News-Record.com

Hey it's Bobby !! Glad you're moving from the blogs to the main-stream.

A plan to win the war on terror? It's a third world thing with local level water pumps for the thirsty in the and a working sewer system for their community.

But you'll diss' that without cause.

A plan to secure our borders? It's a third world thing with a real economy at the local level - they need a reason to stay at home - and less pull from cheap bastards in America would help too. Keeping them in the third world would hurt the American economy in the short term, but not long term IF the kids wil get off their x-box asses and step up to the plate - willing to chop up chickens for a fair wage.

But you'll diss' without cause.

Stop global warming? I think it's fasincating how much attention the Polar Bears are drawing, even GWB can't resist a cute bear-face. A less-oil-now for more-oil-later, is my oft-stated partial plan.

But you'll diss' without cause.

Unfortunately no one has a plan to win the war in the Middle East .. not even your man George who after 5 years has finally decided to think about it for a while.

Personally I thing the probable "Surge" solution is a de facto timetable - 'cause the tribal-members turned freedom-fighters turned terrorists turned insurgents turned religious-avengers .... whew .. all know the probable "Surge" is temporary. They just gotta wait it out.

We agree - six YEARS was plenty of time for you party to do something - but your buddies have not only wasted six years, they have prevented anyone outside of the crony loop from tackling these problems — remember the calls of "unpariotic"? So screw you.

The truth is, both party's have incompetents, and both sides have whined and complained about the incompetent and stupid other party.

I will agree our security and livelihood depend on doing what is right for this country, and not just for a given party ... but it'a big hole we've dug ourselves into. I do fear Nancy is as partisan as Tom Delay was - and that's really scary.

Bobby, their plans for winning the wot include surrender and tax increases. The global warming issue will be dealt with via tax increases on businesses. And securing our borders will require an additional tax to fund their welfare state.
To make the world a better and safer place will require an increase in the minimum wage...and a tax increase on the producers to fund their welfare state.

And you didn't think they had a plan.

Win the "war on terror"? The Democrats can do this by properly redirecting funds currently used for the morass that is Iraq to Afghanistan, Sudan, and Somalia. They can actually try to find Osama bin Laden instead of allowing him to escape as the current administration has done.

Win the war in the Middle East? Which one? Do you mean Iraq, the conflict between Hamas and Israel, or Iran's nuclear program? I don't think the civil war we started in Iraq is "winnable." I think we need to start getting out and letting the Iraqis figure out where to go from here. Hamas and Israel? We need to put more pressure on Israel to stop treating Palestinians as second-class citizens because of religion. Theocracy, however well-meaning it may be, is a thing of ugliness. Iran? Well, because of the emphasis on Iraq, it is going to be more difficult for Democrats, Republicans, or others to put pressure on Iran to cease.

Secure our borders? The Democrats plan to work with the President (unlike his own party) to help legalize people who are already here and otherwise law-abiding. I hope they will relax quotas on immigration and help Immigration and Naturalization to focus on criminal immigrants, such as potential terrorists or drug smugglers. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, frequently do jobs that Americans don't want, such as construction, cleaning, and farm work.

Stop global warming? The Democrats plan to reduce or eliminate tax credits for oil drilling on federal lands and in federal waters, put in place by the current administration. Instead, they plan to give tax credits for clean, renewable sources of energy such as solar panels on buildings or windmills to produce electricity. I hope they will more heavily tax and fine companies that pollute the air. I hope they will tax vehicles that get poor mileage (such as enormous SUV's or pickup trucks) more than vehicles that get excellent mileage, such as hybrids. I hope they will help cities and states improve mass transit systems and sidewalks, so that most people actually use them. This is certainly a major problem here in Greensboro, and one reason our air quality is comparable with that of Los Angeles.

Make the world a better and safer place? Could you be more vague about this? What do you mean by "better" and "safer," and what parts of the world deserve this in your estimation, Mr. Cole?

The Democrats also have a few plans to solve problems you didn't mention. They plan to raise the minimum wage for the first time in ten years, long overdue. They have already begun to attack the culture of corruption so prevalent in Washington now, in both parties. They plan to actually look at no-bid contracts given to companies such as Halliburton and see if they wasted/stole taxpayer money to fatten their own bottom lines.

Can the Democrats fix everything that's wrong in the world? No. But they've got to do a better job than the rubber stampers in the previous Congress did. They can't do much worse.

neocon, if the Democrats raise taxes, it will be because the current administration has irresponsibly run up a deficit of almost 8.7 TRILLION dollars, as shown here http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/.

It used to be said that the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility, but that hasn't been true for 25 years. Now it's the Democrats who are responsible. Also, neocon, see whose taxes they raise. I'd be willing to bet that super-rich individuals and corporations see their taxes go up. I think the middle and poorer classes will see their taxes remain the same or even reduced.

Makes you wonder why it has taken six years before (they waited) to help tackle these problems — because now your security and livelihood depend on them doing what is right for this country, and not just for their party.

Is this a typo/wrong word from the letter writer or the newspaper?

They "waited" because they were not allowed to discuss any issue or present any plans...and now Bush is big on "bipartisan" actions. What a joke.

I hope things will get better. I think it will take many years before the Bush mess can be sorted out and straightened out.

From what I remembered being seared into my brain by hearing it over and over again from John Kerry in 2004 was his saying, "I have a plan". He's the man with the plan. The plan man. Why don't the dem's get their plan from him?

It will be interesting what happens over the next two years. The Dems have the majority, but it is slim, to where they will have filibuster issues, for any decent legislation to pass through... then it has to get through the potential veto of our current president. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster )

On the other hand, the Dems could do as the GOP Congress has done for the last decade, and put off passing legislation until the end. That requires the minority party members, who are in swing districts, to have to worry about missing a vote on the floor...and stay in D.C. for an extra day. This throws off their weekend fundraising schedule, while the other side already has made plans.

Last year, the military budget was delayed until the end of the session. If a couple Dems flew home on a Thursday for a fundraiser, the GOP could have passed a quick vote on a Friday morning, and hit the media hard with issues on how the Dems were raising money, and were not concerned about military spending or another bill they wanted to pass through.

Instead, the GOP killed time on a few minor bills, in order to keep Dems from planning their weekend schedules. One bill that I thought was interesting was the "Horse Protection Act", which took up many days, while so much more could have been discussed on the floor.

Here is the Bill, and notice the dates, times, and the breaks from working:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00503:@@@L&summ2=m&

Also, notice that the bill sponsor, was also the chair of the homeland security commission(priorities?).

Who knows what will happen, and how the bills will be worded. They may just do like the GOP, and pass a bill with a nice name ( ‘No Child Left Behind’ or ‘Clean Air Act’), but leave important issues unaddressed. Ex. Cuts in funding for schools and research in pollution and alternative fuels.

I pray that the Dems and the few moderate GOP members can work together, and pass legislation that truly benefits our Nation.

I continue to be dumbfounded by the Republicans who, beginning minutes after losing the House and Senate, demanded a plan from the Dems. The Bush administration has been operating without one for six years. "Stay the Course" is not a plan. "I've prayed on this decision" is not a plan. Yet all of a sudden it's the Dems' responsibility to provide one. And since the Republicans accomplished very little in those six years with total majority and the executive, it's laughable that they are now setting the expectations that the Dems must make serious progress on cleaning up the messes -- make that catastrophes -- that they have created. I hope that both parties will cooperate and get some things accomplished, but from what I've seen from The Decider, let's just say I'm skeptical.

I think what we're beginning to see is the shoe on the other foot. Whoever is in control is going to face attacks and the criticism that Bobby mentioned in his letter.

Republicans and the Bush administration has been incessantly attacked by the democrats as not having a plan (for Iraq, being the main one). So now is there time to put up and shut up. So what do they do? They decide to focus on domestic issues and let Iraq boil for another six months. Hell, they even have Cindy Sheehan barking down their throats.

All I can say is that democrats that post here better get used to having their party attacked on a daily basis by lte's. That's what republicans have dealt with for 6 years.

I'm a big fan of observing patterns so it will be interesting.

Do I expect the dems to fix everything overnight? No way. That's not even a fair thing to ask.

What does this mean, though?

"they were not allowed to discuss any issue or present any plans?"

It will also be interesting to see how many vetoes Bush will use in the last 2 years in office.

With all due respect Nitpicker, it hasn't just been one-sided criticism of the Republicans by the Dems. Perhaps you've heard members of the Democratic party called "treasonous", "siding with Al-Qaeda", "unpatriotic", "emboldening our enemies", just to name a few.

And I don't think it's their policy to let Iraq boil for six months, but how audacious of the Republicans to insist for nearly four years that everything is going fine and that the media is responsible for the negative public opinion, yet the minute the Dems get some power, the tide immediately turns to "What is YOUR plan to fix this mess?" Notice that no one in the Bush administration ever uttered a negative thing about our progress in Iraq until after the November election. Now all of a sudden, Bush is contemplative and willing to reconsider. Do you think that's a coincidence?

"do you think that's a coincidence"

No way, Howie. Bush knows he's been beat and now is hoping to play nice guy. I actually saw a quote straight outta Bush's mouth the other day where he said something like "Now that the dems are in power, we can finally work together in a bipartisan fashion."

I was left thinking "Why the heck couldn't you work together in a bipartisan fashion when republicans were in power?"

Also, I didn't mean to imply that democrats were the only one's who attacked another party. Republicans are pretty good at name-calling too. I just think that there is a trend to the amount and type of criticism that follows whoever is in power. (For example, it's kind of hard to blame the democrats for everything if they are in the minority in both houses and the white house. Now that they've got a lot more power, they should expect more criticism) The republicans can now sit back and say many of the same things that the democrats have been saying before. With one exception, of course, and that is that Bush is still president and still has the power to veto among other things.

Nitpicker, you summed up the situation almost exactly as I see it. In fact, the cynic in me thinks that Bush playing nice, and these demands for a plan are intended to set the table for the 2008 campaign. So they'll be able to say "see, they've had the power and have done nothing with it". Almost like our political process is one long campaign. But that's the cynic in me -- only one of the many voices in my head.

I'M BACK FROM MIAMI AND READY TO RUMBLE!!

We should all give thanks that Bobby Cole's letter was "spell checked" and his grammar was checked BEFORE publication!!

As to the content of the letter, Bobby Cole's advice is disingenuous at best and continues the knee jerk reaction to being rejected at the polls.

The neocons should be run out of the GOP on a rail! They have taken away the high ground on being fiscally conservative. They have ruined our reputation in the world by the foray into a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. And last, they have dug a hole so deep that an entire generation will suffer while trying to rebuild our country.

This letter is an ignorant response to getting rebuked or as "W" said, "THUMPED" in November. Consider the source, folks, and let's move on.

P.S. I could have predicted Bobby was from Randleman!! LOL!

"They decide to focus on domestic issues and let Iraq boil for another six months."

nitpicker, who is the Commander and Chief of the military?

DD, did you go to the game? I am very disappointed that I couldn't make it, but circumstances prevented it. Was it fun?

"I think six months is plenty of time "

Bobby, I think SIX YEARS is also plenty of time to clean up one's own messes. Shame that, with control of all of Congress and the Executive, the GOP couldn't quite do it. And you wonder why they're called incompetent..

JDR: "The truth is, both party's have incompetents, and both sides have whined and complained about the incompetent and stupid other party." You are SO right! Until we get some bipartisianship and cooperation between the two parties with a focus on what is good for our country, we are going to be "treading water." Old saying "United we stand, divided we fall."

Beadbaby: "Immigrants, both legal and illegal, frequently do jobs that Americans don't want, such as construction, cleaning, and farm work" Is that an assumption? Do you have stats? Is there really any way to PROVE this?

Howie: "I continue to be dumbfounded by the Republicans who, beginning minutes after losing the House and Senate, demanded a plan from the Dems." Maybe this is because for years, the Democrats have been saying they have a plan? Now, people simply want to see what it is!

DD: "They have ruined our reputation in the world by the foray into a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11." Perhaps true, but have you conveniently forgotten that the majority of the Democrats in Congress voted to support this move?

Welcome back Deac,

Hope you had a good time. I hate your team didn't win but it wasn't for lack of effort. They have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

Denz,

I think we both know the answer to that question so I'm not gonna bother to respond to that question. So you think since George Bush is commander in chief that the democrats should not hold him accountable and just let him 'stay the course'?

I just think that many folks are disappointed that for a party that gave the impression that they were going to make drastic changes to the Iraq situation, they've decided to not do anything for 6 months (that's a quote from a leading democrat). What's 6 months going to do? It's ironic to me that people were griping about Bush waiting until the new year to release his 'plan' and yet the democrats are holding off for 6 months. The war started almost 4 years ago there has been mostly criticism of how it has been ran all the while. The dems got us fired up, they got us wanting change, they got us believing they were going to be the catalyst for change in Iraq. So let's get on with it, not waste another 6 months and no telling how many lives.

Perhaps this is evidence of the democrats working towards a bipartisan solution. But, I've gotta say, I'm kinda in the same boat as Howie when he says he feels like "our political process is one long campaign"

bunny, frankly I'm going on anecdotal evidence that my students tell me. Many of my students are third-shift workers for different manufacturers or businesses. They tell me that most of their colleagues are likewise from other countries; only the bosses are American. It has become a joke that construction crews only speak Spanish, but one of my students told me that it was true for his job. I have known only one professional immigrant: he used to be a math professor at A&T.

A cursory search of the web found little hard evidence one way or the other as far as what impact immigrants have on the US job market. For one thing, they can't even agree on how many illegal immigrants are in the United States; estimates range from 11 million up to 20 million. It's all hot air, including the assertion I made above.

One thing that several sources noted is that immigrant labor has artificially depressed wages in blue-collar jobs. Americans would demand more money to do the jobs like housekeeping or construction, and many businesses know that. So, it appears that both of us, bunny, want it both ways. You want minimum wage to remain at $5.15/hour without using immigrant labor. I'd like to see a higher minimum wage for everyone, without thinking about why the minimum wage has stayed so low for so long.

Where's Bobby?

(He must be a troll)

Beadbaby, the super rich and corporation pay no taxes. Their tax burden is simply passed on the average Joe via higher rates for their goods or services. The tax bill levied on them will ultimately be paid for by the working stiff.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15474

Beadbaby,

Yes, we have opposing views on the minimum wage issue. Since you want to see the higher minimum wage for everyone, what do you propose should be done with the workers who have earned raises over time through experience on the job but who will now be making the same wage as a new hire with no experience? Do you give the experienced workers a raise also? If so, then you're increasing even more the amount of money companies will pay out. If not, you're telling these experienced workers that their hard work and dedication have been for naught. Have you also considered the additional money (above the minimum wage increase) that the company will be required by law to pay out for payroll-related items?

Small business (which employ the majority of Americans) simply can't absorb the cost of this wage increase. Therefore, they must either raise prices or reduce their work staff or both. Since the minimum wage increase affects a only small percentage of workers, how is this good for everyone if we are paying higher prices? How is it good for those workers who are laid off and will have no income AND have to pay higher prices?

I'm honestly interested in your "take" on this because many people have never thought of the ramifications.

Actually, those who read the newspaper or listen to network tv/radio news - as opposed to those who get their news from Fox or talk radio - know what the Democratic plan is and the proposed timetable for its adoption. The public has every right to keep the Demos noses to the grindstone to implement their legislative agenda, barring presidential vetoes, and judge them by their own timetable.
Bobby and neocon fall outside this general grouping, however. Having made a blog career of calling those of us "Bush haters" who have watched and publicly noted the incompetence of Smarmy the Clown and his Congressional cronies, they now are racing headlong to prove themselves genuine "Demo haters" even before the new Congress is in session.
Don't count on Bush or the Republican leaders in Congress taking a bipartisan approach. Yesterday's news shows that Bush is already trying to ignore the results of Nov's election while the Congressional Republicans have eagerly embraced two years of whining about the Demos doing unto them as they did unto the Demos.
Let's just hope that Smarmy's likely decision to adopt a surge strategy entails an achievable military mission rather than just increasing the number of targets for IEDs. Gee, reactionaries, it only took five years for him to figure out staying the course wasn't working (and that reacting keeps you always behind the curve).
Happy new year to all.

"Bush haters"... I don't believe I've ever used that term.

Limp wristed,terrorist friendly appeasers who suffer from BDS and want to kill the terrorists with love... sure, but I don't recall using "Bush haters".

Bunny,

I realize you didn't ask me, but may I chime in? You state that: "small business simply can't absorb the cost of this wage increase"? To use another of your quotes: "Is that an assumption? Do you have stats? Is there really any way to PROVE this?"

I've heard this claim made several times, yet it sounds like another of the many scare tactics we've heard for years. It reminds me of chestnuts like "the death tax must be eliminated because it is ruining family farms", and "the answer to rising healthcare costs is tort reform." The idea that a company employing minimum wage workers will collapse if the wage goes up a dollar or two is baseless, and even if it were true, how is that justification for not giving people a decent wage?

Howie,

You and I BOTH know that we could research and find articles to support our opposing positions. Instead, pretend YOU are a small business owner. Put your economics hat on and explain where you intend to get the money to pay the additional wages and the additional costs to your business resulting from this increase? What will you do with the older workers who have earned raises but will now be making only minimum wage? I'm not attacking you, I'm just interested to hear your solutions because you seem intelligent. So far, no one else has been able to explain it, so I'm counting on you! :-)

"So you think since George Bush is commander in chief that the democrats should not hold him accountable and just let him 'stay the course'?"

My point is that the Commander in Chief of the military is the one who gets to make those decisions. Sure, Congress can and will exercise whatever oversight it can- see Harry Waxman, who's chomping at the bit to begin some trials.

My point: Congress can't just say, "Get our boys outta there" and make it happen, thus it's not entirely correct to argue that they're "doing nothing for 6 months". That make sense?

I think Minimum Wage is a red herring, Bunny.

I am a small business owner, but I don't hire anyone but my children so that doesn't qualify.

I've heard the most min' wage' workers are at places like McDonalds - and they can afford it. Certainly there are a few ma-and-pa places that it will affect - perhaps the local Stop-and-Shop which has, say 2 workers per shift - so that's $48 / day if we go around the clock, plus FICA and other taxes - call it $60 / day.

A lot? Maybe.

Here's how I see it: We need to work towards the OPPOSITE of the death-spiral to cheapness we've been fixated on, i.e., one needs to shop at Walmart 'cause one can't afford Lord & Taylor, so therefore Lord & Taylor can't afford to pay him more so there're no jobs and the only job available is at Walmart. A death spiral.

OPPOSITE: Low wage guy makes more, spends more still trying to keep up - perhaps a little salary more gets him out of his parents house sooner .. so that money is now going to an apartment. The apartment owner now has a little more and he spreads it around too.

It's called "Growth", our entire economy is based on it. Why folks insist on the death spiral is beyond me.

Neo: Maybe on your link - I'm not yet convinced on your link: it's figures lie and liars figure.

First from the link - then comments:

"In 1981, before the Reagan tax cuts could take full effect, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 17.58 percent of all income taxes in the United States. By the time Reagan left office in 1989, that same group paid 25.24 percent of all incomes taxes in the U.S.--almost a 50 percent increase in the share paid by the rich.

"Conversely, after the Clinton administration pushed for tax hikes in 1993, the top 1 percent saw their share of income tax revenues drop from 29.01 percent in 1993 to 28.86 percent in 1994.

1981 ... the top 1 percent .. paid 17.58 percent.
1989 ... that same group ... 25.24 percent.

OK - but that's a big change over a long 8 years.

1993 ... the top 1 percent .. paid 29.01 percent.
1994 ... that same group ... 28.86 percent.

That's a small change over a short time. Why use those stats? Figures lie and liars figure?

ALSO What happened 1989 to 1993? Was it "Read My Lips", or something else? I think it's figures lie and liars figure.

Bunny, first off, thanks for the compliment. I'll try to do justice, since I apparently speak for many. Here goes:

If I owned a small business, employed minimum wage employees, and received this mandate to increase their wages, the way I see it there are two choices. Either I try to absorb the cost or I pass it along.

If I choose to absorb it, I'd either choose to make less money, or operate more efficiently. The ability to alter the operation would depend on the nature of my business. I kind of like this option personally, because I'm a bit of an efficiency nut and I like the idea of ingenuity and innitiative to feed technological advances, but that's just me.

If I choose to pass the cost along to my customers, then that would result in a price increase. While this point will have opponents saying "See, just like we said, minimum wage means more money out of my pocket". Well the reality is that wages typically represent the highest percentage for operating costs, so any time any company opts to pay its employees more, then the cost is passed along to consumers. The company I work for prides itself on hiring and keeping the best and the brightest, and I assure you that when we get raises each year, it's not coming out of the pockets of the senior executives, rather, we typically bump our prices a few cents each year.

So let's say I own a gas station and employ ten minimum wage employees, and my payroll goes up $1/hr., or $2000 per year per employee, and for the sake of argument the payroll taxes and various other stuff goes up another $1000. And also, let's say I have four people who started at minimum wage and worked here for a year and I had raised them a dollar, so I'd probably want to do the same so I don't lose them. So that's an increase of about $42,000 in operating cost. If I sell two million gallons of gas a year (don't kow if that's a high or low number), I'd have to raise my gas prices by 2.1 cents per gallon, or about 1%. Are these realistic assumptions? I don't tknow. But that's 548 cars per day, pumping ten gallons each. Seems a little high, but so does a gas station employing ten min-wage employees.

But an important point to consider is competition, which is at the core of capitalism. If I am operating a business and employing minimum wage workers, then likely so are the people with whom I am competing, and they'll have the same choices to make -- absorb or pass along the increase, so I don't see it as each company operating in a vacuum devoid of other factors. So if the guy across the street from my gas station is also employing ten guys, then he has the same decision to make.

But the overriding point here is that in every business, there are decisions to be made about price points and profits. If business is good, do you choose to add a person, or absorb the increase through OT for the short-term, or outsource. I don't expect anyone to go out of business because of the increase, and in my humble opinion, if it costs me an extra penny or two at the gas station, the Wal Mart, the dry cleaner's, etc. then that just might be the cost of living in the greatest society in the world.

And I'd propose an alternative to the minimum wage, and that is a maximum wage. CEO pay and boards' of directors' pay is completely out of hand. Why don't we fish in the deep water?

Thanks for your attention; feel free to torpedo my stream of consciousness theory.

"Makes you wonder why it has taken six years before they waited to help tackle these problems"

The above statement ranks as one of the truly silly statements that have graced this page.

Give me a break- the Democrats been shut out of every governing process for 6 years not informed of legislation, not allowed to provide amendments, limited in debate, shouted down as unpatriotic when they disagree with the administration. When have they had an opportunity to "help tackle these problems".

Howie,

Just a hypothetical.. If you were a shareholder in a company (we'll call it Home Depot for convenience) and your CEO was being forced out for poor performance what competitive advantage would it give you to give him a going away gift for say... $210,000,000.00. If you could explain the economics of this hypothetical situation perhaps I could understand the economics of a minimum wage rise.

I hope you can help because things like this confuse me.

Rufus,

I see absolutely no competitive advantage to paying a failed CEO $200 million. In fact, the only advantage I see is that it will help the company attract the next celebrity CEO, who will likely hijack them for comparable millions at the end of his/her tenure. And guess whose pockets these millions come from (hint, the answer can be found walking in and out of Home Depot, and look a lot like you and me).

Thanks Howie,

I understand this a little better now. Now onto the minimum wage, I understand that a rise in the minimum wage is bad for the economy. One noted economist stated that raises in the minimum wage have cause 5 of the last 4 recessions.

Howie,

Just a few points.

First, I kinda like the idea of a maximum wage.

Regarding one of your statements. A company can decide to 'operate more efficiently'. I immediately translated that to lay-offs. But besides that, I don't know of many companies that sit around and say: "let's not operate efficiently. Let's wait around until we have to pay employees more for minimum wage and then we'll start operating efficiently." Any company worth its salt already has the goal of operating efficiently and I don't see a minimum wage increase making much difference there.

So, my guess is that you are right in that most companies will pass this along to their customers. That may translate to just a few cents here in there. Let's say it cost a dry-cleaner an extra 10-15 cents a shirt to make up the cost. That may be an extra dollar a week for a lot of folks. Add to that the increase at the gas station, the drug store, the fast food place. Dollars here and cents there do tend to add up. Don't believe me? You should see my Pepsi budget.

Is it that big a deal? I don't know.

I am not against a minimum wage increase really. I think that the minimum wage probably should be adjusted periodically. Inflation happens regardless of minimum wage. What I don't like so much is the idea of the 'living wage'.

I will say that I agree with James that minimum wage is little more than a red herring. I think the republicans should go along with the democrats on this one. It ain't worth the fight.

Denz,

What you say makes sense.

When I say they're "doing nothing for 6 months", I don't mean it in the same manner that Bobby does. Is anyone sure this is the same Bobby or is that just a guess?

All I'm referring to is a democrat's statement that they were going to wait 6 months to see how Bush's new plans went before taking action. The action that they do have at their disposal is control of the purse strings. That's a pretty big power regardless of who the Commander in Chief may be. It's a power struggle no doubt. And I'm aware of all the political ramnifications of what such a move might have.

I think we probably agree more than disagree on this issue. Merely a manner of interpretation.

I guess the thing also is this: I can't remember a single democrat even intimating that once elected they would give Bush another 6 months at getting it right before taking action. I'm seeing alot of campaign promises (promises that I was hoping to be fulfilled) falling by the wayside. No surprise there, though.

Howie G.,
I was there with the Deacon Club and it was wonderful! We were picked up by buses and taken to pep rallies, receptions and the like, then flown home via charter. It took exactly one hour and fifty minutes to get to Miami from the time we taxied to the runway in Greensboro to the time we landed in Miami. The pilot came on and said he'd have to let the engines cool for a while after we got off! Miami rolled out the red carpet for both teams and it was very impressive. From the looks of the stadium and the volume, I believe we had more fans there than Louisville. I was stunned at the number of fans who had no connection to Wake, but flew down on their own to support the Deacs.

Oh, by the way, I just "love" the call
for bi- partisanship coming from the GOP. How disingenuous can one group be??? Makes me want to go visit Randy "Duke" Cunningham over at Butner!

"All I'm referring to is a democrat's statement that they were going to wait 6 months to see how Bush's new plans went before taking action."

nitpicker- Do you feel that doing so is unreasonable? I don't recall anybody running on a position of opposition to plans that Bush was still taking his sweet time formulating.

After the briefings, meetings, survey groups, etc, I think Bush just may be willing to consider courses of action that are counter to his earlier plans, and possibly even based in reality. We'll see what happens.

Denz,

My honest to God belief is they are making sure that they don't appear to be 'cutting and running'. Can't blame them for that.

"I was there with the Deacon Club and it was wonderful! We were picked up by buses and taken to pep rallies, receptions and the like, then flown home via charter. "

Contrast with:

"Your attitude toward anyone who cannot do as you have done, is very revealing"

(snicker, snicker)

Dang Nit I should have picked up on that one since it was originally directed at me. All I get to fly in is a single engine four seater. It would take me about 6-7 hours to get to Miami not including time for fuel stops. And to think of how those private jets contribute to global warming ;-)

Oh well we can't all live the high flutin life.

BTW, when I asked my WFU alum brother in law about the WFU basketball team being 8-5, he replied "Who cares, we're a football school now"!!

As a UNC-CH grad I have to suffer through football season nearly every year, but usually not basketball, as is true this year.

My personal belief, Denzien, is the "delay" in GWB's new strategy announcement is that he FINALLY is paying attention. A couple specifics;

Early 2004, he really believed Iraq was behind us as he touted Social Security Reform as his focus for the coming year. I sense Rove and rummy and Big Dick told him it was all under control. At that point he wasn't reading newspapers, you may remember.

When Katrina hit, he had that genuine look of disbelief - I sense he had been told Brownie and Cherkoff had it all under control, but seeing first hand that they didn't ... shook him a bit. Note it was only after Katrina that he started making it a point to say he was reading newspapers - check it out, I'm 100% correct on this.

So I think now, after being surprised at the election results, certainly disappointed at the moral fall recently taken by many in his crony-group have ... he's decided to think .. and he is finally looking at the incredible mess Iraq is in .. he is in shell-shock.

So that is my theory ... instead of a couple days to issue a new path forward - as he initially stated was his intent - he's FINALLY opening his eyes. He is learning that a quick solution doesn't exist, and he's might even be seeing that the folks who for years had been assuring him all was OK ("Stay the Course") .. are the same folks really mucked things up .. big time.

And yes, Nitpicker, the LTE writter is the exact same Bobby Cole that has graced our pages .. and to him ... for his jumping on "Democrats" not having an off-the-shelf solution (no one has an off-the-shelf solution) .. I again say, "Screw you Bobby. You are an ass".

"My honest to God belief is they are making sure that they don't appear to be 'cutting and running'. Can't blame them for that."

WTF!?!! Somebody's kid - a buncha folks kids, more likely- are coming home in a $#@@!#$ body bag because the prez doesn't want to appear to be cutting and running, a strategic choice preferred by the very folks charged with advising Bush on this war?

Why this is worthy of the adoration this stooge is given by some (not you, per se) is completely beyond me.

Hey JDR why don't you go inhale Hillary and Nancy's member

" ... inhale Hillary and Nancy's member" ???

No prob' Bobby, whatever you say.

Is this a members only forum?

Yeah but not Nancy & Hillarys members. JDR, you must have a secret fan if he/she goes to the trouble to create such a nom de plume.

Have fun tomorrow, gotta go make a living in Charlotte.

Dan, as a fellow UNC-CH graduate, I recommend that you take pride in the basketball team this year—the women's basketball team. We're undefeated and leading the conference so far. Got to love that!

"Hey JDR why don't you go inhale Hillary and Nancy's member"

Classy!

Bead, I do take pride in both the mens and womens teams at UNC-CH and do keep up with the lady Tarheels accomplishments.

Sorry I've been away. A couple of follow-ups.

Rufus,
Do you have a source for the minimum wage/recession theory? I'd like to take a look at that. First time I've heard it.

Nitpicker,
I realize prices for goods and services will tick up a little bit, but my point was that the vast majority of companies who don't employ min-wage folks give raises every year, and those expenses are passed along to someone. And since prices already tick up a little every year, people at minimum wage are earning less comparitively than they did ten years ago, so we are making them considerably poorer.

Also: "I guess the thing also is this: I can't remember a single democrat even intimating that once elected they would give Bush another 6 months at getting it right before taking action. I'm seeing alot of campaign promises (promises that I was hoping to be fulfilled) falling by the wayside."
Actually, lots of them were waiting for the Iraq Study Group's report before charting a particular course of action. That was supposed to be the catalyst for change (not the "quanit" document that our prez considers it). I remember because many of our Republican neighbors were on this board griping about lack of a plan. And as for the purse strings, I don't think there was ever a plan to cut funding for the war and leave our troops in a more harmful position (though the Republicans tried that scare tactic). To sum up, I think that giving the prez the time to turn this around, now that he's seen the light as described by JDR, seems like a reasoned, logical, COLLABORATIVE approach.

DD,
Glad you had a good time. I'm in the DC, and know lots of others within, but I haven't heard from any of them since the game. Glad you all had fun. And everything I've heard in local/national media said that you all represented us well. As I said, I'm really disappointed that I couldn't go.

Dan,
Yes, it's going to be another lean year for the Deacs on the hardwood. I think we'll surprise a couple, but this is officially a rebuilding year (not like the one UNC was supposed to have last year -- an actual rebuilding year). I like some of the things I've seen from our young guys, but they have a long way to go, especially since most everyone else got better.

Howie G,
It was absolutely fantastic in Miami. Spent one day over on South Beach and I can tell you that Dan and others would not like that place---"homosheckshewels" walking around as well as some homeless folks! :)

Dan,
Thought you finished up at UNCG after a few classes at Carolina? Which was it? Where did you take the most coursework?

JDR,
Great posts, as usual. Poor ol' Bobby Cole doesn't want to take the heat for his own LTE??
Guess he's got a good thing going with the LTE as it was proofed before printing. Wouldn't want to ruin that with his usual misappropriation of the noun/verb combination! If he were to respond, here's what it would look like:

"You liberals doesn't know nothing. All You do is tear a man down cause he maybe don't spell everything right. If I was you, I would just thank a soldier in Iraq for fighting for my freedom and leave it at that. I expect to be tore down by DD and JDR, because thats all they knows how to do. They don't love America they just want to support the terrists."

Now the above parody is fiction, based on fact. No animals were harmed in the creation of "Bobby's Rant". Do not try this at home, as I am a trained professional. Available at all Eckerds, CVS and Walgreens.

James,

Thanks for the response. I didn't remember or didn't see when he used his last name before. Definitely sounded like something he'd say, though.

Denz,

As far as not wanting to appear to be 'cutting and running', I was actually talking about the democrats not wanting to appear that way. I was saying "Can't blame them for that" because of all the accusations during the election.

Howie G,

"I don't think there was ever a plan to cut funding for the war"

The quote I saw basically stated that they were going to wait 6 months to see how 'the plan' worked out. After that, they would consider cutting funding for the war. (One of the few weapons at their disposal). Can't remember who said it. Wish I could.

nitp,

I think during the campaign it was John Conyers who said something about appropriations, and affecting the funding of the war. Then the Republicans jumped all over it, and all the other Dems quickly shot it down. That's my recollection. There may have been more said since then -- like the specific six month thing -- but if so I haven't heard it.

I just got through reading the blogs on this site, since when has the dem's been shut out where theirs ideas or plans haven't been expressed. They've been on the tube and in the papers everyday whining and crying. And you mean to say that during these times, that they couldn't state their plans or what course of action they would champion. What a copout.

Remember, its our duty to critize the party in power, the dem's, and critize they plans, if they every have one. Your side told us this. So live with it. The more the dem's keep up what they are purposing the quicker the rep's get the control back. The quicker they act like lib's the faster the control will return to the rep's.

DD glad to have you back, you are a roll model for the liberal's. You are everything, we conservatives, think a liberal is. The more you show you arrogance, the more others see what your side is. The more you critize, the better I like it. It shows me I'm on the right track. Thank you. The spot light is now on your "leaders", and I use that term loosely, and how they show their leadership. So get ready to start making excuses for them and bearing your head in the sand. It should be hard, you've been doning it all along anyway. Just be yourself.

Howie,

You may be right. I just read the article this week on CNN but can't locate it now.

Mr. Cole, or Bobby if you prefer, why should the Democrats have propounded anything during the Republican stranglehold on DC? If they had ideas that the Republicans would have accepted, the Republicans would have taken credit. If the ideas were unacceptable, the Republicans would have crucified them at election time.

I recognize that this is pusillanimous of the Democrats, but I try to be semi-realistic in my idealism. I seriously doubt that attitude is paranoid, given some of the Bush administration's actions in the past. They hold grudges and they are vindictive.

Mr. Cole, or Bobby if you prefer, why should the Democrats have propounded anything during the Republican stranglehold on DC? If they had ideas that the Republicans would have accepted, the Republicans would have taken credit. If the ideas were unacceptable, the Republicans would have crucified them at election time.

I recognize that this is pusillanimous of the Democrats, but I try to be semi-realistic in my idealism. I seriously doubt that attitude is paranoid, given some of the Bush administration's actions in the past. They hold grudges and they are vindictive.

And Bobby, or Mr. Cole, you may dislike DemonDeacon's criticism of your written English, but he has a valid point. When you misspell words, misuse punctuation, or use non-standard grammar, you rightly or wrongly make yourself look unintelligent and uncultured.

I found 24 errors of spelling, punctuation, grammar, or usage in your blog on this thread. I thought about actually proofreading it in this message, but I decided that would be potentially humiliating. I'll be happy to point them out for you if you like, though. One or two may be typos, but 24 is sloppy editing or poor skills.

Bobby, pal, one word of advice that you never asked for: proofread.

Well I'll cut cha a break on the spelling and grammer, Bobby - I'm certainly the worst, at least in here - 'cause I type way too fast and then go back to correct, often restructuring sentences without a good proofread. It's a wonder I can communicate at all. Me and MY get mixed all the time, as do my R and F keystrokes. Worse, my fingers tend to slid a key too, so "now is the time ..." comes out "biq us rhw rine ... "

... Just don't say "WHERE'S YOUR PLAN, LOOSER DEMOCRATS ... " and expect to get away without earned backlash.

As Howie G stated - Plans have been stated - but they are met with "treasonous", "siding with Al-Qaeda", "unpatriotic", "emboldening our enemies", just to name a few.

Just ask Neo - he jumps all over me every time I share one I've heard, gloating as he spits "wristed, terrorist friendly appeasers who suffer from BDS and want to kill the terrorists with love... "

JDR, with due respect to Bobby, there is a difference between typos and horrendous syntax/grammar/spelling. Some of his stuff is almost incomprhensible.

Case in point: I wrote "incomprhensible" instead of "incomprehensible". Oops.

I can generally tell what Bobby is talking about despite any mistakes in his grammar or spelling.

I don't see it as that big of a deal. If this were an English term paper, I'd say go ahead and get your red pen out and grade him.

It's not. It's a place that is open for everyone to exchange ideas.

I'm fairly proficient at reading and writing but my major strengths lie elsewhere. I try not to criticize others who are less skilled in those areas. It just comes across as cruel. No, on second thought, it IS cruel.

You don't laugh at retarded people do you? I don't see much difference. I'm not calling Bobby retarded but you have no idea why he spells poorly or uses bad grammar.

Sorry if that came across as harsh. Not meant to be that way. Hope you all have a great weekend.

Well I certainly hadn't intended to be cruel. My apologies. His LTE is very well written, and I thought that was because he took the time to read and re-read. I was only hoping for the same from his posts, as they are difficult to follow (other than the name-calling and baiting -- that's pretty clear). Again, I had not intended any harm.

Howie G, you were able to see and fix your typo, albeit after you hit the "Post" button. Everyone makes a couple of mistakes every so often, but 24 are more than typos.

And James D. Rockefeller, I like the "WHERE'S YOUR PLAN, LOOSER DEMOCRATS ... " quote. Do you think he means to imply that Republicans are tight? :D I have to admit that would explain a few things...

Miss Manners strikes again.

The democrats campaigned on surrender in Iraq. This was their #1 issue. They were going to drain the swamp and surrender simotaniously. So I wonder why we have heard nothing from them, now that they are in power, about the promised surrender? Miss America is whining about the minimum wage and anything BUT Iraq. Hmmm...could it be they are afraid of the backlash if they demand immediate surrender? Could it be that Mother Sheehan & co. have been duped into casting their votes for a crowd that has no intention of bucking the prez and is waiting for him to speak so they can react to him and call that 'leadership'? hmmm...

Folks, we are not talking "spelling errors" due to typing too fast....when referring to Bobby's posts, they are indicative of a functional illiterate.

And to those who think pointing this out is "elitist", then let me remind you that as taxpayers, we expect grammar proficiency from all students who matriculate in our high schools.

Bobby Cole's misuse of the words "was" and "were" are not colloquialisms, rather they are indications of grammatical ignorance. They are certainly not mispellings either! Glad he had a middle school student, or a computer spell check go over his LTE before he submitted it. Of course, a sympathetic editor may have "cleaned it up" a bit.
God Bless America!

Been out making a living today, seems the theme has morphed into an obsession with one man's spelling & grammar. As long as I can understand the general message I don't have any problem.

Maybe the N&R can add a spell checker for us hmmmm??

DD, I went to UNC-G for 2 years, transferred to UNC-CH my junior year, spent my senior year in France as a UNC-CH exchange student, and then finished up one more semester at UNC-CH. So technically speaking I was at UNC-CH for 3 semesters, but considered a UNC-CH student for 5 semesters. Slice it and dice it anyway you want, my diploma sitting right above my desk says UNC-CH.

Neo, I heard Hannity is doing an interview with Mother Sheehan that will be broadcast on some special FNC show on Sunday night. That will be worth watching more than The Donald and Rosie.

Maybe Mother Sheehan and her protesters will be camping out in front of Nancy Pelosi's vineyards soon!!

Howie, I pull for all ACC teams with one exception, the teams who sport dark blue. I have long pulled for the Deacs and NCSU, as long as they are not playing the Heels.

I can't remember which game, but it was a recent one. The Heels had scored 70 points into the game and the announcer stated that 50 of the 70 were scored by freshmen. THAT is impressive.

DD like I said before, I love to hear you critize my spelling or grammar. It speaks volumes about you. But don't worry, your other lib's are helping you out. You're more concerned about spelling or grammar then content. That really speaks about who you are and what you are. Personally, I feel sorry for you. Your values are not ones that I want. I have never tried to hid who I am, can you say the same. Some of you people can find some of the stupidest things to worry about and overlook what is important. But if it make you feel you are better and superior to others, knock yourself out. To us, you sound like spoiled little kids with their tongues stuck out. Go back to telling yourself how great you are. I'm through for the night.

Beadbaby, who cares who gets the credit for doing what right for the country. Isn't that what all our elected repersentative suppose to do,or, is it more important who get the credit. I personally don't care who does what is best for this country, as long as it get's done. You may feel diffent.

"I personally don't care who does what is best for this country, as long as it get's done."

Then why the animosity towards the "other team"?

"since when has the dem's been shut out where theirs ideas or plans haven't been expressed. "

You're not overly familiar with the way Congress works, are you?

neocon, I'm not Miss Manners; I'm the grammar police. :D At least I'm the next best thing to the grammar police; I'm an English teacher.

nitpicker, I can see how you can say that some of my comments were cruel. I really didn't intend them to be.

Bobby, when you read this tomorrow, people do make judgments on a person's intelligence based on the correctness of his or her writing. DemonDeacon is not alone in this, nor is this a particularly liberal trait. If anything, it is a conservative trait. It is certainly possible that you have a learning disability in writing; my brother does. It is a real handicap. My brother has found ways to help compensate for his deficits, though. He consistently uses the spellchecker and asks for help proofreading for important documents, such as a resume. You should, in my opinion, type your comments in Word or WordPerfect before he posts them. A spellchecker won't pick up every mistake, but it would help find some of the more obvious ones. It really would help your credibility if you could improve your writing. It would also help you in real life.

Back to the thread: neocon, the Democrats will do everything in their power to bring the troops out of this unwinnable war. It's just that they control only the pursestrings, not the armed forces themselves. That's part of the executive branch. Both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have expressed disapproval of Bush's proposal to send a "surge" of troops into Iraq. They plan to pass a resolution against this newest Bush ploy. Other than cutting military funding, there is little else they can do.

And again, Bobby, let's be realistic. I agree: it shouldn't matter who gets credit for good ideas. Remember, though, these are politicians. Credit or blame affects their job reviews, i.e. elections. Politics is all about making themselves look better than their opponents.

Bobby,
You claim that you do not share my values or vice versa. That is an understatement, because I value education and have an affinity for those who choose to become educators.

Your lack of knowledge in matters of, as Sam Ervin would say, "the mother tongue" is atrocious. But even THAT lack of knowledge is surpassed by your ignorance of how our government works. When combined, you come across as some half wit high school dropout who thinks anyone who can string together a sentence is a "liberal elitist". Give me a break! Bobby, if you think you can pigeonhole literate Americans as "elites" then you have dug yourself a deep hole.

Howie,

Actually that was a joke told to me by an economics major in college to highlight the abstraction of his field.

Sort of like one told to me by a math major.

"There are 3 kinds of mathematicians: Those who can count and those who can't".

Obviously it doesn't take much to amuse me.

"There are 3 kinds of mathematicians"

Yeah, Rufus, just like there are 10 kinds of people, those that understand binary and those that don't.

I'm one of the latter. :)

DD, again, I want to thank you for being yourself. You prove everything I have said about you, everytime you post. I just hope you don't get too big of a nose bleed. Your nose is stuck way up in the air. But you do have plenty of company to join you. I would tell you to have a great weekend, but I don't think you can. You're too judgmental to be able to enjoy yourself.

Bobby, I would like to ask you again about your familiarity with the workings of the House and Senate, and how a person who would make a statement like:

"since when has the dem's been shut out where theirs ideas or plans haven't been expressed. "

and still consider himself abreast of the topic at hand. I ask because if you actually had a firm grasp on the topic, you wouldn't have made such a statement.

Maybe you, in your anti-intellectual, non-ivory-tower wisdom know something about the legislative process that nose-in-the-air liberal elitists like DemonDeacon and myself do not?

Keep us posted!

Denzien, like most elitists, you think anyone who doesn't think or act like you want them to, are either dumb, unintelligent, or not smart enough to be on your level. The people you judge are more intuned to what is really going on then you will ever know. I know you find this hard to believe, but I feel sorry for you and those like you who think they are better are smarter then others.

The live experience that one has had is what shapes and defines a person. In my live time, I have experienced more then most. And I wouldn't trade that for all you think you are, or what you may have been through. I personally don't want to ever think that I am better or smarter then others. What a wasted life that would be.
I have enough loved ones in my life, and friends, that what you think about me is of no consequence. Or is it your way of trying to make yourself feel important. Only you can answer that.

"you think anyone who doesn't think or act like you want them to"

Sorry, sir, but I'm not calling you dumb. I'm asking if you've got an additional understanding of the legislative process because otherwise it would appear that you have no freeking clue about what you're talking about.

Tell me what you know! Keep us posted!

*oh, and it's LIFEtime, not "live time"*