Who gets to govern?
I’ve sometimes wondered whether, as John Dickerson wrote here, the Obama administration’s struggles will make at least a few Bush-haters acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, his predecessor wasn’t such an abysmal ignoramus after all.
That maybe, just maybe, it’s actually hard to govern. That it’s easier to sit on the sidelines and criticize. After all, if Obama is such a genius, and his brilliance (coupled with a Congress controlled by his side) can’t solve the problems of this country and the world, or make much of a dent in them (or even has managed to make them worse), then isn’t it possible that Bush had at least a modicum of intelligence and an ounce of judgment?
Until 2006, the Democrats were on the outside looking in, back-seat drivers and/or kibitzers at the card game known as politics, eager to criticize and carp. But talk is cheap; action is far more difficult, and solutions are even more elusive—as the Republicans may discover, to their sorrow, come 2011. But I’d certainly like to see them get the chance to try to pick up the pieces of this debacle.
The election is four weeks away, which sometimes seems like a short time and sometimes a long one. But if Nancy Pelosi has anything to say about it (and let’s hope she doesn’t), the Democrats still have plenty of time to convince the American public of Republican perfidy:
You have to understand what fighters our members are…Now our challenge is to tattoo the practices of big insurance, big oil, big banks and the rest [onto Republican opponents]. And our members feel very good about doing that.
I suppose if Democrats can’t feel good about their own accomplishments, feeling good about tatooing Republicans will have to do.
This election still looks to be a Republican victory. How much of one I cannot say, and I’m tired of all the predictions and polls. The only poll that counts, of course, is the one on November 2.
And then the real work will begin.
Big insurance, Nancy? You mean like Progressive Insurance?
Big oil? Would that be BP, by any chance?
Big banks? Goldman Sachs, anyone? Half of the financial industry is passionately liberal.
It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats get away with these ridiculous allegations that Republicans are in bed are somehow in bed with the biggest donors to the Democrats.
I shouldn’t be surprised, though. They managed to weasel off the hook for slavery and segregation, so redirecting class warfare opprobrium from themselves must be child’s play.
If only we had decent media…
No, it’s not possible for the left to cut Bush any slack.
I think Mr Frank is right.
But it isn’t just that Obama is having a hard time. He actually asked for Bush’s plan for the war in A’stan. And he copied the Surge, even picking the same general (the one he attacked in the Senate, without allowing time for a response).
Obama hasn’t found a way to close Gitmo. His plans for civilian tials of terrorists have fallen through, no, worse: for awhile he tried to have a mix of trials and tribunals, trials for those who’s guilt as overwelming.
The few things Obama has done somewhat well with is where he follows the Bush playbook.
Another thought: with the whole ground zero mosque thing, several on the left (IIRC, including Dowd) actually wanted Bush to chime in.
While I think this was somewhat of a trap intended to clear their guy, nevertheless it is somewhat an admission that Bush did something right.
In my various blog visitations, I have sensed again and again that dissatisfaction with Washington is at a record peak (see e.g., http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_698963.html). Yet I think this goes deeper that that; I believe that it’s dissatisfaction with social-Democrat controlled Washington. My own friends know that I, myself, am not an avid Republican, but I have become a strident anti-Democrat. If Russ Feingold, Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer are in elective trouble, then I believe that this same mood permeates the country from coast to coast.
I believe that the classic Dem tactic of “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain just listen to what we tell you” no longer works. Thanks to the internet and to Obama’s “progressivism on steroids” approach to govt, Dem policies are being revealed as the anti-economic, anti-middle class anti-growth programs that they have been for the last 30 years.
I’d like to venture an opinion that the midterm election is going to be an even greater slaughter for the Democrats than most pundits predict. At the very least, it’s going to be the most interesting midterm in my lifetime. We can only hope and pray that the Republicans have learned their lesson and are up to the task.
Who gets to govern?
Well, in case you forgot, the Democrats have Obama this time and he’s pretty good at politicking!
Lest you get all wee-wee’d up.
The Democrats haven’t been able to do much of anything constructive, but it could be worse, or it could be better, with the candidates that have risen to the top lately it’s almost pure dumb luck if any of them can accomplish anything.
“”That maybe, just maybe, it’s actually hard to govern.””
Neo
About half the people are certain managing and running a business is a piece of cake and they themselves could do it better. I suspect the same crowd has this nieve notion about governing.
If the Democrats hate the health insurance companies so much, why are they forcing us to buy their products?
roc scssrs,
They’re not. It only appears that way.
The point is to cause private health insurance to become extinct so that the govt becomes the only provider. Obamacare is not yet fully operational, and already some companies are eliminating child-only policies, and some employers are ceasing (or considering ceasing) providing health care to their employees.
I hold FDR and the Monopoly game equally responsible for tagging Repubs as Top-hatted Fat Cats. We just don’t wear toppers and white mustaches any more.
(Monopoly came out in the 1930s)
Bush the Younger is no dummy. He got his undergraduate degree from Yale (his gentleman’s C’s were better grades than Kerry’s), got a MBA from Harvard, learned how to fly a jet fighter, owned a major league baseball team, beat a VERY popular female incumbent governor in Texas, outlawyered Kerry’s legal team in the 2000 presidential election, and got elected to a second term. Oh…and married Laura. 🙂
As time goes on, his administration will become more and more respected.
Oops…outlawyered GORE’S legal team.
And BTW, Bush is the only U.S. president to have earned an MBA.
I was going to make the same point that Occam’s Beard made with the first comment. I wish the political right would hammer back on these absurd allegations that Republicans are shills for “Big” oil/insurance/you name it when the Dems are probabaly more in control of these industries than are the R’s.
I also wish that the disingenuous term “tax cuts for the rich” would be exposed for what it implies. The implication is that Republicans only care about the rich and their rich friends and that’s why they support such tax cuts (never mind all those small businesses fall into the *rich* category). There’s never any mention about how the reduction in taxes for the wealthier of us is meant to improve the economy for all of us. And there is definitely no mention of the fact that the money of the rich *belongs* to the rich. Pelosi and other liberals act as if the money of the rich belongs to the govt and the govt is doing a favor to the rich by letting them keep X percent of it.
The left controls the rhetorical ground here and the right should start to take it back.
Complaining is always easier, but that goes for both sides of the aisle. I think a lot of folks on the right are under the impression that running things will be easier for them than it will be too.
And the pundits will just blame the GOP establishment no doubt if and when things get complicated. But the truth is that governing a country of 310 million people not to mention this huge economy is not a simple thing for anyone.
Maybe both sides need to think about that.
I am truly concerned about this election. Since the New Black Panther Party was given a pass on voter intimidation in ’08 I will be very surprised if we don’t see many more blatant examples in this cycle.
The country is in an ugly mood. Many are concerned about the most basic welfare of their family. This election has the potential to be something we should all be ashamed of.
1. Here is a record of stock prices between the time when Bush was inaugurated and when he left office. Eight years after Bush took office, the market was significantly lower.
2. Here is an article about job growth during Bush’s watch: jobs in Big Government.
3. “When people are hurting, government has got to move.”
4. “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.”
5. The best thing that’s happened to the reputation of Bush’s failed Presidency is that Obama is on track for a catastrophic Presidency.
***************
I agree with texexec only to the following limited extent: on paper, Bush was very well qualified to be President. His failure despite those qualifications may be one reason why the country took a chance on newbie Obama (and why Palin is a serious prospect), and why neither 2008 candidate, for the first time in decades, was a governor or VP.
The gap between Bush’s qualifications and his performance should make him a fascinating subject for historians. My perspective on him is not historical: afaic he paved the way for Obama & Pelosi.
Afterthought. As for the “governing is hard” argument, well, nobody begged a reluctant George Bush to enter the Oval Office.
Maybe governing wouldn’t be as hard if the government was small, limited, and focused on essential functions.
The country didn’t get small limited government from George Bush. It got “compassionate conservatism” that turned out to be neither compassionate nor conservative.
“”His failure despite those qualifications may be one reason why the country took a chance on newbie Obama (and why Palin is a serious prospect), “”
gs
I suspect Ronald Reagan himself wouldn’t have faired much better than GWB during the same time frame. You have to govern somewhat in step with the ever changing national mood or you wont be around long. And the national mood from 2000 till 2008 was one of “America the omniscient is so rich that no citizen should ever suffer”. Not much wiggle room for conservatism to ply its trade with that going on. But alas…The national mood is becoming more realistic.
gs, never start economic records at inauguration – the ghost of the previous administration is still more dominant for at least a year afterward. Who is more responsible, whether for blame or credit, doesn’t change hands instantly, but more like an hourglass. Secondly, the composition of congress is more important on economic matters.
It sounds like you would kick Bush about the same places I would. But I have this thing about the importance of inertia in economic matters.
gs: governing would be hard even if it were small, limited, and focused on essential functions.
Foreign policy is always hard, always throwing a curve, always filled with difficult decisions, and part of the “essential function” of protecting the nation in its dealings with the rest of the world.
Plus, people will always differ on the proper function of government in the domestic arena, too, and what is “essential” and what is not.
I am absolutely not persuaded by Terrye’s comments, which I’m sure she deems reasoned and reasonable. The guiding principles of the present Congressional majorities and White House are corrupt and just flat wrong. It’s only hard when trying to persuade the dependent class to suck it up. It’s really easy to throw other people’s money at ’em.
The piggies will squeal long and loud. The incoming Repubs surely know that, and know the MSM will do their darnedest to play to the piggies.
gs:
I agree with you there. When I first heard Bush utter the phrase “compassionate conservatism” during the 2000 campaign, I thought “Uh oh. That sounds like a euphemism for big government.”
I also thought that Cheney/Bush would have been a stronger ticket, but recognize that he would have lost to the better-looking Algore.
I also thought that Cheney/Bush would have been a stronger ticket, but recognize that he would have lost to the better-looking Algore.
No question, but Cheney’s precarious health situation would have been the deal breaker there.
This is sorta kinda relevant to the current topic. It appeared at American Thinker today:
Marching Toward Oblivion: Obama’s Core Supporters and the Corruption of Idealism
It explains how the boomers came to be the way they are. A lot of them, anyway. I’m a late boomer, born in 1958, and much of it rings true to me.
it’s actually hard to govern. That it’s easier to sit on the sidelines and criticize.
Well doesn’t this cut both way? It’s easy to sideline and criticize Obama, and I wasn’t hostile to the Bush administration. I think Democrats by and large will stand by Obama, as well as some Independents. African-Americans as one voting block don’t want to see the first black President fail — remember they are us or our fellow Americans. The self criticism on the Right with the Tea Party has been generally a healthy idea, but look at who’s emerged from these quarters, Ms. I-Was-A-Witch to those who want to repeal the minimum wage — what is this disdain for professional/skilled workers? Then again I favor much of the Rights core principles. It’s going to be another election where I won’t know who I’m going to vote for until the ballot is in my hand and I’m forced to decide, or walk out and toss the ballot in the garbage, the latter won’t happen. It’s not supposed to be easy and that’s fine by me because whether I like it or not that’s the way it is.
It’s easy to sideline and criticize Obama
C’mon, this is disingenuous pap of the “on one hand, on the other hand” moral equivalence ilk.
We’re not criticizing Obama reactively, i.e., in response to what he’s done; we would criticize anyone just for proposing Obama’s policies even in the abstract. That he’s not only proposed such policies but implemented them, and that the effects are now manifest for all to see, renders criticism not only appropriate but imperative.
Thank you, um, comrades, for the responses to my comment. At least for the time being, I will not engage with those unquestionably worthwhile responses because my primary purpose was not to condemn Bush.
My concern is that government is growing–in size, in power, in incompetence–at such a rate that something has to give: sooner rather than later under Obama, but also sooner or later under Bush. The Democrats are worse than the Republicans in this regard–but I maintain that replacing the Obama/Pelosi Democrats with Bush/Rove/DeLay/Lott Republicans (cf. Cheney’s supposed “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”) will delay the problem, not solve it.
I like some of their emerging generation, but the Republicans haven’t won back my confidence. I’m going to vote for divided government in November, not for the GOP.
Well, I won’t have any problem deciding who to vote for.
I don’t live in Delaware, but Ms. I-Was-A-Witch vs. Mr. Bearded-Marxist is not a particularly difficult decision. As far as I know, witches didn’t slaughter 100 million people in the last century.
I don’t live in Delaware, but Ms. I-Was-A-Witch vs. Mr. Bearded-Marxist is not a particularly difficult decision.
Agree completely. When I see the betting odds on that race, I don’t know what to say.
Well doesn’t this cut both way[s]?
No. The difference is whether one is proposing more or less to maintain overarching policies – e.g., capitalism – that have been implemented for a considerable period, where known virtues outweight the known vices, or proposing radical changes to those policies – e.g., socialism – where the opposite is true.
ynyomytho: it’s especially easy to criticize Obama, because he has made so many unforced errors, many of which are not just ordinarily bad, but obviously and stupendously bad. I’ve been around a long time. I’ve seen presidents come and presidents go, many of whom I have not supported, and most of whom I’ve criticized.
I have never seen anything this consistently terrible.
Hmm I’m pretty much is agreement with GS — I’ll probably vote Republican … but I wouldn’t bet much if I were betting on it. I really won’t know what I’d to until the last possible second.
neo-neo
I agree … but then there is the alternative. It could be worse or better. I’ll wait until the final second and absorb and weigh as many facts as possible within reason … I have a family, bills, and a job … I’m just one little person and I have to keep my priorities straight. Ugh. Hard times.
I don’t know about you, Neo, but I never thought I would look at an impending Reublican victory and find myself hoping it will be even bigger than currently estimated. Well, live and learn.
On the other hand, for a number of reasons I’m not an incipient Republican. I’ll be voting Republican for governor here (Michigan), Democratic for congress because of the congressman (Sander Levin) and I don’t know about some of the lower level races.
ynyomythu Says:
October 4th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
It Could Be Worse
I want to see the whole country get a good Chris Christie spanking. But i know to date we’re not through “moderating” yet. Another year of massive foreclosures and pension problems on a national scale may very well have people begging for that spanking though. But i don’t see enough obstacles to that scenario even if repubs win bigger than we think.
I really won’t know what I’d to until the last possible second.
Stay home.
A vote for any Democrat running for the U.S. House is a vote to keep the leftists now running the House in power. If you want them out of power, do not vote for a Democrat.
Well, GS.
You got me there! The economy under Bush went in the tank after the highest stock markets in history in 2006. Gee I wonder if there were other factors that might have had some influence, such as the fact that the Democrats regained control of both hoses of the legislature in 2006 and promptly started exploiting their careully planted poison pill AKA the housing bubble… You think maybe?
There are a few things I blame Bush for, but the economy isn’t one of them.
gs,
First, I wasn’t saying that Bush is a genius…just not the knuckle dragging idiot that he was made out to be.
Second…market performance during a president’s time in office doesn’t mean a damned thing. Case in point…the S&P500 is up about 33% since Obama took office. It’s up about 66% from the market low a couple of months after he was inaugurated. Does that mean Obama has been a good president and his economic policies have been good?
Markets have cycles. People get overly optimistic and begin to do stupid things…each up cycle is different and happens for different reasons. This time it was easy money (usually a contributing factor) and silliness about letting people buy houses who couldn’t afford them which was made worse by the leverage associated with credit default swaps.
Markets always crash….then start to rebuild.
The president has almost NO near term (meaning less than 4-8 years) effect on all this. Congress has some effect but not a lot and certainly not short term. Skilled/smart gamers will always find ways to pump up financial bubbles no matter what the rules of the financial game are.
I have lived through several bubble/crash cycles in my life:
1. The computer craze in the 1960’s-70’s when gun slinger mutual fund managers were even putting illiquid letter stock of companies losing money in “hot” portfolios.
2. The merger and acquisition craze just before the October 1987 crash.
3. The dot com craze which, BTW, crashed just before Bush took office.
4. This recent housing bubble craze.
The financial regulation bill that was just passed makes me laugh. Greedy people will figure out how to game the new set of rules.
Economic cycles happen and politics have little to do with them. They occur because of greed, fear, and stupidity.
I’m a conservative…actually a pragmatic libertarian (accepting the fact that SOME (not many) things must be handled by the government). But the Republicans better be careful about promising too much too soon about an improved economy if they do take over the House and maybe the Senate. This market cycle is gonna take a long time to get back to the up part and no government is gonna fix it fast.
At least the Republicans MAY step back, get out of the way, and let the MARKET correct the recent excesses.
Concerning Bush…I don’t like that he spent too much money either, but in my opinion, the Iraq War made sense and there’s no way our voters had the maturity to pay for it as it was fought.
I’ll also mention he wanted to reform Social Security which could have had a huge positive effect (long term) on our economy but Congress didn’t support him.
Hoses? Houses? Is there a difference?
ynyomythu: I hope I never get so compromised that I decide to vote for something that furthers my personal interests even though I know it will be bad for the country.
The democrat-socialists gained control of Congress in 2006. Anything after that can be laid at their doorstep. NoBama and his communist allies have had two years of wrecking and have done a good job at it. However, it is time to end the chaos. Who is to govern? The People. Read the Constitution. The Preamble begins, WE THE PEOPLE.
1. texexec, as I indicated above, I’m not primarily targeting Bush; I’m asserting that both parties, given their way, have governed dangerously badly. (Btw, if one allows that the stock market forecasts, however imperfectly, risk-adjusted future earnings, then IMHO it follows that the market, however imperfectly, estimates the future consequences of current economic policies.)
2. Wm Lawrence wrote:
To readers who take this at face value: Please note that on 8/31/2000 the S&P 500 closed with a historic high of 1527.46. Its most recent closing high of 1565.15 was recorded on 12/15/2007. Its 2006 closing high, 1427.09, happened on December 15 and was below the Y2K high.
If you consider the point important, don’t take me at face value either! (It’s late and my eyes aren’t what they used to be.) It only takes a few minutes to get the data at finance.yahoo.com.
ELC
A vote for any Democrat running for the U.S. House is a vote to keep the leftists now running the House in power. If you want them out of power, do not vote for a Democrat.
That’s the main point.
Anyone in the entire nation who votes Dem is this election is ipso facto evil (in the technical sense of the term evil as lacking the proper good).
This election is our last chance.
When tired of voting for the lesser of two evils…
Bwahahahaha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa!!!! 🙂
ynyomythu: I hope I never get so compromised that I decide to vote for something that furthers my personal interests even though I know it will be bad for the country.
You would not, consciously, do so, nor would I. It’s about principle, not about the one. It’s about the country and the preservation of Liberalism (which encompasses the Left and the Right on a grand scale). I wouldn’t be so narcissistic to vote for someone because they were like me. I voted for Obama and he’s not like me — but the zeitgeist for an African-American president was the prescription for America. It was time to demonstrate that there is no glass ceiling in America and he gave a compelling argument. He said he’d be innovative domestically and hawkish internationally. He’d always demonstrated that he was a person who could and would negotiate between the extremes, the centrist mistook this to mean he would be a consensus maker between the Left and the Right, when what he’s really been is a consensus maker between the Left and the far Left. If Conservatives don’t like it — then please put up better candidates. To bad Obama lied and squandered what could have been a great thing. I’m just one little person, with one thoughtful vote and I always vote for the interest of the country.
The problem with the American political structure is that the Progressive Left and the Religious Right shift the core ethical standards, sometimes for the sheer joy of enflaming the other side, but mainly I think because their true agenda is something different from founding intentions and the Constitution. Sadly, some of this is what will attenuate the success of the Tea Party in what should have been an overwhelming Conservative victory I believe. I’m still leaning Right, for the time being, in my case that would be voting for Rubio.
ynyomythu
“Religious Right shift the core ethical standards”
But also, I think the religious right is something of a boogie man for the left. I hear leftists talk about ‘fundies’ and then I go hang out with fundamentalists and they’re not what the lefties say they are… or actually, a couple are but the rest of the group (of fundamentalists) think they’re nuts too.
The left just creates these caricatures. You know, everyone on this blog and talk radio and libertarians are ‘right wing extremists’…
It’s a play on the desire of moderates to want to assign equal guilt. There really are far lefties so there must be ‘far righties’… except, the people who get those labels don’t generally deserve them.
PS
As to your point, no I don’t agree. The Religious right does not tend to try to shift ethical standards. It tends to cling to the old ones. The left has initiated every fight or issue in the culture war. I’d add, I don’t agree with the religious right on everything but this is my observation of what has happened over the last 70 years. I’d also add that they are also changing with the times. Example, I don’t see any serious resistance to homosexuality among them these days (just to the idea of using the state to redefine marriage). That is a change from 20 years ago.
gs Says:
” (cf. Cheney’s supposed “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”)”
Small ones don’t. The government can make them go away via inflation and economic growth.
Huge ones, not so much… plus they even slow growth so it’s a double hit…
Texexec, I’ve long suspected that a President can only influence the economy one way – adversely – by undermining confidence. That can occur quickly (as in, e.g., my joke about Obama showing up for a press conference with a parrot on his shoulder), whereas all other effects take place over a number of years.
What do you think of this notion?
Ritchie Emmons Says:
“I wish the political right would hammer back on these absurd allegations that Republicans are shills for “Big” oil/insurance/you name it when the Dems are probabaly more in control of these industries than are the R’s”
I wish they would too but on the other hand, they probably do research on this stuff that we don’t know about.
Maybe the results show only lefty democrats buy that stuff about big business so there is nothing to gain by responding (other than letting democrats control the debate by picking what you talk about)… AND it might make you look bad to ‘call them out’ on their lies and misinformation. I.e., it’s better to be positive and talk about what you believe that get in the mud with your dumb*ss opponent.
Either that or republican candidates are idiots too. 🙂
You lost me there. It’s usually the unskilled workers who earn minimum wage, not the skilled workers and the professionals. Repealing the minimum wage accomplishes a few things:
1) It eliminates unskilled labor as a career track, making it something that only those starting out or those looking for part-time or supplemental work could even contemplate…
2) It forces those currently making careers out of unskilled labor to acquire some skills, making them able to be upwardly mobile, the key to the American Dream…
3) It would stanch the flow of illegal immigrants to the US, as there would no longer be a benefit to employers to outweigh the risks of hiring illegals when they can hire domestics just as cheaply…
The President signs (or vetos) the budget, but it comes from the House. Hence, you need to look at the makeup of the House, not who’s President when looking at deficiets.
Also, a managable debt is OK.
Bush was faced with the dot com bust and then 9/11, which was the key reason he had deficiets, which he (and the Republican House) managed to reduce, until the FY2008 budget (the first Democrat budget) when spending went up.
It is true that bush and company were less than ideal in many ways, but they were significantly better than the Democrats.
The Democrats are pretty much off the reservation anyway you look at it. I’m going to vote against the Democrats. The Republicans have their failings, but the Democrats are wrong almost 100% of the time.
Even Clinton achieved a balanced budget because he had a Republican House and because he inherited peace and prosperity from the Reagan era (as well as dumb luck, like being on the right side of the dot com bubble).
Clinton’s policies were key in leading up to the financial crisis, and IMO his weak handling of terror led up to 9/11. His balanced budgets were mostly not his doing. Imagine if HillaryCare passed and the Dems retained control of the House–major fail across the board. The best thing that happened to Bill was the ’94 midterm, and the fact that he could tack right.
Yackums Says:
Everything you said plus all the research says only high school and college kids earn it (not as the left spins / demagogues it, people supporting families)…
So, it’s basically stupid and accomplishes nothing but making short term jobs scarce for students…
But also, I think the religious right is something of a boogie man for the left. I hear leftists talk about ‘fundies’ and then I go hang out with fundamentalists and they’re not what the lefties say they are… or actually, a couple are but the rest of the group (of fundamentalists) think they’re nuts too.
I argue with my Atheist buddies all the time who on the one hand are “skeptics”, yet have no problems following, in lockstep, the Left template. They bash domestic theist, Christians, but tend to feel sorry for the poor misunderstood Islamist — which is virtually a night and day comparison. Domestic Christians who fiter monies to West Bank settlements perpetuating the thief of Palestinian lands in hopes of deepening the festering sore between Arabs and Jews to gleefully fulfill Biblical Armageddon is worthy of a very very deep contempt yes, but what stands out most visibly with domestic Christians is their campaign to insert prayer in schools (Hindu prayer … I don’t think so) and to replace science with the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design (aka the revealed wisdom of Creationism). The latter is bad but it doesn’t come close the Islamic terrorism; tactics, actions, goals.
Repealing the minimum wage accomplishes a few things:
1) It eliminates unskilled labor as a career track, making it something that only those starting out or those looking for part-time or supplemental work could even contemplate…
2) It forces those currently making careers out of unskilled labor to acquire some skills, making them able to be upwardly mobile, the key to the American Dream…
3) It would stanch the flow of illegal immigrants to the US, as there would no longer be a benefit to employers to outweigh the risks of hiring illegals when they can hire domestics just as cheaply…
My initial thought was the general contempt for workers, who all start somewhere — usually at the bottom — but interesting points.
In 2000, it benifitted from the dot com bubble . And the first Dem budget (under Bush) was FY2008, not FY2007.
More significant that stock data is actual policies. Bush and Clinton both get mixed reviews, in that Clinton pushed HillaryCare but signed welfare reform, while Bush pushed SS reform and signed medicare part D.
Minimum wage is a stupid idea. You can’t increase the value of your labor by fiat. Minimum wage does not increase the value of labor, only the cost of labor.
Further, it forces the worker to cost more, reducing his ability to compete in the marketplace.
The government keeps minimum wage on the margins, for the simple reason that it would break if applied beyond that. consider what would happen if we made it a “living wage”.
consider what would happen if we made it a “living wage”.
I agree. A long time ago when I was a lower living wage staff employee at a university I increased my salary by taking advantage of benefits that allowed be to take up to 6 credit hours (at night) for free. I got a masters degree and doubled my skill set and salary.
consider what would happen if we made it a “living wage”.
Undergrads love to come up with this sort of brilliant “solution” that they think all the grownups have overlooked.
My favorite was the idea of doubling everyone’s pay. Poverty solved with a stroke of the pen! Woohoo!
It’s hard to know even where to start…
Minimum wage is just a tiny piece of the problem. The real problem is too many people don’t earn what they’re worth. And they should thank their lucky stars for it.
It is a minor problem because even the Democrats in Congress realize it is stupid economically. Hence, it is kept on the sidelines.
The main driving factor in increasing minimum wage is that many unions have thier rates set as a factor of minimum wage, so a small increase in min wage is a big increase for the unions.
It isn’t “what they are worth”, it is what their labor is worth. And that’s between them and their employeer (at least in a free market).
The left wants great benifits for all, without any plan of where it will really come from. They see all this great wealth, but they don’t understand the dynamics of how it was created.
Like Maggie said, socialism eventually runs out of other people’s money.
Im not religious, but this is pretty much my line of thought. The religious right people I have known repect the 10th Amendment, free markets etc. I may not agree with them on religion but at most it means we don’t hang out together, I’ve seen no indication they want to force me to believe anything.
As far as prayer in school, as long as the student can pray or not, and can pray as they wish I see no problem with it. Banning prayer, IMO is almost making atheism a state religion.
Occam’s Beard:
I think consumer confidence is affected by the economy…not the other way around. And I just don’t think the economy is as much affected by government activity as people think.
To the extent that the economy IS affected by government activity, the strengths of that effect by different parts of the government occur in the following order:
1. Actions of the Federal Reserve Board.
2. Bills passed by Congress.
3. Actions of the Executive Branch.
4. Verdicts of the Supreme Court.
Just my opinions…
test
ynyomythu Says:
> (Hindu prayer … I don’t think so)
You sure? I’m not a Christian and I get along well enough with them.
This is also something of a double standard. Catholics have a similar doctrine to Intelligent Design but their views on evolution are considered more modern compared to the fundamentalists. Then again, a lot of Catholics vote democrat. Unless I have it wrong, ID says evolution is real but was prodded along by God. I’m not seeing the problem (and or what is so backward) here. It’s amusing from my third POV. I believe in evolution but think natural selection as the only vehicle for it is tough to believe. I think we’ll find some other things push it along (we just noticed cells communicate via sound, we still can’t explain what’s going on some life forms made up of single cells that start working together to form an organism like some fungi, we can’t explain why people keep evolving even though there is no pressure from natural selection, we are just figuring out the impact of virues on our dna)… So if natural selection is thrown out later as the only means of evolution progressing… will lefties admit to fundies they were wrong? Now I don’t think so.
Don Says:
“Minimum wage is a stupid idea. You can’t increase the value of your labor by fiat. Minimum wage does not increase the value of labor, only the cost of labor”
which the ol hidden hand then knocks partially away via inflation.
Its the ‘you can’t vote everyone a million dollars’ thing.
“consider what would happen if we made it a “living wage”.”
A close friend of mine worked as a toll booth operator in a socialist country (re: one of the ones with a wall to keep you in).
As soon as he got out, he became an engineer (took a couple years, but he got right on it)….
Ooops GS, I got it wrong, 2007 not 2006. I think that actually strengthens my point. It gave the Dems an extra year in which to F— things up.
What most people talking about minimum wage do not realize is that the proportion of workers earning the minimum wage has steadily gone down over the years .
In 1979, the proportion of hourly workers earning the minimum wage or less constituted 13.4% of total hourly paid workers, and 7.8% of hourly plus salaried workers.
In 2007, when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $5.85 per hour, the proportion of hourly workers earning the minimum wage or less constituted 2.2% of total hourly paid workers, and 1.3% of hourly plus salaried workers.
From the 2007 BLS minimum wage site:
Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up almost half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 7 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with fewer than 2 percent of workers age 25 and over….
The percent of workers earning the minimum wage did not vary much across the major race and ethnic groups. About 2 percent of white, black, Asian and Hispanic hourly-paid workers earned the Federal minimum wage or less. [latter paragraph for all those equity and social justice fiends.] The minimum wage increased in July 2009 to $7.25 an hour, which means that in two years the minimum wage increased 41%, from $5.15/hour to $7.25 an hour.
Teenaged workers have suffered more in the recession than have their older counterparts.
Hourly employment 2007
Total, 16 years and over 75,873
16 to 19 years 5,434
Hourly employment 2009
Total, 16 years and over 72611
16 to 19 years 4,397
While total hourly employment has dropped 4% from 2007 to 2009, for workers aged 16 to 19, it has dropped 19% from 2007 to 2009. The increase in minimum wage bears some responsibility for that: rising wages in a recession = lowered employment. More specifically, there was a 41% increase in minimum wage is coupled with a 19% drop in hourly employment among those 16 to 19. Even some of the most recalcitrant posters here should be able to understand that.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007.htm for 2007 quote
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007tbls.htm#10 proportion of workers earning the minimum wage.
As neo’s filter doesn’t like two links, this is what I did.
neo-neocon Says:
October 5th, 2010 at 12:40 am
I hope I never get so compromised that I decide to vote for something that furthers my personal interests even though I know it will be bad for the country.
Even though this post is over a week old, this remark has stuck in my mind, probably because the assertion is not as clearcut as it seems at first reading.
Unless one takes an extreme position like a collectivist or a Randian, the relationship between individual welfare and group welfare is not simple. IMHO things, overall, work out best for society when its members pursue their (enlightened) self-interests. Exceptional situations arise, both for individuals and for societies, but they do not arise as often as collectivist politicians try to make us believe.