Joe is very, very angry
After screwing the working class for nearly a decade, the Republicans are seeking some political cover just in time for the elections and are going to allow debate over an increase to the minimum wage on the condition that it is tied to further cuts in the inheritance tax. The R’s see the writing on the wall. From the AP article:
Lawmakers fear being pounded with 30-second campaign ads over the August recess that would tie Congress' upcoming $3,300 pay increase with Republicans' refusal to raise the minimum wage.
For the Republicans, this move is not about doing what’s right for the American people. It is about saving their collective ass in November and throwing the wealthy yet another bone. And that hits me square in my moral outrage wheelhouse. I am not alone either. Ted Kennedy gets it as well:
"It's [sic] political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "Members of Congress raised their own pay — no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect."
You’re goddam right common decency demands it. Not to mention what effect this is going to have our budget situation. These self-centered, irresponsible motherfuckers have no desire to help the people in this country that really need assistance. Just look at the Katrina cleanup or energy prices or the insistence on pushing divisive social issues at the expense of anything else that, you know, might actually change someone’s life for the better. Raising the minimum wage is an opportunity to help a good deal of this nation in a reasonable and responsible way. Anyone but a characterless bastard would embrace such an occasion. As such, this episode serves as a dismal window into the heart of the Republican leadership - soulless, uncaring, and corrupt.
posted by joestrummerlives at 3:46 PM
7 Comments:
Just a few facts:
1. A working knowledge of the principles on which our system of economy was founded would grant, I believe, some insight into why the existence of a minimum wage requirement undermines the free market and its ability to distribute wealth. However, there is a group of people that believe the government should determine how the market distributes wealth...They are called communists.
2.The spectacle that is the restoration of New Orleans has been ridiculous. Although, to suggest that it would be any better or worse if the elephants were out of power is, I believe, midguided. The tragic fact is that the system in place to prevent and restore tragedies like Katrina failed, and the people to whom the responsibility was to fall under that system failed as well.
3. What divisive social issues? Abortion? Same-sex Marriage? Gun control? The impetus for these being in the forefront of the American political spectrum lies with those whose interests these issues address. For instance, regardless of your moral compass, it is inarguable that marriage traditionally has been left to heterosexual couples. Conversely, it has been the gay rights lobby that has caused division by demanding that everyone else accept their position that has, whether right or wrong, traditionally been out of the mainstream of American thought. Of course on either side of the aisle, the sobriety that reality brings is often abondoned for wateringhole that is self-absorption and, consequently, self-interests. So is the case with gun control. The Second Amendment has been been as much a part of our Bill of Rights as the first. Now, regardless of your opinion, it is a fact that historically, Americans have embraced their right to possess arms. Admittedly, abortion is a bit different because it has been established for over three decades or little more than a tenth of our nation's history. It has always baffled me how those who are quick to call themselves "progressive" are the same to label the tradinionalists as being divisive.
5:21 PM
To Anonymous:
1. A completely "free" (for whom?) market leads to corporations ruling where the government should. For examples of this, live in the United States today. A totally unchecked, overly encouraged free market (which is where we are heading more and more under this regime) opts for bottom-line thinking and share-holder appeasing for things like utilities (e.g. privatization of gas companies). Do only rich people deserve heat?
2. The disastrous response to the disaster that was Katrina is ABSOLUTELY the fault of this administration. While I agree with your point that the systems in place failed and the people in those systems failed in their roles, you neglect some extremely key details. Namely, FEMA was cut off at the knees in terms of flexing any power once it was subsumed under Post-9/11-created Homeland Security. That happened under the guidance of this administration, as did the appointmet of "Brownie" who so f'ed up FEMA's role in the response to Katrina due primarily to the fact that his main qualification for the job was being Bush's buddy--that and his in-depth knowledge of Arabian horses. Or whatever. So, yes, were the "elephants" not in office, would the response have been better? YES.
3. Your argument seems to stem from the belief that everyone has an even playing field and that's just not the case. And though it is uncomfortable to think that some people in this country really do have it bad because of -ism's larger than individual's abilities to surmount, that is the sad truth. Your points in #3 essentially boil down to this: things are the way they are because that's how they always were. Though not a brilliant assertion, it smacks of the circular justification for keeping things the way they are:
a.keep the gays away from marriage because that's what straight people do (nevermind the historical stigma of being gay long-quelling many gay people's urge to even come out much less share it in a ceremony with friends and loved ones who, not so long ago (and still) may scoff, deny, disown). That, and, sheer numbers: 90% of the population is estimated to be hetero. So, yeah, marriage is more a straight thing--there are more straight people. Are gay people and their supporters being divisive by wanting the same rights? No. They are speaking up so they can access the 1,007 rights that comes with a marriage certificate.
b. guns guns GUNS! (and no that is NOT an Amendment held as dear as our First, which gives us the (genuine) pleasure to even have such a debate). No argument that there is a HUGE lobby to protect these rights--but I don't think our hero Joe was alluding to this issue so much as gay marriage (and maybe abortion).
c. Abortion. Divisive divisive divisive. So much that pro-choice activists have to escort women into clinics where abortion providers get killed by pro-LIFE zealots.
There is a vast difference between being divisive and demanding rights. In fact, it seems to me that power is division...e.g. does divide and conquer ring any bells? How do you think "mainstream American thought" has remained mainstream?
Women and gay people are not divisive so much as exercising their very crucial First Amendment right to get some recognition and have their other rights and liberties not denied or TAKEN AWAY from them. That's not divisive, it's just ruining "mainstream America's" good time.
8:54 PM
Anonymous, I would like to reply, and with all due respect and appreciation to the excellent rebuttal from Starpower, I would like to take a slightly different tack.
1. Your assertion that I am a communist or that I support communist principles based on how wealth is distributed via a minimum wage is a straw man. The principle definition of Communism is an economy whereby a nation’s government owns the means of production and hence it’s wage structure. I am in no way suggesting that ALL industries be nationalized. Nor do I think that they should. I also do not believe that completely unfettered Capitalism is the correct path either. Like most things in this world, a constructive balance between the two options will yield the best result for the greatest number of citizens. I believe that a government enforced minimum wage is one of the great levelers in our society, helping to close the yawning gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. History has taught us that, time and again, societies that perpetuate a vast disparity between rich and poor can become unstable and often revolutionary. By and large, the nations that fall into the “vast disparity” category have been authoritarian. It should be fairly obvious that one of the great benefits of liberal democracy has been that democratic countries can elect to reign in economic disparity. By democratically changing tax and labor policy to counter “the rich get richer” nature of capitalism, society is made more stable. No doubt that society can take this idea too far by over-taxation and over-regulation. But thus far in our history, we have yet to cripple our economy by using either method. As a matter of fact, I don’t think we have ever come close.
2. Katrina - Arguing that the structure is the problem is only addressing half of the issue. Sure – the system was a problem. After 5 years in office, one would hope that such systemic problems would be noticed and addressed by those charged with running our government. The Administration, however, created the current structure in response to another tragic failure. Blaming the system that Bush et al. built and not blaming the creators of said is both irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. But the other half of the problem is the dreadful execution of the response; that the Administration failed is undeniable. Therefore, the fault lies overwhelmingly with the Administration and their Republican enablers that allowed such a mess to unfold. They built the system and still botched the recovery.
3. The social issue thing – OK, this is where the rubber meets the road. I am by nature a libertarian when it comes to most of this stuff because nowhere in our Constitution is Congress granted the right to legislate morality. Some of these issues, IMHO, are constitutionally protected. Abortion, guns, burning the flag, and exclusion of organized prayer from schools all has some modicum of constitutional protection. There is still debate on these to be sure, but these issues are, to some degree, settled law. Gay marriage, however, is the wild card. The long standing conservative principle of states rights gets thrown out the window for gay marriage. Marriage has been regulated by the states since this country was founded. This was not good enough for the theocrats in this country that feared more progressive attitudes in Massachusetts and California; they wanted to go national. So they betray one “principle” for another. I think this attitude is bigoted and hypocritical. And there are important questions here the anti-gay marriage side refuses to answer. Why is it so bad that two consenting adults want to ensure that their chosen partner can inherit their estate or visit in the hospital? How that does that affect a healthy hetero marriage? And finally, WTF?
My larger point is that focusing on issues that are divisive at the expense of opportunities where a consensus can be found is a fat waste of time. The rhetorical treatment of these issues fosters fear and resentment; two things in abundant supply already. We need a different approach now. Much good can be accomplished when opposing camps hammer out a compromise that addresses big problems. Every hour spent debating frivolous nonsense like flag burning is an hour that our budget, healthcare, and national security problems go unaddressed. It takes a lot of courage to deal with difficult, long term problems. It takes very little to cry victim and whip up the base come election time.
10:36 AM
Jo,
- Well, first I owe you an apology. I am obviously more to the right than yourself and probably anyone else that reads your page. I actually am a contributor on a “blogspot” blog and chanced across your page after hitting the “next blog” button in a fit of boredom during a slow day at work. We (myself and the other frequents on said page) absolutely hate when someone with different views than ours just pops onto our page and inserts their two cents in a manner that is not in keeping with a civilized debate. So for that I apologize, and for the reference to communism, my point was to say that the government regulation of wage rates is a communistic practice and not say to say that you actually are a communist. However, I do admit that I intentionally worded in order to imply so, and for that, I also apologize (see comment on guests railing at regulars). Also engaging someone in a debate under a cloud of anonymity is shameful (although no one actually uses their real names) and because I believe so, I had decided not to respond to starpower’s rebuttal of my initial comment. Also, one of my best friends is one of the most liberal people I know, and after nearly a decade of friendship (and consequent debate), we have come to the conclusion there are things we just fundamentally disagree on. I figured this much to be true of yourself and your counterparts. So, I decided not to address the issues laid as well for that as much as anything else. I do have a few thoughts though (I hope not un-welcomed ones)…
1. Couldn’t have said it better – “The rhetorical treatment of these issues fosters fear and resentment; two things in abundant supply already. We need a different approach now. Much good can be accomplished when opposing camps hammer out a compromise that addresses big problems.”
I heartily agree with this statement. It does not bother me that there are people that disagree with me, it bothers me that from Capitol Hill to my backyard, there seems to be little effort to foster a civilized debate among those interested. The reality is that my views on abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc… in all likelihood will not change, but I do believe that the rancor and vitriol that inexorably surround the debate on the issues like these that divide us is more detrimental than anything to our country as a whole.
2. From the mind of the “heartless conservative” – As I said, I do not wish to address the merits of the issues mentioned because I am a guest, would feel bad about starting an uninvited argument (which I guess I already did), and realize that much like me, you all have probably pretty much made your minds up, especially about the social issues, and my trying to convince you otherwise would be for naught as morality is something imbedded in the heart and not necessarily in the mind. However here some thoughts
- I do believe that homosexuality and abortion are immoral. I do believe that private citizens should retain their right to bare arms. I do not understand why someone would hate our country enough to burn our flag and choose to still live here, but I do believe they should be able to do so without fear of prosecution or persecution. I do prefer that marriage be relegated only to heterosexual couples. I absolutely do not believe that the “rights” involved in being married, like the ones you mentioned (estate designation, hospital visitation rights), should be denied to a homosexual couple. Further, you touched on something in referring to the fact that marriage has traditionally been granted and regulated by the states. I would like to see this remain as it has been. I do not agree with what Massachusetts has chosen to do in regard to their marriage laws, but I do not live in Massachusetts and could move if I did. The only issue left in deferring to states rights on issues like marriage rights and abortion are those of uniform taxation, but that is a whole other ball of wax…
- Starpower,
“Abortion. Divisive divisive divisive. So much that pro-choice activists have to escort women into clinics where abortion providers get killed by pro-LIFE zealots.”
I feel I need to address this. Let me assure and re-assure you all that a LARGE majority of pro-lifers, including myself, vehemently oppose and are disgusted with those who do these things. Side-note question: If we were debating the merits of religion and a Muslim pooped up and offered his opinion, what would be said of me if I immediately attempted to encapsulate his closely held beliefs by associating them and him with Muslims that murder to further their beliefs? I think it is safe to say that I would justifiably be called presumptuous and intolerant. How is this different than associating the whole of the pro-life movement with those who kill to further it?
- Lastly, I thank you for your time and your page. Would be inappropriate for me to say “Good night and Good luck”?
9:43 AM
that should be "ans a Muslim popped up" not "pooped up"
9:48 AM
Anonymous,
Thank you for your point. It is indeed well-taken. I am fully aware that only a teensy minority of pro-life individuals even support the acts of the few who actually kill abortion providers. I consciously used the term "zealots" to denote that it was not only a minority, but a fringe group not associated with the whole. It certainly was not my intention to associate the entire pro-life movement with renegade activists. Perhaps I should have expounded on that point to clarify my meaning.
You are correct that any of our views are unlikely to be changed by this debate, but I think we all agree that there is value in the discussion.
(Thanks for hosting us, Joe.)
5:38 PM
Anonymous,
No need for apologies. I didn’t think that you were disrespectful or nasty in your comments. I also agree that both of us are unlikely to change our views, though others may be persuaded. At any rate, I welcome any contribution to the discussion that doesn’t cross the nasty line. As this is my site, I will be the judge of that. But generally speaking, I will only delete comments that are maliciously insulting, bigoted, or are soliciting some sort of product or service. Surprisingly, I have had a few of those and I don’t want to be anyone’s advertising vehicle without my consenting to such. I will never boot a comment simply because I disagree with it though. Censorship is not my style.
Finally, posting under anonymous is not something that particularly bugs me. I know others have issues with that but I write under a nom de plume and refuse to throw stones from that glass house.
So please, feel free to put in your two cents whenever you have the urge. My massive audience of tens of people here most likely will not agree with you but that is part of the fun. A one-sided discussion is a monologue and Saturday Night Live proves weekly just how boring those can be.
Thank you for stopping by and I hope we hear from you again.
11:08 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home