Is it just me or was Dubya incessantly blinking during his closing statement? Rob said it's because he's always lying. Hahaa. Anyone ever see that "Girlfriends" episode where that one chick couldn't lie without blinking psychotically? Okay maybe I'm the only person on earth who watches that show, but THAT was George Bush tonight. Blinktastic.
I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I really thought Kerry did well. He's definitely a cut or two above Bush. As usual, there were a lot of things I begged Kerry to say that he didn't say. Like when Bush diverted the subject every time from jobs to education and Kerry never pointed out the fact that the "No Child Left Behind Act" wouldn't help a fifty year old worker who is educated and lost his or her job, even if the fucking program WERE funded! Bush never answered what he was doing for those people. The grown people who have lost their jobs in this country or those who have gone back to work and are making far less than ever before. Or all the kids coming out of college with good educations who can't find work in their fields and not for what they could have made doing the same job five years ago.
When they were talking about minimum wage Bush said something like "I was working on a plan to raise the minimum wage!" And then he went on to talk about something else. I thought that was a very big issue that got passed over too quickly.
Study finds 1 in 4 working families struggle for financial survivalCHICAGO -- One out of every four working American families earns wages so low they struggle to survive financially, according to a report due out Tuesday.
These 9.2 million families include 20 million children. Their breadwinners work an average of 1.2 jobs. Most are in their prime working years. And 72 percent were born in the United States.
The study, funded by the Annie E. Casey, Ford and Rockefeller foundations, paints a portrait of janitors, cooks, cashiers and health care aides who barely make ends meet in a nation where good-paying jobs are out of reach for many.
"One emergency -- a broken down car, rent increase or serious illness -- can disrupt the families precarious equilibrium and plunge them into financial chaos," the report states. The nonpartisan report spotlights a growing disparity between low-wage earners and the educated skilled workers that U.S. businesses increasingly demand.
Its release comes in the final weeks of a heated presidential campaign in which issues concerning low-income families largely have taken a back seat to those of the middle-class and to worries about terrorism and the war in Iraq.
"What we haven't come to grips with is how large this number is" of working low-income families, said Brandon Roberts, co-author of "Working Hard, Falling Short."
"This is an issue of our national competitiveness. If these families are not poised to succeed, it should concern to all of us."
President Bush's campaign stresses tax incentives to encourage businesses to hire new workers, while Sen. John Kerry has called for an increase in the $5.15 hourly minimum wage to $7 by 2007. [Click here for complete story].
And Bush's child income tax credit helps these people, how? By giving them a very temporary padding? Raise the minimum wage! A steady increase in income to minimum wage earners is the only real solution to helping people overcome poverty. This was an issue I felt could have been discussed more in the debates. But you can't have everything you want. I understand that creating new jobs and raising the minimum wage are difficult to accomplish both at the same time, but I genuinely believe that Kerry could handle our economy far better than Bush has.
Q: Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college. We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. You know, there's a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing. We talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works.
Well I know one way that's NOT good for keeping jobs in America! By giving tax incentives to companies IN ORDER for them to go and manufacture in China. Don't tell Americans that it's their responsibility to get educated at the same time that you turn around and reward businesses for moving jobs overseas. Answer the question Mr. President!
I also would have liked it if Kerry would have pointed out Bush's flip-flop on gay marriage, when that question was brought up. I would have been glad to see him point out that Bush previously held that it was up to the individual states to decide on legislation regarding gay marriage. But then he changed his mind and decided that discrimination should be written into the constitution. I was pleased that Kerry pointed out Bush's agenda for appointing judges to the federal bench who would have an interest in overturning Roe v. Wade, and thought it was interesting that Bush refused to give a direct answer about his position on that even when asked by Bob Schieffer. He's a dodger when it comes to hard questions. Like during this new voter forum, where Bush was the only person who declined to answer this question:
When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues - President Bush on establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security and steel tariffs, Senator Kerry on the Iraq war. But changing opinion due to thoughtful reconsideration ought not to be derided as flip-flopping. Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance. - Jeremy, 30, of WA
It was the only question in the entire forum that he declined to respond to. This is becoming a pattern.
Kerry really has his shit together and I feel a high level of faith in him right now. I think that he has what IT takes and that he could conceivably accomplish many of the plans and strategies that he wishes to set forth. I think that with him as our president, we have a much greater hope of having a better economy, a cleaner environment, more inclusive healthcare, a safer world, and a more equal, compassionate society than what we have now. He may not be a saint, but I think the man has talents and he truly deserves the opportunity to lead this country.
I can hear Guiliani on the tube in the living room spouting off with that annoying lisp of his. That man drives me to distraction. I always get the feeling that he's in a severe state of denial. He really eats up the Bushit and licks his lips/lisp afterwards like a cat that just devoured a can of tuna.
Rob likes to watch the pundits and commentators afterwards. I prefer not to watch too much of that because it feels like I don't get a chance to let what the candidates said have time to sink in. All that aurhoritative yammering on afterwards kind of clouds my image of the debate and inhibits an untainted perception of what was said. It is nice to hear and see what others thought about the debate, but for some reason I can't sit there and digest anything that tv pundits have to say immediately after. I like to feed it through my receptors first I guess.
Oh yes, and one final thing, they didn't discuss the environment at all. I think the environment is a very strong suit for Kerry and an extremely weak area for Bush. I am very disappointed that they didn't get into talking about that. But what can you do if the question is never broached? *Sigh.*
Posted by Maria at October 13, 2004 11:35 PMMaria,
You bring up a very good point about when Bush diverted himself away from the minimum wage issue by talking about education. I hate to do this, but go ask Geoff and Gordon about it. They will tell you in the harsh sense - and I truley belive Bush feels the same way - that people should fend for temselves. They will tell you, start your own business, get more education. But of course, they don't realize that people still need to pay bills, buy food and pay rent or mortgage. Starting a business is not as easy as waking up one morning and saying "I think Imma start me a bidniz today" First of all, it takes money to start a buisness. Lots of money. And banks are not that willing to give out loans for that. The government talks about these monies being available for such purposes but they don't tell you that money goes to those banks. The banks are the instituions that determine who gets it. Secondly, starting a business doesn't mean instant success. Nyumber 1 - people do not realize all of the hoops you need to jump through just to start a legit business. There are business licneses, new tax forms to fill out, etc. And if you are lucky and survive the first few years, you WILL show a net loss on your taxes. Most people do not know this...hell, I have had my own busines for over 15 years now and I still don't understand all the aspects of it. My father ran his own business for 30 years and will tell you to this day, he is amazed uit survived that long because of how complex it is to start and maintain a business. So the next time you hear these conservative assholes say "start a buisness" you give them a hammer and tell them to go "build a house" It just isn't that simple.
Now, onto education. A degree doesn't mean a job. Period.
Again, I agree with Maria, a 45 year old man with a master degree in whatever, who got laid off from a 80K a year job in engineering. It is not that simple for that person to go back to school and get his license to be a nurse to start out at 36K a year. What these politicians don't tell you is that these people are taking significant pay cuts. It is like them asking you to come down to a lower lifestyle than what you were used to. Bush doesn't understand that and never will because he has never deal with it. He is born into wealth. As was kerry. But the difference is in the language. Bush is saying primaruily what people like Geoff and Gordon are ayaing, just in a more PC way, and Kerry is saying he wants to put things in place to make sure these people don't lose their jobs or can get similar paying jobs by offering businesses tax incentives to stay in the country and hire american workers. Perhaps his plans aren't the best, but at least he isn't saying "go get more education, start a business."
Sidenote - evern with all the money in the world, even with all the allies in the oil industry he had, Bush FAILED at his own business. So tell me again, how easy it is?
Raise the minimum wage! A steady increase in income to minimum wage earners is the only real solution to helping people overcome poverty.
This is a temporary fix - at best.
Say you raise the minimum wage - what will you do when the cost of living increases beyond the limit(s) of the newly increased wages? Raise them again?
And consider this: who pays for that increase in the minimum wage? Uh, the companies do.
And do you think that these companies/corporations will accept a hit of millions of dollars in increase wages to their workers without finding a way to compensate for the increased cost? No, they won't - they'll either lay off some workers to balance the increased cost and/or they'll 'pass the cost' onto their final customer, the consumer. Now it costs MORE for a given product.
Minimum wage wasn't meant to support families on. Increasing the minimum wage won't help in the long run - only education and 'moving up' will.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 14, 2004 08:46 AMMikey if you are trying to tell me that most American businesses cannot afford to pay their employees a wage of $7.00 per hour, I call BULLSHIT!
Posted by: Maria at October 14, 2004 09:33 AMWhat Mikey is also failing to mention is his wonderful GOP has classifief fast food jobs (which are a large percentage of minimum wage jobs) as "manufacturing jobs" (luckily the house had enough sense to make sure that this fuck up of the bushco was not allowed - http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=23569)
What Mikey is also failing to mention is the fact that the businesses producing these goods have been steadily raising the costs of the products anyhow, while laying off workers. It is called "gluttonous profiteering." Businesses have gone completey away from any ethical philosophy to focus soley on profits, period.
With all that being said - yes, the minimum wage needs to be increased, and the businesses paying those wages won't feel any effect other than less money in the bigwigs prockets - oh boo fucking whoo, their 16 year old daugter will have to settle for lesser model BMW.
Remember, if it were up to people like Mikey, there would be no minimum wage. His party has pushed time and time again to get rid of a minimum wage. That would be disasterous if that happened. You hear Bush talking about a Mexican coming here for a 5.15 an hour job as oppsoed to 50 cents and hjour in Mexico - there is a reason for that - a law for minimum wage. If you think our businesses here wouldn't roll back wages if they were legally allowed, your smoking dope. Waiters and waiteresses already DO do that - some make under $2 an hour and have to rely on tips.
People like Bush, hell, people like Mikey have always had things given to them. They have no clue what it is like to work your ass off for minimum wage, then come pay day to see such a small check (and considerable amount of taxes taken out). I have done it and it is such a downer that you sit there after thatf irst check and want to quit. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban worked for 3 days at one establishment and afterwards said it was the hardest 3 days work he has ever done and said he doens't know how those people do that for such low pay.
Another point to make is, these people don't get raises, ever. If you work in a fats food place for 2 years, you won't see a raise, no matter how much you do. So lets say you have been there for 7 years. 7 years ago, they had to pay you 5.15 an hour - guess what you would be making today - 5.15 an hour. Yet, the prices go up.
Finally, what Mikey doesn't realize is that a $2 an hour increase for someone trying to support a child, is $80 on a $40 week. That would work out to about $60 after taxes. That would be $240 after taxes, a month. That puts a lot more food on the table and clothes on the backs and puts some better school supplies for a child. For someone maing 5.15 an hour, a $2 an hour incrwease is dman near a 50% increase in pay. Think about your salary now, a 40% increase would make life real nice. Well, for people trying to live off of 5.15 an hour, and people ARE doing it whether Mikey thinks they should or shouldn't be, 7.00 an hour would take a shit load of burden off of those folks.
You will hear Bush talk about these people getting better education. When do they have time? Even mors so, who is going to watch their kids? Who is going to pay for the child care? If they are not making it on 5.15 an hour, school is the last thing on their mind. Most of those folks are working two full time jobs and a part time jobs to make ends meet.
I just find it amazing how out of touch people like Mikey really are. I expect the out of touchness from someone like Bush. And before I hear Mikey spew about "i got paid squat in the military" keep in mind, I too was an enlisted man in the air force. When your basic needs - food and housing and even day care, is procided for by the military and everything else comes at a discount and is not taxed (go visit a BX or PX and any commisary and you will see) then that wage isn't so bad afterall.
Mikey if you are trying to tell me that most American businesses cannot afford to pay their employees a wage of $7.00 per hour, I call BULLSHIT!
Call it all you want but it don't make it true. Fast food joints and bigger corps already pay more than the minimum wage. The ones that will get hit are the smaller and newer shops. If they can't afford to pay 7/hour they will either cut hours, raise prices, lay off workers, or close shop. You can't force businesses to cut their profits. They won't. What is the point of business if not to make money? They will screw their workers first - always.
If they can afford to pay more - they do.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at October 14, 2004 11:34 AM"If they can afford to pay more - they do."
I call BULLSHIT on that one too.
Posted by: Maria at October 14, 2004 11:35 AM"if they can afford to pay more - they do"
I really hope you are kidding Rose. I really don't think you truly beleive that if a company can pay more, they do.
I worked permanent for a large networking company back in the late 90's. (Yes, I do work full time for places while I do my business - again, this is why i hire 1099's.). Anyways, because they weren't an american company, they did pay white collar workers straight overtime. There was one stint of tiem I did where I was putting in some mondo hours - it was 2 two week stints where I was to make 90 + hours of overtime on top of my regular 80. It was a nice bit o' money. The company, just making billions, gobbling up companies left and right, had lots of money to throw around. It took me about 5 months to receive the 180 hours of OT that I worked. I also found out that many other who were working the OT were in the same boat I was. Come to find out, they held onto that money because it was in a fund collecting interest. This is actually legal. A company isn't obligated to pay you OT on time.
Now, with that being said, "if the compabny has money, they are willing to spend it" is not true. I have fouind in my time these types of companies generally pay lower than the market median for various fields. The ones who make the high mark are mid to small sized companies.
Thing is Rose, I know you don't draw an income by working. You are a stay at home and I commend that. My mother did it with me and my brother and sister, I could never do it, it is probably one of the hardest jobs to do, but your frame of reference to make a statement such as you did, is pretty weak. You apparently either never have been or have been out for a long time if you beleive if companies have money, they pay better.
Try working for some mult-nationals some time.
People like Bush, hell, people like Mikey have always had things given to them. They have no clue what it is like to work your ass off for minimum wage, then come pay day to see such a small check (and considerable amount of taxes taken out).
Oh ye of little brain...you know not of what you talk about....
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 14, 2004 03:04 PMYou can't force businesses to cut their profits. They won't. What is the point of business if not to make money? They will screw their workers first - always.
Yes you can. Yes they will. Making money doesn't mean screwing workers out of decent pay or fulfilling your obligations. Newsflash Rosemary, since when is it the benefit of the companies that comes way before that of the workers. As for "screwing the workers?" The purpose of labor laws and minimum wage is so that companies CAN'T screw their workers without being penalized? They're not going to benefit from laying off workers just to save a buck, when the workers are the ones that keep the fucking businesses running. I swear, republicans act like employers are a public service and everyone should be so greatful for every little thing they get. BULLSHIT. It is the minimum wage workers who keep the industry in this country alive. They deserve better. They deserve a couple more bucks and if businesses want to have employees, they have to pay for it. I find it amazing that republicans believe in giving businesses all the breaks while people who work their blood sweat and tears for an employer get jacked. Why? Because republicans believe minimum wage workers are being rightfully punished for not getting educated and owning their own business? What a crock of shit.
Posted by: Maria at October 14, 2004 04:21 PMSorry about the rant, but this subject really gets me heated.
Posted by: Maria at October 14, 2004 04:44 PMNunya,
I am a stay at home Mom but I held a job until a year ago because Dean lost his 80,000/year gig in 2001, so I'm not that out of touch.
Maria,
The subject may make you mad and make you rant but it doesn't make you right. A business is in business to make money, period. If it doesn't make money it shuts down, lays people off or cuts hours. [or gets subsidized, corporate welfare from the government] You can't force anyone to cut their profits and stay in business. It's crazy to think otherwise. Just like you can't force me to pay 10 bucks a pound for chicken. You can charge it but I won't buy it at that price - I'll go somewhere else.
I don't disagree that people should be paid better but forcing it will hurt some businesses and kill others - who suffers then?
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at October 14, 2004 07:01 PMYou absolutely can force businesses to pay their employees a decent minimum wage. Just as you can force people to follow sexual harassment laws and anti-discrimination policies in the workplace. Just as you can force companies to pay their employees $5.15 per hour because it is the minimum wage, you can force them to raise that minimum wage to compensate for the changes in the economy and to maintain fair and humane labor practices, just as you can force a company to follow and maintain all kinds of other ethics and standards. Businesses should not be given the ultimate reward of being exempt from living up to obligations just because they want to maintain a profit margin. Of course they do. But that is not the most important issue. The business's profit margin. That's what you fail to understand. The rights of those that a business employs are just as important as the business itself. If the only thing that we were to concern ourselves with was making sure that all business achieve the highest possible profit margins, we could go ahead and get rid of unemployment insurance, worker's compensation and any pay regulations at all. We could allow CEO's to loot their companies. Because isn't what's most important, how much money the business and it's executives are taking home? I think that's a seriously twisted perspective. Like I said, we force employers to pay a minimum wage of $5.15 and we can force them to pay $7.00 instead. It is both their obligation, and it is the right way to treat America's hard workers.
Posted by: Maria at October 14, 2004 09:47 PMEverytime we raise the minimum wage we lose businesses. That is my point and you seem to miss it. The ones that can afford to do it will, the ones that can't will go under and people will lose jobs or hours.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? I know you aren't stupid - why aren't you getting my point?
I lost a job when I was in college for this very reason. Minimum wage increase forced my boss of a small little bakery to cut staff. She and her husband took our hours and she let go three workers that she could no longer afford to pay. She originally had 6 workers - then only three to make up the difference. She was forced to pay but I was forced out of work because of it.
That's the cynical conservative view, but it is more harmful to individuals who EARN a minimum wage NOT to have it raised than it would be for businesses to make that extra effort. After all, it is the workers who make a business run, and you just can't argue with me that they don't deserve to be more fairly compensated for their efforts. I'm sorry. I just don't buy your argument. You put the needs of the business above the needs of individuals and families. A successful business can afford to pay employees. And most successful businesses these days can afford to pay their employees $7.00 per hour. That's the reality. Bush isn't lying when he says the economy is better. It is better, Rosemary, we live in a nation of non-stop consumption. Businesses are making money because people who have money are buying. But the little people who are working hard sweating away so that the rich can be fat and wealthy and clad with possessions, are the ones who are not being compensated. I wonder why it is that it doesn't matter to you and so many other conservative republicans. There is no way for me to relate to your belief that these hard workers don't deserve even a tiny bit more equality with the middle class, much less with the incredible population of fabulously wealthy people in this country. Why does poverty not concern you? Why doesn't it inspire you even the tiniest bit to make changes in order to do such a small thing as raising the minimum wage to seven dollars an hour, gradually over several years? Why are you really so opposed to that? As if this will just kill the economy in the U.S. raising the minimum wage to $7.00 an hour. We live in the richest country in the world, and there is such a seriously deep divide between the rich and the poor. I do not think it's too much to ask the businesses of this great country, to slightly increase the wages of their lowest level employees. Wealth and poverty in America features a disparity that should not sit comfortably with anyone. And it makes me sad that anyone would choose the profit margin over the decent treatment of human beings.
Posted by: Maria at October 14, 2004 10:44 PMYou put the needs of the business above the needs of individuals and families.
Well Maria, as much as some might object to it - the entire point of business is to make money. Mandating by governmental decree (or law) that an employer must pay its employees a specific amount might look good on paper, but to a business owner that's still working to generate a profit its meddling.
And with a few exceptions that I can think of, anyone saying that they're in business to give people jobs isn't really in business....
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 14, 2004 11:08 PMIf you are a business owner, of course you're not IN business to give people jobs. But People are working to keep YOU in business so that they can get paid and you can also get paid. Therefore, they deserve to be fairly compensated. It's not a complicated concept. Make it so if you wish, but it just isn't.
Posted by: Maria at October 14, 2004 11:35 PMYou know what strikes me the most? Is the sharp double standards these conervative republicans practice. It isn't about the businesses making money. When boiled down to it, people like Mikey are against government regulation. He doesn't think the government should regulate any business whether it is a bakery or a utilities company. He doesn't think the government should enforce its rule, its heavy hand on any business. But, it is ok for them to send military into other countries to "spread democracy." Or, it is ok for them to reform and regulate health insurance legitation. And it is ok for the government to regulate a womans right to choose. It is ok for them to regulate who can be married.
People like Mikey will sit there and tell you about "activist judges." He says that judges should not have the final say in what is or is not allowed. At any level of government. When they do that, they are activists. They were activists when allowing gaty marriages in Mass and Cali. They were activists when ruling the partial ban abortions unconstitutional. They were activists when overturning everyone of the stupid "internet pron" laws.
But, when the highest court in the country turned over Florida's elections result to recount, were the activists then? When the courts did not make the FCC pull the sinclair groups anti-kerry movie off thr air, were they activists then?
See what I mean? he doub-standards with these damn people couldn't get any more sharp and crisp.
I hope THAT isn't being "obtuse" Rose.
:-)
No, not too obtuse but a bit of painting with a broad brush. Don't lump all conservatives together because we are all different and we believe different things. Some of us are socially pretty liberal and fiscally conservative and others are conservative across the board. I used to be a hardcore liberal with a big L and some of those beliefs are still with me. They just morphed a bit as I aged.
I'm closer to being a libertarian than I am a republican - just don't have any chance voting in a libertarian. I've yet to meet a politician that I agree with more than 70% of the time. It's all about priorities.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at October 15, 2004 04:20 PMHe doesn't think the government should regulate any business whether it is a bakery or a utilities company.
I didn't say that.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 15, 2004 05:47 PM