 invictus says: Ms Pelosi, who will be referred to as "Madam Speaker", has vowed to clean-up Congress, saying: "It takes a woman to clean house" - a reference to the corruption seen as widespread on Capitol Hill. We'll have to wait and see, I'm not very hopefully with Pelosi as they have tarnished her image in the media, but that is good in a way we'll be expecting more from her. we always expect more from the advanced gender!  Nancy Pelosi is socialist scum. In the grand scheme of things..Congress will be no better under her than it is now. Thank you for confirming what I said above. BTW, do you know her personally? I'm not asking this because you are name calling her "socialist scum", I'm asking because you seem so assured of her in grand scheme of things. Arif, I'll take Nancy Pelosi over Dennis Hastert any day. Big POP for the title Invictus! Now, let's see how fast they get the minimum wage increase and how fast it takes Bush to veto it. Any doubts..check out her voting record. I am not saying that she's any worse than the fascist republicans..but she's certainly no better. Ok...let's see...Nancy Pelosi rabidly opposes the right of self defense, she is a proponent of the nanny state, she's a supporter of the United Nations and it's anti American pro socialist policies, she does not support the ability of America to provide for it's own energy needs, In short...she's liberal, socialist scum. Oh..and and ya just gotta love her 100 hour orgy of lawmaking..she and her comrades plan to pass 300-400 pages of new legislation during the first 100 hours after they've taken over congress... I am interested to see what they are planning to do. And socialism is not a bad word. Democracies and republics are also terms that have histories of negative actions tied to them. Socialism is evil in that it assumes that the fruits of one's labor belongs to everyone else. It's the basis for the theft of a person's property for the good of others. It ultimately deprives the individual of his rights to life, liberty and his pursuit of happiness. His life? Yes...his life, his time, his effort, no longer are his but sacrificed to those to whom he morally owes nothing. So please, don't try and b.s. us with "socialism" isn't a bad thing. It's a great evil. So, for that matter, is democracy. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The US Constitution was specifically written to protect against such evils..and that is why it is so often ignored by those in power. n short...she's liberal, socialist scum.Oh yeah, doing those crazy things like raising minimum wage. What is she thinking?? Oh well, GW will set them all straight. Debbie...minimum wage laws cause unemployment. It's happening now here in Colorado. We just had a minimum wage hike and several local businesses have been forced to lay off employees. Tell me please..how was an increase in minimum wage good for these people? I betcha a lot of money that they would be much happier working for last years wages..than being unemployed. My response would be something someone said long ago: Fuzzy mathThe power of the minimum wage to kill jobs has been greatly overestimated. Nowadays, most labor economists will tell you that that minimum wages have at most a tiny impact on employment. Having said that, I refer this to Josh if he cares to comment. He is more qualified than me for this argument. Ahhh. Thank you for clarifying the evil of socialism. Socialists have no problem sacrificing some for the sake of others. In this case the few for the many. This is completely in violation of our Constitution, which was written to protect the minority from the majority. I am not really qualified to comment, I don't study economics and I haven't paid a lot of attention to the minimum wage debate. Debbyski is right that there are many economists who question the alleged deleterious impacts of minimum wage laws on employment. And I would guess that the minimum wage increase being proposed is so modest that it won't do much harm (and probably not much good either). Remember that owing to inflation the minimum wage has actually been declining in real dollars. Even with this increase I can't imagine the new MW will be anywhere close to its historical peak in real dollars. Nice...way to try and blow off the facts...which as I stated are already evident here in Colorado where the minimum wage was just raised by $1.70 and hour. I'm not talking about some hypothetical situation here I am talking about the factual outcome of the minimum wage increase...people have lost their jobs! And Nancy Pelosi and her fellow democrats would impose a much larger minimum wage increase on the whole nation. But as bad as that is, I detest even more the fact that Ms. Pelosi would deny you, me, and everyone around us the right to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm. She and her ilk would leave us unarmed and defenseless. Period. Say what you will about firearms...t... Nice...way to try and blow off the facts...which as I stated are already evident here in Colorado where the minimum wage was just raised by $1.70 and hour. I'm not talking about some hypothetical situation here I am talking about the factual outcome of the minimum wage increase...people have lost their jobs!Anecdotes about people losing their jobs do not prove that the minimum wage is going to have deleterious consequences. The issue is, will the number of jobs open to them contract as a consequence of modest increases in the minimum wage? That's what economists disagree on. Thanks for the imput Josh. I'd just like to add three more things concerning raising minimum wage: 1. It's been too long. The federal minimum wage has remained unchanged for 10 years, the longest stretch in it's history. Since Congress last voted to increase the minimum wage, the cost of living has gone up by 25% and Congress has increased their annual salary by $31,600 dollars. 2. It's too low. A full time minimum wage worker brings in just $10,712 dollars a year, less than half the poverty level for a family of four. The proposed increase to $7.25 an hour would help at least 13 million low income people, most of them whom are women. The $4,400 dollar annual raise is equal to abou... pop for discussion. Far too many people are far too ready to give the government more power. The simple truth is that employment should be a voluntary contract between a business and an employee and the government should stay out of such private contracts. A question for you njoelhickson: So does your comment mean that even if you were (hypothetically) convinced by studies that say that modest minimum wage increases don't have a net loss for people, you would still oppose them on the principle that government should stay out of private contracts? "It takes a woman to clean the House" clipped by invictus Very unique title and I personally avoided this clip due to the title until right this very minute and am now glad that I finally opened it Both 'wildcat,' and 'debbyski,' have my vote for my future. Thank you 'invictus' for your charming way of introducing us to the new Madame Speaker. Josh..May I call you Josh? Yes, that is the truth of the matter. The government was instituted for the sole purpose of protecting our basic freedoms from those who would take them away. (That is taken directly from the Declaration of Independence) That does not give the government the right to interfere in private contracts where such contracts are voluntary. In cases where coercion is not a factor...government has no RIGHT to interfere. As individuals we have no right to tell a business how to conduct it's operations...and we cannot legitimately empower the government to do anything we cannot do as individuals. Thanks for the question. Nathan Thank you for your answer, Nathan. I believe that most transactions between two parties that are not on a level economic playing field do involve some kind of coercion, broadly defined. Clearly, obtaining a job means a lot more to the individual who is barely making it than does filling a job to an employer who owns a moderately sized business. The employer can leverage this in terms of lower wages, worse working conditions, etc. We are seeing this in another clip here about Wal-Mart instituting flexible work schedules for its employers. So I have no philosophical problem with governments interfering with work contracts. Let's face it, the economic landscape is being dominated by corp... I live in England I remember as a teenager the joy the country had when Margaret Thatcher became the first woman Prime Minister How people felt that a womans view would breath new life into the country A few years later ... Ghost towns, small businesses collapsing under the strain of new legistration, Computerise or Liquidize her government preached 'personal responsibility' , but what of those who (for whatever reason) find looking after themselves impossible, and things got worse The woman became 'The Iron Lady' Her voice changed, lower, more masculine In the end many people voted for the other party, not because they supported the other party, but simply because they wanted her out I think this was the first time I voted Providing people with a base standard of living, and allowing them to dictate what is done with their own labor? Sounds terrifying. Furthermore it is hard to see how allowing people to be free from want .... would decrease their autonomy. If anything, having basic needs met would enable people to live their lives in a manner that they see fit. No one would have to work two or three jobs just to squeak by. Further, there is no reason that individuals should lose all of their property rights. The means of production, of course, would belong to everyone. Shared ownership would also mean that each person would have a right to the means to life. But this does not mean that individuals could not own things. They would only be barred from engaging in capitalist exchanges that create inequality in the first place. Sharing the means of production also allows for a true workplace democrac... |
View the Top Clips from January 4, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
