Not all states are created equal.
In some states $7.25 makes sense, in others, much less so.
But again, it’s been affordable at other times, and been higher than it is now in terms of purchasing power, without wrecking the economy. Why would it ruin anyone now?
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.
No, it’s not an entirely moderate list (although some of the proposals seem like no-brainers–who’s gonna object to implementing the 9/11 commission proposals?), but it’s something that can get people excited. It emphasizes the bread-and-butter issues that Democrats traditionally stand for. And it’s something that can be debated.
Sure, Republicans will mock it as wild-eyed liberalism, but who gives a shit? Democrats ought to sign onto this list and show how they’re going to make the country better. Put the Republicans in the position of explaining why voters shouldn’t want the government to negotiate prescription drug prices directly with companies.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Recovering conservative here. The mention of Pelosi used to make my skin crawl. And on a visceral level, it still does.
But I cannot find a plank in this platform that I could not support.
Now they need to articulate it without sounding like whackos.
Your wish is Faux News’ command:
Another choice turdbit:
Eh-excellent!
Seriously, this is an issue that plays well in harcore libertarian circles, but I cannot imagine it’s going to play well with most folks.
Daniel
That’s not Fox News’s statement. That’s an editorial by John Gibson.
George Will’s OpEds do not reflect the opinion of the Washington Post. Paul Krugman’s articles don’t reflect the opinion of the New York Times. And John Gibson’s articles don’t reflect the opinion of Fox News.
This is GD. Some attempt at accuracy would be appreciated.
Do you really think they have the same distinction between news and opinion that the other media you mention do?
Considering that you’re defending Fox, that statement should have been followed by a rimshot.
An editorial appearing on their website may accurately be listed as their behavior. I think we are all well aware of the difference between the news page and the editorial page; your snippiness is unnecessary.
If, however, anyone genuinely believed the link was to a straight news story, please raise your hand.
Daniel
Yes. If you don’t, please provide a cite to support your assertion.
Considering that your post is another unsupported attack on Fox News’s objectivity, it should have been followed by a yawn. In fact, it was.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that the standard around here was “accuracy, unless no one believes it.” I’ll try to conform future posts to this standard.
Whatever, man. Strain those gnats!
Daniel
You’re serious, aren’t you? Okay, here’s a starter cite. Enjoy.
If I may clarify: a statement that has some tiny inaccuracy in it, but everyone understands what the author meant, and the author wasn’t trying to deceive anyone, is unproblematic. Trying to correct such an inaccuracy is called pedantry.
If the inaccuracy intends to mislead, or if anyone is actually misled by the inaccuracy, there’s a problem. But in this case, there’s not: ergo, pedantry.
That’s all I’ll say about this hijack.
Daniel
Can we all agree that the gratuitous, large closeup of John Gibson was unecessary? I can frickin’ dental work! :eek:
Fair enough, Daniel. And I agree wholeheartedly with newscrasher. The phrase “face made for radio” seems applicable.
Well, I have to admit, it sure well play better in Peoria than my proposed agenda:
Hours 1-99: Satanic homobortion pot orgy
Hour 100: Surrender to Al Qaeda
Hear, hear.
One wonders, however, what happens to "pay as you go"when the tax increases don’t go thru. And I am not sure - I think Pelosi is saying she is going to push thru the student loan interest cut and all the 9/11 recommendations regardless of their effect on the deficit.
The stuff about lobbyists is meaningless, and the minimum wage hike is too - not enough Americans earn minimum wage to have much effect on the economy.
Seems pretty clear she is going to try to play hardball politics, not unify the country -
But that’s hardly surprising.
The key question is, is she really going to not increase the deficit?
And is she going to try to cut and run on Iraq? The quote above sounds like she has the same attitude that Democrats had towards Viet Nam - get out as soon as possible, ignore any commitments the US made, and then blame it on Republicans.
Regards,
Shodan
Goodness gracious, where to start?
A Republican worried about the effect on the deficit. How retro. We don’t need tax increases, we need to not make those “temporary” tax cuts permanent. For a party that makes its living using 9/11 to scare the bejeezus out of people, why haven’t the 9/11 recommendations already been implemented? Common sense things like better cargo inspection are certainly more cost effective than waging war on non-threatening nations.
I actually like what I hear. The minimum wage doesn’t have much effect on the economy. It DOES have a lot of effect on those making minimum wage, let’s just raise it because it’s the right thing to do.
The key answer is, how could she do any worse?
Redeployment isn’t cutting and running. Again, how could the Democrats do any worse? And do you really think the world would be a better place if the US had stayed in Vietnam?
So? Things would have gone better for both countries if the U.S. had done exactly that in '68. But what does “the quote above” have to do with Iraq? In the article linked in the OP, Pelosi disappointingly and even disturbingly fails even to mention Iraq.
Republicans should be blamed for this Republican folly. The sooner America withdraws the better but we shouldn’t ignore our responsibility in wrecking their country. Get the military out of Iraq and substitute a massive humanitarian effort. Afganistan could use a lot of nonmilitary aid as well.
Just my 2sense