Redstate

We are abundantly aware that the Republican Party establishment is hardly conservative, and we exist at RedState and elsewhere in part to bring the small-government conservative brand to our party.

Your party, on the other hand, is a tax-and-spend machine that makes my party look like amateur spenders.

Plus, Hensarling is a CHAMPION of anti-pork and conservatism in general. He did not discover conservatism as a result of 2006 losses.

So spare me.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

My party?

Let's play the logic game.

(1) Your comment said, in essence, Republicans are big hypocrites on spending and earmarks. True or false?

(2) That leaves two likely options, plus a third possibility.
(a) you are on the left.
(b) you are ultra far-right conservative.
(c) you just like taking purposeless, gratuitous shots and really have nothing worthwhile to say.

If (a), I'm right, game over.
If (b), you'd know exactly who Hensarling is and what he stands for - and you wouldn't be giving the standard pot-kettle lecture to him. I see (b) as highly improbable.
If (c), then hey, you made a statement that paints you as a leftist. Tough luck if somebody sticks the label on you.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

(1) True, with the exception of the adjective "big." Both sides can be accused of being hypocrites.

(2) I'll add a fourth possibility- I'm right- they actually are hypocrites and most DO support Congressional earmarks (the audacity, I know!!)

As for your labels, I'm fine with them. I'm sure it makes you feel like a bigger person deep down inside.

I'm sorry to anyone else who read my initial post. Earmarks are actually an issue that began to become a problem when the Democrats took over Congress. "Game Over."

I don't begrudge anybody taking potshots at the GOP for their bad spending record. But there are two kinds of Republicans in DC - those who are part of the problem (70-80%), and those who are part of the solution.

Hensarling is the KING of that second category. He ain't popular in the GOP establishment. He's EXTREMELY popular at RedState. You took what still seems to me to be a shot at Hensarling. That's useless, pointless, uninformed, and wrong.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

I absolutely agree with your last post (thank you for finally stopping the potshots of your own). But here is part of what I disagree with in the above video clip:

"There's another aspect though, of these Democrat budgets that again, I believe, deserve very special attention"..."These budgets compromise [the retirement security of our children and grandchildren]."

On its face, that is a very true statement. But it neglects to make any mention of the fact that Republicans are equally responsible for the horrible situation Congress is currently in from years of both parties stuffing bills with projects for their districts.

with regards to retirement and Social Security a Republican President of the United States lamenting in a nationally televised State of the Union Address that nothing had been done to solve the problem, and the entire Democratic Pary in Congress applauding.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

I'm sad to say that the ones who are for real are and will always be judged with the hypocrites.

I know who Henserling is but I also know that after the bridge to nowhere and the other Republican budget fiascoes Henserling and rhose who are sincere get lumped in with the bad apples. Critisizing Democrats for earmarks after the K street project leaves every Republican no matter how sincere with no credibility to the vast majority of people who have no idea who henserling is and could care less!

I didn't hear much of substance in this video. I have a hard time seeing how this man is the champion of truth. Icould be wrong but having heard this gives me no confidence. Blaming the slowdown and price of oil on Democrats is laughable.

Some saw it as a tool others an end in itself. But why are you going to congress if not to spend other peoples money ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Suggesting earmarks are a problem for both parties automatically places one in the "Democrat Party."

Interesting- I never knew that.

downturn is laughable.

If "we" are so abundantly aware and concerned by the Republican Party establishment's lack of 'conservative' credentials, then why does Rep. Hensarling only refer to the issue as a "Democrat Party" problem?

Republicans are amateur spenders and destroyers of the economy. Democrats are the real thing. I don't think it's wrong to point that out.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Did I see the chart? The chart in the video above??

The one with Oil Barrel Prices on the Y axis, and years on the X? Or did I miss another chart somewhere in there?

Please tell me you were joking, and not really using that as evidence of whatever point you were trying to make.

The last time I checked, the Sierra Club, GreenPeace and other associated America hating socialist interest groups show fealty and expect fealty from the Jacksonian JackAss party. If there weren't so many of these asses saying we can't drill here or there because the Porcupine Caribou will lose his libido, we wouldn't be in the energy situation we're in. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Tim Schieferecke

Let me take a stab at this. Perhaps it is because the House is currently controlled by Democrat leadership who ultimately is allowing the earmark process to continue unabated. They control the committees currently which allow for the earmarking to occur.

Certainly, the Representative could take a stab at earmarking Republicans in his own party at this point. And although he might be inclined to do it, he would be committing ritual suicide by doing so on the House floor - he would immediately make enemies of almost all if not most of his House fellows - those that are earmarking as well as those who do not want to see Republicans attack Republicans on the House floor. So, to do so would be a poor call by Hensarling. However, Hensarling is attempting to reign this in within the House by attacking the Democratic leadership and on the Republican side by trying to push for a moratorium in private meetings. He is after all, the RSC chair and can meet with those earmark Republicans and chastise them privately.

I hope you realize that there is no sense in spiting your own friends. I haven't seen Pelosi or Reid chastise their own members on the House floor, most attacks are saved for Republicans.

Erik

Thank you- that makes a lot of sense. I still contend that the graph is absolutely ridiculous.
Stat 101- "Correlation does not imply causation"

So why don't you start that walk back from the cliff edge and start acting as if of course you weren't trying to make us think that you were actually a Republican?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Another great assumption, Moe. But alas, no, I am an independent.
If I were to ascribe to any party's platform, it would be the Libertarians- but I am much more comfortable defining my own opinion on issues facing this country.

...do than try to sound high-minded and talk down to folks.

That's right- I'm the one referring to people as "sparky."

If Dale Carnegie were alive today he would probably say that it is a good idea to play nice with moderators; like Moe, and Jeff.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

If banning members with disagreeing viewpoints is this website's modus operandi, then I guess I will follow "the hundreds that preceded me," (see a pattern here?) and leave on my own.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

for diagreeing. They get banned for being idiots. You're well on your way.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Does tying the Democratic takeover of Congress to the increase in oil prices count as idiotic as well?

Or are only nonparty-line, idiotic comments considered?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You're not the first to try; besides, we're letting you stay, ain't we?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I mean, of these two things:

(1) The credit/housing bubble
(2) the democrats having raised the minimum wage by $1.40

you really, honestly believe that the current slowdown is the result of (2)?

-exits

At minimum wage with 2080 work hours in a 40 hour work week, $11,000 per year employees have raised unemployment. Please help me understand that!

What? I am unable to decipher your comment. Please rephrase you comment using something that at least approaches standard English. Thank you.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

If raising the minimum wage decreased the employers desire to hire new employees, or made them move operations elsewhere in the world, then there are less income earners per household. Less people making money in the house means it's more difficult to pay the mortgage, and it means more people are living off credit. So yes. It's cause and effect, the 1.40 is a big part of the problem.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

There are very very very few jobs at minimum wage. According to Bureau of Labor, less than 2% of jobs actually pay minimum wage. That means that 98% are above, most much higher.

Again, if an employer can actually only aford to pay $11,000 per year for workers, he has bigger problems than labor costs.
In checking with the Employment Center in our state, they have no jobs at minimum wage.

With the 1.40/hr increase that is 2900 a year more. That takes annual salary to about 13,900/yr or $11/day more. Even at $13,900, a person is well below National Poverty level, especially if they have a family.

Not to belittle the issue but Minimum wage increase was a much bigger impact when USA was more industralized economy (Unions often used Minimum wage increase as their signal to demand higher wages). Since we are much more a service based economy, minumum wage increase has a lessened impact.

Just some thoughts.

I don't know where you got your facts, but they don't seem right to me. You are saying that all the waiters, 7-11 cashiers, gas pumpers, etc. only add up to 2%? I doubt it. Only 2% of the population over the age of 25 has a minimum wage job. The rest of the jobs go to Teens, and college students, and people just starting out in a job.

This is important because it costs money to train people, and people need work experience to advance in their careers. It's win/win. But if you set the wage artificially high, less employers are willing to invest in hiring somebody new. They instead hire people with experience, who are a known quantity. It's the low income people that are hurt.

Speaking of the younger crowd, how many people do you know that are 16-24 and have a family of four? I don't know too many, but that's what is discussed by a "living wage." There is no need for the singly guy just starting out at a job to make the living wage to support a family of four. But it is this group of people that are hurt by minimum wage laws.

As for your assertion that if an employer can't afford to pay min. wage for an employee, he/she has bigger problems, tell that to the owner of a manufacturing co. who needs a lot of low skill assembly line or warehouse workers.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

LittleL...Many jobs are indexed to the Min wage. Especially Union jobs which are indexed to the Min Wage by contracts. This is why Unions are always pushing them. Therefore, a Min Wage increase means a wage, (aka, cost of labor), increase pretty much across the board.

The Min wage has an inflationary affect on the economy because it increases the cost of labor. When you couple the inflationary affect of the Min wage increase to the inflationary affect to shipping costs and transportation costs associated with a tripling of oil prices you get major problems with the economy.

Add to this the likely hood of the Bush tax increases expiring in three years and a pretty good correlation can be made between the Dem Congress and the current problems in the economy.

I do believe blaming oil prices on the Dems is a bit of a stretch however!

I understand the basic economics and agree with it. I'm opposed to any minimum wage at all. But in practice it's goofy to suggest that whatever wealth wasn't created because of the $1.40 raise to a small number of workers at the very bottom of the food chain has anything to do with the $7 trillion dollar speculative bubble we're watching burst. It may be part of the problem, but it's such a small part you'd need a microscope to see it. The argument is just not credible.

-exits

I never said that the minimum wage laws led to housing speculation, but they do have an effect on people being able to pay their individual mortgages.

This could be from having one less wage earner in the house or a business owner being hurt by higher labor costs.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

You said that the democrats, by raising the minimum wage, were responsible for the bad economic news which implies that the housing/credit bubble wouldn't have burst if the minimum wage hadn't been increased. Great as it would be to blame whats coming on the democrats, the argument is goofy.

-exits

The good congressman said that the democrats were responsible for the bad economy.

I said the minimum wage hike was a big part of why. I never said that the min. wage hike was responsible for the housing bubble burst, but that it made it harder for regular citizens to pay the mortgage. Don't put words in my mouth. The argument I laid out is sound economics.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

"The Dems are responsible for the bad economic news"

The bad economic news is a direct result of the bursting housing bubble. There isn't a person in the country who would deny that. So to be responsible for the bad economic news, they'd have to have been responsible for the bubble in housing prices.

The problem isn't your economics which are indeed sound, the problem is the magnitude of the effect you're trying to attribute to them. If the democrats hadn't raised the minimum wage, the credit bubble would have finally still popped and all of the economic news would still be bad. It would be great if this were the democrats fault, but it's not.

-exits

You are right. I think the notion that the minimum wage increase has had anything to do with our current economic woes is nuts. It does not even go into effect for 3 more months.

How could a minimum wage increase which has not even happened yet have anything to do with Bear Stearn's insolvency or Citibanks massive right downs or the overall collapse of the housing market.

I think over the course of history, from the New Deal forward, that Democrats have generally done more harm to the economy then Republicans. But I can't think of anything that has happened since January of 2007 that has been any more particularly responsible for our current woes than the gross excesses of the 6 preceding years.

The new higher minimum wage may play a role in slowing the eventual future recovery as employers are more reluctant to create jobs. But we are a long ways from even thinking about recovery. There is a lot of downside to this mess still to come.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I want an HSA, but I am prohibited by VA law from having one.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---