Good question.  Unless the liberal agenda can be kept in check, probably.

On the way in to work this morning, heard on the radio Pelosi and her ilk saying how they are going to work with the administration, reach out to everyone, including the republicans...

That is not going to happen, unless they finally come to grips that they don't really have anything other to offer than "we have to get control again".  So, now, we shall see if they deliver on what they stated they wanted... the question is, do we really want them to deliver on that?  I think we as a nation do not really want them to deliver.  Saw Howard Dean talking to Brit Hume last night, and the screaming man actually had the nerve to say that all of Bush's tax cuts were only for the top 20% of the nation, that the middle class benefited nothing from them, so they as the DNC want to make sure that the other 80% see tax relief / benefits.  I was thinking "What?  Hello!  What are we?  Rich?  Not likely.  We're your classical middle class that you're talking about, and we have seen significant tax relief at the federal level since Bush and the Republicans have been in office and control..."  Makes me wonder what the $ amount is that they consider middle class to be.  I can assure you that a salary of <$60K does not constitute the upper 20% of the population, particularly when you get blue collar factory workers and union trades people making as much and significantly more.  Pelosi's first agenda item is to raise the minimum wage.  Ooooo... sounds so neat, but wait, did they take into account that is going to cause more unemployment as companies are not going to be able to afford to hire as many folks?  Did they take into account that doing so is also going to cause the consumer price index to go up, that we are going to end up paying more for everything, because if you raise the minimum wage, everyone up higher in the food chain is going to be demanding they get paid better too?  Did they take into account that this is going to cause a surge in inflation, with further interest rate hikes to the consumer (but no increase in rates being given to savers?)?  The simple answer to those is NO.

Anyway back to the not wanting to have them deliver... they may say they want to work with the new house minority and with the administration, but I don't see them wanting to work with the Democrat majority of the house for the very reason they don't want that agenda to move forward.  Besides, there is going to be a certain amount of retribution from the Republicans to the Democrats because of the Democrats being so obstructionist to getting anything done over the past number of years.  And then there will be the whining of you're just playing partisan politics as usual.  I think what is going to happen, 2008 will be the real bellweather indicator.  The Democrats will have two years to again irrefutabely show their inability to address the real issues the people care about, or they will lose again.  People were voting simply for change, not on issues this time around.  So, either the Republicans will quickly figure out they need to clean house and get rid of any person who holds office that has scandal and then promote upright candidates in the next election and not take things for granted, or we will face the very real possibility of having Billary back in the White House.

Cat Herder wrote:

---

Good question.  Unless the liberal agenda can be kept in check, probably.

On the way in to work this morning, heard on the radio Pelosi and her ilk saying how they are going to work with the administration, reach out to everyone, including the republicans...

That is not going to happen, unless they finally come to grips that they don't really have anything other to offer than "we have to get control again".  So, now, we shall see if they deliver on what they stated they wanted... the question is, do we really want them to deliver on that?  I think we as a nation do not really want them to deliver.  Saw Howard Dean talking to Brit Hume last night, and the screaming man actually had the nerve to say that all of Bush's tax cuts were only for the top 20% of the nation, that the middle class benefited nothing from them, so they as the DNC want to make sure that the other 80% see tax relief / benefits.  I was thinking "What?  Hello!  What are we?  Rich?  Not likely.  We're your classical middle class that you're talking about, and we have seen significant tax relief at the federal level since Bush and the Republicans have been in office and control..."  Makes me wonder what the $ amount is that they consider middle class to be.  I can assure you that a salary of <$60K does not constitute the upper 20% of the population, particularly when you get blue collar factory workers and union trades people making as much and significantly more.  Pelosi's first agenda item is to raise the minimum wage.  Ooooo... sounds so neat, but wait, did they take into account that is going to cause more unemployment as companies are not going to be able to afford to hire as many folks?  Did they take into account that doing so is also going to cause the consumer price index to go up, that we are going to end up paying more for everything, because if you raise the minimum wage, everyone up higher in the food chain is going to be demanding they get paid better too?  Did they take into account that this is going to cause a surge in inflation, with further interest rate hikes to the consumer (but no increase in rates being given to savers?)?  The simple answer to those is NO.

Anyway back to the not wanting to have them deliver... they may say they want to work with the new house minority and with the administration, but I don't see them wanting to work with the Democrat majority of the house for the very reason they don't want that agenda to move forward.  Besides, there is going to be a certain amount of retribution from the Republicans to the Democrats because of the Democrats being so obstructionist to getting anything done over the past number of years.  And then there will be the whining of you're just playing partisan politics as usual.  I think what is going to happen, 2008 will be the real bellweather indicator.  The Democrats will have two years to again irrefutabely show their inability to address the real issues the people care about, or they will lose again.  People were voting simply for change, not on issues this time around.  So, either the Republicans will quickly figure out they need to clean house and get rid of any person who holds office that has scandal and then promote upright candidates in the next election and not take things for granted, or we will face the very real possibility of having Billary back in the White House.

---

Dean is right, if you play the numbers game (which he is doing).

The top 25% of income makers pay 84% of all federal income taxes.  So any tax cut would effect 84% of the tax payers, but only the top 25% of the income distribution system.  When they play the percentage numbers they don't really define it and so Howard Dean doesn't really have to explain himself.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

 

Also if your family's combined net is around 57,000 then you are in the top 25%

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 09:57, 2006-11-08

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 09:59, 2006-11-08

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

---

Dean is right, if you play the numbers game (which he is doing).

The top 25% of income makers pay 84% of all federal income taxes.  So any tax cut would effect 84% of the tax payers, but only the top 25% of the income distribution system.  When they play the percentage numbers they don't really define it and so Howard Dean doesn't really have to explain himself.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

 

Also if your family's combined net is around 57,000 then you are in the top 25%

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 09:57, 2006-11-08

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 09:59, 2006-11-08

---

Woo hoo!  I'm rich!    Now, does the net mean before federal and state deductions, my portion for my families flexible benefits, and tithing, or after?  In other words, is it taxable income, gross earnings, or gross adjusted income?  If net is taxable income, then absolutely no way.  But if it is gross, then alas, I guess we must be some of those rich folks.  Sure doesn't feel like it...

Oh, yeah, isn't it fun how they always fail to mention that those who pay the most taxes are also the ones that are going to see the largest proportion of impact on tax cuts?  I mean, how can you get a relief from a tax cut greater than the proportion of the tax you pay to begin with? 

I would guess that if those who voted Democrat this election would not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker if they had the choice.  I wouldn't be so down about the results of this election if some quality Democrats were going to be in leadership positions.

I'm in Arizona where the ban for gay rights didn't pass (as is mentioned in another topic), and minimum wage increase did. Not only did it increase, it's over $1! Granted being at the federal minimum wage was a little ridiculous ($5.15), but to raise it so suddenly to $6.75 is very drastic and I worry about the economy. I know that tuition already has a million reasons to be hiked up, but to have to pay all of the student workers, who were making $5.50, that extra $1.25 an hour is going to make the hikes more drastic than ever. I just hope that all of the small businesses don't capsize, and that prices won't increase as drastically, because my paycheck is probably going to stay the same, and I won't get the same 30% increase.

Anyway...I guess that even though the government may be becoming more immoral and corrupt, maybe it'll lead more people to find a place that has morals, and find a way to live a moral life in such a bad world. Maybe it'll be a huge missionary opportunity. We can only hope and pray, right?

glumirk wrote:

---

I'm in Arizona where the ban for gay rights didn't pass (as is mentioned in another topic), and minimum wage increase did. Not only did it increase, it's over $1! Granted being at the federal minimum wage was a little ridiculous ($5.15), but to raise it so suddenly to $6.75 is very drastic and I worry about the economy. I know that tuition already has a million reasons to be hiked up, but to have to pay all of the student workers, who were making $5.50, that extra $1.25 an hour is going to make the hikes more drastic than ever. I just hope that all of the small businesses don't capsize, and that prices won't increase as drastically, because my paycheck is probably going to stay the same, and I won't get the same 30% increase.

Anyway...I guess that even though the government may be becoming more immoral and corrupt, maybe it'll lead more people to find a place that has morals, and find a way to live a moral life in such a bad world. Maybe it'll be a huge missionary opportunity. We can only hope and pray, right?

---

Minimum wage hikes cost jobs.  In our business we went from three full time janitors to one.  California requires that mechanics who own their own tools be paid twice the minimum wage or $15 per hour whether they are worth it or not.  At least one guy is on the chopping block for January 1st when this goes into effect unless he gets miraculously better between now and then.  We have also cut one office and two management positions because people wanted pay hikes every time the wage went up.  So much for the benefits of the minimum wage hikes for the average employee!

Thanks, Roper... LOL

Everyone moans and groans as if D-control is the end of the world. While in truth, very little will change immediately, if at all. The dems have a very slim margin of majority, and it will still be difficult to pass anything controversial. I doubt that min-wage legislation will pass easily with such a small marjority. And Republicans are very likely to be quite vengeful over the Dems filibuster threats and other obstructionism over the last six years. So. I don't expect much in the way of new laws to come out of Washington any time soon.

In addition, Nancy Pelosi may be the best thing that ever happened to the Right. If she gets her way with the D-party, it will backfire on them. Just like Hilary and her Health Care Fiasco, Pelosi will overreach and may crash and burn deliciously. I think it's very possible that the democrats, if they're not careful, will torpedo their chances to take the White House in 2008.

The biggest concerns I have are long term - Tax cuts, which this congress will allow to expire; and Judge appointees, especially to the Supreme Court. Judge Stevens is very likely to retire before Jan 2009, and Bush will have one more nomination to the high court. He doesn't have a chance to get a conservative confirmed with a democratic Senate. So, he will have to go middle to have a chance, but I find it unlikely that the Dems will confirm anyone who isn't left. But with only a 1 seat majority, it could happen.

But short term posturing and Democratic agendas?

Shiz, where do you think I got my ideas?

bokbadok wrote:

---

Everyone moans and groans as if D-control is the end of the world.

---

Well, JFK (who was a D and in control at one time...) almost caused the end fo the world when he took a pretty radical approach to how to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis...

bokbadok wrote:

---

Pelosi will overreach and may crash and burn deliciously.

---

That wins my vote as the Funniest Image Created by Words Today contest!