View Full Version : What to expect if the Democrats win Congress - National Journal
What to expect if the Democrats win Congress (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14833983/from/ET/)
By Richard E. Cohen, National Journal, Updated: 12:44 a.m. ET Sept 14, 2006
WASHINGTON - Given the unhappy electorate, the Republican self-doubts and infighting, and the bullish reports from Democrats on the campaign trail, it's no wonder that many members of the long-suffering minority have been wistfully turning their thoughts to wielding control of at least one chamber of Congress next year. "I am very confident," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., a rising star in her party, said recently. "All of the momentum is going our way."
What seemed like a pipe dream for many Democrats back in January, when National Journal did a cover story looking at a potential Democratic takeover of the House and Senate, has become, two months before Election Day, a serious possibility -- all too serious, in fact, for the comfort of Bush administration officials, GOP lawmakers, and many of their K Street allies.
At the beginning of the year, Democratic lawmakers and their aides had few concrete ideas about their prospective agenda in the majority. But now they have far more specific plans for bills that they would like to enact and investigations that they hope to pursue.
The two party leaders, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., are promoting a six-prong "New Direction for America" agenda -- their so-called "Six for '06."
Pelosi has also promised that within 100 hours after taking control of the House on January 3, Democrats will pass legislation to increase the minimum wage, mandate the negotiation of Medicare prescription drug prices, fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and repeal tax benefits for big oil companies.
And that would be only the start. Other Democrats -- especially prospective committee chairmen eager to gain, or regain, control of the gavels -- are bubbling over with possible initiatives across the public policy spectrum.
For instance, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in line to chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, wants to push legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, while Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who may lead the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, is looking to cut interest rates on student loans. On the other side of the Capitol, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the prospective House Ways and Means Committee chairman, wants a more bipartisan policy on international trade, including better protections for U.S. workers.
Notwithstanding their grand hopes of reviving a liberal activism that has been stifled for a dozen years, even the most committed Democratic partisans are realistic about the constraints they would face in the majority. Many openly acknowledge that they would be limited in what they could achieve legislatively in the 110th Congress, because their House or Senate majority would likely be razor-thin and because the GOP might retain control of one chamber. George W. Bush will remain president for another two years, and he may well be prepared to thwart the Democrats' every move. Moreover, as the calendar draws closer to November 2008, gridlock may set in as presidential campaign politics become all-consuming.
"If we take back the House, we ain't going to take it back by much," Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, told NJ. "I would love, of course, and the Democratic Party would agree, to move toward universal [health care] coverage. But that's not going to happen with a five-vote majority, and no one in the White House pushing."
For many key Democrats, the emerging strategy -- should they win some congressional control this November -- appears to be to try to score legislative victories where possible, thwart GOP initiatives, and wage an aggressive oversight campaign to expose what they see as Bush administration shortcomings and neglected national problems. They hope that the high-profile hearings and investigations they plan to hold as part of their 2007-08 oversight effort will lay the groundwork for more-sweeping legislative changes after the presidential election, when they may have widened their congressional majorities and perhaps captured the White House.
Already, many Democrats are making clear that they are eager to use their prospective oversight authority. They have long complained that oversight of the Republican-controlled White House by the Republican-controlled Congress has been abysmal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Things are looking good already.
TheEschaton
09-15-2006, 08:49 AM
What'll happen is the Republicans will use everything in their power to block everything the Dems want to try and do, and then claim in the '08 elections that the Dems have done nothing they promised, and beg America to vote them back in.
-TheE-
Daniel
09-15-2006, 09:22 AM
Which is why Politics is such a fucking waste of time.
Or you can expect this...
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/dailynews.jpg
Atlanteax
09-15-2006, 09:50 AM
Sheesh!! HR 1 through 10 (excepting 7) scare me.
Particularly 4 9 and 3
Daniel
09-15-2006, 09:55 AM
Dramatic much?
Sheesh!! HR 1 through 10 (excepting 7) scare me.
Particularly 4 9 and 3
Thats the republican way... make up falsehoods, present them as truth, and scare their constituency with the wrath of God or the invisible nuke carrying enemy.
Atlanteax
09-15-2006, 10:14 AM
Dramatic much?
Let me get back to you after I run around in circles panicking and lamenting the state of things.
Actually, I find both sides equally credible at this point in the game.
Artha
09-15-2006, 11:59 AM
Too bad they won't have a commanding majority in any but the absolute best (or worst) cases :(
How funny would it be if the Republicans managed to hold a majority in both houses?
How funny would it be if the Republicans managed to hold a majority in both houses?
It means that Backlash would be posting in the "Worst things ever" thread.
:lol:
Sorry, i need to correct that, how funny would backlashes reaction be if they held both houses
Just imagine Nineneque's old Avatar where the guy obliterates himself over the keyboard.
Parkbandit
09-15-2006, 12:09 PM
Thats the republican way... make up falsehoods, present them as truth, and scare their constituency with the wrath of God or the invisible nuke carrying enemy.
Thats the democratic way... make up falsehoods, present them as truth, and scare their constituency with doom and gloom and promises they can't and won't keep.
Parkbandit
09-15-2006, 12:12 PM
Not.
I actually agree with DeV. I don't think it's ever a good thing when one party controls everything for too long.
Besides, if they gain control of the House and do nothing as usual, the Republicans can highlight their amazing "achievements" of doing nothing and prevent us from going through Clinton II in the White House.
Just imagine Nineneque's old Avatar where the guy obliterates himself over the keyboard.
I hope he puts it on youtube
heck that shooting in canadia made it on about 2 hours after it happened
Hulkein
09-15-2006, 12:57 PM
How funny would it be if Backlash got busted for drug possession and never posted here again?
Pelosi has also promised that within 100 hours after taking control of the House on January 3, Democrats will pass legislation to increase the minimum wage, mandate the negotiation of Medicare prescription drug prices, fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and repeal tax benefits for big oil companies.
Pelosi has also promised that within 100 hours after taking control of the House on January 3, Democrats will pass legislation to tank the US economy. It will be down just enough by Nov. 2008 to blame George Bush.
Fixed that for ya.
Fixed that for The National Journal, a widely respected conservative magazine..
Thanks so much. The least I could do is fix yours for you.
Ilvane
09-15-2006, 02:51 PM
I'd just love to see a balance. I don't care if there is a Republican president with a Democratic house and senate, or vice versa..too much one party control is bad.
Balance is good.
Angela
I think there needs to be some balance in Congress. I prefer a Republican over a Democrat in the White House though.
I prefer good balance and good leadership in the White House and our legislature as a whole. I don't care if whoever fits the bill is a Republican, Democract or an Independent(will never happen anytime soon).
Fixed that for The National Journal, a widely respected conservative magazine..
Thanks so much. The least I could do is fix yours for you.
See, the funny thing is that The National Journal is anything but conservative. It just goes to show that anything not extremely liberal is conservative to you.
And you missed the point entirely, it had nothing to do with the source, it was that all the stuff she was proposing to do in the first 100 hours was essentially saying the same thing as "I'd like to depress the American economy."
Latrinsorm
09-15-2006, 04:26 PM
Balance is good.Balance is good when you have multiple forces that while good can be bad when taken to an unopposed extreme. Do you really think we have any of those in American government?
See, the funny thing is that The National Journal is anything but conservative. It just goes to show that anything not extremely liberal is conservative to you.
And you missed the point entirely, it had nothing to do with the source, it was that all the stuff she was proposing to do in the first 100 hours was essentially saying the same thing as "I'd like to depress the American economy."
I think you are viewing me in ways others paint me. You need to actually read what I say as oppose to reading what other suggest about me.
As reporting goes I would put Christian Science Monitor square in the middle of things. I’ll grant you Newsweek may slant to the left of that, but if that is the case then the National Review definitely slants to the right. And I don’t mean that either of them slant their stories, or are extreme to either side, just that the stories they cover are probably more of interest to the sides they (may) leans towards. I seriously can’t believe I’m trying to make a point that the National Review is conservative? Its a topsy-turvy world these days.
Your second comment is pure speculation. Everything at this point is speculation. But the issues she mentions are issues I fully advocate. You may not advocate raising the minimum wage, standardizing prescription drug costs, fully implementing the 9/11 Commissions security recommendations and repealing tax cuts for big oil companies, and thats fine.
Hulkein
09-15-2006, 08:08 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing the tax cuts for oil companies repealed... What exactly are the details of these tax cuts for those companies, anyway?
I wouldn't mind seeing the tax cuts for oil companies repealed... What exactly are the details of these tax cuts for those companies, anyway?
This is progress!
Details? You don’t want any and every tax cut given to the oil corps to be repealed?
You know, as we all do Hulk, that those money-grubbing m-er-f-ers are going to suck our blood till we’re fucking fueling their next generation of off-spring’s Aspen vacations.
This is progress!
Details? You don’t want any and every tax cut given to the oil corps to be repealed?
You know, as we all do Hulk, that those money-grubbing m-er-f-ers are going to suck our blood till we’re fucking fueling their next generation of off-spring’s Aspen vacations.
And just when you had the chance to make sense, you slide off the end of the cliff again.
Yes, oil companies should have their tax cuts reviewd, however, to be equitable, all of available tax relief should not be tanked just because you think they're money grubbing m-er-f-ers. Cut off the tax cuts that arent fair to the rest of the corporate world. If all tax cuts are to be removed, then by god remove them from the rest of the corporate world as well. That way they can pass along all the expense to the consumer. You think $3 a gallon for gas was expensive, wait until you get the $5 loaf of bread from the world you're envisioning.
You talk so much about fairness, and yet its only from your perspective. If you want to be fair, be fair across the boards and be consistent, not just the radical anti-business minded individual you are known to be.
Amazing, really.
I wouldn't mind seeing the tax cuts for oil companies repealed... What exactly are the details of these tax cuts for those companies, anyway?
Since Backlash couldnt give you anything but rhetoric...
Here's some information.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR4297:
http://taxes.about.com/b/a/257268.htm
Parkbandit
09-16-2006, 08:38 AM
And just when you had the chance to make sense, you slide off the end of the cliff again.
Yes, oil companies should have their tax cuts reviewd, however, to be equitable, all of available tax relief should not be tanked just because you think they're money grubbing m-er-f-ers. Cut off the tax cuts that arent fair to the rest of the corporate world. If all tax cuts are to be removed, then by god remove them from the rest of the corporate world as well. That way they can pass along all the expense to the consumer. You think $3 a gallon for gas was expensive, wait until you get the $5 loaf of bread from the world you're envisioning.
You talk so much about fairness, and yet its only from your perspective. If you want to be fair, be fair across the boards and be consistent, not just the radical anti-business minded individual you are known to be.
Amazing, really.
I'm not sure how this surprised you at all.
After having a successful night (2nd place) at hold'em I think was diagnosed as suffering from an abnormal sense of optimisim.
I think thats what led me to believe Backlash could be any other way than what he is.
:banghead:
And just when you had the chance to make sense, you slide off the end of the cliff again.
Yes, oil companies should have their tax cuts reviewd, however, to be equitable, all of available tax relief should not be tanked just because you think they're money grubbing m-er-f-ers. Cut off the tax cuts that arent fair to the rest of the corporate world. If all tax cuts are to be removed, then by god remove them from the rest of the corporate world as well. That way they can pass along all the expense to the consumer. You think $3 a gallon for gas was expensive, wait until you get the $5 loaf of bread from the world you're envisioning.
You talk so much about fairness, and yet its only from your perspective. If you want to be fair, be fair across the boards and be consistent, not just the radical anti-business minded individual you are known to be.
Amazing, really.
So if I were to have worded it differently you would have agreed? Are you not as pissed off as I am that the oil companies made record profits at the hight of gas prices we paid? On top of that they are getting tax-cuts?
I may have been overly dramatic about it, but thats just how I feel about.
So if I were to have worded it differently you would have agreed? Are you not as pissed off as I am that the oil companies made record profits at the hight of gas prices we paid? On top of that they are getting tax-cuts?
I may have been overly dramatic about it, but thats just how I feel about.
Actually, considering what other industrialized nations pay for gas, I'm not pissed off at all. Did it hurt? Yes. And I adjusted. Am I glad they're receeding? Yes.
I'll never complain about a company making profits, and from the senate hearings I observed, they [big oil] made it legally. Does making legal profits earn the big oil companies the right to be penalized because of it? No.
You're robin hood mentality concerning big business has a hard time grasping that concept. If they're making big bucks then they must be doing it illegally!!! [/sarcasm] But considering your nationalization perspective on resources and healthcare, its really no suprise.
The tax cuts they [big oil] are getting are actually available to everyone else in their industry, from what I've found thus far.
What will piss me off is if they do not invest these profits into competitive alternative resources for domestic fuel sources for future use, as well as renewable alternatives.
Lets see American dollars go back to work for America through investment in greater technology to drill effectively and efficiently in those hard to get areas where oil seems to be plentiful, such as the new field found off the Gulf Coast. Lets see American dollars go towards fixing our dependancy on foreign oil to satiate our unchecked consumption.
Parkbandit
09-16-2006, 11:03 AM
After having a successful night (2nd place) at hold'em I think was diagnosed as suffering from an abnormal sense of optimisim.
I think thats what led me to believe Backlash could be any other way than what he is.
:banghead:
Success to you is 2nd place? Loser.
"If you ain't first, you're last"
We actually ran out of time before we could go head to head. This was a friendly neighborhood game so we set a time limit since we're usually at one of the player's house'. At end time we divy up chips and split the pot based on your chip %.
Mostly its an excuse for a bunch of middle aged guys to sit around a table, drink beer, listen to good music and talk about man things.
He only had me lead in chips by less than a third of overall chipcount.
Apathy
09-16-2006, 12:04 PM
So if I were to have worded it differently you would have agreed? Are you not as pissed off as I am that the oil companies made record profits at the hight of gas prices we paid? On top of that they are getting tax-cuts?
I may have been overly dramatic about it, but thats just how I feel about.
Why are you mad that a business is successful? Do they hold a gun to your head and make you buy gasoline? Can you not think of at least one way to use less gas? Fuck sakes I'll even help: carpool, buy a hybrid vehicle, use public transport, get an e85 vehicle, WALK. Its not that hard.
Would you feel okay about giving oil companies tax cuts if it meant the end or severe reduction of foreign oil dependency? Or are you just mad that someone makes more money than you because you pay them to?
Or are you just mad that someone makes more money than you because you pay them to?
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!
Why are you mad that a business is successful? Do they hold a gun to your head and make you buy gasoline? Can you not think of at least one way to use less gas? Fuck sakes I'll even help: carpool, buy a hybrid vehicle, use public transport, get an e85 vehicle, WALK. Its not that hard.
Would you feel okay about giving oil companies tax cuts if it meant the end or severe reduction of foreign oil dependency? Or are you just mad that someone makes more money than you because you pay them to?
Gee thanks Mr. Wizard! Why didn’t I think of reducing my gas consumption? What a revelation.
Of course, those high gas prices have driven all prices up to compensate. Food does not magically appear on the shelves. But you know that since your so fucking smart!
I’d feel better nationalizing our countries natural resources and giving tax cuts to companies that were really researching ways to get us off the dead dinosaur nipple for more reasons than just the almighty dollar in my pocket.
I think success and making money are great. I think tax loopholes and “beating the system”*are the wrong ways to go about getting success and money.
And since we are already somewhat off topic, because this thread isn’t about my views, but what a conservative article suggests will happen when the dems finally get back some power, I’ll throw out this little noodle-baker.
How do creationists explain oil?
I’d feel better nationalizing our countries natural resources and giving tax cuts to companies that were really researching ways to get us off the dead dinosaur nipple for more reasons than just the almighty dollar in my pocket.
Yes, lets let the citizens of the US prop up non competetive government industry through noncompetetive pricing, noncompetetive research, and poor/underpaid management. Sounds like a [bad] plan to me!
I think success and making money are great. I think tax loopholes and “beating the system”*are the wrong ways to go about getting success and money.
Agreed, but you're not going to fix the corruptability and fallability of man with nationalization, you're just changing the players and the some of the rules of the game. The game will still be played as long as civilization functions primarily on a system of barter.
Latrinsorm
09-16-2006, 03:47 PM
I'm not sure that "conservative" really has a place here, Backlash. The article reads to me as straight reporting of what a leading Democrat says will happen if the Democrats get control of Congress. If you're trying to imply that any "liberal" publication is incapable of straight reporting, I guess that makes sense, but it seems incorrect to me.
The real questions are:
a) Can we believe that this lady actually intends to follow through on her promises?
b) Can we believe that she speaks for the overwhelming majority of Democrats, or at least enough so that she would represent the majority of Congress?
c) Are her various initiatives actually good for the country? (Mostly in regard to raising the minimum wage.)
d) Are there more important matters at hand that require government intervention?
Yes, lets let the citizens of the US prop up non competetive government industry through noncompetetive pricing, noncompetetive research, and poor/underpaid management. Sounds like a [bad] plan to me!
If we were to use the models that have been used in the past, obviously it would be a bad plan. But we’re smart. We can make a better model, reap the benefits and still remain competitive on the global market if we really wanted to.
Agreed, but you're not going to fix the corruptability and fallability of man with nationalization, you're just changing the players and the some of the rules of the game. The game will still be played as long as civilization functions primarily on a system of barter.
Never said nationalization was going to fix that. I agree thats an issue with humans so we just need to set up proper checks and balances.
Parkbandit
09-16-2006, 04:38 PM
I think success and making money are great. I think tax loopholes and “beating the system”*are the wrong ways to go about getting success and money.
Tax loopholes usually are the product of the system. You can blame our Government for that.. not the oil companies.
Parkbandit
09-16-2006, 04:48 PM
I'm not sure that "conservative" really has a place here, Backlash. The article reads to me as straight reporting of what a leading Democrat says will happen if the Democrats get control of Congress. If you're trying to imply that any "liberal" publication is incapable of straight reporting, I guess that makes sense, but it seems incorrect to me.
The real questions are:
a) Can we believe that this lady actually intends to follow through on her promises?
b) Can we believe that she speaks for the overwhelming majority of Democrats, or at least enough so that she would represent the majority of Congress?
c) Are her various initiatives actually good for the country? (Mostly in regard to raising the minimum wage.)
d) Are there more important matters at hand that require government intervention?
That's the thing these do nothing Democrats cannot get through their heads.. raising the minimum wage will do nothing but stiffle corporate growth and lead to more and more companies outsourcing to other countries.
Seriously.. who earns minimum wage here (besides Backlash)? The last time I worked for minimum wage was when I was still in High School. I was a grunt in a pizza place.. and 3 months later I got a raise. Who actually only pays it's employees that? Is there even a successful company in the US that only pays minimum wage? Maybe migrant farm hands? High School students?
Minimum wage is just that.. the MINIMUM WAGE companies can pay it's employees.. it doesn't mean that any company actually HAS to pay JUST that going rate.
Let capitalism do it's job. A company that pays it's employees minimum wage will get shit employees that do not stay long at all... which costs the company even more money.
That's the thing these do nothing Democrats cannot get through their heads.. raising the minimum wage will do nothing but stiffle corporate growth and lead to more and more companies outsourcing to other countries.
Seriously.. who earns minimum wage here (besides Backlash)? The last time I worked for minimum wage was when I was still in High School. I was a grunt in a pizza place.. and 3 months later I got a raise. Who actually only pays it's employees that? Is there even a successful company in the US that only pays minimum wage? Maybe migrant farm hands? High School students?
Minimum wage is just that.. the MINIMUM WAGE companies can pay it's employees.. it doesn't mean that any company actually HAS to pay JUST that going rate.
Let capitalism do it's job. A company that pays it's employees minimum wage will get shit employees that do not stay long at all... which costs the company even more money.
I have a sneaky feeling that my one and only minimum wage job paid less than yours only because I did not go to college and was paying taxes before you were. You are correct, though, the raise does not come too much longer if you are even half adequate at what you do.
Corporations don’t thrive on low minimum wage? Who are you trying to kid here? Ever heard of a little business called McDonalds? Or maybe Wallmart? Nah, they pay top dollar! Raising minimum wage wouldn’t cut their profits at all.
You are claiming outsourcing is because of democratic action? You must have forgotten the republican backing it has received recently, not to mention the democrats have barely been able to do anything at all being the minority party in all three branches of government for the past 6 years.
And you call me the spin master. I remove my tin-foil hat to you, sir.
Apathy
09-16-2006, 05:25 PM
Gee thanks Mr. Wizard! Why didn’t I think of reducing my gas consumption? What a revelation.
Of course, those high gas prices have driven all prices up to compensate. Food does not magically appear on the shelves. But you know that since your so fucking smart!
I’d feel better nationalizing our countries natural resources and giving tax cuts to companies that were really researching ways to get us off the dead dinosaur nipple for more reasons than just the almighty dollar in my pocket.
I think success and making money are great. I think tax loopholes and “beating the system”*are the wrong ways to go about getting success and money.
And since we are already somewhat off topic, because this thread isn’t about my views, but what a conservative article suggests will happen when the dems finally get back some power, I’ll throw out this little noodle-baker.
How do creationists explain oil?
Glad I got your attention.
If the marginal increase of cost in mass-produced goods as a result of higher gas prices is effecting you that severely, maybe you should take up a second job and cancel your internet subscription. Priorities.
How many times do other countries have to prove to you these ideas of socialist economy do not work?
I'm really glad you recognized just how smart I am. It's actually kind of ironic because, it's not that I'm really smart, its just relative. In fact, I'll even show you one more time by solving this incredible "noodle-baker" that you've provided: God put it there. Not difficult by any meaning of the word.
Apathy
09-16-2006, 05:29 PM
If we were to use the models that have been used in the past, obviously it would be a bad plan. But we’re smart. We can make a better model, reap the benefits and still remain competitive on the global market if we really wanted to.
Ever heard the saying "Communism would work if Capitalist didn't run it"? Please chew the cud on that for a moment, because it is so very true on so many different levels.
Glad I got your attention.
If the marginal increase of cost in mass-produced goods as a result of higher gas prices is effecting you that severely, maybe you should take up a second job and cancel your internet subscription. Priorities.
How many times do other countries have to prove to you these ideas of socialist economy do not work?
I'm really glad you recognized just how smart I am. It's actually kind of ironic because, it's not that I'm really smart, its just relative. In fact, I'll even show you one more time by solving this incredible "noodle-baker" that you've provided: God put it there. Not difficult by any meaning of the word.
You know what? Enter the workforce, start paying taxes and then get back to me. M’kay?
Yeah, you’re smart. A smart ass. But hey, its better than being a dumb ass.
Ok, that was lame, so seriously...
I’m flattered you are pouring all this attention on me. No rly.
Whatever models came before, as I responded to the nationalization subject in another post, are not models to duplicate but improve on. You are exhibiting a mind-set that is closed. If we put our minds to it, we can accomplish anything we want. That may seem like some crazy liberal conspiracy to someone who is stuck in that mind-set.
I’d honestly rather have everything at my fingertips and eat Ramen noodles than have steak every night and not know what the fuck was going on in the world. The good news is, I have steak and everything at my fingertips without even having to work too hard for it.
CrystalTears
09-16-2006, 06:24 PM
Cars aren't the only thing that oil is used for. Give up all your plastics, including your big plasma TV, your iPod, your cell phone, and then maybe we'll talk.
McDonalds pays minimum wage? :lol: Oh no sir, they most surely do not. Nor does Walmart. Go and apply and see what they offer.
I have a sneaky feeling that my one and only minimum wage job paid less than yours only because I did not go to college and was paying taxes before you were. You are correct, though, the raise does not come too much longer if you are even half adequate at what you do.
Corporations don’t thrive on low minimum wage? Who are you trying to kid here? Ever heard of a little business called McDonalds? Or maybe Wallmart? Nah, they pay top dollar! Raising minimum wage wouldn’t cut their profits at all.
You are claiming outsourcing is because of democratic action? You must have forgotten the republican backing it has received recently, not to mention the democrats have barely been able to do anything at all being the minority party in all three branches of government for the past 6 years.
And you call me the spin master. I remove my tin-foil hat to you, sir.
Newsflash: McDonalds does not baseline its employes at minimum wage, nor does WalMart. Having done some market analysis here in the Houston area for direct labor employees for hospitals, I can attest, through direct evidence, that the average wage hovers somewhere between 6.50 and 7.20 between the two corporations you're talking about, for starting wages.
Another Newsflash: Raisiing minimum wage increase labor expenditures, which cuts into bottom line profitability. Because both WalMart and McDonalds offer services at such discounted rates, everything they do is trimmed back as efficiently as possible (for-profit wholesale distribution business model). THERE IS NO ROOM FOR FLUFF OR PROFIT PADDING. Any impact to the top line of these corporations is predictably felt throughout the organization culminating eventually in an increase in comsumer prices of the goods they produce/distribute.
ERGO: Shareholders would stipulate an increase in pricing up to an equilibrium point or at an advantageous position right below competetive pricing with competetive market participants before it pushes them past equilibrium and into a non-competetive status. THEY ARE COMPETETIVE BASED ON VOLUME AND PRICE. Cut that volume back and you've cut into profits. So, a typical shareholder meeting would dictate absorb as much of a hit into the profit that will dictate no change in competetiveness, so volume is not sacrificed. Then the cost is passed along to the consumer once neither volume or price can be sustained in equilibrium.
Sean of the Thread
09-16-2006, 07:26 PM
Well said.
Also.. McDonalds is nasty and calorie hell.
Well said.
Also.. McDonalds is nasty and calorie hell.
Agreed. It seems even someone like Sean2 can appreciate a well worded and though out post. Your efforts, Gan, are not lost.
But while we all agree that McD’s is nasty, except for their Egg McMuffin with sausage and cheese with the hash chunk side and a large coke first thing in the morning, you cannot seriously tell me that they don’t rely on minimum wage to make their profits.
Your defense of these corporations makes me wonder why minimum wage is such a hot bed issue. If its not big deal, why not raise it?
Hulkein
09-16-2006, 08:30 PM
In 1998 when I worked at McDonalds, the only people getting paid minimum wage were 14 and 15 year olds (I was 14). The min wage was 5.15 in PA at that time, and when you turned 16 you got a raise to 6 dollars an hour. So pretty much, anyone 16 or older at McDonalds (majority of the workforce) is being paid more than minimum wage.
So again, whats the big deal about raising the minimum wage?
And I’ve noticed no one has mentioned the problems with instituting the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
In 1998 when I worked at McDonalds, the only people getting paid minimum wage were 14 and 15 year olds (I was 14). The min wage was 5.15 in PA at that time, and when you turned 16 you got a raise to 6 dollars an hour. So pretty much, anyone 16 or older at McDonalds (majority of the workforce) is being paid more than minimum wage.
From now on, I am calling you Mr. McD.
Sean of the Thread
09-16-2006, 08:51 PM
From now on, I am calling you Mr. McD.
You're such a big man.
Parkbandit
09-16-2006, 11:19 PM
I have a sneaky feeling that my one and only minimum wage job paid less than yours only because I did not go to college and was paying taxes before you were.
You are either stupid, or older than you ever claimed.
I was paying taxes from my minimum wage job in 1980, making around $3.50 I believe. I have a sneaky feeling that you are incorrect in your assumption.. as usual. Before that I was working (doing lawns in the summer, shoveling snow in the winter) from 12 years old on. I wasn't paying taxes from 1976-1980 though.
Parkbandit
09-16-2006, 11:29 PM
Corporations don’t thrive on low minimum wage? Who are you trying to kid here? Ever heard of a little business called McDonalds? Or maybe Wallmart? Nah, they pay top dollar! Raising minimum wage wouldn’t cut their profits at all.
Please visit your local McDonalds and Walmart and get educated. Neither one in my area hires people for minimum wage... and Tampa is inexpensive to live. Good try though, really (not)
You are claiming outsourcing is because of democratic action? You must have forgotten the republican backing it has received recently, not to mention the democrats have barely been able to do anything at all being the minority party in all three branches of government for the past 6 years.
And you call me the spin master. I remove my tin-foil hat to you, sir.
I never, ever, called you the spin master... since most of your spin is retardedly inaccurate.
Increased taxes and increased minimum wages increase outsourcing as companies look to remain profitable. Both of these things occured during the Clinton Administration.
Parkbandit
09-16-2006, 11:46 PM
So again, whats the big deal about raising the minimum wage?
By raising minimum wage, you artificially raise the wages of everyone. Let's say a company hires people at $6.00 currently.. with the minimum wage set at $5.35. If you raise the minimum wage to $6.00, companies will raise their starting wages up to be above the minimum to attract applicants. If you raise the starting wage up, you need to also raise up all the people who are currently employed with your company to their new tier wages.
Example:
I have 40 employees at my place of work at the following wage breakdown:
5 new hires (under 90 days) at $6.00
15 employees over 90 days and under 1 year at $6.25
10 employees over 1 year and under 2 years at $6.75
10 employees over 2 years at $7.00
New Minimum Wage is now $6.00, so we raise our hiring wage by $.65, so we now need to redo our tiered wages to:
5 new hires (under 90 days) at $6.65
15 employees over 90 days and under 1 year at $6.90
10 employees over 1 year and under 2 years at $7.40
10 employees over 2 years at $7.65
Using an FTE of 1 per employee (40 hours a week), the minimum wage just cost my small business a minimum of $241,280 dollars a year. Well, there are very few companies that want to make less money than they did the previous year, so they will need to either pass this cost onto whoever is buying their goods or services, lower their labor costs or a combination of both. Typically, companies will lay some people off and get rid of some sort of employee benefit (bonuses, benefits like health insurance, etc...).
Here's my issue(s) with raising the minimum wage. Noted that I agree with PB's point concerning an increase in base FTE labor costs.
1. Creates a glass floor of wages that is not dictated by the market. This is yet another example of fiscal policy... do not let the government monkey with the market!!! Lazziez Faire!
2. This glass floor will cause labor demand to shift downwards (to the right), which is indicated by higher unemployment when labor providers are less willing to pay for increased wages in the short run. In the long run, either a substitute good will either be sought (increase in capital to replace labor at a cheaper cost) or companies will hire labor at newely inflated minimum wage and pass extra costs along to consumers through higher prices.
3. reduces investment back into other areas of the business model because additional profits are absorbed by the new wage rate. These areas include research and development, any new capital investment (new building, extra store(s), new or upgraded equipment, etc.)
4. Going back to shifting demand for labor, it creates a condition called under-employment for jobs worth naturally less than the new minimum wage.
5. Encourages immigrant labor to come in and take over where American workers are unwilling to work for jobs paying less than minimum wage.
6. Increases outsourcing of labor providers to countries with cheaper labor.
7. Decreases the effect of minimum wage encouraging workers to obtain education necessary to earn higher wages.
... thats off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more but I'm getting sleepy. :(
Hulkein
09-17-2006, 01:39 AM
From now on, I am calling you Mr. McD.
I was 14 years old and I wanted to earn money.... I'm not a born blue-blood conservative, I just believe in hard work paying off. I was born in a pretty crappy area and I watched my parents work hard (mom became a nurse by going to Community College to cover the expenses of my dad getting his B.S.) and go from a row-home to a house worth around 800k today. My mom grew up in a family that should've been on welfare but refused the hand outs. I refuse to buy into a system that rewards or at least accepts laziness, sorry.
Anyone in America can obtain, at the very least, middle-class status. You don't need to be smart to get into a good trade and earn good wages. It requires discipline and hard work, that's it.
Parkbandit
09-17-2006, 08:16 AM
Anyone in America can obtain, at the very least, middle-class status. You don't need to be smart to get into a good trade and earn good wages. It requires discipline and hard work, that's it.
LIES! LIES!!!!!!!!
ElanthianSiren
09-17-2006, 02:01 PM
I just believe in hard work paying off. I was born in a pretty crappy area and I watched my parents work hard (mom became a nurse by going to Community College to cover the expenses of my dad getting his B.S.) and go from a row-home to a house worth around 800k today. My mom grew up in a family that should've been on welfare but refused the hand outs. I refuse to buy into a system that rewards or at least accepts laziness, sorry.
Anyone in America can obtain, at the very least, middle-class status. You don't need to be smart to get into a good trade and earn good wages. It requires discipline and hard work, that's it.
Many people who would refuse welfare still believe it should be there for those who wouldn't. I'm diametrically opposed to asking for help (at all), but I don't believe asking for help makes others weak or lazy. I agree with you on the hard work, having watched my mom do the same with her master's psych and bachelor's growing up in W. PA.
I think however you should clarify what in our system rewards laziness in your opinion -- for instance, did you use pell grants or other entitlements (FAFSA) when attending college? -And do the forms/tax submissions etc constitute hard work, if so?
-M
Parkbandit
09-17-2006, 03:18 PM
I think however you should clarify what in our system rewards laziness in your opinion -- for instance, did you use pell grants or other entitlements (FAFSA) when attending college? -And do the forms/tax submissions etc constitute hard work, if so?
-M
I hope you are not equating the use of a young adult using a Pell grant to gain further education to laziness.. or even on the same level as Welfare.
Sean of the Thread
09-17-2006, 03:59 PM
Wow that was my interpretation of her post as well and if so that's fucking retarded on her part. (as is most of the post imo sorry mel)
I used a Pell grant for 2 semesters. I'll be damned if I considered myself 'lazy' while attending college.
Artha
09-17-2006, 04:13 PM
Federal Aid to attend college ftmfw.
Sean of the Thread
09-17-2006, 04:26 PM
Absolutelyleyeyly
Parkbandit
09-17-2006, 06:12 PM
There is just a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference from someone using a Pell grant to attend college and someone sitting at home collecting welfare. Not even on the same level of Federal Assistance.
ElanthianSiren
09-18-2006, 05:19 AM
Both are social assistance programs. When you start cutting social programs, where exactly do you stop was my question (pell grants were cut btw in 2003 and again in 2005). Whining and pouting that it's a dumb question is just beating around the bush and not having an answer.
It's easy to try to paint everyone using federal/state programs as dead beats by invoking the "W" word (No, not Dubya, Welfare). Taking a step back, I think most people will realize that they have used them at some point. Which is your sacred cow then, and what do you cut? How do you measure effort/deservedness?
As usual, you've misinterperited a larger question as a flame against yourselves.
-M
edit to add: Sean, if you're going to insult, don't apologize in the same post for it. That's just fucking retarded.
Daniel
09-18-2006, 09:10 AM
I'll be damned if I considered myself 'lazy' while attending college.
I would. College is fucking easy as shit.
There is just a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference from someone using a Pell grant to attend college and someone sitting at home collecting welfare. Not even on the same level of Federal Assistance.
You have a point, unless of course they are on welfare while at the same time attending college using government funding such as Pell or Map grants. It happens, alot. This is why I can also see Mel's side of it and somewhat agree with you both.
TheEschaton
09-18-2006, 09:56 AM
College was easy peasy for me, and I was a computer science major. And I'm sure Daniel was something equally "difficult"
-TheE-
Daniel
09-18-2006, 10:02 AM
What was your major?
Is Economics (B.S) \ International studies. (B.A)
Nice to see another Econ grad. I found some of my upper level courses challenging but fun none the less. (BS Economics/minor Poli-Sci).
Wezas
09-18-2006, 10:58 AM
There is just a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference from someone using a Pell grant to attend college and someone sitting at home collecting welfare. Not even on the same level of Federal Assistance.
I am refraining from arguing in respect to your day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_the_Aged_Day).
Sean of the Thread
09-18-2006, 11:01 AM
edit to add: Sean, if you're going to insult, don't apologize in the same post for it. That's just fucking retarded.
The "sorry mel" was part of the patronizing insult! Just showing some of the respect I have for you. :bananahit:
Sean of the Thread
09-18-2006, 11:02 AM
I am refraining from arguing in respect to your day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_the_Aged_Day).
Rofl... rofl.
Parkbandit
09-18-2006, 03:29 PM
Fucking Wezas is a dick. Get your twink up to 19 fucker and geared up.
Wezas
09-18-2006, 04:19 PM
Fucking Wezas is a dick. Get your twink up to 19 fucker and geared up.
Non-WoW players will consider your statement above VERY gay.
Some Rogue
09-18-2006, 04:25 PM
Non-WoW players will consider your statement above VERY gay.
Some WoW players who know him would too.
Hulkein
09-18-2006, 04:42 PM
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060917-113959-2813r.htm
Click the link, the pasted text isn't converting well on the eyes, heh.
Republicans appear to be gaining on the Democrats in the 2006 midterm campaign because of growing confidence in the economy, falling gas prices and President Bush's sustained political offensive on the terrorist threat, according to pollsters and campaign strategists.
The most significant political movement in the past week or two has been in the battle for control of Congress. National preference polls on the so-called "generic ballot" question -- which party's candidate voters say they would choose -- show Republicans have narrowed the once-substantial lead Democrats held and are now trailing them by three percentage points, independent pollster John Zogby said Friday.
Mr. Zogby credited the Republican Party's sudden political turnaround to "the president's focus on the war on terrorism, a rebound among his own base," and the Democrats' failure to lay out a clear plan of their own on "how are we're going to get out of Iraq and what they would do about terrorism that's better than the Republicans."
Democrats "are not giving their Democratic base what it needs to hear on those issues," Mr. Zogby said. "Republicans are severely wounded. The Democrats should be crushing them, and they are not."
Top election forecasters have pointed to an anti-Bush and anti-Republican "wave" that they predict will return the Democrats to majority power in the House, but Mr. Zogby said, "I don't see the landslide that others are seeing. That doesn't mean it can't materialize, but as of today, it's not happening and this is mid-September."
Some pollsters, such as Gallup, still show the Democrats enjoying larger, 12-point leads in the generic surveys. But Mr. Zogby's numbers mirror a tightening in several other voter-preference polls, including a Fox News poll of likely voters, and what campaign strategists and political reporters say they are seeing in the battleground states.
The Republican Party's improving polls coincide with a number of positive developments on the economic front that Republicans hope will further lift their political prospects in November. The price of oil dropped to nearly $62 a barrel Friday from a high of $77 last month, as gasoline prices continued their descent to a national average of $2.62 per gallon, though many battleground states were reporting lower prices for regular.
Some of the lowest averages included Iowa, $2.32; Indiana, $2.36; Missouri and Ohio, $2.25; Minnesota, $2.35; Michigan $2.37; and Kentucky, $2.34.
As gas prices fell, the stock market was rising, with the Dow Jones industrial average soaring to 11,560 Friday, 162 points from its all-time high, that boosted worker pensions -- and a consumer confidence survey showed Americans were "in a decidedly more optimistic mood," the Ipsos poll reported Friday.
The Republicans' improving poll numbers were also reflected in a number of tighter House and Senate races, while a separate Zogby poll showed that Republicans in three high-profile Senate races -- in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio -- had improved their poll numbers significantly in just the past week or two.
Much of the party's gain was the result of Republicans coming home to their party as Mr. Bush focused on the issues that most deeply divide the country -- Iraq and the war on terrorism.
"The base is finally coming around. Democratic intensity has been strong for the last year, but Republican intensity all of a sudden has increased," said Republican campaign strategist John Brabender, who is advising Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania in his re-election campaign.
"Some of the positive things that are happening in the economy are starting to cause some excitement among Republicans," Mr. Brabender said.
"We're seeing a tightening up in the congressional races, too, in the last 10 days. The president is putting out a much more targeted message, talking about the security of the country. For the first time, he's playing more offense than defense and that's helping Republicans," he said.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.