For Dems only.

[southsider2k5]

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

 

OK this I totally don't understand. Have you ever heard someone argue that in a crime infested neighborhood, that we should pull out all of the cops and it would make it better? Seriously, in a situation that is dangerous and volitile, why would you pull out the authority figures, or try to argue that more of them would only make the situation worse. When Nancy Pelosi wants to argue that we should withdraw all of the police officers out of LA, I might listen. Until then, this makes no sense to me.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK this I totally don't understand. Have you ever heard someone argue that in a crime infested neighborhood, that we should pull out all of the cops and it would make it better? Seriously, in a situation that is dangerous and volitile, why would you pull out the authority figures, or try to argue that more of them would only make the situation worse. When Nancy Pelosi wants to argue that we should withdraw all of the police officers out of LA, I might listen. Until then, this makes no sense to me.

Except LA is (nominally) in the U.S., and Baghdad is not. That is a pretty important difference. She is saying we need to turn Iraq over to Iraqis.

 

I agree with you though in that the result of us pulling out will ultimately, probably, not result in a positive short-run for the Iraqi people. There will probably be bloodshed, maybe civil war, and a lot of fracturing, until they finally arrive at some sort of self-government.

[Balta1701]

So, a question...why do you put a Navy Admiral in charge of an entire theater of operation where you're fighting 2 ground wars?

[EvilMonkey]

So, a question...why do you put a Navy Admiral in charge of an entire theater of operation where you're fighting 2 ground wars?

Because if Iran becaomes involved to a larger extent and tries to dispupt oil shipping in the gulf and such, it will fall to the Navy, and to a lesser extent the Air Force, to keep the tankers moving.

[Balta1701]

Because if Iran becaomes involved to a larger extent and tries to dispupt oil shipping in the gulf and such, it will fall to the Navy, and to a lesser extent the Air Force, to keep the tankers moving.

Which is sort of the point I was trying to get across. It at least seems possible that we've prioritized Iran over the 2 wars we're already struggling mightily or failing in. That concerns me.

[YASNY]

Then again, he may be the best man for the job.

[Balta1701]

PA, and anyone else from that state...piece of advice...DUCK.

[longshot7]

OK this I totally don't understand. Have you ever heard someone argue that in a crime infested neighborhood, that we should pull out all of the cops and it would make it better? Seriously, in a situation that is dangerous and volitile, why would you pull out the authority figures, or try to argue that more of them would only make the situation worse. When Nancy Pelosi wants to argue that we should withdraw all of the police officers out of LA, I might listen. Until then, this makes no sense to me.

 

Who cares if Iraq falls into worse Civil War and they all kill each other? Not me.

 

America First.

[Balta1701]

Who cares if Iraq falls into worse Civil War and they all kill each other? Not me.

 

America First.

You will if Oil screams to $150 because Iran and Saudi Arabia decide, quite correctly, that their interests are at stake in Iraq and join in the fight.

[southsider2k5]

You will if Oil screams to $150 because Iran and Saudi Arabia decide, quite correctly, that their interests are at stake in Iraq and join in the fight.

 

Why would there interests be at stake?

[EvilMonkey]

Why would there interests be at stake?

Because right or wrong, Musims defend other Muslims, whatebver the cause. A muslim in Indonesia has nothing in common with a muslim in Iraq, except being Muslim, but they can sure get offended fast when a fellow muslim is somehow wronged halfway across the globe.

[Balta1701]

Implementing the large majority of the 9/11 commission reccomendations sails through the house.

 

Checking off #3 on the list...

[Soxy]

SMU faculty not sure they want the Bush library there.

[Chet Lemon]

If Bush's successor is a Democrat, who should be appointed to the Supreme Court?

 

I raise this question for fun, but I get the feeling Ginsburg will retire soon after a Dem is elected (approx. Jun '09) as well as Stevens, who is in good health, but will turn 87 in a few months. He has hinted at retirement, but as one of the court's most liberal members, I don't see him retiring until after the '08 elections. This leaves two potential vacancies for the summer of '09 of the Court's most liberal members. Here would be my two:

 

Jaynee LaVecchia - She would be highly qualified pick, was appointed by a Republican Governor, then approved to lifetime tenure by Corzine (Story Here). She is also a political independent. It would be hard to imagine any serious opposition for this nominee.

 

Lisa Madigan - Although she probably is eyeing a run at Governor, it would be great to see her replace Ginsburg or Stevens (Ill native) as she will only be 43 or 44 at time of appointment, thus giving her at least 30-40yrs. on the court to match Roberts/Thomas who could easily have their S.C. tenure run over 35-40 yrs each.

[NorthSideSox72]

If Bush's successor is a Democrat, who should be appointed to the Supreme Court?

 

I raise this question for fun, but I get the feeling Ginsburg will retire soon after a Dem is elected (approx. Jun '09) as well as Stevens, who is in good health, but will turn 87 in a few months. He has hinted at retirement, but as one of the court's most liberal members, I don't see him retiring until after the '08 elections. This leaves two potential vacancies for the summer of '09 of the Court's most liberal members. Here would be my two:

 

Jaynee LaVecchia - She would be highly qualified pick, was appointed by a Republican Governor, then approved to lifetime tenure by Corzine (Story Here). She is also a political independent. It would be hard to imagine any serious opposition for this nominee.

 

Lisa Madigan - Although she probably is eyeing a run at Governor, it would be great to see her replace Ginsburg or Stevens (Ill native) as she will only be 43 or 44 at time of appointment, thus giving her at least 30-40yrs. on the court to match Roberts/Thomas who could easily have their S.C. tenure run over 35-40 yrs each.

Lisa Madigan will not run for governor as long as her father is still Speaker of the House.

 

Plus, I think she still has a lot she wants to do out there that requires more active involvement in the process that SCOTUS would give her. Just my instinct.

 

But, it would be great to see her in there. She's been quite good as AG, and was a solid Senator.

[kapkomet]

SMU faculty not sure they want the Bush library there.

Oh, I'm pretty sure they will want it there when they figure out how much $$$$ will come in as a result of having it there.

 

It's a done deal anyway. SMU has already bought all the land they need for the library.

 

Where I go to grad school now (University of Dallas) would have been a good choice too, but it was SMU all the way because Laura is an alumni (among other reasons).

[Balta1701]

Minimum Wage hike to $7.25 passes the House.

 

Checking off #4...

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 06:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Minimum Wage hike to $7.25 passes the House.

 

Checking off #4...

Is that large of a hike really necessary? I was thinking of starting a thread on this.

 

How many people making minimum wage are high school students living with parents, college students working a campus job, retired folks bored with their lives, elderly, or people working a second job?

 

I sure hope I get a 40% raise in the next two years.

 

Then again I did get one a few months ago when jumping to a competitor.

[Balta1701]

Is that large of a hike really necessary? I was thinking of starting a thread on this.

 

How many people making minimum wage are high school students living with parents, college students working a campus job, retired folks bored with their lives, elderly, or people working a second job?

 

I sure hope I get a 40% raise in the next two years.

 

Then again I did get one a few months ago when jumping to a competitor.

I bet you also hope you don't have to go 8 years without a single raise, which is what has also happened with the minimum wage.

 

And just because someone isn't working in the highest tech of job, or is a teenager slaving away over a vat of grease, is that a reason why they don't deserve to make $10,000 a year working full time?

[EvilMonkey]

I bet you also hope you don't have to go 8 years without a single raise, which is what has also happened with the minimum wage.

 

And just because someone isn't working in the highest tech of job, or is a teenager slaving away over a vat of grease, is that a reason why they don't deserve to make $10,000 a year working full time?

If you worked at one job, for 8 years, at minimum wage, and didn't get a raise, you are an idiot.

[kapkomet]

I bet you also hope you don't have to go 8 years without a single raise, which is what has also happened with the minimum wage.

 

And just because someone isn't working in the highest tech of job, or is a teenager slaving away over a vat of grease, is that a reason why they don't deserve to make $10,000 a year working full time?

 

 

If you worked at one job, for 8 years, at minimum wage, and didn't get a raise, you are an idiot.

EXACTLY!!! I'm so sick of seeing Balta's argument. If you start at minimum wage, you will NOT stay there if you keep working at the same job. PERIOD. Therefore, the whole argument is a fallacy.

 

However, I just wish they would do a COLA on the minimum wage so we wouldn't have to debate how cruel the EVVVVIIIIIIIIIL Republicans are for not passing wage hikes "for the poorest of the poor".

[Rex Kickass]

It's not just the Republicans fault. And for the record, over 80 Republicans supported the measure. If we locked a COLA into minimum wage, you'd hear the same complaints from the same people but since the increase would happen every year, the lobbying money is probably too strong to keep it from happening.

 

The bill is scheduling three phase increase in three 70 cent increments.

 

If a 3% COLA had been included in the Minimum wage the last time the hike happened, our current minimum wage for 2007 would be 6.92, 2008 would be 7.13, 2009 would be 7.35

 

Under the current bill, in April (assuming making it law), the min wage increases to 5.85, in 2008 to 6.55, around 1/1/2009 it would get up to 7.25

[kapkomet]

It's not just the Republicans fault. And for the record, over 80 Republicans supported the measure. If we locked a COLA into minimum wage, you'd hear the same complaints from the same people but since the increase would happen every year, the lobbying money is probably too strong to keep it from happening.

 

The bill is scheduling three phase increase in three 70 cent increments.

 

If a 3% COLA had been included in the Minimum wage the last time the hike happened, our current minimum wage for 2007 would be 6.92, 2008 would be 7.13, 2009 would be 7.35

 

Under the current bill, in April (assuming making it law), the min wage increases to 5.85, in 2008 to 6.55, around 1/1/2009 it would get up to 7.25

I don't think most people are against raising the minimum wage... but I do think that COLA adjustments (or even a separate index for minimum wages) would be best.

 

BTW, I didn't mean to pick on Balta specifically, but the whole "these people haven't gotten increases in years" argument is balderdash. When people work hard (for the most part), they won't be making minimum wage for long.

[Rex Kickass]

I've worked close enough to the minimum wage in enough industries to know that this isn't necessarily the case Kap.

 

Take radio, for example.

 

When I was employed by one of the largest radio companies in the country, I was given full time hours at a part time wage. $6 an hour. After a year, I was given a full time opportunity at approximately $10 an hour. Three years later, my payscale was unchanged. The only thing that changed was my health insurance premiums were increased to give me a 5% paycut in my last year of employment. People who were working full time hours at a part time wage? $6 and hour - didn't matter how long you worked there.

 

There are plenty of industries with limited local competition and competitive employment fields. These jobs, many of them white collar, pay surprisingly little. An increase in the minimum wage will force most, if not all low end salaries up IMHO.

[NorthSideSox72]

If you make the COLA a hard 3%, you have the same problem. Any COLA needs to be pegged to a dynamic, realistic market basket measure that closely mirrors inflation. That way, increases are market-natural, and is a real minimum wage.