reinstating jobs in America through regulation of corporations, outsourcing and other unamerican practices would allow the weight of funding to be borne the way it used to be, by employers....

you know wal-mart considers medicare to be a company benefit right?

do you even have clue how really stupid you seem?

any engineering firm would be able to set them,

just like mortgage companies do for certain neighborhoods...

states don't all have the same level of wealth,

you're completely ignoring the fact that we're spending billions of dollars on

military that has very little return on the dollar...

that is unless you live in the DC Metro area,

if that's your universe the Iraq imbroglio makes sense, everyone you know is making money...

you really ought to get out more.

.

Colin: Agreed on most. I get the point on Min Wage. Sad, but true.

As far as Ed, You'd be wrong on that one. I'll support fed dollars going to School districts/School boards to cover a wide range of education needs based on the wishes of the school district. Create a list of approved uses and create one superfund to fund it. No need to target the funds to specific goals, just let the responsible school districts have it for the approved objectives.

My fear with a federal coverage of all children is the government's inability to effectively run a program and its habit of expanding an existing program out of control. Today only children, tomorrow everyone. I have yet to see a socialized medical program that was truly effective.

Create one that works and I will hand over taxes equal to what I pay now for Health Insurance -Plus what my employer pays :o).
But based on the govt programs I've seen, it aint happenin' any time soon.

Dan W -- As always, I respect your views. I think you are actually a principled conservative, in the Goldwater usage of the word, and that's actually refreshing.

That being said, I stand by my statement that the issues you cite are 60/40 issues -meaning that upwards of 60% of the population agrees that the Federal government should be involved and offer a solution for these problems.

As far as Education goes, before Bush and No Child Left Behind the Dept. of Ed hasn't interfered much with local communities' ability to make educational policy decisions. Rather, it's functioned largely as an additional revenue resource that supplements communities' property tax driven education funding base. Now, I suspect you probably disagree even with that function, but really the Republican plan is far more intrusive.

As far as Health Care goes, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't understand the argument that we should wait any longer than we already have to make sure every kid in the entire country has health care NOW. Waiting for States to do that, b/c of a philosophical aversion to Federal action just doesn't sound like sound policy to me and - I think - 60%+ of the Country would agree with me on that. Hopefully we'll get a chance to find out when Dems take control of Congress.

With respect to minimum wage, its really not just High School kids. I hear that argument from time to time, but the reality is that actual adult families to live off of multiple minimum wage jobs. And regardless of what State you're in, upping the existing minimum wage by the rate of inflation since it was last raised isn't going to produce a windfall for anyone.

Colin,

I for one am against providing health care to all childen at the federal level. Vermont voters have already agreed it is a state matter and all kids in Vermont are convered. (If I lived in Vermont I would have voted FOR it. I disagree at a Federal level) It is for the voters in each state to determine how to spend such dollars.

I also want to get rid of the USDoEd. We have state and local boards of education overseen by the PARENTS (who should be driving education).

I don't think the minimum wage should be a federal priority. Congress has more important things to worry about than the wage paid to high school students.

If a state thinks that $10,712 is too small a salary to pay someone for a year (52weeks * 40hrs/week * $5.15) then the state should do something about it. The state is in a better position than the fed gov anyway. $10,700 in California is NOT the same as $10,700 in West VA.

eliminating the middle class,

means eliminating people from being able to purchase products as well as making people in general less intelligent as they are living hand to mouth....

that's what your policies are creating,

stupidity, no time to think, you're killing people...

you are killing people with your thoughtless ness.

.

To Colin: Sometimes I just like to pull Ohio Guys chain a little. Yes, as I said in an earlier post, I probably would vote for a modest raise in the min. wage. I was just trying to let him know that you can go too far with such a thing. It seems compromise is a lost art with politicians these days. Kind of makes me long for the days of Tip and Ronnie. I think most Americans, myself included, would love to see a real conference comittee where D's and R's really sat down and made the hard choices instead of posturing for the benefit of their base.

I just think more things should be handled at the state level and less at the fed. level. That rather conservative concept has been lost on this administration, though, and other than Iraq...I believe that has alienated moderate conservatives such as myself more than any other issue. The spending...how does a supposedly conservative congress and president increase the debt. That is an anathema...unforgivable, even in a time of conflict.

FH -- It strikes me that minimum wage is actually one of many issues where moderate Republicans like yourself and mainstream progressives probably agree. There definitely are countervailing interests that have to be weighed when one discusses raising the minimum wage. That being said, I think Ohio guy's point is simply that raising the minimum wage so as to reflect inflation over the last 10 years is unlikely to cause significant economic damage and may in fact produce tangible benefits for a significant class of working families.

And really, I think that kind of agreement is not as rare as the talking political heads would have us believe. There truly are a ton of 60/40 solutions out there that our government currently isn't acting on, in large measure due to the influence of various special interest groups' influence. For example, you and I probably don't agree exactly on HOW the budget should be balanced but I think we both feel that our government has an obligation to stop its ridiculous deficit spending. Likewise, perhaps we disagree regarding how to fix health care but why can't we at least insure all children right now? Who's against that? Energy issues -- I think there is broad support for truly investing in oil independence - so lets get that done right now.

It just boggles my mind that instead our political parties are busy debating various wedge issues that divide the country when so many common sense solutions are ignored...

Ohio Guy: I was trying to prove a point by setting it that high. There is a point at which raising the minimum wage will hurt the economy and make people lose their jobs. Only an extremist would think otherwise...I was trying to see how far you were willing to go. Yours is not the only view on the subject, even if you do think you are infallible.

"To understand the perversity of such a law, explore the alternatives available to employee and employer when the minimum wage is increased. The employee's only choice is to find a job that pays more or become a nonemployee. The employer and the consumer, who is the employer's employer, have a broader range of options. The employer can replace low-wage workers with more-productive workers; after all, the vast majority of workers have wages that exceed even the most aggressive proposal for wage floors. A second alternative is to outsource, to subcontract activities performed by low-wage employees by going abroad or to self-employed contractors, since the government has as yet been unable to devise a scheme for imposing minimum wages on the self-employed. A third alternative is to automate, to substitute machines that do not have legislated minimum prices. Finally, there is the alternative of just cutting back. If minimum wages accomplish anything, they increase the employer's costs, causing the purchasers of his product or service to search for lower-priced alternatives. This may include choosing the same products from abroad or switching, in whole or in part, to different products."

Just wanted you to see another point of view.

that the Hayden confirmation,

Scooter LIbby thing,

Karl Rove thing,

and the _illegal_ immigrant, ants in the kitchen, arrest the employers to eliminate the lure of "easy money,"....make them felons thing...

sort of go underground and then what "they"

the evil, dark ones want to happens, as if the people wanted it...

just like they want 6,000 friggin National Guardsmen that know squat about INS (now department of das Homelunt SSecurity)....

I din't hear any people asking for that,

I heard them asking that congress people that hire illegals, and friends of congress people that hire illegals, including the bushes....

gget friggin arrested and charged with felonies,

because people that can't obey laws should not be able to

legislate on them.

dontcha know....ergo do that thing.

FH - never once did I claim to support raising the minimum wage to $20/hr so I dont know where you are pulling this stuff from. Most of the initiatives are trying to raise it from 5.15 to 6.85. Obviously, the minimum wage cant be something ridiculous like $20/hr and never once did I say it should be and neither did anyone else. Sounds to me like you were just trying to change the suject b/c I presented a lot of facts in my post that you didn't have an answer for like how restuarant jobs actually went UP, unemployment and poverty rates go down, AND tax revenue goes up.

he's president of the World Bank...

appointed by geo w. bushie...

and leading proponent of PNAC,

in fact he wrote a good deal of what passes for their strategy...

and preemptive strikes...

did the Republican party

tell the United States people that they were supporting a

preemptive strike on Iraq

in 2000...

wonder how they sold it to the people,

oh, yea that's right,

manufacture dterrorist threat, Iremember...

we were flying low andhit something...

to reasonably address what is wrong with America right now...

simplistic reasoning is fine for a simple model like a single factory....

it won't work to adequately address the infrastructure damage that is currently in place in the United States...

it would require changes to education,

corporate direction

elimination of outsourcing and

regulation of international corporations as well as actually asking that

colleges begin to be involved in infrastructure issues as well as training people to see

human beings as being involved in a complex

business ecosystem...

not just 12 people getting rich while the rest of the United States went to hell in a handbasket...

you know?

want to talk about it or have me tell you how to do it?

your choice.

.

this is childish drivel:

"I see no problem with Tony Snowe coming over from Fox."

the thing about public television/network news was that it was

"unbiased"

everyone was calling Fox news,

Faux News....have been for a couple of years....

Project for a NewAmericanCentury.org

Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, Cheyney, Rumsfeld....

in fact these people all signed it:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

it's tenets, and statement of principle were put out in 1997....

basically call for

intervention,

that fact that certain people would also get rich

is relevant too...

and this Paul Wolfowitz

_WHO DOES HE WORK FOR_

a network or PNAC?

I'd like to know....

repubs/dems

is that like morons and more morons?

say something worth listening to...or shut up.

.

n one is responding.

you're right.

You are not actually in touch with Americans....

but you don't wan them to know that.

again.

there is no war in Iraq,

there's an illegal occupation.

there are no _real_ war powers...

there are illegally obtained permissions that are not legally binding.

as far as _illegal_ immigrants are concerned.

they don't need to be afraid,

if you make hiring them illegal,

it's sor to f like putting the food in the refrigerator and cleaning up the kitchen...

the ants don't come in, no need to kill them.

I would terminate a couple of people in the executive branch, at least their hold on power and detain them for a couple of years in Guantonamo, while we figure out what the extent o fthe charges would be and the restitution that they and their families would have to pay...

hello john,

quit pandering, it makes you look like you don't speak the truth, butter don't melt in your mouth and all that...

you used to stand for something.

.

Ohio Guy: You did not answer my question about the $20 dollars an hour. That's because you know the answer is that businesses like restaurants would have to raise the cost of eating out to such a cost that average americans would be screaming bloody murder.(Or would just stay home)

Look, if I saw an issue on the ballot where they wanted to raise the minimum wage to $6 from 5.15...you know what...I'd probably vote for it. But that issue alone would not make me vote for any specific candidate. You are right, though, if it drives low income voters to the polls, it obviously goes in the plus column for dems.

Despsite being a professed "liberal republican" FH, you are , as usual, in the extreme minotiy. It dosen't matter how high you personally rank the minimum wage issue, what matters is if people will or will not vote for it and if they will be more inclined to vote for a candidate that supports it. Anywhere it is on the ballot the issue will draw many people to the polls who would be getting a raise if it passes who might not have voted otherwise, just as gay marriage increased turnout among conservatives in 2004. While they are there, they will most likely vote for whoever has a "D" next to their name. The results in red states like Florida where it passed with 75% suggest it is important to most people b/c most people believe that if someone works full time, they should at least make enoguh money to live above the poverty line.

By the way FH, if Congress had raised the minimum wage due to cost-of-living increases the same way it raised it's own pay 5 TIMES since 1997, the minimum wage today would be over $8. I don't hear republicans like you harping abot how the republican Congress has voted themselves a pay raise 5 times in less then ten years.

If the minimum wage had increased at the same rate that CEO pay has since 1990, the minimum wage today would be $23.

KOZ has a point. I wondered for years, if Head Start was so successful why after at least one generation, were there still supposedly so many problems in in the schools. Shouldn't the problems have worked their way out of the system as the Head Starters moved through it?

I posed that question to a teacher I knew who had experience with Head Start over 20+ years. Her response was "Theoretically yes, that should be the case. But the kids put into Head Start are cherry-picked; naturally, the most likely to succeed ones are the ones placed in it. Therefore, the program is a self-fulfilling prophesy of success."

If that is the case across the country, and we know teachers know how to "game the system" just as well as anybody else; then the studies finding success may not quite be as valid as the general public is led to believe.

Tina-- sorry this took a while. Joe Lockhart has worked for CNN, as well as several other news stations. He held key positions at SKY Television News of London, Cable News Network (CNN), and ABC Network News. However, in each of these jobs he was producer or other kind of executive not involved in actually giving his opinion on the air. At SKY Television News, Lockhart served as foreign producer for Europe's first 24-hour television direct broadcast news service and contributing reporter/producer to the International Business Report. As Deputy Assignment Manager for CNN, he tracked Washington-oriented news stories involving the White House, Congress, and Federal agencies. Lockhart was also an Assignment Editor for ABC Network News.
I understand how you can try to equate Snow and Lockhart, but their situations are slightly different. Snow's job consisted largely of giving his own opinion on Fox News (which is, lets face it, not the most reliable news source on the planet). Lockhart, on the other hand, worked in administration of fairly mainstream networks.
To be fair, i very much prefer Snow to McClellan.

Can't John and Teresa spend more time making Ketchup and less time trying to claim the white house, it's over John, get over it. I'm a Dem and was furious at the total scum that crawled out from under the rocks (no doubt Rove and Cheney and Bush friends) to attack Kerry's vietnam record, however, he never even attempted to defend his record. The American Public are fed up and they want some new faces, that haven't yet been corrupted, it will be soon enough that they will be, once they get to washington, but please let us have a couple of years with some new faces a new administration, senate and congress and then when they start storing their dirty money in the freezer and spying on one another we can vote them all out and start over again. That seems to currently be "the American way". Sue F

To Ohio Guy: So why don't we just bump up the minimum wage to $20 an hour. Sounds like you think there is no downside to doing this...is that correct? As for the subject politically, I'm basically a moderate, more conservative than some, but definitely more liberal than your average Republican. The minimum wage is so far down on my list of things to think about, that it's basically a non-factor.

For Colin: 1. Not fond of any plan that has the fed. govt increasing revenue, although increased efficiency would be nice.
2. Apparently no democrat thinks very highly of our military leaders. Do you think pres. Bush sends notes to the military asking for troops to be sent in harms way so his poll numbers will go down. If Bush is not doing it, it must be the generals in charge who have developed the current plan. Why don't we give them the time and support they need instead of coaching from the stands.
3. I agree all those things should be done...and more.
4. I agree with that too.
5. I feel like kids should have to work their way through school for the most part, but cheaper loans sound good to me.

To: THE KING OF "Selling Repackaged Status Quo" ZOUK

When you have no idea how to fix something or make it better, you blame the accuser. King of Zouk knows the the republican are broken and need fixin. But, he has no idea how to do it. So he goes into denial and attacks anybody that might want to reform the republican party - Hey maintain the "Status Quo" - I hear you again and again and again King of Zouk. Except maitaining the Status Quo only works for so long before the waters rush over the levee. You can only blame the victims for so long before the truth, the unvarnished truth, comes back to haunt you.

How will you fix it, after you run out of victims to blame ? How ?

A true king knows when reform is needed. A true king knows when change is needed. A false king hides behind his power to just maintain the Status Quo. What kind of king will you be "King of Zouk" ?

King -- every study I've seen indicates that head start works. I'll dig up citations tomorrow and post them, but that's really pretty well accepted.

Moreover, providing effective education is really not just a touch feely liberal issue. For the US to stay the world power it is today, our children are going to have to be prepared to compete against China, India, etc. who are all pumping huge amounts of money into modernizing their education systems. You can already see the reverberations of those actions by the way Microsoft and Google are now opening new software engineering operations in India b/c there are more highly trained computer engineers there than there are in the US.

Oh, and since you wanted some more issues that progressives can run on I'm happy to oblige you with a few off the top of my head. I'm sure you'll disagree with these views, but they are in fact viable alternative views that people will be voting in favor of when they kick Republicans out of office in November.

1. The Budget -- Reinstitute a paygo system so that any spending increase or tax cuts has to be reconciled with either more revenue or a spending cut somewhere else. It would be nice to have "conservatives" support such a measure, since that's the only way we'll get any fiscal discipline.

2. Iraq -- Basically, institute the Murtha plan. Draw down more than half the troops and re-deploy the existing troops into safer areas where they can continue training Iraqi forces. Certainly you can disagree with this view, but it is a concrete position that the American people seem to favor right now.

3. Real Homeland Security -- Dems have promised to implement ALL of the 9-11 commission recommendations within 100 days of gaining power. Given the way this administration has stalled those efforts to date and handled the ports of this country, such a change would certainly be welcome.

3. Energy Independence -- This is a big-ticket item right now and a real difference between the two parties. Democrats just released a detailed plan on how they would support - in a variety of ways - an expansion of renewable fuel resources. I think this is also a national security issue, as we are entirely too oil-reliant on countries that are openly hostile towards the US.

4. Health Care Expansion -- At a minimum, there is consensus support for expanding Medicare to include benefits for children and for fixing the Bush Debacle that is the prescription drug benefit.

5. Student Loan Assistance -- expanding low interest loan and grant assistance to help hard working kids attend college.

As for the whole minimum wage thing...does anybody really think that this is some kind of lychpin issue that is going to turn the tide or something? "Someone is going to go in the booth and say "well, I agree with Bush on Iraq, Immigration and Taxes...but I just can't take that $5.15 minimum wage, so I'm going for the other guy."

FH - There is a huge flaw in your argument. Most Americans DO NOT agree with Bush on Iraq, taxes and immigration. If you can show me someone who agrees with Bush that we should "stay the course" in Iraq, keep giving tax breaks to the top 1% who make over $200,000/yr while our debt approaches $9 trillion, and believe we need a guest-worker program to give illegals jobs that Americans would do if they payed a livable wage, then I will show you a delusioinal, wingnut dyed-in-the-wool republican who is part of that 32% rating your beloved Prez has right now. This kind of person will never vote democrat, but independents and moderate dems can be swayed by it. But yes, FH, it is huge issue that WILL turn the tide, as the results in previous elections have proven. In Washington when they raised the minimum, dems in the state wrapped themselves around the issue and picked up 8 seats in the statehouse and a few less in the state senate, both of which they already controlled, and Patty Murray coasted to reelection. Close to the same thing happened for dems in Nevada. There is more supporrt for minimum wage initiatives in the polls than there was for the gay marriage amendments, and we all know Bush would not have won reelection without those on the ballot in states like Ohio.

"At some point, jobs will be lost because it's too expensive to hire an extra employee. Just ask the National Restaurant Association how they feel about the subject."

Here are some facts, not specualtion, for you FH:

Economists David Card and Alan B. Krueger also find evidence that increases in the minimum wage in various states in the late 1980s and early 1990s did not result in increased unemployment. In fact, their study shows that the number of restaurant jobs in New Jersey increased following the state's 1992 raise in its minimum wage, while the number of restaurant jobs in neighboring parts of Pennsylvania, where the minimum had not increased, remained the same.

( A little off subject, but politally interesting)

#1 Stephen Colbert's roast of Bush

The popularity and demand for Stephen Colbert's roast of Bush at the White House Correspondents Dinner is another example of how pundits and insider do not get it. I remember reading numerous article even the Washington Post complaining about how Colbert was not funny and rude. Well, the American people say otherwise it has now been downloaded over 10 million times and C-span had sue website who were linking to them because it was eating up all the bandwidth(3 million hits on C-span the first week alone). The most action C-span has had in years. The Colbert download has now become so popular that they are selling the download for $2.00 a pop on iTunes. And, it's the #1 iTunes download. HEY, PUNDITS WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY NOW ?

The audio version of the roast of President Bush by Stephen Colbert "rose to the rank of No. 1 album at Apple's iTunes store," according to the New York Times.

"By many accounts, Mr. Colbert's performance landed with a thud among his influential audience of journalists and politicians, who were more overtly enthusiastic about a comedy routine involving Mr. Bush and a professional George W. Bush impersonator. But the broadcast of the speech is enjoying a lucrative afterlife online, an unusual development for its owner, the nonprofit cable network C-Span."

Source Article from New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/business/media/22colbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I guess that is the extent of the Dems issues this coming election. too bad. If they can't beat this sorry group of Republicans, what does that say for them? and for the record, the reason they are sorry is that they have morphed into Republican light to steal Dems issues. I support tax cuts and strong defense. but that is about it. stay out of my wallet and out of my bedroom. If someone really needs help that is one thing, but bridges and rock and roll museums and pre-K education and...........

butchie b: Wow...I guess I'm not the only one who feels that education is best done locally.

As for the whole minimum wage thing...does anybody really think that this is some kind of lychpin issue that is going to turn the tide or something? Someone is going to go in the booth and say "well, I agree with Bush on Iraq, Immigration and Taxes...but I just can't take that $5.15 minimum wage, so I'm going for the other guy." Is this what we're talking about here? And there is a point of diminishing return with the min. wage. At some point, jobs will be lost because it's too expensive to hire an extra employee. Just ask the National Restaurant Association how they feel about the subject.

Actually the long term benefits of head start are not convincing. I admit this is a very difficult thing to measure and any study which claims to find significant results in long-term random studies of children is asking for trouble. My basic question is, how young do we go in sending kids to school. Is this just supporting a two-income household or are there real benefits to the kids? Of course some kids will benefit more than others. Should all children go to college? should they all graduate high school. I suppose most would say yes, but to what end. It is personally edifying to be educated but that is good for me and maybe not for everyone. I though the choice of Kindergarten was so important, but in ten years was there really a difference. Of course I am biased because of my social status and position but these questions still apply in general. any takers?

PS, this is more interesting than trading insults isn't it?

Idea for the Democrats - Hire Jack Bauer as a consultant!

Availability: After tonight, he has nothing to do until after the elections.

Experience: He's used to dealing with the worst of our high level government officials and politicians in the most difficult circumstances, day-after-day.

He'd have a solution for the "Republican Problem" in place within hours.

The whole point of my argument was that it was the benefits that drove the companies to ruin. and I clearly stated that in my post. I wasn't hiding anything. when benefits are half of your salary, there is an indication that there may be something amiss.
I never said all the problems of our economy were becasue of unions. I did imply that union shops suffered more in any downturn because of non-market wages negotiated by union bosses.

If anyone wants to have a discussion, they would have to hear what I am saying before they respond. I am not a Republican and don't agree with everything they do if that helps any of you prejudiced souls. but no one has responded to my valid points, with citations, I might add. these are not my opinions.

Question - why are the airlines and auto industies about to go belly up?

My answer - the union bosses have negotiated higher than market wages and benefits for their members. executives salaries are simply not of sufficient order to alter the equation. there is most certainly a large element of management and designers who did not "listen" to the consumer and build cars we want. the Japanese did. Why else are they beating us? I am open to suggestion. and it is not class warfare which you all seem to wage every chance you get. another losing strategy. convince me.

Butchie B -- The Head Start program, which I admit may not have come out of the Department of ED, has been a huge and tangible success. Literally, it's hard to find anyone on the left or the right (including GWB) that has anything bad to say about that program.

Moreover, the Federal dollars that are distributed to the States are directed in large measure to programs for mentally/physically-disabled children that are extremely expensive. The net effect of this money going from the Federal treasury to the states is to help states that have less of a tax base in providing basic needed services. Obviously you may still not support such programs, but there is a point to them. Just my two cents.

And for what it's worth, I sympathize with your frustration with politicians in general.

If it is true that the states are in the process of approving raises in the minimum wage, well..let them. Keep the feds out of this arena, and get them out of many more. These bozos in Congress (on both sides) can't even do what they are charged specifically with doing, i.e. immigration, never mind all the things Congress does that it has no business doing - like federal involvement in K-12 education. Can somebody name one good educational idea that has EVER come out of Washington? Please. All the DoEd. does is take tax dollars, swirl them around, and send 80% of them back to the states. What's the point? And the Rs haven't been much better than the Ds.

King -- Your Delphi dollar figure includes BENEFITS and SALARY. The hourly wage is actually just under $30/hour. Did you just skim the article, or was that intentional spin on your part?

Seriously, no one quotes an hourly wage figure that includes benefit allocations except in bankruptcy court, which is where your article came from.

King of Zouk -- Sorry King, I think you officially stopped discussing issues and started spinning for your political party with that post. There is absolutely nothing incompatible between free markets and collective bargaining. Absent collective bargaining, labor is at a tremendous disadvantage to Management (which by definition is organized)and will never be able to negotiate from a level position with management. Now, as I noted before one can certainly debate what the substance of a partnership between Labor and management should be. Without a doubt, there's plenty of room for discussion there and I'm confident that over time successful businesses will in fact reach a mutually advantageous solution from such discussions. But when you simply start spouting off this tired old business of how all the problems with our economy are BECAUSE of the unions nothing is ever going to change.

And really, that's the problem with the leadership (rather than the rank and file) of the Republican Party today. There is no willingness to engage in a dialogue with anyone - there's simply agreement or you're an enemy.

I firmly believe that most people in this country want the political parties to actually find a middle ground from which we can actually start solving the problems that affect people's every day lives. Instead, we get ideologically driven rhetoric from the King Zouk's of the world that does nothing except accentuate the countries divisions.

Honestly King Zouk, for someone that bashes the opposition for not having any ideas you seem completely beholden to a rather rigid and orthodox set of hard right conservative values that the Bush administration has proven don't work. An ideologue is, by definition, an unthinking individual. It might do you some good to start thinking in terms of ideas that move the country forward rather than just what is in keeping with the ideology you've chosen to adopt.

I don't hear King of Zouk mentioning the jillions of dollars CEO's have been getting from those same industries for years despite lackluster results. Not to mention the Golden Parachute retirement plans and multi-zillion dollar stock options. How many times have I heard that a CEO's absurd pay is justified as the necessary price of great leadership and a fair return for when a company performs well? But now that those companies are doing poorly, it's not the CEO's doing, its the union's fault?? Does that also mean the unions were responsible for how well GM did in the 50's and 60's?? Somehow I doubt you're ready to dole out any kudos.

And as for the minimum wage, the republican congress has had no problem voting to raise its own pay multiple times while voting against an increase in the minimum wage. If there's anyone "strangling the goose" it's the corporate fat cats and wealthy republican congressmen looking to keep the wealth in the family.

Lastly, John Kerry is a hero. We should all be so lucky to have him instead

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051126/BUSINESS01/511260313/1002/BUSINESS

Delphi paid $76 per hour (including benefits)

Your solution is exactly what has been happening in the normal market - the market that is not hampered by unions. Look at the percentage of defined-contribution pensions vs 401ks over time. The pension is going the way of the dodo. and cafeteria plans at modern employers are now the norm. this is how you attract and keep workers today.

the profits you speak of are still in the company portfolio or have been distributed to share holders, they never dissappeared. But it was the fault of the Unions becasue they were negotiating on behalf of the workers and threatening strikes. If I tell my boss I want to double my salary, he will let me leave. If my whole office demands that, the boss is in a different situation. We all can't be replaced in enough time to make the product. This is negotiating oputside of the realites of the market-based wage. It is too expensive to relocate the auto plant. So they acquiese. Perhaps they should be fired for giving in to these demands - and they still might be.

but the health care idea is off base. Many foreign companies operate profitably in the US and pay US health benefits. and they want to expand more into this region.

I think the same reasoning goes into Social Security. AARP and others are demanding that we pay them what was promised. but when the time comes, the money won't be there. So its not fair to not pay them but what choice is there? Renegotiation of old debts happens all the time. It is called bankruptcy court and you are lucky to get 20%of the principle. so what if I promised my credit card company I would pay them 22%. now I can't. time to renegotiate.

From the study cited by the esteemed Ohio-guy:

"Not only are the estimated employment effects generally economically small and statistically insignificant, they are also almost as likely to be positive as negative. "

Yet it is a good idea to enact a giant federal law to get the job done? Something philosophically untenable here. the states pass laws but the Feds know better. this is the heart of the problem we all have with the Dems, always interfering do-gooders who manage to make things worse.

King of Zouk -- I've never heard the $60 figure and I know people that still do that kind of work in Detroit. Whatever the number is though, I don't begrudge them what they make any more than I begrudge millionaire CEO's what they make. We ALL (including myself) are out to get the best deal that we can and, I imagine, are more than willing to take a raise from our employers when we can get it. To quote Gordon Gecko, "Greed is good." Given that, I don't get how it is the fault of UNIONS that they took a deal from their employer that was - in retrospect - perhaps too high.

I'd go back to my previous point. GM, Ford, etc. all made a lot of money during the 1990's when SUV sales were extremely high and their Sedans were at least adequate compared to what the market was producing. And you know what those companies did? They didn't invest some of that money into keeping there pension plans solvent or substantially increase their R&D to keep their market position, as a rational company would have. Instead, they threw large percentages of it into the stock market and then counted their profits.

Why, after that kind of mismanagement, should we be blaming Union workers? Those workers didn't benefit during those boom times nor were they responsible for the poor business decisions that have lead the US auto industry to its current state. Rather, they simply negotiated the best deal they could and have continued to perform under that contract. Frankly, I think that if the market was truly working efficiently the solution here would be the Officers and the Board of the US Automakers getting fired rather than US workers. It's clear that those people's performance has been sub par.

FYI, I think the actual answer to the divide between Business and Labor is to create a new business model that allows for increased profit sharing and more flexible benefit packages. If you want workers to have to lower their salaries during lean times, it only makes sense that Business will also have to share some of the upside with those same workers. Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck in a cycle where Business contributes to Republicans who push for policies designed to destroy unions while Unions contribute to Democrats who are also unwilling to push the Unions towards a compromise position. Unsurprisingly, such polarization helps no one and hurts the economy as a whole.

There is a very simple reason why the minimum wage needs to be increased. Something like 1/2 of the states have already passed an increase in the minimum wage in their state. In light of this it is neccesary for the Federal Government to make sure every state is on a similar pay scale, or you run the risk of interstate outsourcing to state's with cheaper labor rules.
Also American car companies have had technology to raise fuel efficeincy for years (GM and Fords Alternative Power technologies where the car switches from using 8 cylinders to 4 cylinders on the highway). However, because there was no federal incentive to put these cars on the market the big three didn't do it. And actually there was an incentive to NOT put them on the market. The Big three were paid federal handouts to "develop new technologies to raise fuel effeciencies" if they had come out with the technology they already had then those handouts dry-up.
Now Republicans love to say "look the market will correct for all of this and GM and Ford will get what they deserve for sitting on the technology" The only problem is that we as Tax payers have to shoulder the burden when these major companies fold up a plant. The car industry in my opinion is a case where there should have been more regulation in the way of forced higher fuel ratings.

The underlying problem with the auto industry is that they are not selling cars. the pick-up trucks seem to be the exception. the designers never learned from their competition about what people want in a car.

As far as the trouble goes - it is the same for the airline industry, when you do have the inevitable donwturn (from competition or just fuel prices) you can't pay the benefits you promised. despite this awareness, the union bosses and supporting labor would rather strangle the whole goose than accept a lower pay. and they are about to get what they deserve - no job at all. I think I read that assembly line workers were getting around $60 per hour. this is about $120,000 per year. does anyone else think that is a little high for this work? We are not talking about people with years of schooling and other added value. I support them in thier honest negotiations to get the best deal they can,. but at some point reality kicks in and the promise is fake. Kind of like Social Security.

You know, there have been a lot of vitriolic comments hurled back and forth the last few days. It might actually be more interesting to address some of the issues flying back and forth rather than just insulting each other.

Minimum Wage Increases: Do they hurt the Economy -- Nobel Prize winning economists come out on BOTH sides of this one folks. Despite what King Zouk would have you think, the truth is that there is simply NO CONSENSUS on this issue and pretending otherwise is really just silly. I'm of the opinion that if there is an impact, it's likely a small one and that such a cost is worthwhile given that the minimum hasn't been raised in almost a decade. Can someone disagree with me? Sure, although I would note that Ohio Guy is right that such measures are passing overwhelmingly and that conservatives are going to lose on this one.

The Troubled Auto Industry -- I would honestly like someone to explain to me how Unions are to blame for GM and Ford going into the tank. Folks, if you're a conservative and believe in personal responsibility how can you get mad at union workers for negotiating the best possible deal for themselves?

The US auto industry gave out fixed-benefit contracts to attract and keep a skilled workforce. When the auto industry boomed - and Ford, GM, etc. put tons of money into the overheated stock market - workers didn't share in those huge gains b/c they had settled for fixed payments rather than profit sharing. If workers don't get a piece of the upside, why should we expect them to suffer from the downside? There's a basic economic equation where you place a value on risk. Maybe GM and Ford negotiated a poor deal and didn't account for the risk of giving out fixed-benefits, but I'm truly at a loss for how that's Ford or GM's fault.

Oh, and as for Union's being the reason that US made vehicles aren't as cheap and efficient - that's ridiculous. Ironically, one of the main reasons foreign auto manufacturers can create cheaper vehicles is b/c those countries have NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE so that small and big business doesn't have to pass that cost on to consumers. Moreover, those other countries invested PRIVATE AND PUBLIC dollars into R&D when Ford and GM were regurgitating their SUV and Pickup lines for the 400th time. Innovation in the market place is always rewarded and the reality is, recently foreign corps have done a better job at pushing the technology envelope. That, rather than union costs, is the problem with the auto industry.

That study you cited is seriously flawed. this is something I do happen to know more about than the average guy on the street having been educated and gainfully employed in this arena for too many years. It is simply not attributable to the cause they assigned. there could be many explanations for the change and it is not science to say it was the single variable they want it to be. This is typical of economic modeling and it is why it is difficult, contentious and high-paying. There may indeed be a correlation but this is entirely different. there is a correlation between rain and umbrella carrying but one does not cause the other.

did you bother to read the two studies I cited? Try to take them on point by point if you are so knowledgable and sure of yourself. I suppose if you can knock down the Cato Institute on an economic study, you are in the wrong calling and should look for more gainful employment. that skill would be in high demand. Maybe you could quit your job at the drive-in window at Burger King and get past $5.15 per hour.

I voted against some bond issue last time around and didn't care. If I am forced to choose A or B it does not mean I have any strong inclinations. more flawed reasoning on your part. Maybe you should take a poll to see what you think about_____. you are so typical of the Clinton POV. take a poll and then pontificate. what backbone. Is everything R bad to you. Can you name a single thing a Rep. has done that you approve of. I didn't think so - evidence of a extreme personality, not susceptible to reason.

go spew your insults and rage somewhere else. they add nothing to the debate.

"what do x % of americans "know" about economics. this is mostly a science where opinion does not enter in. I am sure you can contrive some leftist website which has cherry-picked a set of data to show that minimum wage laws help the poor - the ones with jobs above the wage that is."

So I suppose you think you know better then the rest of Americans zouk? That's pretty hilarious coming from a guy who thinks Iraq is a brilliant success story. No one respects the opinions of crazies like you who stick your fingers in your ears when people start showing you facts from the U.S. government itself that shows that when the minimum wage increases, it is good for the economy.

FH - I suppose that's why minimum wage increases have passed in every single state where they are put on the ballot with AT LEAST 70% of the vote......b/c Americans don't give a crap....moron.

Are there any foreign jobs that are big enough? this seems to be a physical impossibility - big yet economic. I went over to German cars years ago. My wife's MB was assembled in Alabama. whatever. How about a toyota sienna, my dad loves his and he was always a "buy American" guy. they probably are made in America although i think I remember reading that practically all parts are now made in Mexico and s Korea - for all cars.

Zouk: I agree with you on the unions and the auto industry. I just wish I could buy an american made car that got good gas mileage and could hold all of my family members.

Ohio guy: I bet if you did a real poll...86% of Americans would say they don't give a cr.. about the minimum wage.

leads on minimum wage:

a very interesting take on irt from a lefty website:

http://www.slate.com/id/2103486

and from professional economists (not to be confused with poll takers and politicos):
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html

this is economics, not politics. you are not entitled to a unique set of facts on this one.

Ohio - guy. I guess that is all you got. As usual more insults and no thought. what do x % of americans "know" about economics. this is mostly a science where opinion does not enter in. I am sure you can contrive some leftist website which has cherry-picked a set of data to show that minimum wage laws help the poor - the ones with jobs above the wage that is.

I must have missed the debunking of my claims. If you count shouting and ranting as debunking, then perhaps it was done without my acknowledgment.

FH - I don't suppose that the outrageous union demands on the industry have anything to do with the current problems in auto? why is toyota and honda et al doing OK then? what about the airlines too? Compare SW who doesn't have the union set-up. the government did interject in the suot industry - remember when chrysler was bailed out? then what happened, same thing different day. Maybe just mayeb, government bailouts are not such a good idea. Let dying dogs die to mangle a phrase.

Irish - the economy was on a slight down cycle after clinton - normal of course, but took a terrible plunge in sept, 2001. This was not due to normal market forces.

As far as national security trumping the market - that is a common good which must be managed by a central authority. Interesting that this is actually one thing provided for in the founding docs. I am a free-market type but must allow G'ment intrusion at times. there are some people (not as many as you think) who genuinely need our help to get by. but I think there may be other solutions to this problem - like churches. there is no alternative to the military funding.

but my point which you have demonstrated aptly is that you and your ilk are bankrupt of ideas.

Kerry is yesterday's baggage, he is a has-been, and most of the Democrats are moving on. Either Warner, Bayh, or Clinton will win the nomination.

Jake says he knows Joe Lockhart, maybe he can tell us about the rumor that Lockhart worked for CNN before becoming Clinton's 4th press secretary. If that is true, I see no problem with Tony Snowe coming over from Fox. Fair for one side is equally fair for the other side.

Now back to Kerry, he can hire as many polling people as he wants, but they can't repackage him. Gore might be able to present himself as a NEW type of Democrat in 2008, but he has an OLD record like the illegal fundraising and and the convictions of those Buddhist temple nuns.

At least as far as we know, Hillary has been raising her money legally. I might not like her politics, but that is one point for her now that Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana is being grilled by the FBI for over $90,000 in FROZEN cash found at his home. Can you name the last honest person who stored thousands of bucks in their freezer? The Democrats better deal with this matter quickly.

"the biggest one I have heard is the minimum wage. Is that all you got? It is of dubious benefit to its intended victims and may just be irrelevant in most areas anyway."

Zouk, what is the republicans' biggest idea? Gay-bashing? What do you ever hear the repiglicans talk about besides gay marriage? Do you have any facts or information to support your claim that raising the minimum wage is a bad thing? B/c 86% of Americans disagree with you and want the federal minimum wage raised to $7/hr. I guess you being part of the 14% that dosen't puts you in the fringe minority. Oregon has the highest minimum wage in the country and none of the disasters such as job loss and hurting small businesses that the moron repubs predicted would happen have actually happened. In fact, Oregon's economy has grown faster then states whose minimum wage is the same as the federal rate.
A 1998 study by the Economic Policy Institute finds that unemployment and poverty rates dropped following the last increase in the federal minimum wage in 1997. It's dissapointinig to see you still just rant and rave while spouting your rhetoric. I thought after the discussion about the current state of security in Iraq I had set you straight, but apparently you didnt bother reading any of the 5 people who responded to you debunking your claims.

Here, educate yourself before you speak:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1453117

King: The problem with that comes when our national security trumps the market. Also, our auto industry is apparently being run by a bunch of people with no foresight whatsoever. After 9/11, somebody in the industry should have known that the mid-east was going to be thrown into turmoil and thus gas was going to go up in price. Now GM is holding on for dear life. Are you saying...Mr. Zouk...that there is never a time for govt. intrusion on the markets?

King: thanks for the insight. looking at your list a few of those items jump out as maybe what coulda been? ie. education. the No Child bill would not have become reality without a reach across the aisle. Also i could argue coming out of the Clinton years the economy/budget was on fairly stable footing. Maybe if W. had practiced a bit more bi-partisan approach to a few things we would be in a different place right now.. i caught your post on perhaps only governors will be electable in the future, and i agree..perhaps then some of the toxicity can be taken out of the process...

Nothing on Ned Lamont today?

Irish:
lower taxes - solid economy (not to be discounted)
education bill (bloated but generally liked)
increased security (Iraq war may be contentious but seems to be working)
social security (brought into the light)
immigration (brought into the light)
Many things were done not to my satisfaction but you never get all that you want. I didn't want federal ed, but most did. I don't give a whit about those "moral" measures but don't see much was done in reality. this is also a good thing.

the market is about to "force" the automakers to build those cars. Remember back in the late 70s before we had economy cars (much). then by 1985 or so, there was a vast choice of gas sippers. they will be back. I am not sure exactly what the heavy hand of the government can do except mess it up. we will get there when the price is right. why bother when gas was only a buck-fifty? now we are twice as motivated.

King and Sensible: maybe in '08 the campaign slogan can be "Give us a chance cause we can't do any worse" for us dems..for the life of me i can't figure out what Bushco has done over the last 6 years to solve ANY problems..health care is still a joke, jobs are being outsourced daily, immigration, well we have had that ad nauseam the last few weeks...besides the usual gop drivel we'll hear on gay marriage, abortion, and other "base" concerns what else they bringing to the table?

The problem with the dems is they believe too much in the idea that govt. can solve all of people's problems. And the bigger the govt. the more solutions they can find. The problem with the Republicans is they are too close to big business. That relationship makes it hard for them to do the right thing on occasion...like finding real alternative energy and forcing GM to make cars that get 30 miles to the gal. Most of us are stuck here in the middle seeing the same politicians (Kerry) being recylcled into the mix with the same tired ideas.

I have a funny feeling that only governors will be electable in the future. It is just too easy to find things to sound-bite( is that a verb) from members who have voted over the years. compromise in the houses does not lead to good press coverage for an angry and delusional base (both sides).

Kerry voted for the Iraq war in '02 out of political expediency rather than principle. Hence, he is not fit to be commander and chief. Same goes for Hillary Clinton among others.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

As a sensible person, I think a Kerry nomination would be the best thing that could happen for this country. We need a democrat in office like Iran needs a nuclear bomb and Kerry is the surest of losers.

BTW-if you honestly think that Feingold or Clark have a chance at the nomination at all, you can make a lot of money in political futures trading. Talk is talk, but when people have to put money on it, Clarks's chances are 1 in 75 and Feingold is 1 in 33 (a $32 wager will net you $1000). Even the handicapped Algore (did you see his new comedy film?) is better received. Not a good sign for Feingold.

If Kerry, Gore, screamin' Dean or Edwards run again and get the nomination, it will be a cake-walk for ANY R who gets the top of the ticket. this is all just talk to sell papers and ratings and feed the pol junkies over something that will never happen. Even the Dems aren't that stupid. although hiring BS over and over again is a bad sign of intelligence. how about Mondale or Carter, they are not constitutionally prohibited?

Is is not likely that Iraq will be much of an issue by 2008. then what will all those move-on guys gripe about? It is possible the economy may be in a down cycle by then, but raising taxes will not fool anyone into thinking that will solve that problem. Are there any ideas out there from Dems? the biggest one I have heard is the minimum wage. Is that all you got? It is of dubious benefit to its intended victims and may just be irrelevant in most areas anyway. Try hiring someone for under 6 bucks here in Virginia. I would love to hear from some centrist Dems who have some ideas which would solve problems and be acceptable to voters.

bush family connection in florida,

and the Halliburton connection in Ohio,

they would find the reason that, we havea elmer fuddlookalike running things and we have

6.0000 national guard troops headed for the border to put on a show of complicity with wthe american publics opinion of

"what needs to be done,"

yeah, like anyone with a clue about what needs to be done wouldbe doing anything differently than arresting some georgian senators....

.

I think the most damning part of his last campaign,

is that he threw the fight,

bush couldn't have won on his record.

the question is what did the y give to Kerry to make him take a dive?

Electing Kerry would just be reelecting bush....

.

about _illegal_

immigration, nor have there been more arrests of employers, who are really the problem...

you have to remove access to food in the kitchen and the ants quit coming it....

it's really very simple...

even you morons could figure that out.

if you wanted to.......that's the rub isn't it....

"if only" we could find a solution, like you're really trying...balderdash, hoggwash...

and regarding hayden,

negroponte/cia/mafia/cuba/bushes/texas/fbi/negroponte/dalls/fbi....

no oversight,

oh my, and fh, find a real job, c the world as it is, not as you try to twist it.

.

In my eyes Kerry is yesterdays news. the dems need to start pushing new blood to the top like Mark Warner, Russ Feingold, etc. As Sandy says "Kerry is a buffoon", and she is right. if were going to re-live the past i'd rather see the push go to Al Gore..at least in '00 he won the popular vote, and arguably should be the President to this day.....

Andy R: I was thinking the same thing. Why put a guy who hasn't really come close to backing a winner for President in your inner circle?

Huzzah! Bob Shrum is retired from Democratic politics!

Andy R,

All the Clinton people are backing Hillary.

I was actually thinking the exact same thing as Andy R. I worked with Joel Johnson and Joe Lockhart in washington, actually-- they were senior aides to Clinton, and Lockhart in particular did some work on the Kerry 2004 campaign. They, like a lot of Clinton aides, have opened up their own political consulting agency. I agree that it was time for Shrum to go-- while he has been successful on a Congressional level, he has never worked for a winning presidential candidate. And when i read about his conduct on election night-- saying to Kerry "Let me be the first to say 'Mr President'" before all the votes had been counted, i was very disappointed. He just doesn;t seem like the kind of person we really want working for us. Bring back the Clinton boys, say I. In fact, just bring back Clinton. Have Bill work for a candidate (preferably not his wife).

Kerry cannot connect with and is not trusted by the blue collar union voters in the party. He and his wife are seen as the social elite of DC and he is just another full time politican. When is the last time he was in a grocery store???? This guy has to throw in the silk towel. He is no Bill Clinton and never will be.

Dick Gephardt, Micheal Dukakis, and Bill Bradley. Heck of a resume. Where are all the folks who worked on the Clinton Campaigns? At least they have a track record of winning.

"Read my the latest assessment of Kerry's chances in 2008."

Either "Read my latest..." or "Read the latest..." Pick one.

"Shrum says he has retired from American politics..."

Oh, there must be a god! Thank heavens for this! With, how many - is it 8? - losing presidential campaigns under his belt, nothing could be brighter for the Democratic party than Bob Shrum leaving politics.