Monday, July 26, 2004

The Nixon Precedent

Mention amending the Constitution (to stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman) and you will hear a collective gasp from the left. My God! Those evil Republicans do not respect this sacred piece of paper. How could you amend the Constitution and take away State’s rights, this would be the worst thing since prohibition…

YET, it is these very same people that are STILL saying that Bush stole the 2000 election. Beyond just saying, “Get over it”; we have to force these people to be intellectually honest. It is a Constitutional directive that our President is elected based on the votes of an electoral college (the word ‘college’ is not actually used-for you sticklers out there)…This is something that was written into the Constitution by our founding fathers.

The purpose of a representative democracy is to protect smaller states and keep them politically viable. If the election was purely a popular vote the candidates could focus solely on states like Texas and California and never look at the interests of smaller states like Vermont or Maryland. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. In 2000 Bush got 271 votes and Gore 266. Three major news organizations (Time Magazine, CNN and The New York Times –all fair and balanced publications…) did extensive investigations into that election in the year that followed and they all came to the same conclusion…Bush won. The only voters that were proven to be disenfranchised were the 790 servicemen whose absentee ballots Gore attempted to block (what a Patriot).

NEVER before in the history of Presidential politics has a candidate sued over the outcome of an election. In 1960 when Nixon ran against JFK there was overwhelming evidence that election fraud had taken place (especially in Southern Texas and Chicago). Nixon was urged to contest the election (even by Ike), but declined. He said, “A challenge would cause a Constitutional crisis, hurt America in the eyes of the world and tear the country apart”…so began the Nixon precedent. In 2000 all of Nixon’s predictions came to fruition. The country was –and still is- torn apart. Bush is blamed for this, but it should be Gore. He didn’t receive enough votes to be President. If Gore would have followed Nixon’s lead our country would not be as bitterly divided as it is during a time that it is imperative we be united.

I am not bringing this up to argue and rehash election results or the mechanically -challenged people who can’t operate a hole punch in Florida (and if Bush and Gore were both punched on the same ticket- who is to say they were Gore’s votes –I’ve never gotten that). I am bringing this up to show the inconsistency of the left. Almost four years later I still hear some referencing the ‘stolen’ election. If you insist on calling this a stolen election -- you are obviously disregarding our Constitution –therefore you can have no problem with amending it to reflect the will of the majority of Americans…

Note to Pollsters and Wishful Thinkers:

I actually got selected to do a Zogby poll the other day and when asked the question “Do you think that the country is going in the right direction?” I said “No.”

I hear pollsters and DNC talking heads on the news touting the “wrong direction” poll results. What the question doesn’t ask is “Why?”

Oh, why you ask?

Because of the division in this country (that we now know was caused by Al Gore), because activist judges are over-riding the votes of the people counted through referendums, and because the ACLU is slowly undermining all that was good in this country and turning us into a secular shell of what we once were.

So don’t get too excited when you read these polls, because I am sure that I am not the only one in the country that feels the ‘wrong direction’ has nothing to do with George W. Bush.


this we'll defend said...

Well, of course (with respect) I couldn't disagree more.

The "gasp" about amending the Constitution is something that you should share. It isn't about gay marriage, it is about that sacred document I swore to uphold and defend. Note that the amendment to forbid flag burning (an act of political speech if there ever was one) was a similar attempt to divide America. It made people choose between the Constitution and freedom, or to choose to "protect" the flag. A choice between substance and symbolism. Where did you stand on that issue? With the Constitution or the cloth that merely represents it?

And it isn't just a left/right thing. The ERA was not passed - and although I fully support equal rights for women there was something scary about amending the Constitution to do it.

To equate the fear of meddling with the Constitution to "intellectual honesty" regarding the 2000 election is a bit of a stretch.

As far as the 2000 election it is clear that Gore had the most popular votes but when Florida was declared for Bush that Gore did not have the most electoral votes. Nobody disputes that. Gore did not suggest ignoring the electoral college. What was disputed was the results of the Florida ballot, and it was still in dispute at the time he filed suit.

The confusion over the butterfly ballot in an overwhelmingly Democratic and Jewish Palm Beach (where Pat Buchanan admitted that the many votes he recieved were mistakes) was popular in the press but not part of the suit. Gore didn't suggest a revote there because a revote due to a mistake is not permitted. He disputed the results of ballots that many felt were not cast mistakenly, but were counted mistakenly. Many (including me) still feel that way. The butterfly ballot was big news but not in dispute.

The military ballots that so many right-wingers suggest shows how unpatriotic Gore (a Vietnam vet) are is an example of how the count was mishandled. These votes were from the panhandle, an overwhelmingly Republican area, and were most likely for Bush. They also were posted after the deadline and according to the rules should have been voided. In an overwhelmingly close election the "impartial" Ms. Harris decided to accept these votes in an overwhelmingly Republican area, and to ignore other votes in dispute from overwhelmingly democratic areas. Had those military ballots been from democratic areas she would surely have decided that the very clear rules on postmark dates for absentee ballots should be followed to the letter. As she did for absentee ballots in democratic districts. How unpatriotic of Gore to challenge that.

Our Constitution says that if the Presidential election is disputed that the House shall decide the winner. The House in 2000 had a Democratic majority. Had it been followed instead of an overwhelmingly partisan Supreme Court ordering that there wasn't "time" for a proper recount then either 1) a recount would have been done which, as you suggest, Bush might have won (if Republicans were so sure why the fear of a recount?) and would only have lost if MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE or 2) the election would have gone to the House, which would have chosen Gore.

As far as "activist judges overriding the votes of people, our Bill of Rights and form of government recognizes the threat of a "tryanny of the majority." It is one reason for our Federalism with states as sovereign governments, and for lifetime tenure for federal judges. Judges should and must override the majority if the majority is attempting to do something that the Constitution and Bill of Rights forbids them from doing for otherwise our liberty is doomed. Imagine a vote on whether to allow communists freedom of speech at the height of McCarthyism. Or a vote to allow Muslims to worship freely on Sep. 12, 2001. If you don't think judges should have the power to overturn unconstitutional laws then you should support a different Constitution. That is why, even though he (and I) disagreed with the decision of the Supreme Court Mr. Gore accepted it and Bush became, yes, the legitimate and legal President of the US.

As far as intellectual honesty - you remember that T-shirt that showed the red states and the blue states that Republicans liked so much after the election? How so many thought it showed overwhelming support for Bush because most of it was red and little of it was blue? I have a question: Did they not understand that more people live in cities than in the country, so that LA County has more people than most states but on a map LA county is much smaller than, say, Nevade, Nebraska, Utah, and Wyoming combined, even though LA County has more votes? And if they understood, were they being intellectually honest to suggest that the country provided more support for Bush when Gore won the popular vote?

ALa said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...

It doesn't matter who won the popular vote and according to the Constitution --never will. That was the point of my rant...why even mention it? My post had nothing to do with gay marriage besides using it to show the inconsistency of using the Constitution when it clouds the issue of your special interest, but pretending it doesn't exist when challenging a decision you didn't agree with. If Buchannan got more votes than he should have who is to say they weren’t taken from Bush and not Gore --furthermore if someone is too, uh, stupid to use a voting machine...maybe, just maybe, they SHOULD NOT BE VOTING...If they can't punch a hole how can they have an inkling of what they are voting for. (This is also why I don't believe in voter drives --not everyone should be voting --if you don't know who the Vice President is after 3 1/2 years- you may not enter the booth...If you don't know what country gave us the Statue of Liberty -no vote for you...If you have never heard of the NASDAQ -go home...If you do not know who we fought in WWII -goodbye....)
So anyway, like I said, this wasn't about gay marriage it was about consistency --or the lack thereof.

leftyjones said... promised. Tomorrow we'll debate, tonight your B-day present.
I have known A for a hard to believe period of about 18 years. During that time we have both gone through all of the massive changes that we all do from those mid-teen years until today.
For those of you who don't know the host of this blog well, let me confirm for you that she has been a true Republican and conservative for every minute of those 18 years. She is as forceful in person as she appears in writing and when she believes in something....well, wild horses couldn't drag her away ....However, she doesn't enter arguments without being open to hearing the points of others and is strong enough to admit when alternative points or views are valid.
She can be razor tongued yet quick to laugh. Passionate in her views but never carries that to the point of being personal or vicious even when a debate gets heated.
All of you know that she is a political animal and that this is more than just a part time hobby to her but as much as I admire her dedication, its the fact that as she stated, " she is the person that turns off the water" that impresses me most. She has always been a take charge person when it comes to her own life and has never been one to wait for others to lead her down the road. She has always been extremely loyal to her friends (as I'm sure R from AnonymousRowhouse will attest)and she (and her family way back when) has exhibited the compassionate conservatism that we hear about but seldom see. From taking care of foster kids to helping people who were in need, even when there wasn't the ability to offer much, she has consistently shown over the years that she can practice what she preaches.
Now, with a family of her own, and 2 beautiful and smart kids....well let's just say that she's about the only Republican I know that I'll allow to speak to me about family values. :)
So, Happy Birthday A.....enjoy the convention.

justrose said...

I second lefty as a character witness. The entire ALa71 clan, including the woman herself, would give you their last compassionate conservative dime (along with an opinion you can take or leave, and they'll render the indulgence to listen to yours, too). They were my second family growing up and welcomed me in their home as one of their own hundreds of times. They are actually the kind of people that this country is lucky to have. She's also smart as hell and can talk circles around anybody's argument. It would be interesting to see her and TWD at a cocktail party! She never tires of the debate, and learning more about all the angles, whereas I go sit in the hammock and read Archie comics after five minutes.

justrose said...

recalled after writing this that several of the ALa71 younger siblings are in fact liberals. Well, they're young yet.

justrose said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
justrose said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...

wow...can i book you both now to speak at my funeral?! no, seriously...
Really guys, you are both all too kind and I appreciate all the things you said (though I can not take credit for the 'never getting personal' part because I am sure there are people out there who would say different --but i do TRY not to)...

RBP said...

I'm just gonna go on record as saying I support everything TWD says. But I would like to add my own humble opinion about the Constitution. It's not a perfect document, but the great thing about it, is it CAN change. And another great thing about it, is it's extremely hard to change. I don't think it's wise to go monkeying around with the Constitution because the majority of the people are for or against something. And the most activist judicial activity in recent memory was the Supreme Court decision to stop the re-count in Florida back in the day. Having said that I don't see the point in debating the results of the last election when we're 99 days from voting again. Those who were fired up by what happened in 2000 know what to do, and the other side knows what they have to do as well, which is what makes this the greatest country in the world. Meet you at the ballot box!

this we'll defend said...

THanks JFM -

I agree with all of the comments JFM made, and I totally agree with the comments on how great Ala71 is - I believe it. Hope you had a great 21st B'day! ;)

DaveSplash said...

First, a simple correction. There was never "overwhelming evidene" of election fraud in the 1960 race. I know Nixon thought so since he believed he had a right to the presidency (maybe Jesus told him). However, like most Republicans, he has trouble distinguishing between "facts" and "opinions."

Secondly, the bitter division began when you right-wingers decided to attempt to remove a president from office for having an extra-marital affair. No point re-hashing all your Clinton hatred. We will never agree on what the attempted coup, oops I mean impeachment, was about. We will have to agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree. Sounds good, huh. That used to be the way we operated in America until the Newt Gingriches of the world came to prominence. It was he who told his minions to refer to democrats as the "enemy" and to question their patriotism not their logic.

Lastly, the inconsistency regarding the 2000 election sits squarely on the right. The non-sensical "states rights" argument (which I thought had been settled by the Civil War) claims to believe that the federal government should never intrude into state business. The ballot re-counting was clearly a state issue. So, why did the conservative, states rights Supreme Court decide to over-rule a state court? Simple, they wanted their side to win. That's all...personal preference, not a sound legal argument. But who cares, that was 4 years ago. I am not one to dwell on that.

I don't believe in states' rights. I want the laws consistent throughout the land. I think the Supreme Court should have gotten the Bush/Gore case, they just should have decided the other way. I also don't believe that a legal decision that I disagree with should be dismissed as coming from an "activist judge." That is such an easy out. By that logic, the Court was quite activist when deciding Brown v. Board of Education. After all, the populations in Southern states did not want integration, and most likely, a national poll would have a beared out the same thing. However, Jim Crow laws were unconstituional, and the population in the 1950s was just plain wrong. Those 9 activist judges did the right thing. Who would argue against that decision now. Trust in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Courts are there to check the power of the legislature and the executive, and sometimes to save the people from themselves.

justrose said...

(maybe Jesus told him).

Don't go dragging the Lord into this. Typical Liberal move.

ALa said...

DaveSplash_ First of all was the REPUBLICAN party that fought for Civil Rights...remember George Wallace or Robert KKK Byrd? And I believe that all prominent blackleaders in the country have asked the 'gay marriage movement' not to equate it with their civil rights. Let me once again say that this was not about whether or not gay marriage should be legal BUT about the inconsistancy of the arguements. Clinton was not impeached for his wayward Willy -he was impeached for lying under oath (and should have been jailed for rape years before his Presidency). Why does every lefty say I'm not going to bring up so and so ...and then bring it up.

PS Newt Gingrich rules!

~Jen~ said...

Ala71, I posted something from a liberal blog on mine today especially for you. Go get 'em Tiger.

RBP said...

I used the term "activist judges" facetiously to point out the hipocrisy of the right. If a judge upholds an individuals right to live and love the way they see fit, then that judge is considered activist. If they uphold gun laws, or uphold affirmitive action, they're activist. In short if a judges rulings are considered too liberal he's activist. It's code for "hey, this guy's not one of us"
And as far as the Lord's concerned, well, we all know what side he's on. (Right Osama?)

justrose said...

JFM - Your fellow riverboat pilot Mark Twain once wrote, "It is the will of God that we must have critics and missionaries and congressmen and humorists, and we must bear the burden."

DaveSplash said...

Ala71...the Republican party fought for civil rights? What?! It was the platform position of the Republican party at the 1964 convention that expressly opposed all civil rights legislation.

You are confusing the fact that some Northern Republicans voted for ultimate passage of the 64 and 65 bills. That is true. And, many Southern Dems voted against them. But, civil rights is what caused the re-alignment of the two parties. After civil rights, those conservative democrats from the south abandoned the party (good riddance) and became Repubicans. Likewise, the so-called Rockefeller Republicans became Democrats. Any first year poli sci class would tell you that. Ever hear of Nixon's "Southern strategy?"

I will admit that I am embarrassed about Robert Byrd. My party should have no use for him. But, has any Replublican EVER said such a thing about good ole Strom Thurmond? He served as a Senator for your party for decades, and ran for President as a segregationist. He was just as bad. Let's be honest about that.

ALa said...

Wanting black and white people to live apart (though obviously wrong) IS NOT ANYTHING like being a grand Kleegal (or whatever the hell it's called) in the KKK --and "reviving the KKK in West Virginia”. Strom was a segregationist when most people were, but obviously wasn't lynching blacks as he slept with one and had a child by her (and financially supported her throughout her life -BEFORE you say it -of course it was wrong that he never publicly claimed her).
My family is from the North -has always been (not a slave owner in the lineage)...wrong or right, I consider slavery a Southern sin -not a Party sin.
The Democratic party has enslaved it's black voter base by making them dependent -by telling them they can't make it without welfare and government program, by saying that they are not intelligent enough to make it on their own -they refuse to let them get out of terrible schools by blocking the school voucher program -but scream about the horror of urban schools, they promote quotas insinuating that minorities can not get jobs on their own skill and merit...
92% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act and only 62% of Democrats.
"Large majorities of African Americans support positions that could not be described as anything but mainstream Republican: 75.8 percent favor school prayer, 73.4 percent favor a $500-per-child federal tax credit, and 72.6 percent favor "3 strikes and you're out" laws."

DaveSplash said...

The Democratic party has enslaved it's black voter base by making them dependent -by telling them they can't make it without welfare and government program, by saying that they are not intelligent enough to make it on their own -they refuse to let them get out of terrible schools by blocking the school voucher program -but scream about the horror of urban schools, they promote quotas insinuating that minorities can not get jobs on their own skill and merit...

This is perhaps the most insulting, patronizing thing ever said about blacks. Are they too stupid to vote the way they want to. Are they not intelligent enough to read about issues for themselves and come to informed decisions? Just today, the vice-chairman of Bush-Haliburton 04 in Michigan stated on the record that their strategy is to "supress the Detroit vote." The "Detroit" vote is code for the black vote. You and I both know this. That is a disgrace, and is one example of many, why blacks don't vote Republican.

ALa said...

What do you think a quota means...Any conservative black leader will (and has) said the same exact thing that I just said...but I guess I can't say it because I am not black (or maybe I am)...Why don't you check out some of those that have researched it and 'crossed over' is a fact that most people vote how their parents vote --it's not insulting just true. Most Irish Catholics are democrats and Christians are republicans, blacks are Democrats because that's how they were raised. How many people do you know (black or white) that have actually researched what they believe and why they have the party affiliation they do (I don't mean people in the blog world) many people do you know who just vote they way they were raised. Don't try to make my statement into a prejudiced one --you have no idea who I am.

this we'll defend said...

Wow, this is great stuff!

Davesplash, you sound like a great guy. I have to disagree with you about states rights. "Our Federalism" as the Supreme Court puts it is a bulwark against tryanny. It means that states are sovereign and that the federal government is limited. I like that. The federal govt has no police powers, only states do. I like that. Some people claimed "states-rights" in order to do what they were forbidden to do by the Constitution, but that argument didn't work. Our federal system with its different rules in different states is another check on power, just like our federal govt has the three co-equal branches that check and balance each other. The rules in California are different than the rules in Georgia, and as a Californian I really really like that.

As for the 1960 election - well, I'm not sure I agree. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I don't think the 1960 race was as clean as it should have been. That anybody brings it up when defending Bush's 2000 "victory" would set of alarm bells - if they claim the "other side" did it aren't they saying they did it too?

A story I heard, not sure if it is true: LBJ once was in a close congressional race and was not doing well until ballots started coming in from some rural areas. As they were counted it was noticed that they seemed to already be in alphabetical order in the ballot box, and they were overwhelmingly for LBJ. When asked about it he said "those folks out in the country just like to be organized."

Then there is the story of ballot counting back in the "yellow-dog democrat" days in the South. FDR was running against a republican, and the ballots were being counted. The counter would place ballots for FDR on the left. After many ballots he came across one for the republican (it shames me that I don't remember who that was) and set it on the right. Much later, after many more votes for FDR, he came across another ballot for the republican and placed it on the right. He finished the box and then threw the 2 votes for the Republican in the trash - right in front of a NY Times reporter. Astonished, the reporter asked why he did it. "Gosh, son, isn't it obvious that the fellow voted twice?" answered the ballot counter.

this we'll defend said...

As for the Republicans being the party of civil rights, that is very true - in 1860! The democratic party had a hold on the South as a result - and for generations. Times have changed. Lincoln once described the changes in party politics in his day as like watching two drunks in long coats fighting. Somehow in the middle of the fight they ended up switching coats.

Anyone who is convinced that Republican party policies are better for the poor or for minorities was also probably convinced that the Iraqis would greet us with open arms and that the war would be easily won. Ideology shouldn't trump reality. Hope is not a method. The South isn't overwhelmingly Republican because they are so eager to further the cause of civil rights. Strom Thurmond didn't switch parties and become a Republican because he decided to be a civil rights crusader. Jesse Helms didn't become a republican because he was concerned for the plight of the poor or minorities. Southern Democrats did vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Northern Republicans voted for it. That is one thing that led to the Northern Republicans becoming Democrats, and the South becoming Republican. 1860 and 1964 were a long time ago, and the 2004 Republican party is a little different today.

Kat said...

Let me be a bit of a sh*t stirrer here.

Um...there are some Iraqi blog guys that are extremely happy to see us. Do they count?

Maybe they're too conservative and therefore, cannot represent the Iraqi people in your mind. Do only the Iraqis that chant "kill Americans" count?

And yes, I do believe that Republican policies benefit the poor in this country. If you tax a company into oblivion or just out of the country, who is going to employ the people? Can we make a law that keeps the companies from sending jobs out of the country? Is that fair competition?

If you raise the minimum wage that a company must pay, instead of letting it be set by fair market, does that not increase inflation? Does that not impair fair market? Does that not MAKE companies seek out other countries and cheaper labor? Does giving a few people more (relatively) money improve the lot for the other people that will have no job and therefore, no money?

If people don't have jobs and, therefore, pay no income tax or unemployment tax, who is going to pay for the unemployed's benefits? Raise taxes on the "rich" companies?

Excellent idea. I'll be sure to incorporate my company in the bahamas. Maybe Mexico. they are dying for jobs down there.

Maybe we can just place some sanctions or tariffs on these goods if the company takes their business outside of the good ol' USA. Make them more expensive to buy. Make wholesalers profit margins decrease. Then we can have some more unemployed people.

Wow! I like those economic policies. Give me more, Oh Ceasar!

this we'll defend said...

kat-mo, you are right. On the other hand we shouldn't have a system that benefits only a few and exploits the many. As a result tax rates should be set where they do the most good - where we still have incentives so that businesses create jobs and entrepeneurs take risks, but we also have infrastructure, the rule of law, trained workers, public safety, a national defense, and most important and often ignored by the right-wing, organizational buy-in by the most people so that they feel the system benefits them rather than encouraging them to tear it down. It is easy to speak of the negatives of taxation and ignore the benefits. Next time a businessman complains about taxes ask him to deliver his goods but not use the highways paid for by the public purse. Have him only employ workers that went to private schools. Have him hire private security and don't allow him to report any thefts because cops are paid for through taxes. I could go on and on (yes, I know, I usually do).

Minimum wage rules are touchy things - with no minimum the "market" may set the wage so low that society as a whole suffers, including the businesses that supposedly would benefit from those low wages. Henry Ford's decision to drastically raise pay for his workers resulted in wage competition throughout the nation, and everybody ended up raising wages, which resulted in more people that were able to afford model-Ts. Set them too high and employers don't benefit by hiring more people and as a result don't hire more people. Similarly a flexible labor market might hurt people who lose their jobs, but an inflexible labor market (such as in Germany where it is next to impossible to lay off workers) results in no job creation (Germany again).

So it is a lot more complicated than "we should raise the minimum wage" or "we should let the market decide." It depends on the circumstances.

And any system that benefits only the few doesn't have my support because it isn't fair however you characterize it. We should strive not for a free-market laissez-faire system and not for a statist economy that centralizes all decisions, but for a meritocracy. I'm not afraid to compete on a level playing field. I just want the field to be level.

Kat said...

We're not talking about not paying taxes. Companies do and will pay taxes. In every country. But it is honestly you, me and everyother worker that will always pay the most taxes. Not necessarily in percentage per salary, but based on the fact that we are the more in quantity. So, saying that the "middle class" pays the most is kind of a misleading statement in the way it is applied. We do. We are the most numerous. If the country is run correctly, the middle class will continue to be large and will continue to pay the "most" in taxes. When you compare the percentages and dollars, that's a fact.

As a person that must evaluate profit and loss statements on a regular basis, it is very apparent that general terms like "rolling back taxes on people that make over $200k" are dangerous sentiments and do not support the idea that you put forward. Excellent as it is, what we constantly discuss in congress is exactly how to apply that. Our tax codes ARE in need of additional review. However, when you know business, if 25% of your costs are employees and benefits, 25% is cost of materials (if you are lucky and it's not really 30% or more depending on your business) and 15% is other overhead (like leases, utilities, vehicles, etc) and then you pay 30% in taxes, what you have is limited remaining resources. that leaves only 5% of your revenue as true "profit" and nobody is going to expand on 5% profit. Nobody wants to invest in a company that is making 5% or less. And believe me, 25% employee costs and 25% materials is really good management of resources.

Applying the roll back in the large scale manner that Kerry et al are proposing is a sure way to stagnate small businesses owners. We aren't talking about taxing their personal earnings of $200k, we are talking about the small boutique owner that makes REVENUE of $500k maybe. That's not take home pay. That's what they have to pay they're overhead out of. Pay taxes on that.

Further, the issue on big companies that make billions maybe a nicety as well. Frankly, what a lot of people who are everyday workers and not finance folks, fail to realize, is that these companies are paying more than 15% income tax. they pay taxes when they buy raw materials from other companies, they pay part of our social security tax, medicare tax, unemployment tax, they pay taxes on things like phone bills and utilities. Just like we do.

Nobody wants to add that up and figure out the total amount of taxes and tell people that because they might get the inkling that the "filthy rich" are paying they're taxes like the rest of us. they just happen to have more money.

Fair markets and fair wages. It's true what you say that without some regulation, people can be exploited as they were in the beginning of the industrial revolution. However, when you look at our businesses leaving for places like China and India, it is pretty obvious that our minimum wages are screwing us. Raising them only gives the few that are lucky enough to be working more money to be taxed and to spend. And that is limited money. it also makes the cost of employees higher inside this country, making the cost of products higher, meaning less people can afford an American made product than the chinese version. Means less people are employed. Means less money in the economy. It is really that simple.

When an American product cost more than a Chinese product, it means that our dollar is worth less. Buys less on the market. Think about the 1950's. Business was booming and unemployment was very low. You could buy a gallon of gas for 15 cents. Your dollar bought more.

Our minimum wage needs to be frozen and let the rest of the world catch up some. Otherwise, we will legislate ourselves right out of the world market.

It is that simple.

this we'll defend said...

Uhh - if you are or know a business owner paying taxes on REVENUE seek professional tax advice immediately - you are due for a huge refund. Revenue is NOT income. Income taxes are on income. Oh, and corporations pay a lower tax % than individuals so you may want to explore that as well (there are drawbacks too, though, so it isn't a good idea for every company).

The rollback to the same tax rates as previously applied to those earning over $200K will "stagnate" business? You mean, like it did during the 1990s when our economy stagnated and unemployment was so high?

Holding down the minimum wage to let the rest of the world "catch up" some doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't think we should aspire for our society to be more like China's - I like a higher standard of living myself.

I don't like the idea of spending money now and my kids and grandkids paying it back. Sure it sucks to pay taxes, but to continue as we are (running record deficits) isn't compassionate conservatism - it is selfish and short-sighted. Argentina is a great and sad example of what happens when that continues for too long. They are unique - a developed nation that fell back into the developing category. Because of deficit spending. Unlike Mr. Cheney says, deficits do matter. A lot.

If you don't like higher taxes then you cut spending - and don't give me the hogwash about dems feeding at the trough. In the 1990s we went from record deficits (thanks St. Reagan) to record surplus with Clinton to a new record deficit. Forgive me if I am a bit suspicious of Republican economic initiatives.