:D

"I have a monster living in my icebox and no one believes me!!"
"I believe you."
"Oh great, that makes me feel so much better.."
-Ghostbusters

:D

Michale

Yea, another typo... 10 billion instead of 10 million..

Funny thing is, it really has nothing to do with the point being made... :D

My opinion on the minimum wage is that it is probably better served by localities setting it relative to the economic realities they face rather than a blanket national minimum. I also think a lesser federal minimum wage needs to be in place to help those who live in states where the local legislators refuse to acknowledge or wish to take advantage of the realities of those at the bottom of the economy.

$10 an hour is not livable in San Francisco where I currently reside but there are many places in the country that it probably is...

Logical and rational..

I completely agree..

Michale

That's all you had to say... :D

What I am saying is you have been caught fluffing numbers to bolster a point...

My opinion on the minimum wage is that it is probably better served by localities setting it relative to the economic realities they face rather than a blanket national minimum. I also think a lesser federal minimum wage needs to be in place to help those who live in states where the local legislators refuse to acknowledge or wish to take advantage of the realities of those at the bottom of the economy.

$10 an hour is not livable in San Francisco where I currently reside but there are many places in the country that it probably is...

If it barks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

So, what you are saying is that you agree that $20 p/h miminum wage is ludicrous...

That's all you had to say... :D

"Scariest environment imaginable. That's all you had to say.. Scariest environment imaginable.."
-Oscar, ARMAGEDDON

:D

OK, now that we agree that paying someone who flips burgers the same as a 1st year patrolman is ridiculous, what would you say is a reasonable min wage??

I think a phased-in program to reach $10 p/h over a span of a few years isn't totally illogical or irrational..

Do you agree with that??

Michale

Contrary to your demagoguery, there are differences in the left, right, and independents...

Which is hilarious because they put out an ad for a web designer, but only wanted to pay them $13 p/h :D

I can also point to many of the fast food activists who have pushed for $20 per hour..

But my point is simple..

It's ridiculous to push for such a high minimum wage. Wages should be commiserate with the job being done...

Someone who is flipping burgers at a fast food joint shouldn't be making as much as a 1st year patrolman...

If someone wants to earn higher pay, let them EARN it..

That's all I am saying..

If you want to refute that, by all means..

Michale

I am only interested in that figure as it relates to your burger flipping/police starting salary point. You seem to want to use an inflated figure to back up a point. I am questioning how inflated the figure is. Anything beyond that is trying to put words in my mouth or twisting the argument in to new territory...

Anything less may be interesting, but not of the level to paint the entire left with.

I'm willing to go with $15 as Seattle, San Francisco and Oregon have gone or are trying to go there. If you want to use $20 an hour, lets see your facts backing them up. It's put up or shut up time...

Are you saying that you agree with me, that $20 p/h minimum wage is ridiculous??

Is that what you are actually saying??

Michale

A group of Democrats that haven't been refuted by the Democrat Party as a whole..

"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-Commander Spock

But I have seen you mention the $20 an hour minimum wage but I don't think you have yet to back it up. Lets see where you are getting this?

Michale

Democrats in general or a tiny group that you then try to paint the entire left with? Sounds like your usual "facts"...

If I thought that you would acknowledge the facts, I would be happy to post them..

More likely you fear I will actually follow the link and read the article, only to find two thirds in that the article it's self refutes your "fact" as usual...

But I have seen you mention the $20 an hour minimum wage but I don't think you have yet to back it up. Lets see where you are getting this?

Only the things that ARE "rainbows, unicorns and koom-bye-ya" crap :D

Reality is lots of people working minimum wage work harder than you do.

Perhaps.. And those will be rewarded with higher paying jobs.. Because they are not on the picket lines DEMANDING the higher pay be handed to them...

ut more to your "point" as I would loosely call it: you are cherry picking the starting wage for a police officer, most make a starting base wage above the $15 dollar an hour equivalent.

Actually, the $20 per hour (which is what Democrats are demanding) does equal the starting pay of a first year Police Officer..

If I thought that you would acknowledge the facts, I would be happy to post them..

But we have been down this road before. :D

But, hay.. I'll give you a shot..

If I show you that the starting pay of a 1st year police officer is equal to the min wage pay that Democrats want to see, would you acknowledge the ridiculousness of the Democrat's position on this issue??

Because, if you won't, why should I bother??

Michale

I think the point Kennedy was making was accurate, an improved economy helps everyone participating in it. The specific context, lower taxes trickle down to everyone and jump starts the economy out of recession is questionable at best.

Also, lets not forget that the effective corporate tax rate and top brackets in personal income tax were much higher in this mythical 50's/early 60's. The tax breaks may have worked but only because there was excess room in the tax structure for them to work. Both those tax categories have been slashed so far that cutting them further probably does more harm than good economically speaking...

Says the person who is disparaging anything from the left as "Rainbows-Unicorns/Koom-Bye-Yaa". Yawn.

The fact that you didn't simply proves the reality and/or accuracy of my analogy.

Come up with a point worth refuting and maybe I'll try. Reality is lots of people working minimum wage work harder than you do. Many people of the ultra rich class work considerably less. How hard one works in this society is only one factor to getting ahead.

Anyone who thinks that it's perfectly acceptable to pay someone who flips burgers the same amount as a starting police officer is someone who is a few fries short of a Happy Meal...

Depends on how good the burger is :-)

But more to your "point" as I would loosely call it: you are cherry picking the starting wage for a police officer, most make a starting base wage above the $15 dollar an hour equivalent. Completely ignore the importance of overtime and benefits in looking at the total compensation package (especially overtime, police officers are grossly overpaid when taking that in to account). Not to mention the point of a raising tide lifts all boats in this context is the few municipalities that underpay their starting police officers might well be shamed or required to raise the starting wage to be competitive with the market in order to draw qualified people.

I know that wasn't directed to me, but I can answer..

It raises all boats whose captains are willing to put in the work/maintenance that all boats require..

But it doesn't reward sloth and laziness...

And that's why it's anathema to the Democrat Party platform..

One who is willing to work and strive to be successful is not one that can be enslaved..

Michale

Another way to ask this is, what has the long-term trend looked like since Kennedy?

Best,
-David

You can come up with all the Rainbows-Unicorns/Koom-Bye-Yaa outlier stories you want to..

But what it all boils down to is this..

Anyone who thinks that it's perfectly acceptable to pay someone who flips burgers the same amount as a starting police officer is someone who is a few fries short of a Happy Meal...

Pay is supposed to be based on work done.

NOT because someone "needs" a new 60" LED SmartTV...

Michale

Or at least your political bias...

If you could logically and/or rationally refute my claim, you would have done so.. :D

The fact that you didn't simply proves the reality and/or accuracy of my analogy.

Michale

It's a nice theory..

Just as applicable as mine..

Like all Lefty theories, it sounds good on paper..

But when the rubber hits the road...

Well, see TrainWreckCare.. :D

Michale

Or at least your political bias...

But where is the "water" for that "tide" going to come from??

From the rich not getting richer at the same astronomical rate as before. The top 1% has 35% of the wealth in this country and growing. Raising the minimum wage is not going to put any of them in the poor house. At most they might have to take a bedroom or two off their new mansion or a few yards of the length of their new yacht. But typically the very rich are that way because they don't spend money needlessly. It's why trickle down doesn't work that well. Very little trickles down, mostly stays pooled in investments. Potentially if you free some of those pools, the money will flow around the economy helping everyone rather than be tied up helping no one, including the owners of that wealth.

{{{chirrrrppppp}}} {{chhhiiiirrrrrppppp}}

Oh wait!! I know!!!

Ya'all... You "warriors for the middle class"... will take money from the middle class to give to the poor!!

And then when the middle class gets tired of funding the lifestyles of the sloth and lazy....

THEN where will you get the money from???

See???

That's the problem with the wealth distribution idea.... Those who are being distributed FROM eventually wise up to the plan and realize they are being scrooed to support the lazy and moronic and incompetent...

Call me crazy, but *I* don't want to live in a country that pulls that kinda crap....

Michale

Ya'all's idea is to take money from the rich and give to the poor...

But what happens when that money runs out??

"Oh, we'll just keep taking it from the rich!!" ya'all say...

Well, if ya'all keep taking money from the rich, the rich won't have any incentive to continue to MAKE money...

So, after ya'all take money from the rich, the rich will become the middle class and there won't BE any "rich" to take money from..

So, THEN what is going to pay for all the benefits and the free stuff???

{{{chirrrrppppp}}} {{chhhiiiirrrrrppppp}}

And THAT is exactly where ya'all's grand plan falls apart...

The rich won't continue to make rich because they know it will just be taken away to give to the lazy and the incompetent..

Some economics professor toyed with the idea by equating money with Grade Point Average...

Guess what happened??

The "rich" decided not to produce because of the lazy......

The USA didn't become the number one only Superpower by catering to the lazy and the incompetent...

It's common sense..

Michale

Yes, I did mention an certain context..

But my context takes into account reality and human nature..

Something the koom-bye-ya/rainbows and unicorns side really REALLY lacks.. :D

You could just as easily say raising the minimum wage is a tide that will raise up all other boats, as employers will need to raise everyone wage a little to provide separation between new hires and the rest of the workforce...

Yes, one COULD say that..

But where is the "water" for that "tide" going to come from??

Rainbows and Unicorns???

Detail the plan that PAYS for all the extra hires and the extra wage and you'll have a convert...

But if all you got is rainbows and unicorns??

Keep looking....

Michale

And yet it's in that context you brought it up...

You could just as easily say raising the minimum wage is a tide that will raise up all other boats, as employers will need to raise everyone wage a little to provide separation between new hires and the rest of the workforce...

Or, more accurately, if Elizabeth Warren would actually put ACTION to her words, regardless of the Party agenda then the ENTIRE COUNTRY would be in better shape..

The Dem Party is great at lip service, I'll give you that...

But we need more than shiny beads and shallow flattery...

Don't ya think??

Michale

Sure. It does, however, have a lot to do with approach.

What we do know is that tax cuts for the rich don't work.

Seems to me that by supporting the Dem Party you are actually bringing about the same unfairness you hope to stop.

I will support the party that has the best economic ideas.

Now if we could just clone someone like Elizabeth Warren the Dem Party would be in a lot better shape.

-David

In other words, it's the CONTEXT that matters...

Whether it be in Australia or in Seatac...

In short, it's not a ONE SIZE FITS ALL concept...

Couldn't have said it better myself.. :D

Dam kids. Get off my lawn!

Or to give you a contemporary analogy...

"Damn kids!! Quit trying to kill cops and destroy society and civilized behavior!!"

Works for me... :D

Michale

The 50's were prosperous because just about every other first world country was still rebuilding it's industry after having most of it destroyed in WWII. Keep in mind it also ended in recession and that recession helped Kennedy get elected...

It's just the quality of people that was better.

Dam kids. Get off my lawn!

But the economic fairness you seek just doesn't seem to be compatible with allegiance to any political Party..

Seems to me that by supporting the Dem Party you are actually bringing about the same unfairness you hope to stop..

Michale

Have you ever BEEN to Seatac???

It's a company town.. :D

Like I said above, you can always find outliers...

But if one is going to so dramatically alter the economic landscape, one MUST have a plan to deal with the bad as well as the good..

"No one should tweak the tail of the tiger, unless there is a plan in place to deal with the teeth."
-Old Military Axiom

I am not saying you are wrong, although logic and common sense would argue that exact point..

I'm just saying that your support of Hillary Clinton for POTUS would seem to be in contradiction to your economic beliefs as you have espoused them..

I know, I know.. You don't support Hillary Clinton for POTUS..

But you will... :D

Right??

Michale

Michale

But the economic system was the same as it is now..

It's just the quality of people that was better.

THAT is my point..

Nah. What was going on in the 50s was that people were well off, had money to spend, and were starting families.

It was easy to get a good paying job and we lots of demand.

-David

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/

Instead, it's booming because people have money to spend.

It worked in the 50s...

Michale

Is that the claim??

Michale

JFK, Reagan, Laffer, and anyone else who believes in such nonsense.

It's never worked. It's lifted a few boats. That's it.

-David

But let's look at this more closely..

How exactly do the rich get richer??

Michale

So JFK got it wrong??

Michale

It did? When?

All the evidence I've seen says trickle down = the rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer.

No matter who's executing it.

-David

Trickle Down worked fine for a long time. It was a Democrat's Democrat (JFK) who came up with the "rising tide raises all boats" metaphor...

So, demonizing the PLAN is a non-starter because there is ample evidence that the PLAN is effective..

The key is to get honorable people to execute these plans...

And I am sure you would agree that the number of "honorable" people in our government is nearly nil...

Michale

I know. It's one of the things that still makes me mad and that I fight to change.

I know why they chose the health care fight. It would not have been my first pick though.

I would have fought to regulate Wall Street and break up the big banks. I think all of America would have been behind them after the financial crisis. Well, except Wall Street of course.

I think the Dems 'effed up in this respect. Republicans, however, want to return us to the gilded age. If they were offering a better economic plan other than "Return to Trickle Down III" I'd be all for it.

-David

Not wanting to reduce it to a Right v Left issue, but Democrats had a virtual lock on all facets of government the first 2 years, including a Filibuster-Proof Senate for a few months.....

If they really wanted it to change, they could have...

Those were the "in power" people I meant. :D

But I think u knew that. :D

One thing you'll never convince me of, Michale. That you are just a knuckle-dragging ground pounder.

ssshhhhhhhhhhh You'll blow my cover!!! :D

Michale

Hard to disagree with this. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce does not want this to change at all.

In fact, they're fighting for the opposite. Less pay, less benefits.

Monkeys don't get paid, so I would have to agree with you.. :D

:)

One thing you'll never convince me of, Michale. That you are just a knuckle-dragging ground pounder.

-David

I completely agree...

So paying a person to flip burgers the same amount you would pay a police officer is completely ridiculous..

Paying people like trained monkeys is ridiculous.

Monkeys don't get paid, so I would have to agree with you.. :D

I understand your concerns, Michale, but I think if we wanted to we could figure out a way so that investors still profit and employees get paid well.

Yes a way COULD be found. I am certain of that..

But those in power don't WANT it to change...

And here we are...

Michale

I believe people should be paid fairly for their work.

Paying someone a high wage to perform the work a trained monkey could do simply because it's politically correct to do so is ridiculous.

Paying people like trained monkeys is ridiculous.

-David

Because Australia Labor Laws allow McDonalds to pay those younger than 20 yrs old at a rate not much different than the US min wage. $8 p/h...

Consequently the vast majority of Aussie McDonald's workforce are teenagers...

Further, you don't address the consequences of loss of employees..

The new and decimated Acme Widgets can pay 100 employees $8 p/h and has no budget for more... If ACME is forced to pay employees $20 an hour, there goes 60% of the work force.. Out of a job...

So, yea.. It's great for the 40 ACME employees who get to keep their jobs and lavish in the higher pay..

What about the 60 employees who have nothing???

More money is not the answer.. I am living proof of that...

Michale

For the same reason that jumping over a cliff to "try out trying to fly" is not a good idea..

The adverse consequences may be permanent..

And I really don't care who fights for this - Republicans, Democrats, whoever. This idea that everyone should "serve" the "job creators" while getting paid poorly without any benefits sounds an awful lot like propaganda put out there by the owners.

"Poorly" is a subjective term..

Do you agree that the SOLE determination of pay should be the work performed and NOT what society deems??

Paying someone a high wage to perform the work a trained monkey could do simply because it's politically correct to do so is ridiculous..

The concept of a "living wage" is moronic...

You don't pay someone so they can live. You pay someone for the work they perform..

Low skills = low pay

High skills?? Guess what?? High pay...

Would you hire someone with a 3rd grade education and give him a high salary JUST because he "needs" that high salary to live??

Of course you wouldn't..

But that is EXACTLY what min wage activists are pushing for.

It's ridiculous..

It's an entitlement mentality.. If you work hard then that hard work is rewarded.

Sure there are outliers.. There are exceptions to the rule.. And it's not fair.. Absolutely it's not fair..

But what are we told from the time we can understand words??

"Life ain't fair."

But trying to legislate and regulate "fair" to the exclusion of every other consideration??

Ridiculous..

Michale

Why do you think people are on the air 24/7 screaming about how scary it would be to pay people better?

Is it because it really would be scary or is it because the people paying the on-air pundits are fighting to pay people less?

In Australia, the minimum wage is $16.87/hour. In Australia, a Big Mac costs a little more (from 6 cents to 70 cents).

Why?

There's two reasons. One, McDonald's in Australia is sharing more of the profit with employees. And two, they adopted a slightly different business model, they find other ways to be more productive and keep costs down.

Some of this quite likely has to do with higher pay - as people are paid better and treated better, they stay longer, they work harder, and they don't steal as much.

So yeah, prices would likely go up slightly. Nowhere near the fear mongering that's out there though.

I think the benefit to society would be worth it.

Unfortunately, this weird philosophy is taking hold in America where our laws, our country, everything ... is in service of "owners". These people need to make extravagant amounts of money at the expense of everyone else.

I believe people should be paid fairly and should share in the success. We're the richest country in the world yet all the benefit of our success is going to a few people.

When owners and workers both shared in our success, the 1950s for example, our country was much better off.

And I really don't care who fights for this - Republicans, Democrats, whoever. This idea that everyone should "serve" the "job creators" while getting paid poorly without any benefits sounds an awful lot like propaganda put out there by the owners.

Instead of buying into the fear, why not suck it up and figure out how to make it work because we were better off when people were paid more?

-David

p.s. If you're interested, here's a good article about McDonald's in Australia
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/the-magical-world-where-mcdonalds-pays-15-an-hour-its-australia/278313/

Joe Sixpack dreams of earning $20 p/h...

He has two ways he can go about it.

He can study and learn and strive and EARN a Technical Expertise position and EARN the $20 p/h..

Or he can lobby and politic and have $20 p/h handed to him...

Ironically enough, if Joe opts for Plan A, it not only enriches Joe, it enriches everyone AROUND Joe.. Everyone's life is better because Joe is succeeding..

If Joe opts for Plan B, everyone's life is made worse because there will be no jobs and no ACME and no widgets...

As I have often said, economics wise, I am nothing more than a knuckle-dragging ground pounder..

But, I know reality.. I know common-sense..

And both reality and common sense dictates that one cannot give "free" handouts on a constant basis without their being a corresponding cost...

Michale

But no such plan exists..

Let's boil everything down to 1 company and put the Democrats plan into motion..

ACME WIDGETS

It has a thriving business of selling widgets to a widget-starved culture..

AW employs 500 employees..

100 employees are min wage employees that perform mostly janitorial and lawn maintenance.. They are paid min wage, say $8 p/h...

200 employees are salaried employees. Technical skills, R&D, IT, etc etc... Their average pay comes out to $20 an hour.

200 employees are salaried Management. Supervisors, etc etc. Their pay averages out to $30 per hour.

Then you have the 10 who are owners/investors. They take what's left..

But ACME is a conscientious company so they donate 5 million a year to various charities..

Since it's a thriving widget environment, let's say that the owners/investors split 5 million a year.. That's $250,000 a year..

There's our microcosm..

Now, let's introduce the Democrat's plan...

The 100 min wage employees are demanding $20 p/h...

Technical Expertise employees WILL NOT work for "min wage" so their salary is bumped up to $30 p/h...

Managers and Supervisors are in a snit and will NOT be satisfied with non-supervisor level pay, so they are bumped up to $40 p/h...

All of the sudden, there isn't enough money in it for the owners/investors to be interested..

So ACME WIDGETS close down...

500 employees are dumped into the street. No more widgets for the country. Millions in charitable donations vanish... Middle class is decimated..

The owners and investors?? They take their money and go to more profitable pursuits. They don't suffer a bit..

So, the plan that Democrats hatched to HELP the middle class ends up scrooing over the middle class...

So it is with 99% of the Democrat's agenda...

It all sounds good in theory, but when the rubber hits the road, when REALITY makes it's presence known??

It's a train wreck...

History repeats itself over and over and over...

The Democrats agenda will ALWAYS fail because it does not have one vital ingredient...

The acknowledgement of human nature and the human desire to strive to better their lives and the lives of their families thru hard work. NOT thru handouts..

Michale

Example??

We used to have a country though where everyone shared in the reward.

And then came welfare as a way of life..

Now we have a country where only a very few do. Look around you. Everyone's getting poorer.

Not everyone.. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting more welfare..

It's only the middle class that is getting poorer..

I'm for fair distribution. Pay people better.

I read a study that if Democrats had their way and fast food workers got the raise they wanted, a Big Mac would cost $16.99, a Medium Fry would be $14.99 and a Medium Chocolate Shake would be $11.99...

What you don't seem to understand is that "better" pay has negative consequences to the very people you want to help..

People will have to pay more to cover the better pay and employers will have to fire workers to afford the better pay..

Plus no one has been able to address the fact that if min wage workers pay increases then there would have to be pay increases up the entire pay scale..

If you pay min wage workers the pay of management, do you think management is going to be happy with their pay?

If there is a plan that addresses ALL the adverse consequences of the "better pay" then I would be all for it.

But no such plan exists..

It's only "redistribution" if it's not distributed right to begin with.

The problem is that it IS distributed "right" to begin with. The Left just doesn't like the free market system because it rewards success and penalizes sloth..

Michale

Nothing.

The problem is people are working harder and getting paid less .

Oh, and corporations are lobbying government to lower wages even more.

I'm all for hard work, Michale.

We used to have a country though where everyone shared in the reward.

Now we have a country where only a very few do. Look around you. Everyone's getting poorer. Not because they're not working hard. But because a few people at the top are taking it all.

I'm for fair distribution. Pay people better. It's only "redistribution" if it's not distributed right to begin with.

-David

AKA Wealth distribution...

If someone wants wealth, let them EARN it..

That which is acquired without sweat is given away without regret
-Betina Worley's Refrigerator

:D

It's called people getting paid more.

There you go again... :D

That right there shows the difference in our outlooks..

I think people should work harder if they want to get paid more. :D

What's wrong with that??

Michale

There is.

It's called a progressive tax code.

It's called regulations to make sure the economy works for everyone, not just the few at the top.

It's called people getting paid more.

-David

p.s. If Republicans are willing to support any of these things, I would happily vote for them.

Making the rich richer, further enslaving the poor and scrooing over the middle class hasn't worked very well so far, eh??

Maybe there is another way...

I'm just sayin'...

Michale

Of course we know what their solution will be ... tax cuts for the wealthy ... heheh. Because we all know tax cuts solve everything!!!!!

Sad to hear about Leonard Nimoy. Cool about the radio show, CW.

-David

OK, I have the audio files from the interview, I will post them either later tonight or over the weekend, for those that missed it.

More later...

-CW

"I think it's my adventure, my trip, my journey, and I guess my attitude is, let the chips fall where they may."

"The miracle is this: the more we share the more we have."

~JL

Wasn't that the short bearded guy in DIE HARD 4-A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD???

:D

Michale

Who would you rather have representing you??

Someone who is a good politician?

Or someone who has integrity??

Michale

Politics does not work on an equal time principle.

But integrity does...

I'm just sayin'....

And THAT is part of it's problem.. :D

Still, you might want to check out EW's 2003 book, which has some pretty pretty harsh things to say about Hillary Clinton. You might even use the term "gusto" in describing them.

Yea... So did Barack Obama in 2008...

It's easy to condemn an individual for their transgressions..

When EW is willing to hold the Dem Party as accountable as she wants to hold the GOP, THEN I'll concede that she is a "warrior for the middle class" and not just an opportunistic political hack.....

But until that time, she is part of the problem, not part of the solution..

Democrats are great at "shiny beads and shallow flattery"

They know the right words to say and the right platitudes to pander..

But when it comes time to actually DO something??

Well, just look at the last six years.. The rich got richer, the poor got more enslaved and the middle class got reamed up the arse...

Let me channel my inner Madonna (without the bruises :D)

"Democrats, what have you done for us lately??"

Michale

Yeah, I thought ignoring the warlock comment was the way to go, there...

Heh.

So did I sound awake? "Um... uhn... haven't had enough caffeine... could you repeat the question???"

That's what I remember... but you'll notice I didn't bring up the weather, which I thought was extra-polite of me, it being February and all.

Heh.

-CW

Politics does not work on an equal time principle. Especially when you run as a D or R. I think you know this. Still, you might want to check out EW's 2003 book, which has some pretty pretty harsh things to say about Hillary Clinton. You might even use the term "gusto" in describing them.

CW - did the host pronounce your name correctly?

The simple fact that she doesn't point fingers at her own Party is proof positive that she is nothing but an opportunistic political hack..

If you have any evidence (word AND deed) that she has gone after Democrats with as much gusto as she goes after Republicans??

I'll be happy to re-think my opinion..

But, remember. Word *AND* Deed...

Because words without deeds???

See Obama, Barack...

Now that was a big deal...and a pleasant surprise! Oh, and I've got WAOK on live feed as I type

Link!??? :D

Michale

OK, get ready, I'll be up next!

:-)

-CW

CW- That something that needs intensive research wouldn't happen to be net neutrality would it? Now that was a big deal...and a pleasant surprise! Oh, and I've got WAOK on live feed as I type!

M - "Apparently Ms Warren is only interested in the middle class if she can use it as a political bludgeon..."

That's red meat rhetoric, but I think her resume says otherwise. Is she supposed to be wearing sack cloth and living in a cardboard box?

after sabotaging any realistic minimum-wage bills that would actually recognize and meet head-on the financial stresses of "just plain folks" out there.

And what about the consequences??

The Left is all about hand-outs and giveaways and free-stuff...

But they A) Never think about the consequences (TWC proved that) and 2) Never think about how to pay for it...

Like I have always said..

If someone wants to make $20 p/hour, here's a wild and crazy thought..

Work hard and EARN it!!!

I make $40 per hour on straight labor.. But I have over two and a half decades of of experience in my chosen field..

Imagine if I was just starting out with NO experience or training and told potential employers and clients, "I want $40 an hour because that's my 'living wage'.."

I wouldn't get a job nowhere, no how...

Minimum wage jobs are the BEGINNING of a career...

Not a career itself..

"Logic is the BEGINNING of wisdom, Valeris. Not the end"
-Captain Spock, STAR TREK V, The Voyage Home

Michale

Yes, that's 5:30 my time, so if you ever wanted to hear me attempt to talk about politics while half-asleep, tune in!

Yea, welcome to my world! :D

If I sleep til 0700, I feel like I have wasted half the day.. :D

Michale

Yada yada yada yada..

Yea, Ms Warren..

Talk IS cheap...

Democrats have been talking about the middle class for 6 years.

What have they done for us lately??

Instead of lambasting Republicans why don't you clean up your OWN house first??

Apparenly Ms Warren is only interested in the middle class if she can use it as a political bludgeon...

Michale

For any CW.com readers in Atlanta...

I will be interviewed on WAOK radio (AM 1380) during their morning "Press Pause" program, tomorrow morning (Friday) at approximately 8:30 AM. Yes, that's 5:30 my time, so if you ever wanted to hear me attempt to talk about politics while half-asleep, tune in!

:-)

I will try to get a link to the show or an audio file after it's over, so that readers outside of Atlanta can hear it. More later...

-CW