Congress convenes with Dems in power

[SLCPUNK]

What, specifically, is "the job"?

To line up oil contracts for Exxon, Shell, BP etc.

[Guns N RockMusic]

What, specifically, is "the job"?

To line up oil contracts for Exxon, Shell, BP etc.

Yep that was it, you nailed it.? Bush is an evil man who lied about Iraq so his buddies could make millions.? He orchestrated 9/11 and has chuckled while thousands of young men have been slaughtered and even more men and women injured.

Oh wait, that's a total crock of bullshit based on on hearsay and conspiracy.? Every time you associate yourself with the mainstream I chuckle.? SLC, I will finance a TV ad for you to go on and spill the beans.? All I ask is that you make it ever clear that you represent the ideals of the Democrat party.? Please, I beg you do, do this.? I can see it now, SLC single handedly gives Republicans the 2008 election.

[Guns N RockMusic]

What, specifically, is "the job"?

To line up oil contracts for Exxon, Shell, BP etc.

Yep that was it, you nailed it.? Bush is an evil man who lied about Iraq so his buddies could make millions.? He orchestrated 9/11 and has chuckled while thousands of young men have been slaughtered and even more men and women injured.

Oh wait, that's a total crock of bullshit based on on hearsay and conspiracy.? Every time you associate yourself with the mainstream I chuckle.? SLC, I will finance a TV ad for you to go on and spill the beans.? All I ask is that you make it ever clear that you represent the ideals of the Democrat party.? Please, I beg you do, do this.? I can see it now, Jason single handedly gives Republican the 2008 election.

Hahaha once again you've managed to merge 9/11 and Iraq........You'd make Dubya proud!

Either your sarcasim is poorly expressed or you missed my point.? I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.? But some people believe Bush orchestrated 9/11 so he could gain support for an invasion of Iraq.? Those people would do better in Oz than in our world.

[SLCPUNK]

Yep that was it, you nailed it. 

I sure am, they are getting ready to bring a law in front of the Iraqi parliament in a few days that will do just that.

[The Dog]

Well, back on topic...

When premier Bush spews forth his 'plan' for the surge on weds, I will be very curious to see how the dems react. ?they are strongly hinting they might deprive him of the funds for EXTRA troops while still giving him money to support the troops already stationed there.

This surge is pathetic. ?If any of the surge troops are KIA, their blood is on Bush's hands. ?How dare he play god with their lives like this just to satisfy his own ego. ?It really makes my blood boil. ?the man can not face the facts - he was 110% wrong. ?Yet despite what EVERYONE is saying, even members of his own party are telling him hes wrong, the media, the american public - he simply doesn't care. ?he is going to show us all that we were all wrong and he was right.

what a f'ing douche.

is he "an evil man"? ?No, just a major dumb, shit for brains, fuck-tard.

[pilferk]

Yep that was it, you nailed it.  Bush is an evil man who lied about Iraq so his buddies could make millions.  He orchestrated 9/11 and has chuckled while thousands of young men have been slaughtered and even more men and women injured.

Oh wait, that's a total crock of bullshit based on on hearsay and conspiracy.  Every time you associate yourself with the mainstream I chuckle.  SLC, I will finance a TV ad for you to go on and spill the beans.  All I ask is that you make it ever clear that you represent the ideals of the Democrat party.  Please, I beg you do, do this.  I can see it now, SLC single handedly gives Republicans the 2008 election.

I love when people completely miscategorize someones viewpoints to create hyperbole.  It's so much fun....

I don't think many have said Bush is evil.  But the assertion that this war was as much about securing a position for US oil interests, as it was about preventing terrorism or any evidence of WMD's, isn't so far afield. 

If you can honestly sit there and say that the guys running this administration didn't give serious discussion to the benefits of having a democratic outpost in an oil rich area of the world, you are deluding yourselves.  Was it the single impetus to invade Iraq?  I doubt it.  Was it a factor in the decision making process?  I'm absolutely sure that it was.  Why? Because if we're discussing it, I'm sure THEY (meaning the administration as a whole) were discussing it.  I'm sure they also were sick of Saddam being a thorn in the US's side.  I'm sure they suspected there were WMD's (but were wrong) around.  I'm sure they expected to find a whole rash of "shit" when they actually got on the ground.  Turns out, their speculation wasn't well founded, and they were wrong.....So, while all those were factors in the decision, it turns out they were all incorrect.  So it's not hard to turn around and say, in the end, one of the only reasons left as valid (granted, they didn't necessarily know it at the time) was oil.

But, staying there, after the initial invasion, was all about installing a bastion on democracy in the Middle East....and THAT, again,  had as much to do with securing our oil futures as it had to do with trying to give us an outpost in an unfriendly area, and instilling stability in an unstable area.  AS MUCH TO DO WITH.....not soley to do with.  It so happens that the second 2 reasons brought the terrorists out of the woodwork, since it was an easy sell to the locals that we were going to implement a long term occupation and "repatriotization"...and it was a static front that they could make "PR-type gains" in.  They don't have to "win" actual battles...all they have to do is continue to kill our soldiers and make us look like bufoons, on the military strategy front.  And that leads us to the mess we're in now.

[The Dog]

I know these are pretty off topic - but I think they are hysterical:

"Big day. Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House. Experts say Pelosi is now the most powerful non-Oprah woman."
---Conan O'Brien


Starting January 23rd Canadians will need a passport to get into the United States. This is to discern non U.S. citizens from U.S. citizens. Look, all we need to do is look at the people with big bags of cheap prescription drugs to know which ones are Americans.
---Jay Leno


"They executed Saddam Hussein. I guess that means that whole Iraqi thing is over. We can all go home now..."
---David Letterman


"President Bush is claiming that a new postal law gives him the authority to read anyone's letters without a warrant. If you're upset about the law, you can let Bush know by writing to your sister."
---O'Brien

"President Bush is expected to announce that he is now sending more troops to Iraq, despite the fact that his general, his military analysts, members of congress, and most of the American people are against the idea. The reason he's doing it? To give Iraq a government that responds to the will of the people."
---Leno

[Prometheus]

Dude your avatar is going to get me fired from work and you might get a call from the FBI....?

glad u approve

[Perfect Criminal]

Great day for America!?

The new congress will get more done in one week then the do-nothing congress of the last 6 years did their entire term.

 ? Please.? Don't delude yourself into thinking anything will change.? It's going to be the same old song and dance, just new faces.? Need I remind you that your boys have already lied about one of their election promises.? How many more are on the horizon?

Lets revisit this thread in 6 months then....until then don't make assumptions.

if the minimum wage increase and the ethics reform go into effect this congress will have done more then the republican one did the last 6 years.

Didn't the republican one liberate like 50 million oppressed people?  I'd say if the dems can match that they will have done well.  Raising the minimum wage nothing but hurting the small business owner.  No one making minimum wage is supporting a family.  They have a job at minimum wage to supplment their income, not as a primary source.  As usual, the dems can't keep their eye on the ball. 

[SLCPUNK]

  No one making minimum wage is supporting a family. 

How do you know that?

[Perfect Criminal]

If you can honestly sit there and say that the guys running this administration didn't give serious discussion to the benefits of having a democratic outpost in an oil rich area of the world, you are deluding yourselves.? Was it the single impetus to invade Iraq?? I doubt it.? Was it a factor in the decision making process?? I'm absolutely sure that it was.? Why? Because if we're discussing it, I'm sure THEY (meaning the administration as a whole) were discussing it.? I'm sure they also were sick of Saddam being a thorn in the US's side.? I'm sure they suspected there were WMD's (but were wrong) around.? I'm sure they expected to find a whole rash of "shit" when they actually got on the ground.? Turns out, their speculation wasn't well founded, and they were wrong.....So, while all those were factors in the decision, it turns out they were all incorrect.? So it's not hard to turn around and say, in the end, one of the only reasons left as valid (granted, they didn't necessarily know it at the time) was oil.

But, staying there, after the initial invasion, was all about installing a bastion on democracy in the Middle East....and THAT, again,? had as much to do with securing our oil futures as it had to do with trying to give us an outpost in an unfriendly area, and instilling stability in an unstable area.? AS MUCH TO DO WITH.....not soley to do with.? It so happens that the second 2 reasons brought the terrorists out of the woodwork, since it was an easy sell to the locals that we were going to implement a long term occupation and "repatriotization"...and it was a static front that they could make "PR-type gains" in.? They don't have to "win" actual battles...all they have to do is continue to kill our soldiers and make us look like bufoons, on the military strategy front.? And that leads us to the mess we're in now.

Very well put. ?I agree with this 100%. ?

[Perfect Criminal]

? No one making minimum wage is supporting a family.?

How do you know that?

Of course I was exaggerating.  But typically, people with minimum wage jobs have those jobs as second or third jobs.  Or in some cases, one spouse will have a large income and the other will take a part time minimum wage job to supplement their income.  A small percentage of people are living off a minimum wage job.  I've read enough of your posts here to know you understand this SLC.  So, it follows that raising the minimum wage serve to hurt the small business owner while providing no real benefit otherwise but in isolated cases.  We should not be making policy based on isolated cases, but rather on what helps the majority.  At least in my twisted opinion. 

[SLCPUNK]

I've read enough of your posts here to know you understand this SLC. 

Hmmm...I'm calling a red flagg.

Were you somebody else in another life ?

[The Dog]

? No one making minimum wage is supporting a family.?

How do you know that?

Of course I was exaggerating.? But typically, people with minimum wage jobs have those jobs as second or third jobs.? Or in some cases, one spouse will have a large income and the other will take a part time minimum wage job to supplement their income.? A small percentage of people are living off a minimum wage job.? I've read enough of your posts here to know you understand this SLC.? So, it follows that raising the minimum wage serve to hurt the small business owner while providing no real benefit otherwise but in isolated cases.? We should not be making policy based on isolated cases, but rather on what helps the majority.? At least in my twisted opinion.?

Where are you getting your information from? Or is your post nothing but speculation?  Even if it is just a "small percentage" shouldn't those people, paying taxes, earning an honest wage, be able to afford everyday things?  The fed minimum wage hasn't been raised in a decade!!!  The price of everything has gone up since then.

ask yourself how much gas prices have gone up in decade, now imagine you're still earning 5 an hour and figure out how you'd be able to drive to work.....

[The Dog]

Your New Congress at Work...

WASHINGTON - Anti-terror legislation sailed through the House on Tuesday, the first in a string of measures designed to fulfill campaign promises made by Democrats last fall.

Patterned on recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the far-reaching measure includes commitments for inspection of all cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft and on ships bound for the United States.

The vote was a bipartisan 299-128, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) took the rostrum to announce the passage of the first legislation to clear under the new Democratic majority.

Democrats said the bill's passage was a top priority.

"Our first and highest duty as members of this Congress is to protect the American people, to defend our homeland and to strengthen our national security," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.

Several Republicans criticized the legislation as little more than political posturing in the early hours of a new Democratic-controlled Congress. Democrats want to "look aggressive on homeland security. This bill will waste billions of dollars, and possibly harm homeland security by gumming up progress already under way," said Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.

I think it shows they are actually DOING Something about homeland security!!  and as for wasting billions and increasing the number of terrorists.....one word...wait for it......Iraq.

In a written statement, the Bush administration listed several objections and said it could not support the measure as drafted, but stopped short of a veto threat.

Democrats have pledged to make fiscal responsibility a priority in the new Congress, but they advanced the bill ? their first of the year ? without even a bare-bones accounting of the estimated cost. The funding will require follow-up legislation.

Legislation introduced in the Senate a year ago to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission had a price tag of more than $53 billion over five years.

and how much has the war in iraq  cost us and how much less safer has it made us.....so very interesting isn't it???

The terrorism legislation is the first of six measures the House is expected to pass in its first 100 hours in session under Democratic control.

Next up is an increase in the minimum wage ? set for passage on Wednesday ? followed by relaxation of the limits on stem cell research conducted with federal funds and a measure directing the administration to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare recipients.

Next week, the Democrats intend to clear legislation to cut the interest rate on student loans and to curtail tax breaks for the energy industry.

Each of the six bills would go to the Senate, and it could be months ? if then ? before they reach the White House.

Already, President Bush has signaled he would veto the stem cell bill, which is opposed by abortion foes. House supporters of the measure conceded at a news conference during the day that they do not have the two-thirds support needed to override a veto.

Depending on the outcome of that struggle, said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., "400,000 embryos will either be wasted or utilized to cure a disease."

The House labored over the terrorism bill as the Senate began work on legislation enacting stricter ethics rules ? and Democrats continued to gain from last fall's elections.

Officials said that four of Bush's controversial appeals court appointees, their chances for confirmation doomed in the Democratic-controlled Senate, would not be renominated.

The four are William Haynes, William Myers, Terrence Boyle and Michael Wallace, all of whom were prevented from coming to votes last year when the Senate was under Republican control.

"The president is disappointed in this inaction and hopes that the days of judicial obstructionism are beyond us," said Dana Perino, deputy White House spokeswoman.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., saw it differently. "Democrats stand ready to work with the administration to confirm judges who are not extremists, either left or right," he said.

In the House, passage of the anti-terror bill coincided with an email from the Democratic campaign committee touting the party's agenda for its first 100 hours in power, and asking for a contribution for the 2008 elections.

Democrats said the bill would enact virtually all of the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and several members of the rank and file remarked that Republicans had failed to do so in five years since planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and scarred the Pennsylvanian countryside.

"Don't be fooled by those who say that this bill is moving too quickly," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (news, bio, voting record), D-Miss. "It has been five years since 9/11. It has been three years since the 9/11 commission issued its report."

"The fact is that the bipartisan 9/11 commission gave the last Congress F's and D's in implementing its recommendations," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. "This Congress is determined to earn its A's in implementing its recommendations."

Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., noted disapprovingly that screeners at the Transportation Security Agency would receive collective bargaining rights under the bill.

And Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., said the measure "gives false hope to the American people" because technology for scanning all cargo containers is not yet available.

The legislation directs the Homeland Security Department to establish a system for inspecting all cargo carried on passenger aircraft over the next three years. It also requires scanning of all containers bound for the U.S., using the best available technology. Large ports would be given three years to comply, smaller ports five years.

While much of the debate revolved around the provisions dealing with cargo, the bill also requires the government to take the risk of terror attacks into greater account when distributing homeland security grants to the 50 states.

The measure also would centralize the government's efforts at preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and would take steps to disrupt the black market for nuclear material.

"We will not be safe here as long as the worst weapons can fall into the worst hands," said Rep. Rick Larsen (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash.

The measure also establishes a new program of grants to make sure local governments can communicate effectively in the event of a crisis.

One of the tragedies of 9/11 was the deaths of New York firefighters who were trapped inside the World Trade Center and could not hear urgent warnings to evacuate that were broadcast on police radios.

A companion measure, to establish a new House subcommittee with jurisdiction over intelligence matters, cleared on a vote of 239-188.

[Prometheus]

? No one making minimum wage is supporting a family.?

How do you know that?

Of course I was exaggerating.? But typically, people with minimum wage jobs have those jobs as second or third jobs.? Or in some cases, one spouse will have a large income and the other will take a part time minimum wage job to supplement their income.? A small percentage of people are living off a minimum wage job.? I've read enough of your posts here to know you understand this SLC.? So, it follows that raising the minimum wage serve to hurt the small business owner while providing no real benefit otherwise but in isolated cases.? We should not be making policy based on isolated cases, but rather on what helps the majority.? At least in my twisted opinion.?

actualy this is a quite possible outcome to occur, however expect that thre will be tax breaks for small busineses so that they can adapt to the new increased min wage

[pilferk]

Of course I was exaggerating.  But typically, people with minimum wage jobs have those jobs as second or third jobs.  Or in some cases, one spouse will have a large income and the other will take a part time minimum wage job to supplement their income.  A small percentage of people are living off a minimum wage job.  I've read enough of your posts here to know you understand this SLC.  So, it follows that raising the minimum wage serve to hurt the small business owner while providing no real benefit otherwise but in isolated cases.  We should not be making policy based on isolated cases, but rather on what helps the majority.  At least in my twisted opinion. 

At cursory glance, it seems logical, right?

Except, well....it's not, necessarily, true.

First off, there is a good portion of the population working at minimum wage.  It's something to the effect of 15 million people (about 11% of the workforce). 

Second, to assert that those, making solely minimum wage, are not, as a large group, simply "supporting a family" but are earning "supplementary income" is something I'd like to see proof of.  It sounds good, I'm sure, to those against a minimum wage increase, but it sounds strangely like "loose science" propaganda, too.  I'd say, if it's 11% of the work force, I'd want to see demographic breakdowns to show we're not talking about 11% of families working below the poverty line, with a single parent...or just over it with 2 minimum wage incomes.

On hurting the small business....how?  By making them pay their workers more?  Again, that sounds good to some.  But you're not taking into account that there ARE those using minimum wage jobs to supplement their incomes, just like you pointed out in your post....and there are things that those earning minimum wage and supporting families on it need and want.  And guess what?  Raising that minimum wage gives them more income....and probably more disposable income.  And they're going to spend that money.  So who's the beneficiary of that?  The small business person.  You don't think they will reap at least $80 per week, per FTE, in increased business?  Maybe not, but the EPI studies in '98, associated with the 96-97 minimum wage increase actually showed job GROWTH, accross every sector (including small businesses) after the minimum wage increase. Studies in 90 and 91 showed the same sorts of things...with job growth being static or better.  A recent FPI study showed there is virtually NO negative impact of a minimum wage increase on the small business...it worked out, largely, to, at least, a "wash".  It's trickle down economics at it's finest.

In addition, there are MANY economic models that show that a minimum wage increase actually can SAVE small businesses money....because they can absorb  some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.  They're models, to be sure, but reputable ones at least.

The big problem with the minimum wage is that it's not actually attached to any economic indicator.  So, as years pass, and inflation rises....the minimum wage doesn't.  In THAT scenario, the small business is now paying what is essentially below inflation wage rates...and they make more money because of it.  Every 10 years-ish, there is an equalizer to bring the wage back up to market/inflation adjusted levels.  The argument that it "hurts the economy" or "hurts small business" is a long standing one...and it has never turned out to be true.

[Prometheus]

Well pilf with summer raises to min wage here small business received tax breaks to offset the increased cost they would incuur...... this was only for 36 months... and it actually aidd both the smal business and the worker as it ended up being a more stable work eniroment then it as befre

[pilferk]

Well pilf with summer raises to min wage here small business received tax breaks to offset the increased cost they would incuur...... this was only for 36 months... and it actually aidd both the smal business and the worker as it ended up being a more stable work eniroment then it as befre

I would expect we'll see some of that, too...it certainly wouldn't surprise me.  36 months is 3 years time.....if you have one "adjustment" every 10 years, it means that, once again, the small business owners are making up the cost by the tax breaks, and then, likely, inflation (prices go up but their labor cost does not).

Here in CT, our state minimum wage is already at (or just over, actually) the proposed federal minimum, so it's unlikely to have any effect, at all.  It hasn't, from the studies that are out there, had any notable effect on small businesses.

[SLCPUNK]

I am curious to see the speech tonight and the Dems reaction.