Campaign 2008

[EricMM 0]

I think it was mindless and stupid.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't think he was being racist, but it was an extremely bad choice of words. I don't see how anyone could be a politician in 2007 and not think a little bit more about what they're saying, especially when the media is going to jump all over you if you slip up just once.

[EricMM 0]

Why the fuck he was bringing up the guy's African American status is beyond me.

 

Aren't we past that?

[Art Sandusky 0]

I read it as he intended from the start. He just wasn't very eloquent in saying that this sterling young man bucks all the stereotypes that exist in America.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'll just chalk this one up to Biden (the ass) being Biden (the ass).

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I still like McCain. Just sayin'.

 

http://therealmccain.com/

 

I don't like McCain, but just watching the first few minutes of the main video on that web page makes me like him a bit more. It never helps to spin things at a bigger rate than the person your trying to criticize.

 

Every issue that video points to shows how full of crap McCain is. Point out one example of spin.

 

I'll point out two.

 

The first argument it makes in regards to McCains commentary on the Iraq War suggests that McCain advocated polar opposite viewpoints ('It will be easy - No one said it would be easy'). Though both comments are related to Iraq, they are on completely different matters. One is on the initial overthrow of Saddam and the institution of another government (that was easy), the other was quelling insurgency and ensuring a secure transition to a liberal democracy (not easy). I have no doubt that McCain probably did think that Iraq wouldn't have eventuated into such a struggle (like a lot of people on both sides), but the video takes the easy road and misquotes him instead. Slamming a republican over Iraq isn't rocket science, why does the site have to spin it

 

In the video, McCain is scolding the American public for thinking Iraq was going to be too easy, when it was he & his neoconservative fellow travelers who made people think this! McCain bought the Weekly Standard line--that our troops would be greeted with roses & bundt cake--hook, line, & sinker. He has been extremely duplicitous when speaking on Iraq--like the way he is hedging his bets with the troop surge now.

 

McCain: We need 20K more troops in Iraq now!

 

*Bush sends 20K more troops*

 

McCain: I always wanted at least 35K more troops !

 

But he seems to get a free pass on all this...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The worst example though was not the video but the little side board which criticizes him for supporting the elimination of the minimum wage, not because the policy is bad, but because a lot of people don't support it! What this proves is that the only thing these people know, is that they don't like McCain. They can't articulate a proper intellectual argument so they use simple minded spin doctoring to get their way.

 

I don't get why it isn't okay to point out that he doesn't support a very popular policy. A lot of people probably don't know that he opposes it. So every time the minimum wage is mentioned the site needs to trot out an economist or Bob Reich to point out its merits?

[snuffbox 0]

People can't live on $5.15. My libertarianism can blow me on stuff like this, one can't be a party toadie on every issue. The obvious can't be argued if you've seen/felt how tough it can be with a family and a job that just doesn't pay enough. Anything under $10 an hour is really pushing it so this minimum wage increase is really just a small help/first step. But it's something.

 

My libertarianism returns, quick, when workers have to pay 1/4 (or, usually, more) of their weekly incomes in taxes.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Eh...I would argue that no one is intended to live on the minimum wage. Those jobs are for high schoolers and people working part time for some extra cash (old people, etc).

 

I'm not necessarily against raising it a couple bucks, but I don't buy that it should be over $10 either.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

I still like McCain. Just sayin'.

 

http://therealmccain.com/

 

I don't like McCain, but just watching the first few minutes of the main video on that web page makes me like him a bit more. It never helps to spin things at a bigger rate than the person your trying to criticize.

 

Every issue that video points to shows how full of crap McCain is. Point out one example of spin.

 

I'll point out two.

 

The first argument it makes in regards to McCains commentary on the Iraq War suggests that McCain advocated polar opposite viewpoints ('It will be easy - No one said it would be easy'). Though both comments are related to Iraq, they are on completely different matters. One is on the initial overthrow of Saddam and the institution of another government (that was easy), the other was quelling insurgency and ensuring a secure transition to a liberal democracy (not easy). I have no doubt that McCain probably did think that Iraq wouldn't have eventuated into such a struggle (like a lot of people on both sides), but the video takes the easy road and misquotes him instead. Slamming a republican over Iraq isn't rocket science, why does the site have to spin it

 

In the video, McCain is scolding the American public for thinking Iraq was going to be too easy, when it was he & his neoconservative fellow travelers who made people think this!

 

Did you actually read what I wrote? Having said that, I don't doubt McCain was mistaken about Iraq like most politicians. I don't think that makes him signicantly worse a candidate. However I do think the 'too easy' and 'too hard' comments were on different matters relating to Iraq, as explained in my previous post.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

The worst example though was not the video but the little side board which criticizes him for supporting the elimination of the minimum wage, not because the policy is bad, but because a lot of people don't support it! What this proves is that the only thing these people know, is that they don't like McCain. They can't articulate a proper intellectual argument so they use simple minded spin doctoring to get their way.

 

I don't get why it isn't okay to point out that he doesn't support a very popular policy. A lot of people probably don't know that he opposes it. So every time the minimum wage is mentioned the site needs to trot out an economist or Bob Reich to point out its merits?

 

Yes. Because it would take the site, like, all of 2 minutes to cite an argument on why eliminating the minimum wage is bad. Simply saying a policy is unpopular as a means to criticize a candidate is stupid, and assumes that conventional wisdom is always right, like when everyone thought the Earth was flat way back when.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

People can't live on $5.15. My libertarianism can blow me on stuff like this, one can't be a party toadie on every issue. The obvious can't be argued if you've seen/felt how tough it can be with a family and a job that just doesn't pay enough. Anything under $10 an hour is really pushing it so this minimum wage increase is really just a small help/first step. But it's something.

 

My libertarianism returns, quick, when workers have to pay 1/4 (or, usually, more) of their weekly incomes in taxes.

 

I think, at the end of the day, the minimum wage is a mediocre mechanism of eliminating poverty. If you raise it to a level like $10 - $15, you're going to have a significant amount of job losses and job prevention because of rising costs, so you're effectively making the poorest (i.e the people who need it most) unemployed.

 

Having said that, eliminating the minimum wage is only an answer if its replaced by a better system. Evidence seems to suggest that the Earned Income Tax Credit (and similar systems) is a better mechanism that can provide additional income to the poor at the same level of the minimum wage, but at significantly lower cost. The concept of the negative income tax I think is a better way.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The worst example though was not the video but the little side board which criticizes him for supporting the elimination of the minimum wage, not because the policy is bad, but because a lot of people don't support it! What this proves is that the only thing these people know, is that they don't like McCain. They can't articulate a proper intellectual argument so they use simple minded spin doctoring to get their way.

 

I don't get why it isn't okay to point out that he doesn't support a very popular policy. A lot of people probably don't know that he opposes it. So every time the minimum wage is mentioned the site needs to trot out an economist or Bob Reich to point out its merits?

 

Yes. Because it would take the site, like, all of 2 minutes to cite an argument on why eliminating the minimum wage is bad. Simply saying a policy is unpopular as a means to criticize a candidate is stupid, and assumes that conventional wisdom is always right, like when everyone thought the Earth was flat way back when.

 

I really don't want to argue on this, but...

 

If a considerable majority of people already support raising the minimum wage, then why would someone whose only goal was to convince voters not to support McCain really need to explain why not supporting the minimum wage is a bad thing?

 

As a point of comparison, let's say John McCain hates puppies. Now if I wanted to write an article that says that John McCain hates puppies, would I really need to go into great detail regarding all of the wonderful attributes of puppies?

[Art Sandusky 0]

People can't live on $5.15. My libertarianism can blow me on stuff like this, one can't be a party toadie on every issue. The obvious can't be argued if you've seen/felt how tough it can be with a family and a job that just doesn't pay enough. Anything under $10 an hour is really pushing it so this minimum wage increase is really just a small help/first step. But it's something.

 

My libertarianism returns, quick, when workers have to pay 1/4 (or, usually, more) of their weekly incomes in taxes.

 

I think, at the end of the day, the minimum wage is a mediocre mechanism of eliminating poverty. If you raise it to a level like $10 - $15, you're going to have a significant amount of job losses and job prevention because of rising costs, so you're effectively making the poorest (i.e the people who need it most) unemployed.

 

Having said that, eliminating the minimum wage is only an answer if its replaced by a better system. Evidence seems to suggest that the Earned Income Tax Credit (and similar systems) is a better mechanism that can provide additional income to the poor at the same level of the minimum wage, but at significantly lower cost. The concept of the negative income tax I think is a better way.

Business owners need employees. Also, they have to follow lord-only-knows how many regulations and laws as is, so why not another?

[Special K 0]

I think, at the end of the day, the minimum wage is a mediocre mechanism of eliminating poverty. If you raise it to a level like $10 - $15, you're going to have a significant amount of job losses and job prevention because of rising costs, so you're effectively making the poorest (i.e the people who need it most) unemployed.

 

This has not, historically, been the case. It may seem to be 'common sense' but it doesn't happen.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not advocating a 10-15 dollar minimum wage. I'm merely saying that those wages are also tough to raise a family with. Anything under $7 is ridiculous.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

As it stands, a good deal of states are already paying at least $6.25. California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and DC are at or over $7, Illinois will go from $6.50 to $7.50 this year, and Washington State is at $7.93. I think the only state of any real consequence that's paying just $5.15 is Texas, which isn't much of a surprise.

[snuffbox 0]

I think the most important thing to come from this, with most states already well ahead of the recent Congress's curve, is that they finally decided to give incredibly poor people a much-needed raise instead of themselves for once. The Dems having forced this issue will end up boding incredibly well for them next year.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

People can't live on $5.15. My libertarianism can blow me on stuff like this, one can't be a party toadie on every issue. The obvious can't be argued if you've seen/felt how tough it can be with a family and a job that just doesn't pay enough. Anything under $10 an hour is really pushing it so this minimum wage increase is really just a small help/first step. But it's something.

 

My libertarianism returns, quick, when workers have to pay 1/4 (or, usually, more) of their weekly incomes in taxes.

 

I think, at the end of the day, the minimum wage is a mediocre mechanism of eliminating poverty. If you raise it to a level like $10 - $15, you're going to have a significant amount of job losses and job prevention because of rising costs, so you're effectively making the poorest (i.e the people who need it most) unemployed.

 

Having said that, eliminating the minimum wage is only an answer if its replaced by a better system. Evidence seems to suggest that the Earned Income Tax Credit (and similar systems) is a better mechanism that can provide additional income to the poor at the same level of the minimum wage, but at significantly lower cost. The concept of the negative income tax I think is a better way.

Business owners need employees. Also, they have to follow lord-only-knows how many regulations and laws as is, so why not another?

 

That's a lazy argument. Business owners might want all the employees in the world. Problem is though, one requires 'money' to pay for their labour. Big minimum wage increases mean there is less money to spend on extra labour (because you have to pay existing staff more money).

 

And I won't even bother with the 'we have so many regulations already, why not another one!' argument. Everything has an affect on something.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

I think, at the end of the day, the minimum wage is a mediocre mechanism of eliminating poverty. If you raise it to a level like $10 - $15, you're going to have a significant amount of job losses and job prevention because of rising costs, so you're effectively making the poorest (i.e the people who need it most) unemployed.

 

This has not, historically, been the case. It may seem to be 'common sense' but it doesn't happen.

 

With all respect, you're not looking hard enough. It's happening right now where I live. You might be thinking of instances where small rises in the minimum wage haven't had a noticeable effect on overall employment. That's fair enough. There's a million factors that effect employment, and a small increase in minimum wages can occur at a time when the effects aren't noticable. All economists agree though that there's a ceiling that blocks any significant increase in the minimum wage, because eventually job losses will be significant. That's why minimum wage increases are rare and small. Because its a weak system.

 

A similar argument goes with job creation and free trade, another issue that's hard to measure (how does a bureaucrat in Washington identify a job that's been created because of a decrease in a foreign intermediete good?). But look at the job protection in Europe, and in my country, and we all have higher unemployment rates that can never dip below 4 or 5 % because of the restrictions, be it minimum wages or other regulations that increase the cost of business.

 

Having said that, what do you do? I have no problem with raising the minimum wage, especially since your federal one is so small, but don't even pretend for a second that its an effective poverty eliminator, because there's a hundred other reforms that could do the job better. The biggest crime of the minimum wage isn't job prevention but the almost religious admiration that people have for it as a symbol of fairness and prosperity. Your politicians would do better to focus on reforming the EITC. In the mean time, sure, raise the minimum wage. But accept the secondary consequences that goes with it.

 

Here's an example of the Minimum Wage vs EITC debate. From a CBO report

 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7721/01...mumWageEITC.pdf

 

On the basis of data from the March 2005 CPS, about 18 percent of the 12 million workers who were paid an hourly wage rate between the federal minimum wage of $5.15 and $7.24 were in families that had a total cash income below the federal poverty threshold in 2004. Had all of the workers in that wage range, instead, received $7.25 per hour, they would have gotten about $11 billion in additional wages in that year. About 15 percent of those additional wages ($1.6 billion) would have been received by workers in poor families.

 

As requested, CBO examined the potential effects of hypothetical expansions in the EITC that would have provided additional payments to workers in poor families similar to the amount of additional earnings poor workers would have received by increasing the minimum wage rate to $7.25 per hour. One option was to increase the subsidy rate for childless workers by 50 percent. Another option was to increase the subsidy rate for workers with three or more children by 25 percent. On the basis of data from the CPS, combining those options would have increased total EITC payments by roughly $2.4 billion in 2004, with workers in poor families receiving $1.4 billion of that total.

 

So for $8.6 billion less you can achieve the same objective as the minimum wage increase, using the EITC program. That's $8.6 billion for run down schools, hospitals etc.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

I really don't want to argue on this, but...

 

If a considerable majority of people already support raising the minimum wage, then why would someone whose only goal was to convince voters not to support McCain really need to explain why not supporting the minimum wage is a bad thing?

 

As a point of comparison, let's say John McCain hates puppies. Now if I wanted to write an article that says that John McCain hates puppies, would I really need to go into great detail regarding all of the wonderful attributes of puppies?

 

 

If the majority of the people support slavery, why not support slavery? That's certainly the attitude a lot of US politicians took in the 18th and 19th Century. In contentious issue like the minimum wage, a site that is so dedicated to discrediting an opponent could at least argue the merits of the policy instead of bowing to popular opinion. In politics, sometimes you've got to take a stand. A leader to follows the will of the people can at times be slave to the tyranny of the majority. John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' dealth with that 150 years ago. You have to appreciate that one person who puts forward a different argument, because who knows, he might be right.

[Special K 0]

No one's seriously advocating a wage increase to $15, of course that would have a detrmental effect on employment rates.

 

However, I don't like the claim that minimum wage jobs are 'meant' for high school kids and the elderly. You see lots of middle aged people working shit jobs. Maybe they can't handle harder jobs, but if someone is working a full-time job, this country is so freaking rich we should be able to pay them seven bucks an hour.

 

BTW Darryl, where are you from? You said my country but didn't specify.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

No one's seriously advocating a wage increase to $15, of course that would have a detrmental effect on employment rates.

 

However, I don't like the claim that minimum wage jobs are 'meant' for high school kids and the elderly. You see lots of middle aged people working shit jobs. Maybe they can't handle harder jobs, but if someone is working a full-time job, this country is so freaking rich we should be able to pay them seven bucks an hour.

 

BTW Darryl, where are you from? You said my country but didn't specify.

 

Bobby, I agree with you to a point. Like I said, I'm not opposing this increase of a couple dollars. I just get tired of hearing how tough it is for some people to get by on that. Yeah, I'm sure it is tough to get by on that...you're not supposed to, though. If someone is middle aged and making minimum wage, it's probably due to them making poor choices or not applying themselves enough. Yes, I understand some people have mental or physical handicaps and deserve our help, but if you're a perfectly able-bodied 45 year old making $5.50 an hour or whatever, you've made some bad decisions in your life, and the hand-wringing should end there.

[SuperJerk 0]

My view on the minimum wage is that market forces have already been pushing entry-level wages to a point past $5.15, but you just have a few hold-outs that refuse to knowledge the market-based increase. Thus, you get high turn-over in entry level work when workers realize how much more they could be making other places. Ideally, employers should be raising wages on their own, but refuse to acknowledge that paying workers more to retain them improves efficiency.

[EricMM 0]

Places like McDonalds are not interested in bringing in better workers. No one comes to McD's for quality anything.

 

This is known.

[snuffbox 0]

Johnboy Edwards picked that awful Johnny Cougar 'Our Country' shit as his theme song. Terrible.

[snuffbox 0]

Gov Richardson gave an absolutely INCREDIBLE speech today at the big Dem conference. The time limit was 7 minutes, I think, but he went about 20 & the timekeeper and Howard Dean didn't mind a bit.

 

"I know its been said that Governors lack foreign plicy experience. Now you might be able to say that about certain Governors from Texas but you can't say that about this Governor."

 

That reminded me of what stuff like "General...uh..uh...General General" can lead to.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Let me know when that makes it on Youtube. I just watched his campaign announcement, and liked what I heard.

[SuperJerk 0]

Does anyone else think the press is ignoring this guy?

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

I don't really pay much attention to cable news, but between Hillary and Obama, he's probably gonna get a raw deal. Oh and John Boy is running again, so America's Sexiest Politician will get a lot of face time too.