ChrisWeigant.com

One Big Idea

[ Posted Tuesday, November 15th, 2016 – 18:00 UTC ]

Democrats are, to put it mildly, in disarray right now. There's a very open debate taking place as to which direction the party should head, and who should be leading it. This is all normal after losing an election. The 2016 election was a disaster at the top of the ticket, but wasn't so bad further down. Democrats actually picked up some House seats, and flipped two Senate seats back. Of course, this was disappointing because they had expected to pick up a lot more seats in both houses, but it could have been much worse -- Republicans might have expanded their majorities.

Democrats lost the presidency for a multitude of reasons, but one big one was the further erosion of support among white blue-collar workers. This frustrates many Democrats who quite accurately point out that Democratic policy ideas help these people much more than Republican ideas. But part of the problem is that few Democratic ideas seem all that concrete to the average voter. So maybe what Democrats need to do is to focus on just one big idea, and define the party as the champion of that idea -- while painting the GOP as the prime reason it hasn't happened.

To me, the simplest idea to rally behind would be to push to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and build in a cost-of-living adjustment as well. This would have the greatest impact on working people's lives, and the idea has strong support which cuts across party lines. So it could achieve two things simultaneously -- helping people out, and helping to rebuild the Democratic Party.

In states that can vote on ballot initiatives, hiking the minimum wage has been winning handily for the past decade or more. Every state that gets the chance to vote on it has voted to raise the minimum wage -- even in dark red states like Nebraska and Arizona. When blue states vote on minimum wage rises, the ballot measure routinely gets more votes than Democratic politicians do. There's a big lesson to be learned from this. People approve of raising wages, and they support it more than the politicians which represent them, from both parties.

If the Democratic Party would focus on raising the minimum wage in a big way (much more than they have been, in other words), they might just win some of the votes back that they just lost to Donald Trump. If it was the first and foremost talking point out of every Democrats' mouth, then it will force Republicans to answer for why they oppose it so much.

Raising the minimum wage means better wages "trickle up" (for want of a better term). Call it J.F.K.'s "rising tide which will lift all boats." When the lowest worker on the ladder gets paid $15 an hour, then the people who supervise them are going to demand higher wages as well. This pushes all wages up, from the bottom, meaning it helps out even the people who haven't had to work for minimum wage for years. This is a change in people's lives that they can tangibly see and benefit from, unlike some big law passed in Washington which doesn't impact their lives one bit.

Some will complain that $15 an hour is too high -- as Hillary Clinton in fact did during her campaign. Treat it as a target for negotiations, then. One thing almost never discussed in this debate is that the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is actually more important to get passed than the final number settled on for a new federal minimum wage. Congress is a good example of why this is true.

A few decades back, Congress had to vote on their own pay raises. This was a political problem, because few voters thought they deserved raises. Every vote to raise congressional pay was contentious, and it even spurred the Twenty-Seventh Amendment's passage (which is an entertaining and instructive story on its own). Congress finally got tired of taking all the political heat, and instead instituted an automatic pay raise, so they'd never have to vote on it again. That last bit is the important part. The way they structured their own COLA was that it kicked in automatically unless they voted against it. If they did nothing, their pay would automatically rise, in other words. Now, there have been years (bad economic years, mostly) when this has happened, and Congress actually voted down their own pay raises. In fact, congressional pay hasn't gone up since the last hike, in 2009, because getting raises in the middle of the Great Recession was deemed too politically dangerous. This won't last forever, though -- sooner or later Congress is going to fail to vote not to raise their pay, and it'll continue to automatically go up.

The lesson of this story is that having a COLA means automatic rising pay without having to hold congressional votes. This is why it would be so important to add to the federal minimum wage. Minimum wage votes are always a huge political fight, so avoiding that fight in the future is even more important than whatever number is agreed upon for the new federal minimum wage. If the minimum wage rises with inflation, then it will never again fall back so far behind what people need to actually live on.

People want to work and they want to be paid a fair wage for an honest day's work. If the minimum wage had risen automatically over the past 40 or 50 years, there wouldn't be as much income disparity in this country. The working class and the middle class wouldn't be falling so far behind.

All those people who voted for Donald Trump have set themselves up to be disappointed if he can't deliver on his many sweeping promises. The arguments against raising minimum wages largely fall apart when economists study the states that have already raised their minimum wages. The data to disprove the "it'll cost jobs" myth already exists, and is growing with each state that acts to raise the minimum wage on their own.

Democrats are in the wilderness now, and searching for a way to win voters back. The fight for a $15 minimum wage would be an excellent place to start. The fight for a COLA attached to the federal minimum wage is even more important. Democrats should be the party of "We will raise wages!" while leaving the Republicans to explain why they're fighting so hard against the idea. This should be the focus of Democrats everywhere, in fact. It should be the defining issue of the party going forward. The fatcats have gotten more and more and more, while the little guy gets less and less -- that should be the rallying cry. Democrats want a living wage for all, to begin to change that for the better. Instead of siding with Wall Street and Big Business, Democrats need to stand up for the little guy, once again. It used to be what the party stood for. Somewhere along the way, they lost sight of it. It's now time to rededicate the party towards "an honest wage for an honest day's work" once again, because it would go a long way towards winning over voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. And everywhere else, as well. Just look at the winning ballot margins the minimum wage hikes have been rolling up in individual states -- even red ones. Offer the voters this as a solid reason to vote for Democrats, and Democrats might be able to avoid the next electoral disaster. It is one big idea worth getting behind.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

134 Comments on “One Big Idea”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Respect from the Ground Up"

    "Respect for All Work"

    "Wages Everybody Can Build a Family On"

    "Fair Pay for Hard Work"

    I'm not very good at this - anybody got a better tag line?

    Then all we need is an entertainer/politician with a brain and no zipper problems.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    There is really only one idea that will work well in the long run - stop doing the bidding of corporations. The minimum wage is irrelevant to people who don't have jobs and corporations are committed to robots and dirt cheap Asian workers.

    Opposing Paul Ryan as he dismantles Medicare and SSI would be a good idea, though. Any whiff of being on board for any part of that should be avoided like the plague. Any Dem who collaborates should be shunned and punished.

    I won't hold my breath.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    JFC [2]

    How long before there are so few jobs that we need a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?

    Elon Musk thinks it is inevitable ( http://www.investopedia.com/news/musk-says-universal-basic-income-inevitable-tsla-0/ ).

    There are utopian claims that it will make everything equal, but there will always be a jerk who has to be better than everybody else (a lot of jerks, in fact).

    Ownership of capital as the program builds will create winners and losers - the only way to balance that out is with heavy estate taxes (which are about to get abolished).

    If robots and AI start to create significant unemployment in the U.S., there will be more and more people slipping under water - if Ryan does eliminate medical coverage the days of Republicans will be numbered from the backlash that will make last Tuesday look like a picnic. Unless we get a Fahrenheit 451 like world - Steve Bannon is on the job!

  4. [4] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Friday [213]

    Michale -

    Do you think Sheriff David Clarke would make a good AG???

    Don't know who David Clarke is. I'm expecting Kris Kobach to be named AG or maybe Harold Gowdy.

  5. [5] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    To me, the simplest idea to rally behind would be to push to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour

    Those who voted for a republic regime were, at the same time, also voting to abolish the minimum wage. It's not as though they didn't know this was part of the republic package since the republics have been completely open about their position on the issue.

    I expect the abolition of the minimum wage will likely be in Ryan's budget in January and that the republics will applaud it since they're convinced it will mean more and better jobs for them.

  6. [6] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [3]

    neilm

    if Ryan does eliminate medical coverage the days of Republicans will be numbered from the backlash that will make last Tuesday look like a picnic.

    But neil, they voted to eliminate the ACA. Ask Michale. I'm sure he'll confirm that he voted to abolish what he calls "trainwreck care".

    Everyone who voted for the republic regime voted to eliminate the ACA, to privatize Social Security and cut Medicare to the bone this year in preparation for abolishing that too (in 2019 probably).

    The republic base have been angry with their elected republics since 2013 for not ridding them of the ACA. It's been their main beef against (at first) Boehner, (then) Ryan and McConnell that they failed to live up to their promise to repeal it in full.

    Nor do they want a replacement. They've never asked for a replacement.

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    but it could have been much worse -- Republicans might have expanded their majorities.

    Republicans DID expand their majorities immensely in state houses all over the country. This will help the GOP out a LOT in future elections...

    The Democrats simply don't have a good talent pool...

    To me, the simplest idea to rally behind would be to push to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and build in a cost-of-living adjustment as well. This would have the greatest impact on working people's lives, and the idea has strong support which cuts across party lines. So it could achieve two things simultaneously -- helping people out, and helping to rebuild the Democratic Party.

    That won't help the blue-collar middle class which is where Democrats lost and lost big time..

    $15 min wage will only help the poor who are already enslaved to the Democratic Party thru entitlement programs...

    People want to work and they want to be paid a fair wage for an honest day's work.

    But.. But... But... I thought ya'all wanted a "living" wage, REGARDLESS of what the work is...

    Now, if you want a fair wage for an honest days work, then that we can discuss...

    But I hate to break it to you. $15 an hour for flipping burgers is NOT a fair wage...

    All those people who voted for Donald Trump have set themselves up to be disappointed if he can't deliver on his many sweeping promises. The arguments against raising minimum wages largely fall apart when economists study the states that have already raised their minimum wages. The data to disprove the "it'll cost jobs" myth already exists, and is growing with each state that acts to raise the minimum wage on their own.

    Just as data exists that PROVE a high min wage costs jobs.....

    It all depends on which data you want to cherry pick..

    It is one big idea worth getting behind.

    It won't happen...

    JOBS were a "big idea worth getting behind" back in 2009...

    We got TrainWreckCare.... :^/

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    It is one big idea worth getting behind.

    I also hate ta break it to ya, but Donald Trump is already ON the idea of raising American wages across the board..

    Wages that have stagnated and nearly petrified under 8 years of Democratic Party rule...

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    "Respect from the Ground Up"

    "Respect for All Work"

    "Wages Everybody Can Build a Family On"

    "Fair Pay for Hard Work"

    Those are all great tag lines.. I think Trump has used most of them. J/K :D

    But they ARE part and parcel to the Trump plan to raise wages and bring back jobs...

    The Democratic Party had the chance to be the JOBS Party.... They chose to be The TrainWreckCare Party....

    They made their bed...

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Sheriff David Clarke: Snowflakes, it’s called an election, we won
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/306136-sheriff-david-clarke-snowflakes-its-called-an-election-we-won

    He's like Sheriff Joe.. But a little less outspoken.. :D

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    But neil, they voted to eliminate the ACA. Ask Michale. I'm sure he'll confirm that he voted to abolish what he calls "trainwreck care".

    Yep, I will always vote to abolish legislation that is forced down the American people's throats by hook or by crook, legislation that is a mockery of it's very name (Like Democratic Republic Of North Korea) and provides crappy service for ever increasing fees..

    Yep, I will vote to abolish crap like that every day of the week and twice on Sunday...

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Nor do they want a replacement. They've never asked for a replacement.

    That's not entirely accurate...

    We just want a different focus..

    Let's focus on the things that will actually BRING DOWN THE COST of health care and actually ENCOURAGE quality health care....

    TrainWreckCare does none of those things...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    But I hate to break it to you. $15 an hour for flipping burgers is NOT a fair wage...

    ESPECIALLY when one considers that THAT is what a first year police officer is paid...

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale

    According to our research engine:
    The U.S. Government gave a total of $209,432,920 to Mexico in 2012:

    In THIS reality, US Aid to Mexico is almost 210 BILLION dollars...

    Can anybody spot the mistake Michale made?

    Hint: It would take 50 years to sequester $10B using Michale's numbers.

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale

    Here is a pretty picture that should help

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/spends-billion-foreign/

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    Also Michale, note the Military spending component (40% of the $210 MILLION) we give Mexico. This is earmarked for spending on the U.S. Defense industry.

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    <I.Hint: It would take 50 years to sequester $10B using Michale's numbers.

    Ahhh I DO see my mistake.. :D

    I thought it was too good to be true... DOH!!! :D

    Since I felt that something was wrong, I did some more research..

    Those were 2012 numbers. 2013 pay to Mexico was around 550 million NOT with a 'B'... :D

    Still I see and acknowledge the validity of your argument...

    So, that just means that it takes Mexico a bit longer to pay off the wall.. :D

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Here is a pretty picture that should help

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/spends-billion-foreign/

    I actually saw that picture in my research..

    But I liked my 209 BILLION link better. :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    But, as I have said...

    While I know it matters to some that Mexico pays for the wall/barrier/minefield, I am not one of those...

    While I appreciate the symbolism, symbolism should never get in the way of common sense.

    Who cares *WHO* pays for it. Just get the damn thing in place...

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    But I hate to break it to you. $15 an hour for flipping burgers is NOT a fair wage...

    ESPECIALLY when one considers that THAT is what a first year police officer is paid...

    WRONG

    Entry level police officers with no relevant experience or military background may get that in the poorest jurisdictions, but they also get excellent benefits and a defined pension.

    Most entry level officers get a lot more, including a bonus and after a short time even the lowest paid get dramatic salary increases. They also get guaranteed 40 hours per week plus increased pay for overtime.

    http://www.lawenforcementedu.net/salaries/

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    But, as I have said...

    While I know it matters to some that Mexico pays for the wall/barrier/minefield, I am not one of those...

    While I appreciate the symbolism, symbolism should never get in the way of common sense.

    Who cares *WHO* pays for it. Just get the damn thing in place...

    WRONG

    "We are going to build a beautiful wall, and do you know who is going to pay for it? ..... that's right Mexico"

    You just know you are going to get four more years of us quoting Trump's lies to you. The foot is on the other shoe now. In a couple of months I expect you will be scouring Chaz's JavaScript trying to reprogram it to hide comments with "WRONG" in them :)

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    <I.Entry level police officers with no relevant experience or military background may get that in the poorest jurisdictions,

    The fact that they get that ANYWHERE is exactly my point..

    but they also get excellent benefits and a defined pension.

    After a year or so of employment..

    Burger flippers ALSO get good benefits and such after a year or so of employment..

    But those are just details..

    The general point is valid...

    The previous argument made by a couple of Weigantians (still trying, Liz.. :D) a while back was that people should be paid a "living wage" REGARDLESS of what the work was...

    That's ridiculous..

    The CURRENT argument that people should be paid a "fair wage" for honest work is a valid argument and I completely agree with it..

    The ONLY point of contention in THAT logical argument is what constitutes "fair"....

    $15 an hour for flipping burgers or mopping floors is NOT a fair wage

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    <I.Entry level police officers with no relevant experience or military background may get that in the poorest jurisdictions,

    Dammit!!! My left arm is still not behaving itself.. I always miss that damn SHIFT key!!!

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    But I liked my 209 BILLION link better. :D

    WRONG

    I followed your link, it stated $210 MILLION, including $91 MILLION in military spending (i.e. buying stuff from us)

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    HA!!! Caught it that time.. "We are going to build a beautiful wall, and do you know who is going to pay for it? ..... that's right Mexico"

    Yes, that's what Trump said.. And yes, some people will hold him to that...

    I am simply not one of those people..

    Trump saying that Mexico will pay for the wall is like Clinton saying there will be free college tuition for all or Obama saying he will close Gitmo...

    Campaign hyperbole...

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Also, you are missing CW's point. If burger flippers are getting $15/hour, what do you think the salary of entry level police officers is going to be?

    A rising tide and all that.

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hate to break the bad news to you, but Trump won the election, not Hillary or Obama. All the little whiners now have to defend Trump or admit what the rest us can clearly see - he is a con man and you are his marks.

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    WRONG

    WRONG

    WRONG

    WRONG

    WRONG

    "Well.. At least we're talking.."
    -Sam Winchester, SUPERNATURAL, The French Mistake

    :D heh

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    $15 an hour for flipping burgers or mopping floors is NOT a fair wage

    WRONG

    If the minimum wage had kept place with inflation and income growth it would be over $21/hour today.

    Even that is low because for about 20 years only the top 20% have seen any income growth (some say 35 years).

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    $15 an hour for flipping burgers or mopping floors is NOT a fair wage

    WRONG

    It's an opinion which, by definition cannot be right or wrong..

    I don't think $15 an hour for flipping burgers is a fair wage..

    You disagree..

    You are as 'wrong' as I am...

    If the minimum wage had kept place with inflation and income growth it would be over $21/hour today.

    Which adds absolutely NOTHING to the Fair/Unfair argument...

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Hate to break the bad news to you, but Trump won the election, not Hillary or Obama.

    Obama didn't win his elections??

    Then how did we get Trump??

    Obama DID win his election.. And he did NOT close Gitmo..

    So it was nothing but campaign hyperbole for the base..

    That's all Trump's "MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT" was...

    You can disagree, that's fine... I'll allow that.. :D

    All the little whiners now have to defend Trump or admit what the rest us can clearly see - he is a con man and you are his marks.

    You might be right...

    But, let's face reality, Neil...

    Your TRUMP predictions don't have much in the way of credibility as of late.. :D

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    Also, you are missing CW's point. If burger flippers are getting $15/hour, what do you think the salary of entry level police officers is going to be?

    A rising tide and all that.

    So, in other words, you agree with Trump that we need to shake stagnant and petrified wages loose and get them to start rising again...

    I also agree...

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here is a hint. If you want to state an opinion let us know. Say "in my opinion $15/hour is unfair"

    Why, in your opinion, is $15/hour unfair? If entry level jobs pay $15/hour then everybody else's move up accordingly in an accordion-like manner. It won't make much difference by the time you get to the $200k level, but by then you have tilted the Gini downwards and 80% benefit.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, in other words, you agree with Trump that we need to shake stagnant and petrified wages loose and get them to start rising again...

    I also agree...

    RIGHT

    That is the point of CW's post.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Your TRUMP predictions don't have much in the way of credibility as of late.. :D

    Fair do's. But I was in the vast majority including most Republicans in thinking the polls were accurate and pointed to a Clinton win.

    However if you had read my pre-election prediction I gave Trump a 1/3 chance of winning and actually predicted a close Hillary win but that the Republicans would keep the Senate.

  36. [36] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [10]

    Michale -

    He's like Sheriff Joe.. But a little less outspoken.. :D

    Sounds like a perfect fit for the new republic regime. :D

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Also, like most people I thought Mexico were going to pay for the wall.

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet.. Why not wait and see..

    Trump won the election... Give him a chance to govern...

  39. [39] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [32]

    Michale -

    ...we need to shake stagnant and petrified wages loose and get them to start rising again...

    How did Trump say he would do that?

    What is in the Ryan budget, due to be passed in full in January, will accomplish that?

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    How did Trump say he would do that?

    How the hell should I know..

    The Left never asked Obama for details on closing Gitmo or Hillary details for free college tuition...

    The point is that Trump is on the same page as ya'all with regards to what NEEDS to be done...

    Give him a chance to succeed....

    If he doesn't, then your accusations that he is a fraud and a con-man will carry a LOT more weight....

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet.. Why not wait and see..

    Trump won the election... Give him a chance to govern...

    Because he is already walking away from his campaign promises.

    1. Hillary - no special prosecutor - now she is a very nice person who has done a lot of good for the country

    2. Draining the swamp of career politicians and lobbyists is now a transition team and appointees who are mostly lobbyists and career politicians

    3. The "great big beautiful wall" is now a fence or barrier and "Mexico will pay for it" has disappeared completely.

    This is all in one week.

    I didn't believe any of this nonsense from the start. Did you?

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale -

    ...we need to shake stagnant and petrified wages loose and get them to start rising again...

    How did Trump say he would do that?

    Good point - did Trump actually say that (i.e. is it a fact) or is it your opinion that he said it Michale?

    A simple link to a quote will do. I seem to remember him saying it, but I'm sure a Trump supporter has lots of links to his policy statements. Help us out here, don't let us think that you made this up.

    :)

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hillary details for free college tuition..

    Uh - yes I did. I thought to myself: This is going to cost a bucketload of money - where is it going to come from.

    So I went to her web site and read the detailed fact sheet:

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact-costs/

    The program would cost $350B over 10 years. The cost will be born by increasing the tax rate on high income earners (you know. the people who pay less percentage of their income to taxes than their secretaries).

    This type of approach has worked well in California, so there is a precedent.

    I then started to check for other programs that Hillary might be trying to fund the same way (I don't trust any politicians), but I couldn't find any double dipping.

    Point us to the Trump Fact Sheet on the following so we know you just didn't support Trump because he looks like an overgrown Oompa-Loompa (unless that was your primary criteria for the leader of 325 million people).

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    Want me to switch on the blocker yet Michale?

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    Breaking down the outcomes.

    About 1/3 chance D's wins the Presidency and Senate - yippee says he left, the right are inconsolable

    About 1/3 chance D's win the Presidency and lose the Senate - Hmm says the left as they realize that the Senate is going to block everything, including Supreme Court nominees for 4 years. The right are pretty bummed.

    About 1/3 chance Trump wins and keeps the Senate - D's desolate. Yippee says the right.

    My gut tells me it is going to be the most miserable option for everybody - Hillary without the senate.

    Here was my prediction before the election.

    Here is the link to back it up:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/04/ftp414/#comment-87574

    Let's go Michale - let's see some links to prove you are stating facts and not unlabeled opinions.

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Because he is already walking away from his campaign promises.

    Yea, he's becoming a politician. I am not real thrilled either.. But it's not set in stone..

    Want me to switch on the blocker yet Michale?

    That's completely up to you.. I am really enjoying this back and forth.. :D

    But, if ya can't hang, I understand.. :D heh

    My gut tells me it is going to be the most miserable option for everybody - Hillary without the senate.

    Here was my prediction before the election.

    And you were wrong.. Right??

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yup, I was wrong. That isn't a permanent state however and since I base my predictions on well researched trends I'm pretty confident that I'm as right as often as most people.

    You thought you were voting for an outsider that was going to drain the swamp and get Mexico to build a wall. How's that going?

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    Where are the links to Trump to your Trump quote "...we need to shake stagnant and petrified wages loose and get them to start rising again..."?

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    Could it be you mixed Trump up with Robert Reich?

    http://robertreich.org/post/107998491550

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    That's completely up to you.. I am really enjoying this back and forth.. :D

    "I'm enjoyin' myself so far.."
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    No Michale, we don't need movie quotes, we need links to statements to back up the words you claim Trump said, or at least something similar.

    I googled your quote - nary a link to Trump in sight - the first hit was the above Robert Reich quote.

    This is how the real world works.

    Let's go. Do some research. Prove you just aren't writing something convenient but completely made up.

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    ...we need to shake stagnant and petrified wages loose and get them to start rising again...

    Here is why I think you made the quote up, now I look at it more closely:

    1. Word use: "stagnant" and "petrified" are not words I've ever hear Trump use.
    2. "we" - Trump almost always says "I" as in "I'm going to"
    3. This scans as a complete clause, unusual for Trump, he usually spins off into asides after only a few words

    But I'm sure you are going to prove me wrong Michale. Remember, I'm the one wrong about Trump.

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    Also, a quick google search on "petrified wages" trump turns up 1 result:

    Economist's View: "If You Really Think the Economy Needs a Jump ...
    economistsview.typepad dot com/economistsview/2008/02/if-you-really-t dot html
    Feb 1, 2008 - ... of twerpy snark asserting that "sticky" wages must mean petrified wages. ..... What the data say about Trump's claim that black voters have ...

    Search link for above: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22petrified+wages%22+trump

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yup, the more I research "petrified wages" the more sure I am that you totally made that up.

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Of course, no matter what the job people should be paid a living wage. An employer paying less than a living wage is stealing their employee's labor.
    The employer-employee is a business transaction just as selling the product or service to the customer is a business transaction. When an employer uses a soft job market to pressure employees to work for less than a living wage it is the equivalent of price gouging the customer in an emergency. It is the government's responsibility to make sure that employers do not steal labor just as it is the government's responsibility to make sure that there is no price gouging in an emergency.
    Employers that claim they can't make a profit or enough profit if they pay their workers a living wage have a business model that doesn't work and according to the free market system they should go out of business. Allowing them to steal from their employees to stay in business and make a profit by stealing from their employees is an abdication of government responsibility.
    That being said, raising the minimum wage does not trickle up.
    Here in NJ when they raised the minimum wage, I was making several dollars more than the minimum wage. I had job where I was the helper and therefore was paid less than the people that I was helping because I had less responsibility.
    Ten years later, after the minimum wage went up the higher paid workers were replaced (or had to take a cut in pay and/or benefits) with workers getting paid less than me. My pay remained pretty much the same while I had to take on the responsibilities that the higher paid workers that were no longer there previously did.
    This was not caused by the raise in the minimum wage- but the raise in the minimum wage did nothing to stop it or help. Thinking that raising the minimum wage will help those higher up on the lower part of the wage ladder is just not reality.

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As far as the minimum wage being the issue to save the Democratic Party that is nothing more than the dog chasing it's tail. The Democrats promising to actually do their job is not going to save the party.
    Low wages are a symptom of the bigger problem of Big Money in politics. The One Big Issue that could save the Democratic Party is campaign financing. And the way to do that is not public financing of elections, constitutional amendments to overturn Citizen United or any legislation to try to limit contributions.
    If the Democratic Party wants to thrive, much less survive it must unilaterally commit to finance all of it's campaigns with small contributions from individuals.
    Citizens that want the Democratic Party (or any party or candidate) to make this commitment can demand that the parties and candidates comply by participating in Voucher Vendetta. This will force the Democratic Party to comply and will make it possible to replace them with a party and/or candidates that will comply if (when) the Democratic Party does not comply to our demand.

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I googled your quote - nary a link to Trump in sight -

    That's because it wasn't a quote...

    You see that's your problem with your quest for 'facts'.. You make shit up that follows your agenda, treat it as 'fact' and then ask that it be defended..

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    Look, I get it. You hate Trump.. You are going to say anything and everything negative you can about Trump to "prove" you are right about Trump.. It's all based on ideology..

    Like I mentioned to Mopshell..

    Why don't ya let Trump get inaugurated first and maybe even give him a couple weeks in office..

    Then, if he DOES fail, your accusations will have a LOT more credibility than they do now...

    I'm just sayin'... :D

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Yup, the more I research "petrified wages" the more sure I am that you totally made that up.

    I never claimed otherwise.... :D

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Like with wall vs barrier, you are throwing anything and everything you can against the wall, no matter how insignificant, in hopes of making something stick.... :D

    I get it.. If Hillary had won, I might have been tempted to do the same...

    But the fact is, Trump is going to be your President. It's a fact of life you will have to accept....

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    You thought you were voting for an outsider that was going to drain the swamp and get Mexico to build a wall. How's that going?

    The first week?? About as well as I expected.. Fits and starts.. Miss-steps and mis-cues...

    In other words, pretty much par for the course...

    The Left Wingery was claiming a new Dark Ages with stocks falling to ZERO and hell on earth if Trump won...

    Howz THAT going?? :D

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    Of course, no matter what the job people should be paid a living wage. An employer paying less than a living wage is stealing their employee's labor.

    Sorry, Don.. Have to disagree...

    Payment for services rendered is JUST THAT... Payment for services rendered...

    In your scenario, a single father with 3 kids in New Jersey would earn MUCH more than a married woman with a working husband and no kids in North Dakota..

    That's not wages... That's welfare....

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    That being said, raising the minimum wage does not trickle up.
    Here in NJ when they raised the minimum wage, I was making several dollars more than the minimum wage. I had job where I was the helper and therefore was paid less than the people that I was helping because I had less responsibility.

    What part of Jersey??? I lived in RedBank for a while.. :D

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, I don't care who you are...

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvqdEG_W8AAZjec.jpg

    THAT'S just disturbing..... :D

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    "We owe Donald Trump a chance to lead."
    -Hillary Clinton

    Anyone here disagree with that??? Anyone at all??

  66. [66] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    “We have to become competitive with the world. Our taxes are too high, our wages are too high, everything is too high” - The Orange Queen

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    You see that's your problem with your quest for 'facts'.. You make shit up that follows your agenda, treat it as 'fact' and then ask that it be defended..

    I'm just going to let you find a mirror, and let you think about this statement for a while.

    You think that dealing with facts is a problem. And that because I search for facts I make things up.

    Wow.

    Same old Michale - this is exactly why I used the blocker in the first place. You live in a post-fact world. Let's see how that works out for you. So far it just means that every time you get caught in a fabrication you say that it is my fault for demanding facts from you.

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    You think that dealing with facts is a problem.

    Once again, you change what I say so you have an argument..

    Dealing with facts is not a problem. Dealing with MADE UP "facts" is your problem..

    I never said that Trump said "petrified wages"... Those were MY words to describe Trump's statements...

    But you couldn't argue that so you changed what I said to give you something to argue...

    It's like when some of you (Hi Liz :D) accused Trump of being a racist.. In your minds, it was FACT that Trump was a racist..

    Yet, when confronted with a request for FACTS to prove your "fact", your "fact" fell apart and was found to be nothing but partisan BS...

    Keep searching around for that mirror you think I need.. It will come in handy for you.. :D

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/there_is_no_such_thing_as_a_good_trump_voter.html

    It's EXACTLY because of morons like this ^^^ we have President Elect Trump....

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/opinion/donald-trump-help-heal-the-planets-climate-change-problem.html?ref=opinion

    I really hope that President Trump REALLY takes a good long look at the Planet's Orbit Change problem..

    We really MUST stop the planet's orbit from changing or we will all be doomed!!

    Please, President Trump.. Let's stop Orbit Change!!! We MUST take control of the planet's orbit!!!!

    {/sarcasm}

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Here ya'all go...

    http://theworleys.net/temp/deal.png

    Deal???

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:
  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (62)-
    You are correct in YOUR scenario about saying the single father in NJ making more than the married woman in North Dakota has more to do with welfare than wages.
    But you are wrong to call it my scenario. The living wage I support has nothing to do with dependents or anything other than a single person earning enough to provide for themselves. If we decide that people with children, disabilities or for any reason other than their employer not paying the person enough to provide for themselves, then it should be provided for by taxes on all citizens- not be a burden that is foisted only on that person's employer.
    All things being equal the employer- employee relationship is as you said just payment for services rendered. But the reality is that all things are not equal. The employers have the power in a soft and declining job market. It is the governments responsibility to make sure that the employers do not abuse their position by stealing the asset of the employees- their labor, just as it is the governments responsibility to make sure that the assets of the employer are protected from being stolen through the prosecution of thieves and civil courts to collect payments not received for services or products rendered.
    I noticed you did not respond to the part of my comment that a business that cannot make a profit while paying a living wage is a business model that doesn't work and by free market principles should go out of business.
    Do you not believe in free market principles ? If so, why would you support businesses that should fail under these principles having their payroll indirectly subsidized by government assistance to their employees ? Or do you think their employees do not deserve any assistance and their employers should be allowed to exploit them ?

  74. [74] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    oops. it should have read-
    "If we decide that assistance is needed for people with children, disabilities...."

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you not believe in free market principles ? If so, why would you support businesses that should fail under these principles having their payroll indirectly subsidized by government assistance to their employees ? Or do you think their employees do not deserve any assistance and their employers should be allowed to exploit them ?

    It depends on how you define "exploit"...

    If I apply for a job flipping burgers for $10 an hour and then I meet a girl who fills my head with claptrap on how I am being "exploited" and I claim exploitation, is it REALLY exploitation??

    Or am I, as the employee, reneging on an agreement I made with my employer for a set payment for services rendered???

    There is only ONE parameter that should be used when determining the rate of pay for a job..

    And that is the job itself..

    If your job is pushing a button every 20 mins, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, then that pays $x.oo an hour... REGARDLESS of how much you "need" to "live"...

    And you sure as hell shouldn't be making as much as someone who patrols the streets keeping the public safe or fighting fires or even cooking people great meals...

    In a logical and rational world, the nature of the job is the ONLY factor that determines the PAY of said job...

  76. [76] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    neilm [44],

    I see that a lower case sock puppet has arrived while I've been hospitalized. Has the tamper monkey been modified to deal with that?

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Like I said..

    There IS legitimate debate on what constitutes "fair" pay...

    The idea that pay should be determinate on what someone "needs" to "live"???

    It is simply not possible to rationally debate that...

  78. [78] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (65)-
    I do not believe Trump should be given any more of chance than Clinton if she had been elected. If he does the right thing- I will support him on those things. If he does the wrong things (the things he promised to do)- I will oppose him on those things.
    That is the only chance any person or politician deserves and all they will get from me.

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    I see that a lower case sock puppet has arrived while I've been hospitalized. Has the tamper monkey been modified to deal with that?

    Wow!???

    A simple and inadvertent case-change and ya'all crutch users are stumped!!!????

    I believe I SERIOUSLY over-estimated your computer prowess....

    Maybe CB will come to ya'all's rescue and let you, once again, live in ignorant bliss... :D

    All sarcasm aside, hope ya feeling better, John.....

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    I do not believe Trump should be given any more of chance than Clinton if she had been elected. If he does the right thing- I will support him on those things. If he does the wrong things (the things he promised to do)- I will oppose him on those things.
    That is the only chance any person or politician deserves and all they will get from me.

    Fair enough...

    One cannot ask for anything more...

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    Not sure if ya missed it, but what part of Jersey are ya in??

    As I mentioned I lived in Red Bank for a couple years..

    Red Bank, NJ is famous for 2 things..

    The hometown of Weird Al Yankovich....

    And where DOGMA took place....

    That should tell ya all ya need to know about Red Bank :D heh

  82. [82] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (75)-
    The pay rate for a job should be determined by the job. Certainly someone doing more difficult and/or dangerous work should be paid more than someone working in a less dangerous or demanding job. Those people working in the more dangerous and demanding jobs deserve MORE than just a living wage and are free to bargain with their employers for better compensation. Your argument implies that unless your job is dangerous or demanding it does not deserve adequate compensation and ignores that fact that it is the employers responsibility to have a working business model and that failing to have a business model that can make a profit while paying their employees just compensation for their labor should have the consequences of the failed business model being borne by the employer in the form of less or no profit rather than be passed on to the employee through low wages that are not just compensation for the labor provided.

    P.S.- Let me know when the world becomes logical and rational.

  83. [83] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    North Jersey- Pompton Plains- about 15-20 minutes from Paterson.

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (77)-
    Of course it's not possible to rationally debate that- that's why we debate it with you! :D

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    . Your argument implies that unless your job is dangerous or demanding it does not deserve adequate compensation and ignores that fact that it is the employers responsibility to have a working business model and that failing to have a business model that can make a profit while paying their employees just compensation for their labor should have the consequences of the failed business model being borne by the employer in the form of less or no profit rather than be passed on to the employee through low wages that are not just compensation for the labor provided.

    Read that over again...

    "ADEQUATE" compensation.....

    "JUST" compensation.....

    "LOW wages.....

    Your entire argument is completely made up of subjectives....

    As such, it cannot be rationally debated because there is no common frame of reference..

    "Common frame of reference!!!???? Are you telling me that I have to DIE before you will discuss your insights on death!!!!"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home

    :D

    P.S.- Let me know when the world becomes logical and rational.

    Touche'... Ya got me on that one.. :D

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    By the way- Pompton Plains- where Derek Jeter was born.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    I never said that Trump said "petrified wages"... Those were MY words to describe Trump's statements...

    Go back and re-read. I agreed with the characterization but simply asked for a link to a Trump quote to back it up. I tried using your wording, but that didn't work. Can you prove that Trump believes the words you put in his mouth?

    A link to something with the same meaning will do.

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    Never heard of it.. Must be South Jersey??

    I didn't get out much..

    Lincroft, Monmouth, Middletown.. Those were my stomping grounds.. :D

    Loved the winters.... Hated the summers... We've been here in FL since '97 and I have NEVER seen as brutal a summer as I did in Jersey in the 70s.....

  89. [89] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    We have previously discussed this issue. Just or adequate wages I define as being paid enough for one person to be able to pay for basic housing, transportation, food, medical care and taxes. If you want or need anything beyond that you have to work more or develop skills that can demand higher wages.

  90. [90] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not surprised you never heard of Pompton Plains. Just houses- not much business. In fact, up until about 10-20 years ago for at least forty years there was a sign at the border that said "Welcome to Pequannock Township- we do not welcome industry."
    I even once met someone from Wayne, the town next to us that lived there for over 20 years and they had never heard of Pompton Plains.

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    We have previously discussed this issue. Just or adequate wages I define as being paid enough for one person to be able to pay for basic housing, transportation, food, medical care and taxes.

    But that's just it... Those costs aren't constant...

    A McDonalds burger flipper in Toms River, NJ will likely make 3x the "living" wage that a McDonalds burger flipper would make in Minot, North Dakota..

    A business simply CANNOT operate that way...

    Having a job is not a welfare program...

    There is welfare for people who can't make enough or don't want to work...

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    I even once met someone from Wayne, the town next to us that lived there for over 20 years and they had never heard of Pompton Plains.

    Hehehehe that's funny...

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale (77)-
    Of course it's not possible to rationally debate that- that's why we debate it with you! :D

    "Ouch!! And the ref takes a point away!!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :D heh

  94. [94] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Of course it is not constant from state to state. The federal minimum wage should be for what it costs at the bottom of the scale. It is up to the states like NJ with higher costs of living to have a minimum wage higher than the federal standard.
    I do not mind some of my taxes being used to provide welfare for people that can't provide for themselves. I do mind if they can and they don't. I also mind when employers wield their power over employees to not pay what I described as a living wage so that we have to subsidize their payroll through welfare for their employees that are able to and do perform their jobs.
    If the employer could run the business without the labor provided by the employees they would not have employees.

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    As New York Times colum­nist Ross Douthat pres­ci­ently wrote in Septem­ber: “The new cul­tur­al or­tho­doxy is suf­fi­ciently stifling to leave many Amer­ic­ans look­ing to the vot­ing booth as a way to re­gister dis­sent.” Op­pos­ing polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness was one con­sist­ent theme in Trump’s very muddled cam­paign mes­sage.

    It's as I said... The one common theme amongst Trump supporters is the total and utter disdain for political correctness...

    It's the ONE thing that made Trump so wildly popular....

    Demo­crats will be spend­ing their time in the polit­ic­al wil­der­ness fig­ur­ing out how to re­build a shattered party. But early in­dic­a­tions sug­gest that party lead­ers are veer­ing even fur­ther to the left in­stead of mod­er­at­ing their rhet­or­ic. They’ve con­cluded—with the as­sist­ance of Sanders, Eliza­beth War­ren, and po­lemi­cist Mi­chael Moore—that they would have per­formed bet­ter with work­ing-class white voters if they only ar­tic­u­lated a more pop­u­list eco­nom­ic mes­sage. They’ve shown no in­clin­a­tion to re­ject Clin­ton’s con­tro­ver­sial no­tion that half of Trump’s sup­port­ers were de­plor­able and ir­re­deem­able.

    And, once again, Democrats are completely missing the message that was sent with a Gibb's Slap in 2010, a sledgehammer in 2014 and a frakin' bunker buster in 2016...

    You look down on and insult Americans and they simply WILL NOT vote for you....

    It's hard to see how it can be made any simpler than that.....

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    I also mind when employers wield their power over employees to not pay what I described as a living wage so that we have to subsidize their payroll through welfare for their employees that are able to and do perform their jobs.

    Unfortunately for the Left Wingery, market forces really don't give a rat's arse about social justice.....

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    Can you prove that Trump believes the words you put in his mouth?

    I can prove that Trump has said that wages that have remained stagnant are a big problem here in the US...

    However you want to characterize that is totally up to you...

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump

    The middle-class has worked so hard, are not getting the kind of jobs that they have long dreamed of - and no effective raise in years. BAD
    7:30 AM - 28 Dec 2015

    Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
    Wages in are country are too low, good jobs are too few, and people have lost faith in our leaders.We need smart and strong leadership now!
    7:50 AM - 28 Dec 2015

  99. [99] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Loved the winters.... Hated the summers... We've been here in FL since '97 and I have NEVER seen as brutal a summer as I did in Jersey in the 70s....."

    That's because you get the sea breeze where you are. :-) Try living in a part of Florida where that doesn't happen, and the temp. is 100 degrees and the humidity is 86 percent. :-D

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    Yea, it's the humidity that's the killer... I can handle the heat.. Time in the Middle East will acclimate ya...

    But the humidity is absolutely brutal.....

  101. [101] 
    John M wrote:

    "Yeah. Hot as Vulcan. Now I understand what that phrase means."
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, AMOK TIME, The Original Series

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    Nice.... :D

    heh

  103. [103] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "Democrats lost the presidency for a multitude of reasons, but one big one was the further erosion of support among white blue-collar workers. This frustrates many Democrats who quite accurately point out that Democratic policy ideas help these people much more than Republican ideas"

    OK.
    First, Obama and the Dems had 2 years where with some minor arm twisting they could have raised the minimum wage and passed a COLA too.
    They didn't.
    Please explain why blue collar workers (not just white ones) should trust Dems now?

    Talking about a higher minimum wage in every SOTU and on the campaign trail accomplished exactly nothing.

    Second, and far more importantly, it is the economic policies that cater to Wall Street, tax policies that cater to Wall Street, trade policies that cater to Wall Street, criminal justice policies that absolve Wall Street crooks, and a lack of government support for manufacturing IN THE US that combined have led to the decline in the rust belt and elsewhere.

    An increase in the minimum wage alone, while maintaining all the policies that kill US jobs, is not going to bring back good manufacturing jobs.

    Both Obama and Hillary wanted to appear as if they were fighting for the working class, while actively supporting all the policies hurting the working class.
    It is that disconnect, that is obvious to everybody paying attention, that is the problem. More than half the Dems in Congress have the same problem.

    So it is not really "accurate" to say Dem policies "help these people more".

    Democrats need to run candidates who aren't operating on the belief that the working class is too stupid to know they are getting shafted.

    Social liberalism coupled with right wing, Wall Street coddling economics but with a higher minimum wage is NOT a viable platform. Pretending that the result is still overall liberal or progressive is called lying.

    The Dems just electing Schumer, the biggest Wall Street boot licker in Congress, the Senate minority leader is clinging to the failed approach.
    His statement today about "fighting against the rigged system" is NOT believable. He helped rig it.

    In 2016, and every prior election for the last 30 years, with rare exceptions and excluding incumbency, the Democratic party ACTIVELY fought against progressive candidates in the primaries in order to keep the system rigged.

    Talking about the minimum wage is not addressing the many real problems... it's sweeping them under the rug.

    A

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    That won't help the blue-collar middle class which is where Democrats lost and lost big time..

    $15 min wage will only help the poor who are already enslaved to the Democratic Party thru entitlement programs...

    Can't believe I am typing this, but I think Michale is right about this. Of course, the U.S. has 51 separate elections, and what "moves" a voter in the West won't necessarily play well with a voter in the Midwest or East, etc., but GENERALLY speaking, Democrats need to win back the working middle class and stop catering to the poor while blaming the rich. When progressives talk about the working class, they generally mean the poor. The working middle class generally resent elites but harbor no resentment toward the rich, actually admire the rich and just want a good job where if they work hard they might no longer have to take orders from elites. This is part of Trump's appeal (and why he wears the goofy hat); he's not really one of them, but they think he is. :)

    The middle class is not interested in a job paying $15 minimum wage... enough to get by; they are interested in a steady job that pays a higher wage that will allow them to live a middle-class life. The middle class generally can't qualify for programs that help the poor, and this creates a class division whereby the middle class begin to resent the poor who benefit from multiple programs that they generally believe are coming straight out of their pockets in the form of higher taxes. Find out what the middle class voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, etc. want... focus there and deliver on that. The middle class want their jobs back from overseas; some jobs aren't coming back so level with the middle class and give them a program whereby they can retrain in the jobs that remain.

    Just my opinion based on listening to what I've heard voters say over the years from different parts of the country. :)

  105. [105] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [61]

    Michale -

    The Left Wingery was claiming a new Dark Ages with stocks falling to ZERO and hell on earth if Trump won...

    Howz THAT going??

    In fact, all the economic experts at Daily Kos and in the media are ALL predicting an economic boom because Dodd-Frank will be fully repealed, all industrial and corporate regulations will be eliminated when the EPA is shut down, and the minimum wage will be abolished.

    In a boom economy, the party in power wins. Therefore I'm predicting massive wins for republics in the 2018 midterms regardless of anything else they do. People will only see the economic boom.

    When the republics own 70 senate seats, 400+ House seats and three quarters of the states in the 116th congress, they will be able to hold a constitutional convention to repeal and add amendments as they wish. I fully expect them to pass the following: all senate and house seats will henceforth be elected by state legislatures and the president elected by congress.

    What others do you think they might add or repeal?

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    Can't believe I am typing this, but I think Michale is right about this.

    Why do you always just spout off without even CONSIDERin........

    Huh... whaa, say what now?? :D

    "Can you say that in my GOOD ear??? I swore ya just called me 'Ace'..."
    -Ace Ventura

    :D

    This is part of Trump's appeal (and why he wears the goofy hat); he's not really one of them, but they think he is. :)

    He IS really one of us because we allow him to be.. :D

    Just my opinion based on listening to what I've heard voters say over the years from different parts of the country. :)

    And a damn fine opinion it is!!!! :D

    In fact, all the economic experts at Daily Kos and in the media are ALL predicting an economic boom because Dodd-Frank will be fully repealed,

    Yes, they are... *NOW*... Prior to Trump's ascension the were predicting economic collapse and a new Dark Ages... :D

    What others do you think they might add or repeal?

    I think that, on the first day, President Trump should sign an executive order that repeals anything and everything that Obama has put into place that CAN be repealed by Executive Order..

    Then we can go back over them and single out the ones, the very few that actually are good for this country and re-implement...

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    When the republics own 70 senate seats, 400+ House seats and three quarters of the states in the 116th congress, they will be able to hold a constitutional convention to repeal and add amendments as they wish. I fully expect them to pass the following: all senate and house seats will henceforth be elected by state legislatures and the president elected by congress.

    I read somewhere that, government wise and taking into account state governments, The Republican Party is stronger than it has ever been since 1900....

    The Democratic Party has a though slough ahead...

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    Sedona is home to a number of facilities offering “spiritual retreats,” “vision quests,” and other forms of “emotional healing” adventures. In a note accompanying her Instagram post, Dunham expressed love for her fans and described how she had “whispered some wishes for you into the big red rock” after asking “the Canyon for some guidance.”
    http://heatst.com/politics/lena-durham-spirit-quest/

    Lena Dunham is a PERFECT example of where the Democratic Party went wrong... :^/

    The Democratic Party listened to people like Dunham and put coal miners out of work...

    And the loss is a surprise???

  109. [109] 
    altohone wrote:

    kick
    104

    "Democrats need to win back the working middle class and stop catering to the poor while blaming the rich. When progressives talk about the working class, they generally mean the poor. The working middle class generally resent elites but harbor no resentment toward the rich, actually admire the rich and just want a good job where if they work hard they might no longer have to take orders from elites"

    This is why Hillary lost.
    Here we have a Hillary supporter agreeing with a Trump supporter in absolving the rich who BOTH parties have been catering to for decades and who have been dominating US policy, while pretending that the rich are not the "elites" or the cause of so many problems, and while falsely claiming Dems have been catering to the poor when they haven't been, and then spewing falsehoods about what "progressives generally mean".

    A $15 minimum wage is $30,000 per year... middle class by all definitions.

    It is true that at the current federal minimum of $7.25, many working class Americans are below the poverty line because they can't get full time work, so the working poor are part of the working class. But that doesn't mean that progressives are only talking about that group, not that I'd expect you to substantiate such an absurd claim.
    Why "waste an argument", right?

    The US Census Bureau reported a median personal income of $30,240 for all workers over age 15 with income based on the Current Population Survey for 2015. Median as in half make more and half make less... and the median works out to be $15 per hour.

    It is utter nonsense to claim or believe that $15 per hour is not representative of the middle class/working class when that is the median wage.

    Half of all US workers are making less than $15 per hour.
    They most certainly deserve a raise and would be thrilled to earn the median.
    And they most certainly deserve the attention of Democrats. Those with the attitude that $15 per hour is too low for their idea of the middle class are out of touch with reality.

    And CW is absolutely correct that a higher minimum wage will put upward pressure on the wages of those earning more, thus benefiting everybody in the working class... not to mention that it will stimulate the economy, reduce the number of Americans who qualify for government assistance thus helping the budget, and will increase tax revenue including shoring up the finances of both Medicare and Social Security.

    That said, the minimum wage can't be the sole focus (see my previous comment).

    A

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    Here we have a Hillary supporter agreeing with a Trump supporter in absolving the rich who BOTH parties have been catering to for decades and who have been dominating US policy, while pretending that the rich are not the "elites" or the cause of so many problems, and while falsely claiming Dems have been catering to the poor when they haven't been, and then spewing falsehoods about what "progressives generally mean".

    "The Rich" is nothing but a euphemism for someone who, for the most part, worked hard and was successful at what they did....

    Half of all US workers are making less than $15 per hour.

    Cite.....

  111. [111] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The Rich" is nothing but a euphemism for someone who, for the most part, worked hard and was successful at what they did....

    OH REALLY??? So, by that definition of yours, Sam Walton's relatives who inherited their wealth from HIM, worked hard and were successful at, what? being related??? Or Nicole Richie or Paris Hilton worked hard at being related to very rich, successful parents???

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    OH REALLY??? So, by that definition of yours, Sam Walton's relatives who inherited their wealth from HIM, worked hard and were successful at, what? being related??? Or Nicole Richie or Paris Hilton worked hard at being related to very rich, successful parents???

    For the most part

    You cite 3 people. How many rich people you think there are in this country??

    Inadvertently though, you prove my point about the bigotry of the Left Wingery..

    "Rich" people are inherently evil and lazy.....

    According to the Left, that is....

    The inconsistency lies in the fact that many MANY on the Left *ARE* rich.....

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    [109] altohone,

    Here we have a Hillary supporter agreeing with a Trump supporter in absolving the rich who BOTH parties have been catering to for decades and who have been dominating US policy, while pretending that the rich are not the "elites" or the cause of so many problems, and while falsely claiming Dems have been catering to the poor when they haven't been, and then spewing falsehoods about what "progressives generally mean".

    WRONG. As you often do, again you're presuming actually more than what I wrote. Could you please set aside your presumptions and assumptions and reading more into what is actually written? Yes, I agreed with a Trump supporter. No, I said nothing about "absolving the rich." I simply said that middle class voters have no resentment of the rich... they want to be rich; that's it... no more, no less. Also, that's not a post about my personal beliefs. There is a large portion of the middle class who see the Democratic Party as catering to the poor while ignoring the middle class. Whether it's factually true or not or meets a "definition," it is what it is, and Democrats are driving away vast blocks of the electorate by APPEARING to foster a culture of dependency. Many in the middle class believe they are working hard to pay for programs for the poor.

    A $15 minimum wage is $30,000 per year... middle class by all definitions.

    It is simply untrue that $30,000 per year is "middle class by all definitions." Please anybody research and find even ONE definition that defines $30,000 as middle class. Good luck. Add to that, a $15 minimum wage job is not necessarily going to guarantee a steady 40-hour work week, is it?

    But that doesn't mean that progressives are only talking about that group, not that I'd expect you to substantiate such an absurd claim.
    Why "waste an argument", right?

    Why would I need to substantiate "such an absurd claim"... particularly when you're the one who made it? I didn't say progressives are "only talking about that group." Read it again and realize that the word "generally" shouldn't somehow translate into the word "only." Again, what I posted are not my personal beliefs.

    It is utter nonsense to claim or believe that $15 per hour is not representative of the middle class/working class when that is the median wage.

    Wasn't the object of the exercise to appeal to middle class voters in the rust belt states that flipped from blue to red? The "middle class/working class" in those states don't give a hang about a $15 minimum wage. They don't want to flip burgers for $15 an hour and probably a less than 40-hour week. They want their factory jobs back that paid more and allowed them to lead a "middle class" life.

    Half of all US workers are making less than $15 per hour. They most certainly deserve a raise and would be thrilled to earn the median.

    Actually, it's around 42% of US workers and overwhelmingly women, African Americans, and Latinos... not exactly the "middle class" and sounds more like the base of the Democratic Party. And I do totally personally believe they deserve a raise, as Michale says 1000%, but the middle class believes that Democrats cater to this group at their expense... straight out of their taxes.

    http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/who-makes-15-per-hour/

    And CW is absolutely correct that a higher minimum wage will put upward pressure on the wages of those earning more, thus benefiting everybody in the working class... not to mention that it will stimulate the economy, reduce the number of Americans who qualify for government assistance thus helping the budget, and will increase tax revenue including shoring up the finances of both Medicare and Social Security.

    I think so too. Again, the "middle class" voters you need to appeal to are in the rust best states that flipped in the 2016 election, and their beliefs do not necessarily reflect mine. What moves them and what moves me are two different things.

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    [111]

    Michale wrote: "The Rich" is nothing but a euphemism for someone who, for the most part, worked hard and was successful at what they did....

    John M wrote: OH REALLY??? So, by that definition of yours, Sam Walton's relatives who inherited their wealth from HIM, worked hard and were successful at, what? being related??? Or Nicole Richie or Paris Hilton

    That's how the "middle class" voters you need to reach see the "rich"... as somebody somewhere who worked hard and got ahead, even if it's inherited wealth. It doesn't matter if it's always factually true or not; the middle class believe you work hard, save your money, and you can get ahead and become rich, maybe save your money and become your own boss, the guy who answers to no one... the American dream.

    Another thing to clarify is that "elites" and "rich" aren't necessarily the same thing to a middle class voter. How can I explain this without someone reading more into it than I'm meaning?

    Okay, to the middle class voter you're trying to reach, an "elite" is the supervisor/manager type who went to college and thinks he's smarter than you because he's educated, and the "rich" is the owner of the company he rarely if ever sees who answers to no one but himself.

    In the military, the middle class voter would be the enlisted guy who worked his way through the ranks over time and learned from the school of hard knocks, while an "elite" would be the educated new goober in charge who went to West Point. The "elite" guy will take a big thick military manual and explain "regulations." The enlisted officer will take that book, throw it across the room and say "ignore that... do this." The "rich" would be the general who doesn't take orders from anyone.

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    That's how the "middle class" voters you need to reach see the "rich"... as somebody somewhere who worked hard and got ahead, even if it's inherited wealth. It doesn't matter if it's always factually true or not; the middle class believe you work hard, save your money, and you can get ahead and become rich, maybe save your money and become your own boss, the guy who answers to no one... the American dream.

    Someone who actually gets it....

    As I have always said... In politics, perception is everything...

    Another thing to clarify is that "elites" and "rich" aren't necessarily the same thing to a middle class voter. How can I explain this without someone reading more into it than I'm meaning?

    Hay!!! I resemble that remark!!! :D

    In the military, the middle class voter would be the enlisted guy who worked his way through the ranks over time and learned from the school of hard knocks, while an "elite" would be the educated new goober in charge who went to West Point.

    We actually call them 'pukes', not 'goobers' but the point is still valid.. :D

    The "elite" guy will take a big thick military manual and explain "regulations." The enlisted officer will take that book, throw it across the room and say "ignore that... do this." The "rich" would be the general who doesn't take orders from anyone.

    It's as if I am looking in a mirror!!! :D

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    It is simply untrue that $30,000 per year is "middle class by all definitions." Please anybody research and find even ONE definition that defines $30,000 as middle class. Good luck. Add to that, a $15 minimum wage job is not necessarily going to guarantee a steady 40-hour work week, is it?

    And, I am assuming that $15 p/h $30,000 a year is BEFORE taxes and child support payments etc etc etc....

    If $15 p/h is "middle class" for Joe and Jane Six Pack then I am James Tiberius Kirk....

  117. [117] 
    altohone wrote:

    kick
    113

    Nothing in your comment says or alludes that you were talking about what other people believe (except your fictional nonsense about progressives).
    You wrote "I agree with Michale"... not "they agree with Michale".
    Since you weren't stating your opinion, you need a refresher course in English.

    "Stop blaming the rich" is absolving them.
    You wrote it.
    Did you forget that you wrote it?
    Your convenient misdirection on the "admire" and "resent" part later is just a dodge.

    "When progressives talk about the working class, they generally mean the poor"
    That is the absurd claim I want you to substantiate... not my counter argument.
    You wrote "generally".
    Do you mean 3 out of 5 progressives?
    Can you cite one single example?
    Or was it just your opinion based on nothing?

    I've never seen a single definition of middle class that excluded people making $30,000 and less.
    The US government says the poverty line for an individual is like $13,000.
    Please cite one definition of middle class that shows you're not out of touch.

    I cited the official median income from the US Census Bureau from 2015... you cite Fortune magazine. Half according to the government, 42% according to a magazine.
    "Actually, it's around 42% of US workers and overwhelmingly women, African Americans, and Latinos... not exactly the "middle class"
    Now you're channeling Hillary's private opinion?
    Or are you just trying to be offensive?

    "The "middle class/working class" in those states don't give a hang about a $15 minimum wage"
    The starting wage for new workers in the auto industry is only about $18 per hour in the latest UAW contract. That's for one of the stronger unions in this country.
    But, go ahead and cite one source that supports your invented claim.

    "Again, what I posted are not my personal beliefs"
    So, you're posting the beliefs of other people who--shared their opinions with you once?
    -you read about somewhere?
    -you got from a scientifically valid survey that you don't want to cite for some reason?

    "but the middle class believes that Democrats cater to this group at their expense"
    Seriously?
    Source?
    Were you elected spokesperson for some secret "middle class" group that excludes those making less than $30,000 per year?
    Are you psychic?
    Or are you just making things up to suit your beliefs?

    I'm glad you think the exploited members of the working class deserve a raise.
    You should join the Fight for $15.
    Particularly since you think $30,000 per year isn't middle class despite it being the official median income in this country.

    A

  118. [118] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    110

    I cited the US Census Bureau numbskull.
    Focus

    By definition, median means half make more, half make less.

    A

  119. [119] 
    altohone wrote:

    kick
    114

    The rich are the elites.
    The elites are rich.
    Your spin is not reality.

    And you still aren't citing a source or explaining how you know what the "middle class" thinks.

    A

  120. [120] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    116

    The $30,000 median income I cited from the US Census Bureau is for an individual before taxes.
    Again, the definition of "median" is not an opinion... it's fact.

    Your opinion is irrelevant to the government when they calculate these things.

    The median household income is almost twice as high... because when calculated by households it usually includes income from two or more workers.

    A

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    I cited the US Census Bureau numbskull.

    Then you should have no problem posting the link, eh??

    Again, the definition of "median" is not an opinion... it's fact.

    Until you post the link that supports your "fact", it's an opinion...

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    Again, the definition of "median" is not an opinion... it's fact.

    Until you post the link that supports your "fact", it's an opinion...

    I stand corrected..

    Yes, the definition of 'median' is a fact..

    Your assessment that $15p/h being "middle class" is the opinion....

  123. [123] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    I cited my source.
    That's good enough in the academic world.
    Sorry if you're too lazy to verify that I am not deceiving you... not my problem.

    In most discussions on the topic things are broken down like this-
    Lower class, middle class, upper class.
    Poor, middle class, rich.
    Some people break it down further-
    Poor, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, rich.
    In all of the above choices, %30,000 per year falls in the middle class... not poor.

    The US poverty line for an individual is around $13,000. Officially poor.
    Some states provide support for those making more. Obamacare provides subsidies for people making more.

    In any case, the median income for an individual in the US is $30,000.
    If in your definition of middle class, $30k doesn't qualify, then by your definition, half of Americans earn poverty level wages.

    Is that what you're saying?

    Given the real cost of living in this country, I would say such wages are unjust... and that half of US workers are being exploited.
    I would welcome your support in helping half the country get a fair shake.

    But you usually argue that these workers don't deserve more, so please clarify.

    A

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Hay poopyhead...

    :^D

    I cited my source.
    That's good enough in the academic world.

    Not these days.. These days links and/or specifics are required..

    I am supposed to search thru the entirety of the Census Bureau to find a tidbit of fact that may not even exist..

    You made the claim. Now back it up...

    In any case, the median income for an individual in the US is $30,000.

    Again.. THat's the claim. Unsubstantiated to date...

    Given the real cost of living in this country, I would say such wages are unjust..

    "just" and "unjust" terms are subjective and have no real meaning in a logic based discussion..

    I would welcome your support in helping half the country get a fair shake.

    Again, "fair" is a subjective term that means different things to different people..

    For some people, "fair" means giving someone a million dollars because the person next to them came up with a great idea or worked hard and EARNED a million dollars...

    But you usually argue that these workers don't deserve more, so please clarify.

    "Deserve" more?? Compared to what?? Or who??

    That was my point to Don..

    Ya'all's ENTIRE argument is based on baskets and baskets of subjectives....

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    Before we can debate this, we have to agree on a common frame of reference..

    And I even not asking you to die to do it!! :D

    :D

  126. [126] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    "I cited my source.
    That's good enough in the academic world.

    Not these days.. These days links and/or specifics are required.."
    Bullspit.
    Citing the source is the definition of "substantiated".
    And I gave you the specifics.

    But since you're lazy...
    Cut and paste the following into Google

    US Census Bureau current population survey personal income 2015

    Three clicks instead of one.
    No digging required.

    ""Deserve" more?? Compared to what?? Or who??"
    Compared to the US median income and the current cost of living relative to the current minimum wage and the discussed higher minimum wage.
    Y'know, the topic being discussed.

    "I would say such wages are unjust"
    Those first three words make it clear I am expressing MY opinion.
    Of course it subjective.
    This is where you are supposed to respond with YOUR opinion and justifications in order to clarify YOUR position.

    That's how a "common frame of reference" is achieved.

    if you just want to argue instead of discussing the topic, just say so and I will move on.

    A

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    if you just want to argue instead of discussing the topic

    Says the guy who starts EVERY comment to me with immature name-calling and childish personal attacks.. :D

  128. [128] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    It's factual.
    The shoe fits, and it stinks.
    You put it on before we met, I didn't ask you to wear it, and I'd rather you didn't.

    I'll go back to giving up on you if that's how you want to spend your final years though.

    Two wrongs don't make a right... but three lefts do.

    A

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    [117] altohone,

    Nothing in your comment says or alludes that you were talking about what other people believe (except your fictional nonsense about progressives).

    Nothing? Not even:

    *** "Just my opinion based on listening to what I've heard voters say over the years from different parts of the country. :)"

    Michale was giving his opinion on CW's opinion regarding the object of the exercise... "One Big Idea"... and I was giving my opinion of Michale's opinion. It rarely happens, but I agreed with his opinion in a few statements he made based on *** above. Michale is a Trump voter, and I agreed with him on what he said about Trump voters based on *** ... nothing more, nothing less.

    You wrote "I agree with Michale"... not "they agree with Michale".

    Since you weren't stating your opinion, you need a refresher course in English.

    See *** above from the original post. Why do you insist on personally attacking anyone you disagree with?

    "Stop blaming the rich" is absolving them.
    You wrote it.
    Did you forget that you wrote it?
    Your convenient misdirection on the "admire" and "resent" part later is just a dodge.

    The voters you lost in 2016 and you're trying to "flip back" don't generally care about fault or blame (for the most part) couldn't care less. A lot of voters think they might one day be "rich" by working hard, saving their money, becoming their own boss... if only the "darned gubmint" would get out of their way. Do you think that those voters think when they do become rich that they'll magically turn into an "elite"? They don't.

    "When progressives talk about the working class, they generally mean the poor"
    That is the absurd claim I want you to substantiate... not my counter argument.
    You wrote "generally".
    Do you mean 3 out of 5 progressives?
    Can you cite one single example?
    Or was it just your opinion based on nothing?

    See *** above from my original post. Explains my entire post, in fact. Right there in black and white. :)

    I've never seen a single definition of middle class that excluded people making $30,000 and less.

    Oh, really? *LOL* I've seen lots and lots of definitions of "middle class" that excluded them, particularly those people making "and less." It is true that some definitions of "middle class" include people making $30,000... that's probably because it's a broadly defined term that means different things to different people, and we also probably have a bit of communication disconnect because I was talking about "middle class" households not individuals. Not sure why you assumed I was talking about middle class single/individual persons.

    The US government says the poverty line for an individual is like $13,000.

    Prove it! Just kidding.

    2015 U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Threshold, party of one:
    Under age 65 -- $12,331
    65 or older -- $11,367

    2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines, individual
    48 & DC -- $11,880
    Alaska -- $14,840
    Hawaii -- $13,670

    Please cite one definition of middle class that shows you're not out of touch.

    There's no definition written in stone regarding what defines the "middle class" (part of the frustration of the whole argument, to be sure).

    http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-class-in-every-us-state-2015-4

    Now, surely you have heard me mention at least a zillion times that we have 51 separate elections. When I talk about voters, I don't lump them all in one basket of deplorables... I mean basket. What moves some won't necessarily move them all. What's "middle class" to some isn't middle class to all, and I believe the object of the exercise was to "flip back" the voters Democrats lost... the rust best states... "One Big Idea."

    I cited the official median income from the US Census Bureau from 2015... you cite Fortune magazine. Half according to the government, 42% according to a magazine.

    WRONG. I didn't cite anything. I gave a link to a Fortune magazine article that analyzed data from The National Employment Law Project (NELP), an organization that supports raising the minimum wage and the unionization of workers. There was a link to the study in the article.

    "Actually, it's around 42% of US workers and overwhelmingly women, African Americans, and Latinos... not exactly the "middle class"
    Now you're channeling Hillary's private opinion?
    Or are you just trying to be offensive?

    You assUme too much. What I wrote is in the NELP data and actually discussed in the Fortune magazine article discussing the NELP data... the part where they show a graph under the heading:
    "2. They are disproportionately female, African American, or Latino."

    The starting wage for new workers in the auto industry is only about $18 per hour in the latest UAW contract. That's for one of the stronger unions in this country.
    But, go ahead and cite one source that supports your invented claim.

    Where's your cite? You keep calling for cites yet give few yourself. :) Oh, come on! Now you want to talk unions and STARTING WAGES to prove your point? That dog don't hunt. The average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers in motor vehicles manufacturing was $28.82 in September 2016 and $29.40 in August 2016... AVERAGE... from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    So, you're posting the beliefs of other people who--shared their opinions with you once?

    Another assumption, surprise! Again, from my original post, see ***. You're trying to complicate something that's not that complicated and asking for cites without ever giving any of your own.

    Were you elected spokesperson for some secret "middle class" group that excludes those making less than $30,000 per year?
    Are you psychic?
    Or are you just making things up to suit your beliefs?

    I am entitled to my opinion based on talking to others. I agreed with what Michale said based on talking to others over several decades. It's not as complicated as you're trying to make it with all your assUmptions.

    I'm glad you think the exploited members of the working class deserve a raise.
    You should join the Fight for $15.

    Been there, done that. I'm getting bored again. :)

    Particularly since you think $30,000 per year isn't middle class despite it being the official median income in this country.

    Did you ever stop to think that we're actually discussing Democrats helping the working poor and lower classes to BECOME middle class households? Did you maybe realize that's exactly what Michale said (and I agreed with) that middle class voters think that the Democratic party is focused on helping the poor with entitlement programs and not focusing enough on them? The people you need to flip (whether it's factual or not) see the Democratic Party as focused on helping the poor and not them. It's not complicated.

    Where is your cite to prove $30,000 is the "official median income." Try reading that bold sentence above that was in my original post. Read it over and over again until it sinks in that I was agreeing with a statement of Michale's based on what I have heard from many, many others just like Michale. He's giving his opinion in the context of "One Big Idea"... the object of the exercise being to reach the voters you're trying to "flip." You want to flip them, then you better darn well know what will move them. That's what Michale and I were discussing when you interjected... the one time we actually agreed on anything. ;)

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    [124] michale,

    Again, "fair" is a subjective term that means different things to different people..

    For some people, "fair" means giving someone a million dollars because the person next to them came up with a great idea or worked hard and EARNED a million dollars...

    Again, I agree with Michale... rare, I know... but it's not a complicated concept to grasp that one voter's idea of "fair" is another voter's idea of "you've got to be kidding." It doesn't matter whether what the voter perceives to be "true" or "fair" is actually true or fair based on a definition or statistics. You're not going to move a voter with actual statistics telling him that you're concerned about the middle class when that voter's definition of middle class is not your definition and when that voter thinks your Party is focusing on programs and entitlements for the poor while neglecting the "middle class." :)

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    Again, I agree with Michale... rare, I know...

    But becoming more and more common..

    What's up with THAT!?? :D

    It doesn't matter whether what the voter perceives to be "true" or "fair" is actually true or fair based on a definition or statistics. You're not going to move a voter with actual statistics telling him that you're concerned about the middle class when that voter's definition of middle class is not your definition and when that voter thinks your Party is focusing on programs and entitlements for the poor while neglecting the "middle class." :)

    Well said...

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    It’s contrary to the laws of nature for a tabloid writer to tell the gentry media not to go berserk. It’s like a cat telling his owner to stop coughing up hairballs or Iron Man asking Captain America to be less arrogant. Here at The Post, our mission statement does not include understatement. We provide journalistic Red Bull, not Sominex.

    Nevertheless, a word of neighborly advice to our more genteel media friends, the ones who sit at the high table in their pristine white dinner jackets and ball gowns. You’ve been barfing all over yourselves for a week and a half, and it’s revolting to watch.

    For your own sake, and that of the republic for which you allegedly work, wipe off your chins and regain your composure. I didn’t vote for him either, but Trump won. Pull yourselves together and deal with it, if you ever want to be taken seriously again.
    http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/keep-crying-wolf-about-trump-and-no-one-will-listen-to-a-real-crisis/

    Heh

  133. [133] 
    altohone wrote:

    kick
    129

    " "Just my opinion based on listening to what I've heard voters say over the years from different parts of the country. :)"

    "Again, what I posted are not my personal beliefs."

    Are you blind to the contradiction in those two quotes?

    So, you blatantly contradict yourself, and then claim that your opinion of other peoples opinions requires no substantiation and should be believed?
    Talk about wasting an "argument"... sheesh.

    Your squirrely non-answers, non-justifications and unsubstantiated claims do not qualify as a discussion.

    For example, I cited the latest UAW contract (you claimed I didn't cite anything) for starting wages as being only slightly more than the discussed $15 minimum wage.
    You shift to discussing average wages.
    But people who START at the minimum wage and then get raises is not the discussion.

    Again and again you repeat this nonsense.

    "Stop blaming the rich"
    "I wasn't absolving the rich... uh, it's not my opinion, it's my opinion of what others think?"

    Your opinion of anecdotal opinions that may or may not be factual and may or may not reflect commonly held beliefs is like a circular firing squad.

    Do you see a point in a discussion like this?

    Because I don't.

    A

  134. [134] 
    dsws wrote:

    Downballot. The Democratic party should head downballot. It needs to be built from the state-legislature level up. We now have, for all practical purposes, only one party above the municipal level. State legislatures are Repubican. Governors are Republican. The House is Republican. The presidency was the last holdout of more-than-one-party politics, and on January 20 that will be gone.

    It might be better to start from a blank slate, with a new party name. If I had a hundred million dollars to spend on helping restore more-than-one-party politics, that's probably what I would do. But without a big-money first mover, any restoration will probably use the Democratic party's name and whatever can be salvaged from the ruins of its infrastructure.

Comments for this article are closed.