If Democrats win the House or Senate....

1970RR

John Budge wrote:

Good point. The Congress has no motivation to change the system because all of their pockets are being lined by corporate lobbyists.

This is why government needs to be radically cut. The only reason the pigs are at the trough is because the Feds keep filling it.

cornnifer

cutback wrote:

It's your exact attitude as to why third parties may never have a true voice in this country.

Third parties WILL never have a true voice in this country. Sad, but true. My attitude is simply one of realism.

norm

cornnifer wrote:

Third parties WILL never have a true voice in this country. Sad, but true. My attitude is simply one of realism.

Unfortunately, it's one of cynicism and laziness.

cornnifer

cutback wrote:

Unfortunately, it's one of cynicism and laziness.

Cynicism i'll allow you based on the fact that what some people call cynical, others call realistic. i've been called cynical before. i'm o.k with that. Laziness, on the other hand has absolutely nothing to do with it. Fact of the matter is Ralph Nader probably, inadvertantly, did more to get W. elected, than W. did to get W. elected. Plain and simple. Should their be choices?Absolutely. Endless choices. The party system and the electoral college are both crap. But they are cemented in place however, and no matter how many choices you put on the ballot, there are still only two with a chance of winning. Anyone who votes communist, for example, despite the fact that that person may best represent their ideas, is wasting their time. All they are really doing is pounding their chest to prove what a rebel they are. Thats fine, but they just wasted their vote. Or worse yet, in essence, they are inadvertantly casting a vote for the wrong guy.

casey

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

And with the increase of the minimum wage there will be an increase in unemployment. It's simple math when it comes to understanding that business owners, being businessmen and women, will cut jobs to compensate for increased salaries.

Actually, that's not true. If you increase the minimum wage, you increase the buying power of consumers and the economy will grow.

hippiemom

cornnifer wrote:

Fact of the matter is Ralph Nader probably, inadvertantly, did more to get W. elected, than W. did to get W. elected.

But neither one of them did as much as Al Gore did, and the Supreme Court did the most of all.

1970RR

casey wrote:

Actually, that's not true. If you increase the minimum wage, you increase the buying power of consumers and the economy will grow.

An increase in labor costs will increase overall costs and will be handled by either lowering labor costs through less employment or by passing the increased cost on to the consumer.
In the first case, the result is less jobs.
In the second case, the result is higher cost for goods.

Hope&Anger

1970RR wrote:

An increase in labor costs will increase overall costs and will be handled by either lowering labor costs through less employment or by passing the increased cost on to the consumer.
In the first case, the result is less jobs.
In the second case, the result is higher cost for goods.

All this theoretical macroeconomics stuff out of the textbooks is fascinating, but we've raised the minimum wage in the past, and it never has the dire effects that industry warns us about.

cincybearcat

Hope&Anger wrote:

All this theoretical macroeconomics stuff out of the textbooks is fascinating, but we've raised the minimum wage in the past, and it never has the dire effects that industry warns us about.

Well, if it worked in teh past....


Actually, there's a bit more global competition right now for jobs of all kinds.

farfromglorified

Cosmo wrote:

I refuse to bow down to the whims of a fat ass or a jack ass.

My hat's off to you......