike as an instance of socialism.)
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/37 "2006-10-06T21:51:56Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#):
>
> I do not believe Bush will ever sign off an increase in the minimum wage, in fact I think a minimum wage of $7.25 could be disastrous for the economy.
Based on the [experience](http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150) of states that have enacted only slightly more modest minimum-wage hikes, that’s very, very doubtful. See also [here.](http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_slayers)
---
### Author:  [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/38 "2006-10-06T23:27:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> (I’m sure you are not one of those impenetrable idiots who would classify a minimum wage hike as an instance of socialism.)
I’m pretty sure he considers the _existence_ of a minimum wage to be an instance of socialism. Hell, judging from past performance, **Crafter Man** probably thinks that whole “paying wages” thing is socialism. Real capitalism is shanty towns and company stores!
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [October 6, 2006, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/39 "2006-10-06T23:39:35Z")
> [@John Corrado](#):
>
> It certainly makes this registered Republican happier about his planned vote for Steny Hoyer.
Like it matters. I don’t think Steny even has an opponent this year. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517/40 "2006-10-07T00:32:45Z")
So an increase of two bucks in the minimum wage, in places that haven’t already increased it by that amount or more, is as bad as an increase of $5 or even $15, and it’s socialism. Anybody else want to make charges without explaining them?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-first-100-hours/375517.md?page=3)