It's Not The End For Ford
Today I am just at an utter loss for words. The election last night was not a victory for the Christians. In fact, the Democrats taking the House and the Senate was icing WITHOUT the cake. What I really wanted to see from this election was Conservative, Christian, and scripture-quoting Congressman Harold Ford Jr. pull out a victory. And let me assure you it is not because I am against Bob Corker. Although I felt Corker ran a horrible, sleezy campaign, I must give credit where it is due and congratulate him on a victory. This has been about Harold Ford Jr. for a year and a half now, for me. I always said that if I ran for President, and either of us were not from TN, then Harold Ford Jr. will be my running mate (no VP is allowed to run if he is from the same state as the running Presidential candidate).So I would just like to take this time thank everyone that I spoke to about this campaign. I want to thank my fellow Jr. supporters for your hard work and support. I want to thank all the Corker supporters who challenged my views on the issues and made for some good debates, and I want to thank everyone else just for being you. I know this is not the last we will see of Harold Ford Jr. There have been rumors that he'll run for Mayor of Memphis (I'd vote for him, but I hope he goes for something a little higher), there have also been rumors that he'll run against Lamar Alexander for the Senate in 2008. And there have been rumors than he'll run for Governor of TN in 2010 (yea right, like future President Bredeson will step down). Whatever Ford does, I support him. I hope he goes for a state-wide position though, he's too good for these local positions.
Yall please pray for Harold Ford Jr, as well as our senators. God bless Tennessee and God bless America!!!
posted by joe4444 @ 10:22 PM
38 Comments:
Here, here.
A moment for the loss. Better luck next time.
I must admit that I was unfamiliar with your JR. affiliation. I got to meet him very briefly just after the 2003 wind storm. Jr. promised MLGW Government financial assistance which we did indeed receive. He was very nice. Both my parents voted for Ford Jr. The American Association of Retired People (AARP) sent my parents an endorsement of Ford that stated he would protect social security. I ended up voting Corker. I agree that his campaign was completely awful, (I HATE negative ads) but I am unwilling to budge on the issue of abortion. (amendment 209 to HR 1815 which Ford voted to support). Ford seems to be one of those people I would like to vote for... if only he would line up his votes more closely to my values. I would welcome your input if I have my facts wrong.
Danielle: thanks
Nawill: I would gladly sacrifice the House and the Senate, plus yall can have about 10-15 Governors/Senators of your choice, all for Ford to have had a victory over Corker.
Bro. Tony: Thank you for your welcome of me to challenge your facts on the abortion issue. I actually have quite a lot to say about the two candidates and which one is more Pro-Life in this scenerio (and I'm sure you'll see plenty of opposition from Ryan, Andrew, Seth, and the rest of them who I have driven crazy about this issue for months now):
You referenced Ford to the following vote:
H AMDT 209 to HR 1815: Amendment sought to allow military personnel and their dependents overseas to use their own funds to obtain abortion services in overseas military hospitals.
Representative Harold Ford voted YES.
Source
Basically, what that Amendment refers to is allowing members of the military to have their dependents pay for their own abortions in a foreign country. I cannot outright support his vote, but I can say that I do not feel we should interpret the laws of another country, and to vote NO would be doing so, in those regards. I cannot say that I know entirely that this is what the Amendment involves, but thats the way it appears to me. It is not an outright vote for the defense of Pro-Choicers, as far as I understand.
I would like to also reference Corker's stand on abortion. In 1994, Corker said that he was against abortion, but felt that it was an issue that the state government does not need to intervene in. He did not outright oppose his stand on this issue, until after declaring that he was running for the Senate seat in 2006, being vacated by Senator Bill Frist. This does not provide me, personally, with any sense of trust that Corker will work to overturn the case of Roe vs. Wade.
Quotes:
"Ford, a familiar face on television news interviews and often called on as a spokesman for the party, has not hesitated to vote with conservatives on key issues such as banning partial-birth abortion or for prayer in school. He voted to give President Bush authorization to invade Iraq and for cuts in the capital gains tax."
Source
"Corker says he opposes abortion except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, a change from 1994 when he said he personally opposed abortion but government shouldn’t be involved in the issue."
Source
"Both Bryant, 57, of Jackson, and Hilleary, 47, of Murfreesboro, attacked Corker throughout their long race over a tax hike that Corker won as Chattanooga mayor and his shift in position on abortion. They called him a moderate, a "liberal" even, clothed as a conservative."
Source
Voting Record:
# Pro-life; education before pregnancy to reduce abortions. (Oct 2006)
# Supports stem cell research of all types. (Oct 2006)
# Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
# Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
# Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
# Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
# Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
# Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
# Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
# Rated 30% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Source
The ratings by NARAL indicate 0%-100% Pro-Life to Pro-Choice rating (Eg. John Kerry received a 100% rating by NARAL, indicating a Pro-Choice Voting Record. Bill Frist received a 0% rating by NARAL, indicating a Pro-Life Voting Record). 30% is not a perfect score by any means, but it is well into the Pro-Life section. This rating, coupled with Ford's support for the 90/10 Rule (which was a plan to reduce the abortion rate by 95% in 10 years, which is by far more than any Republican has done in reducing abortions in America), convinces me that Ford is going to work more towards overturning Roe vs. Wade than Corker, who has flip-flopped on the issue and has no voting record to provide his stand either way.
I would also just like to point out a couple other things on Ford that motivated me to vote for him, in case you have any desire to read them. I made a post a couple months ago about having the priviledge to meet Congressman Ford at a rally at his headquarters. I mentioned how it brought me back to a day when Ford did a tremendous favor for a handicapped (and now deceased) friend of mine. That post can be found here.
There is also an unofficial blog started by Mr. Chris Jackson (and I'm pretty sure Ford knows about it, since he mentioned Chris Jackson, a friend of mine and Ford's, in his concession speech). That blog can be found here. The most recent post gives its readers the opportunity to say what they want (like a thank you note) to the Congressman for his great efforts in this campaign. I made a comment (about 25 comments down the list) and told the entire story of what Ford did for my handicapped friend Derek that day back in 1998. Its really touching what some people have to say about Ford.
I hear a lot of Corker supporters calling Ford a "Liberal" but then a lot of left-wingers calling Ford a "Republican" or a "Conservative." Honestly, I dont think its party or labels that matter with him. He's an independent thinker, he'll vote for whoever is right, and it doesnt matter if it is a D or an R next to their name. He is also a devout Christian (or at least much more so than I have seen from Corker). Those are the reasons I support Ford, thank you for taking the time to read all that.
God bless ~Joe
On the referenced abortion vote:
Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:
Vote to adopt an amendment that lifts the ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas.
It looks like I was incorrect on my interpretation of the Amendment. It appears to focus more on the funding of the abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. This was not a vote pertaining to pro or anti abortion rights, but rather whether the funding rights of these abortions was made public or private.
House Passage Vote: 05/25/2005: Passed: 390 - 39 (Roll No. 222).
Senate Passage Vote: 11/15/2005: Passed: Unanimous Consent.
Presidential Action: 01/06/2006: Signed by President. Became Public Law No: 109-163.
The Amendment passed in both a Republican controlled House and Senate, as well as being signed by the President. This means that some (or rather, many) of the Republican members of the House would have had to vote YES for it, and since it passed in the Senate, every member of the Senate would have had to have voted YES to this Amendment. I'm not exactly sure what the effects are of deprivatizing the funds for military overseas abortions, but I think it was a bill that was effective for the management of the economy, it did not involve the legality of abortions, however.
Joe,
Thanks for your thorough response. You have given me alot to think about.
Bro. T.
Joe,
Jr. is not in bad company; the devil quoted scriptures too!
To imply that Corker was the only one to run a negative campaign is to willfully distort the facts.
Jr's record is spotty at best. His wavering on important issues reminds me of another of your beloved party, namely John Kerry
Bro Tony: thanks for taking the time to read all that, sorry it was so long, but I do appreciate you giving thought to it.
Nawill: "Jr. went to the playboy party."
Do you even know anything about that particular party? because you left out the word "Superbowl" before "party" which could be unintentionally substituted with an implication of a more explicit type of formal occassion.
To emphasize another point, there were well over 3,000 guests at this particular VIP Superbowl party. Yes it was sponsored by Playboy and I'm sure there were "Playmates" present, but your trying to make something seem worse than it is, and condemn a good man for a mistake. I have made plenty of mistakes similar to Congressman Ford, I hope never to repeat them, do they condemn me from public office? or retain me from quoting scripture and favoring a Christian view on social issues like "abortion" and "gay marriage?"
Fact is, I'm sure you'll just say "well he still went to that party" and leave it at that, and thats fine if thats what you want to believe instead of ALL the details, but please do not imply something different about this Superbowl party than what it is.
"Corker renounced his old positions on abortion, he is endorsed by the National Right To Life."
And you know what, thats what John Kerry did in 2004. He "renounced" his old positions, he wasnt "flip-flopping" on them. And to think I have been fooling myself all this time....
Corker is a Pro-Choicer if there ever was one. He still favors the legality of abortion in situations of rape, incest, or saving a mother's life. In other words: "murder is justified if there is a reason for it."
"Jr's voting record is atrocious...and thank God that loser lost."
No need to trash my friend like that. With a family like his it is a true blessing that he has turned out the way he has (I know you'll give me heat for that one, which is rather funny how yall refuse to believe anything good from Jr. because of his family and the fact that he is a Democrat). And please provide evidence of what you feel is "atrocious" about his voting record, because I see nothing of the likes.
"the GOP deserved to lose, b/c they did nothing while they had a chance to..."
why am I the only one not surprised by this....
John:
Jr. is not in bad company; the devil quoted scriptures too!
Does the devil vote against abortion and gay marriage, vote for prayer in school, and support keeping the Ten Commandments in court rooms? If so, then the devil sounds a lot like me, as well as my friend Harold Ford Jr. Man if I would just condemn those Ford's for being born into that family, then I could be a Christian too.
"To imply that Corker was the only one to run a negative campaign is to willfully distort the facts."
I don't deny the Fabulous Life of Bob Corker was a negative ad distributed by the Ford campaign, but it was the only one. All the other negative ads were released by the Democratic Senatorial Comittee (please do tell me if you find one other, just run a search at You Tube). Now I'm not necessarily talking about the "Call Me" ad, but there were some very negative ones release and approved by Mr. Corker that said a lot of untruths. How about spending $3 million calling Ford a liberal? Or perhaps giving Tennesseans this impression that Ford was from DC, and Corker was from TN (Truth: Ford was born in TN and moved to Washington at age 9, Corker was born in OHIO and moved to TN at age 12).
"Jr's record is spotty at best. His wavering on important issues reminds me of another of your beloved party, namely John Kerry"
O yea, could it be because he "renounced" his old ways? Nawill decided that is a better word to use than "flip-flopping" now, so thats what I'll use. So your comparing Ford's voting record to John Kerry's. Well lets see...
On Abortion, NARAL gives Ford a 30% (Pro-Life) and Kerry a 100% (Pro-Choice). Wow, they are just right on target with each other, just a slim 70% difference. If you'd like I'll compare Ford and Kerry's record some more (showing AND referencing the facts) but right now its 1:45am and I'm tired, plus I've gotta get up at 6am and go study with some friends for a couple tests I have Monday, so I'm out.
'Preciate yall sharing your opinions with me. I've got plenty more I could say about Ford (I don't just respect this guy for nothing), so if you want to keep trashing my good friend, I'll be happy to prove you wrong. :)
God bless,
Joe
"Now I'm not necessarily talking about the 'Call Me' ad, but there were some very negative ones release and approved by Mr. Corker that said a lot of untruths."
I may have stretched the appearance of that a bit. The Corker campaign did NOT release the "Call Me" ad, it was released by the Republican Senatorial Comittee. However, the others I mentioned were indeed released by Corker, which still greatly outnumbers the negativity released by the Ford campaign.
Wow Josephus...John rung your bell!
You know, inside the mind of a liberal is really a strange place. I often, when I have a spare moment, think: "how can there really be people that think and vote this way? How could they be so dumb?" However, the more I ponder, the more convinced I become that our problem is owing less to the density of your (i.e., liberals) skulls than to ignorance. Ignorance is the chief obstacle faced by conservatism in this country; wimpiness is the chief obstacle faced by conservatism in congress.
How can you, with a straight face, tell me that it is a good thing to have a House and Senate dominated by people that believe that mamas have a "right" to kill their children? (I didn't ask if you supported it--I asked how can you be happy that they are in power, regardless of the other issues?...not to mention the dismemberment of half-born children, homosexual marriage, etc.)
How can you, with a straight face, tell me that it is a good thing that a majority of the House and Senate oppose drilling in ANWR? A majority that believes the welfare of the Caribou is more essential than the welfare of this country?
I was about to go on and list about 6 or 7 issues, but I haven't the time (nor the inclination) to do so. But, have you ever taken the time to study, from an economic perspective, the adverse effect of the minimum wage upon this country's economy--upon individual Americans? Or do you just blindly accept the oft-parroted democratic cliches about "helping poor people"? Don't ya'll (libs, I mean) realize that an increase in the min. wage above market equilibrium results in a an effective market floor. This increases the quantity of labor supplied, while decreases the quantity of labor demanded--resulting in a shortage (i.e., unemployment). In other words, less people--people who are willing to work, even for lower wages--can't find work. More people are without a job (hey, $5.15 an hour is better than $0.00 an hour.)The overall consequences of socialistic policies of this nature are not as rosie as our left-leaning friends would suggest. How can you be happy that the party in power is clamoring for something which they well-know makes no economical sense? (I am sad to say that certain Republicans, apparently, have already agreed to sacrifice good of the country for their own political good on this matter.)
Free yourself from this sad condition: EDUCATE YOURSELF. You appear to be, at present, suspended in the dark and gloomy waters of what I shall term "the abyss of ignorance," yet, I trust that if you only open your eyes the bright light of TRUTH will emit beams sufficient to pierce the blackness, and free your mind.
*I think I meant to say "surplus" but accidentally put "shortage."
"...b/c the GOP deserved to lose, b/c they did nothing while they had a chance to...it is getting hard to tell the difference between Republicans and Dems these days."
I agree with Nathan! Oh my... I guess all I have to say it Congrats Corker!
First of all, lighten up people. Could you be looking at the world any more black and white, acting like Corker is Jesus's best friend, and that Ford is worse than Satan. Come on. Stop and think on just that for a minute.
Also this whole evil democrats and good GOP gets old. There is very little more shallow when it comes to politics in the US of A than voting a straight ticket. I will be the first to admit that I seem to vote Republican more often than Democrat, but you vote for the best canadite on a variety of issues. Hitler, as I'm sure you all know, was against abortion, never cheated on his wife, and didn't drink. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's the man for the job. I know that's a stark comparison but shesh people.
Minimum wage does need to be raised. Jack Nips not to be insulting but when was the last time you worked, and tried to live on minimum wage. I am now making a little above it, and can barely make bills. I understand the arguement that you posted, but $5.15 or even worse for waitresses, $2.13 plus tips is NOTHING to live on.
I'm not saying I'm for Ford, the little bit I see I liked him, but I'm not even a Tennessee voter, so it doesn't concern me that much. All I'm saying is look at things more deeply, and at least attempt to see both sides, it would make you a much more intellegent voter, even if you still disagree.
If anyone is setting up a person as the perfect leader, it is Joe with his "friend" Junior. Joe loves most everything he does and is quick to condemn Corker of being Godless among many other things. I am not the biggest fan of Corker and have not set him up on a pedestal. I simply come to his defense when the allegations are ludicrous.
Also, it takes an intelligent voter to understand Jack Nips' brillian synopsis on economics. The problem with our country today is that people expect the government to bail them out. We use our government as a crutch, yea more than a crutch, we use it as life support when it should only be a crutch from time to time. Why does everyone think that the government owes them. You see, you get the government to take care of all your problems then you blame the government when the debt is too big pay out social security, or medical insurance is too high because the libs have allowed frivolous lawsuits to go out the roof.
It takes an intelligent voter to research for him or herself the truth, rather than regurgitating what is spouted out in the news in the predominantly liberally biased news media.
Incidentally, Joe, I'll give them this: The Democratic Party is the party of the international world. Guess who was happy about the outcome of the recent elections? Iran, North Korea, Saddam Hussein, to name a few.
Just being against the democrats does not mean that I am republican. I bet someone assumed that!
Hitler actually did drink alcohol for a time, although, he eventually gave it up. By the by, however one classifies "cheating," Hitler did have a mistress by name of Eva Braun, and he encouraged women to have babies as long as they were purely Aryan. Oh, but the Jews didn't think too fondly of him. Neither did the Christians, Blacks, or those with deformities or retardations who lived in Germany leading up to and during World War II.
Hugo Chavez was also thrilled with the election results. Wonder what that means?
Hitler actually did drink alcohol for a time, although, he eventually gave it up. By the by, however one classifies "cheating," Hitler did have a mistress by name of Eva Braun, and he encouraged women to have babies as long as they were purely Aryan. Oh, but the Jews didn't think too fondly of him. Neither did the Christians, Blacks, or those with deformities or retardations who lived in Germany leading up to and during World War II.
Terms is a brilliant man. (And, for the record, I also chided some Republicans for their weak and politically motivated stance on the minimum wage. In a sentence, the GOP stinks right now--but the Dems reek. I am, in fact, a Whig.) Dani, the real answer to achieving prosperity and increased wealth is to allow the market to run its course--not to stifle it with burdensome and ineffective policies like the minimum wage. Such proposals are politically popular because they are appealing to the ignorant masses, but they do the country harm.
All I'm saying is that the minimum wage is past time to be raised. I hate big government, and personally feel like FDR did this country far more harm than good in his lifetime as president.
I work at Wendy's 40 hours a week to put myself through college, I'm a manager, I am a full time student. With student loans, scholarships and my brother paying 3/4 of our bills I am barely making it.
There are two girls I work with as brillant as I am. One was raped in highschool and choose to keep and raise twins. She will never have the oppertunity for a job better than Wendy's. THAT is unfair.
Raising minimum wage is a necessity. The price of living, and inflation goes up every year, yet no one raises minimum wage to go with that. Yes raise the wage may lead to some cuts and some businesses going out. All in all, you need the same number of people to do the same job, and when you pay people what they are worth, or at least more, they are willing to do a better job. I am all for the free market, all I'm saying is that no one wants a complete free market, monopolies and the like are free market.
Also, I didn't intend to be insulting, with the idea that no one here is a shallow voter, I would sure hope that everyone had done their homework in order to be debating something so hotly. It's just an observation, I don't understand why everyone then is so hot about it.
Wow, 22 comments, I'm impressed, and thanks Dani for my defense.
I will respond a little bit later when time permits. I meant to before, but two tests and a project due yesterday (Monday) plus 6 hours worth of classes kept me a bit busy, plus I am in class right now, so I want to respond when I have the time to really give yall my thoughts on the "anti-Democrat society no matter what the particular politician believes" comments here.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dani, I am not a cold and uncaring nabob. I, too, am poor young college student struggling (indeed failing) to make ends meet. I feel a certain degree of empathy for you and your situation. However, it is befuddling to me how you (and the others) persist in your unyielding advocacy of the minimum wage.
I feel that the argument in favor of this policy was successfuly confuted in my first post. The difficulties and hardships of "making a living" as a young or unskilled worker have repeated time and again, yet I have heard no real response to my arguments.
For clarity's sake, I will briefly re-examine my argument against the minimum wage: The minimum wage creates a binding price floor, resulting in an increase in the quantity of labor supplied, and a decrease in the quantity of labor demanded. This creates a labor surplus (unemployment). Stated differently, employers will adjust their labor and capital input cominations in order to achieve profit maximization (employees get layed off). More individuals (who were uninterested in working for lower wages) enter the labor market. (Less jobs & more job seekers=increased unemployment.) Though, certain companies/industries may have a more inelastic demand for labor, it is rather to naive to talk as if they operate in a vacuum. The effect of a minimum wage increase would span across a number of industries and service sectors, impacting the labor market as a whole (including Wendy's). For example,suppose the following circumstances existed when you applied for Wendy's: Congress passes a minimum wage. Company A concludes that (given the increased cost of labor) it is more cost-effective to increase capital inputs (machines, etc.) to replace labor inputs (workers Sally and Bob), those workers will become unemployed. Jim Doe, who was content to sit on his couch while the minimum wage was $5.15, will decide to enter the market at $10.15. You, Sally, Bob, and Jim all need a job and apply for Wendy's. In this scenario, with the increased number of applicants, it is very likely that you could be unemployed today--Jim may have gotten the job. (Even if you did, Bob, Sally, and Jim are still unemployed.)Now, this is presuming that this particular Wendy's is able to maintain a sufficient profit to stay in business (unlike the Burger King in my town). Whereas, absent the minimum wage, Sally and Bob keep their old jobs (hey $5.15 is better tho $0.00), you are hired at Wendy's (better than $0.00, and Jim goes back to watching Oprah. Thus, we are able to achieve maximum efficiency or "market equilibrium." While some people are made better-off by an increased minimum wage, a very large proportion are not. Overall, society benefits the most at the point of market equilibrium.
This was a very simplistic explanation. I could go on to describe, more precisely, and in greater detail, the overall negative economic impact on the economy (incr p, slows expansion, etc.) I fear that I've not communicated the various points I was trying to make very clearly. However, I am out of time and must go.
*cracks knuckles* well lets get started here...
Jack Nips: "I often, when I have a spare moment, think: 'how can there really be people that think and vote this way? How could they be so dumb?'"
Funny how I think the same thing of yall, and the public seemed to have responded the same way as me, at yall. Wouldnt that ring a bell...
"Ignorance is the chief obstacle faced by conservatism in this country; wimpiness is the chief obstacle faced by conservatism in congress."
Are you saying the Conservatives are filled with ignorance and thats their obstacle right now? Because to be honest, after weighing their foreign policy, I couldnt agree more.
"How can you, with a straight face, tell me that it is a good thing to have a House and Senate dominated by people that believe that mamas have a 'right' to kill their children?"
How about the same way you can, with a straight face, tell me that it is a good things to have formely had a House, Senate, and Presidency dominated by people that believe they have a "right" to murder our troops?
Support Pro-Life after birth as well as before it, support the Democrats!!!!
"(I didn't ask if you supported it--I asked how can you be happy that they are in power, regardless of the other issues?...not to mention the dismemberment of half-born children, homosexual marriage, etc.)"
Well guess what, I dont support it. (I just had to respond like that since your trying to insist I not reinforce that fact to you). Also, I believe quiet a number of Democrats (a majority, in fact), voted AGAINST this particular issue of Partial-Birth Abortion that your talking about. As for homosexual marriage, I dont know where on earth you get this crazy idea that the Democrats support such an abomination, perhaps that is what the right-wingers WANT you to believe, but I'll have you note that not even a Democrat as liberal as John Kerry supported homosexual marriage. Why do you think these Amendments banning same-sex marriage pass with well over 80% of the vote in states that also vote around 40-50% Democrat.
"How can you, with a straight face, tell me that it is a good thing that a majority of the House and Senate oppose drilling in ANWR?"
IT IS THE BEST THING THAT A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE OPPOSE DRILLING IN ANWR!!!! And thank God those plans were not approved by Congress. Ruining our wildlife, and a majority of one of our own beloved states, killing literally millions of rare animal species that are endangered right now, for greedy oil profits just a little bit sooner, is not the answer to our oil problems. It is especially not the answer, when we have alternative energy sources available to research. Take soy bean fields, they can produce biofuels that can power specially built engines (some even used on roads right now) that also pollute less, why not invest the money that would be spent in ANWR on research those alternate sources? Then we're all happy, OPEC is not globally monopolized, and our Alaskan wildlife is protected. But, o wait!!!! That would be an effective plan, so the Republicans can't support it. Too bad....
"A majority that believes the welfare of the Caribou is more essential than the welfare of this country?"
Please specify because I'm lost here.
"Or do you just blindly accept the oft-parroted democratic cliches about 'helping poor people'?"
I do not blindly accept anything and would prefer if you would not "blindly" assume that a Democrat is as ignorant of economic issues like the "minimum wage" as you want to think they are.
"Don't ya'll (libs, I mean)"
There's a liberal here? Where?
"realize that an increase in the min. wage above market equilibrium results in a an effective market floor. This increases the quantity of labor supplied, while decreases the quantity of labor demanded--resulting in a shortage (i.e., unemployment)."
That theory is completely fictional, and very flawed. The min. wage does not have any effect on the market equilibrium. The market floor (the low point below market equilibrium) is affect by the changes in supply and demand, the min. wage has no effect on market equilibrium. You are tieing two different parts of economics together here.
"In other words, less people--people who are willing to work, even for lower wages--can't find work. More people are without a job (hey, $5.15 an hour is better than $0.00 an hour.)"
I agree that $5.15 (even though thats not the min. wage anymore, its $6.25) is better than the $0.00 or rather $0.01 that businesses will pay them if the min. wage is abolished). What your supporting here is big business dominance.
Look at other socialist countries that torment their citizens. They have no min. wage and they have big businesses that pay their employees nearly nothing. Though employees, whom are willing to work for so cheap because they have no other means of income, are then able to mass-produce products for very cheap. That is why you see so many U.S. products saying "Made in [this country]" because we buy cheap from them, and that allows us to keep prices so low so that people making our higher incomes here in America can profit off of our higher level of wealth (that the minimum wage provides).
So when your a HS or college student going to work, do you want to make that pathetic $1.25 an hour just so the big business you work for makes $11 billion instead of $10 billion. Or do you want to make something decent like $6.25 an hour that you can use to actually save up for that car, or maybe for college, or to pay for bills or food, or other expenses....
"The overall consequences of socialistic policies of this nature are not as rosie as our left-leaning friends would suggest. How can you be happy that the party in power is clamoring for something which they well-know makes no economical sense? "
Well I'm happy that economically senseless party is now leaving power, and our horribly high unemployment rate, our inflated national debt, and our other expenditures that have led to cuts in military funds and social security (which btw hurts my 94 yr old great aunt very drastically, financially, as if she was already struggling enough with finances) can finally be controlled. As a soon-to-be graduating college student, Lord willing, I am thrilled to have a majority in power that will help to stabilize these out-of-control things that have so drastically wounded our economy and government, and hopefully we can now create a better job market and maybe I can find work once I get out into the real work.
"Free yourself from this sad condition: EDUCATE YOURSELF. You appear to be, at present, suspended in the dark and gloomy waters of what I shall term 'the abyss of ignorance,' yet, I trust that if you only open your eyes the bright light of TRUTH will emit beams sufficient to pierce the blackness, and free your mind."
Honestly, dude, is this the garbage your being fed? I am anything but ignorant of these issues, and am rather offended that you feel I am incapable of making intelligent decisions just because I support a party that actually has a history of maintaining a successful government.
Nawill: "I admit, it was a Superbowl PLAYBOY party that Jr. attended, still you can add a word or take away a word it wwas what it was, and what it was was sick!"
Did you mention how many people were there? No, but I already did. There were over 3,000 people there. I said it before, and I shall repeat myself, I disagree with what he did but its not this horrid thing that your trying to make it out to be (in an effort to discredit Jr. of his many other accomplishments, and I'm sure you'll now tell me he made no significant accomplishments, which would be very untrue). I'm afraid to tell you anything about my past, if this is what you think of a celebrity like Jr. because of one mistake.
Lacey: "I agree with Nathan! Oh my... I guess all I have to say it Congrats Corker!"
And why are you congratulating that loser? Can you name one issue of Corker's that you agree with (being Republican doesnt count), or name one significant accomplishment of his (again being Republican doesnt count)?
Dani: "First of all, lighten up people. Could you be looking at the world any more black and white, acting like Corker is Jesus's best friend, and that Ford is worse than Satan. Come on. Stop and think on just that for a minute."
Thank goodness someone, even a right-wing Republican at that, actually see's what I'm going through here. Honestly, the Republican nominee for president in 2008 could murder a human in public right on television, go through trial for it, get thrown in jail for life, and run from his jail cell and yall would still vote for him because there is an R in front of his name.
What on earth is so flawed about the most Conservative Democrat Senate nominee in well over 20 years from the state of TN, besides that D in front of his name?
"I'm not saying I'm for Ford, the little bit I see I liked him, but I'm not even a Tennessee voter, so it doesn't concern me that much."
No you can't support Ford, Dani!!! Who cares if he is Pro-Life, against gay marriage, supports prayer in school, keeping the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and defends his Christian faith over any government activity he does, he is Democrat therefore he is evil in every possible way!!!!!!! (sarcasm here, for those who dont know)
Nawill again: "I do not think any of us are shallow voters. We see Jr's side, and well, we dont care for it."
I beg to differ....
John: "If anyone is setting up a person as the perfect leader, it is Joe with his 'friend' Junior."
Well considering he's not quite so narrow-minded, and actually listens to both Republicans and Democrats, then yes I do. If you noticed, I refused to support Steve Cohen for Congress because of two reasons, 1: he was Jewish, and 2: he was too liberal. I felt like Jr. was a perfect candidate for the Senate because he, of course is a Democrat, but is open-minded and listens to both sides, not just the D's or the R's. Its that narrow-mindedness that is whats ruining politics today, not just the Republican party or the Democrat party, no matter how much differently you want to think it is. And guess what, even though he lost, Jr. still urges us to unite and work with the Republicans to get things done. I want to do that, and if the Republicans will stop attacking me for their irresistible urge to rub their victory in my face like spoiled, childish winners, then maybe that could happen.
"Joe loves most everything he [Ford] does and is quick to condemn Corker of being Godless among many other things."
Do you not think there is a reason for that? Corker is a narrow-minded business owner who does not care one bit about Tennesseans. In fact, I credit Tom Ingram for turning a lack-luster Republican candidate into a lack-luster Republican candidate who trashed Ford's family, his actions, the college he went to, the city his father moved his family to when Ford was 9, and just about every other aspect of Ford's life, and won a Senate seat for it. If thats what Ford had to do for that Senate seat, then I'm glad he lost. Glorifying God takes precedent over that Senate seat and a bunch of mudslinging and trash, anyday.
"I am not the biggest fan of Corker and have not set him up on a pedestal. I simply come to his defense when the allegations are ludicrous."
What kind of allegations are you talking about? I don't recall any, and I'm certain I could prove to you their truth. However, the only issue I could see that falls into that catagory was Corker's lesbian, drunk, frat-party daughter. I was wondering why Ford didn't publicize the incident about her, and then I realized that Ford didnt because he wanted to have class. I can't but respect the guy for that.
"The problem with our country today is that people expect the government to bail them out."
No, the problem with our country today is that the Republicans have convinced themselves that people expect the government to bail them out. Dude, I am as stone-hearted as anyone. I expect people to get off the couch and work for their money, and I do not support lazy bums who feed off welfare, but you also have to look at people who are mentally or physically disabled, or those who do not have the opportunity to work because the time is just not there with the family that they are forced to raise (like, lets say 9 kids, and the father just died, do you want the emotionally troubled mother to have to rush off to work days after her husband's death, because she has to support her family?) Of course with any system your also going to have people that abuse it, thats why you have to enforce it. If the government would crack down on people who are not in the workforce and maintain welfare (workforce = applied for a job in the last 6 months, by my definition) and cut them off the program, then perhaps it would work better. You've got to make the system work, not destroy the system and expect everything to work just because you've never seen or been in the shoes of someone in a situation that can't help themselves the way we all can.
"Why does everyone think that the government owes them."
You mean those rich Republican billionaires who whine that they have to pay too many taxes and only have $700 million of their annual income left over?
"You see, you get the government to take care of all your problems then you blame the government when the debt is too big pay out social security, or medical insurance is too high because the libs have allowed frivolous lawsuits to go out the roof."
Like the rich Republicans got Bush to give them a tax cut and now complain that he can't keep cutting their taxes cut because we are trying to actually keep public education funded for in this country?
"It takes an intelligent voter to research for him or herself the truth, rather than regurgitating what is spouted out in the news in the predominantly liberally biased news media."
I'd agree, although your the only one I've seen to define networks (other than FOX) as liberal.
"Guess who was happy about the outcome of the recent elections? Iran, North Korea, Saddam Hussein, to name a few."
Well of course Saddam is going to be happy, Bush's government just sentenced him to death. He thinks the Democrats may give him a chance, but of course they would never do that. Plus, what makes you think these countries and Saddam are happy about the Democrats winning? Did you hear this and have a source to reference, or just make it up based on what you want to think about the Democrats (like they aren't true Americans or something)?
Jack Nips again: "Dani, the real answer to achieving prosperity and increased wealth is to allow the market to run its course--not to stifle it with burdensome and ineffective policies like the minimum wage."
And what about big business? Do you honestly think the abolishment of the minimum wage is going to result in businesses paying anything higher than $2 an hour for people to work for them? And these people only do it because they need to work, while the businesses don't value the job of Cart Pusher or Cashier enough to pay them anymore. I guarantee you that would happen in a heartbeat, the businesses have way too much power right now.
"Such proposals are politically popular because they are appealing to the ignorant masses, but they do the country harm."
I see that your calling me "ignorant" again because I support a policy proven successful in American government. Please explain to be (with referenced source) how exactly the minimum wage does the country harm (and associating it with supply and demand does not count)?
Dani: "There are two girls I work with as brillant as I am. One was raped in highschool and choose to keep and raise twins. She will never have the oppertunity for a job better than Wendy's. THAT is unfair."
Nope we gotta abolish the minimum wage so Wendy's will refuse to pay her anymore than $2.00 an hour. That way, Wendy's will make $5 billion this year instead of $4.9 billion. (again you know I am being sarcastic here)
Jack Nips again: "The difficulties and hardships of 'making a living' as a young or unskilled worker have repeated time and again, yet I have heard no real response to my arguments."
Your still assuming that theres just this minimum wage job waiting at the doorstep and its just as easy and getting in the car (assuming you have one) and going down and applying for it. It doesnt work so easily for every, and I can see that obviously nobody here has ever lived in the ghetto or know how it is (this does not indicate that I have, but I at least have strived to look at it from the perspective of one without the opportunities I was blessed to have in life).
"The minimum wage creates a binding price floor, resulting in an increase in the quantity of labor supplied, and a decrease in the quantity of labor demanded. This creates a labor surplus (unemployment)."
Are you seriously blaming the minimum wage for unemployment? The Supply/Demand ratio is not affected by minimum wage, and it does not establish any sort of price floor. Look at the Great Depression, before the minimum wage, when big business dominance grew to such an extensive level? All your incorrect theory does is relate to that situation.
"Stated differently, employers will adjust their labor and capital input cominations in order to achieve profit maximization (employees get layed off)."
While allowing those who do work to attain a wage that actually consists of something... And lets say they don't have this minimum wage to control their business, why do you think they will hire more employees for their company? They're not going to overstock positions just because they are paying them less, they are going to profit off of the lack of a minimum wage by forcing minimum waged employees to work for almost nothing!!!
"More individuals (who were uninterested in working for lower wages) enter the labor market. (Less jobs & more job seekers=increased unemployment.) Though, certain companies/industries may have a more inelastic demand for labor"
Since when has labor ever been an elastic demand for a company? The only way for a company's labor demand to change is for the company to either expand or downsize. Why would a lower wage provide them an incentive to overstock their position (assuming that the demand is there to work for that pathetic $2 an hour which wouldn't even buy me a snack after work).
"The effect of a minimum wage increase would span across a number of industries and service sectors, impacting the labor market as a whole (including Wendy's)."
-Theory: Minimum Wage effects labor market.
-Evidence: My last two answers.
-Conclusion: Theory proven false.
"For example,suppose the following circumstances existed when you applied for Wendy's: Congress passes a minimum wage. Company A concludes that (given the increased cost of labor) it is more cost-effective to increase capital inputs (machines, etc.) to replace labor inputs (workers Sally and Bob), those workers will become unemployed. Jim Doe, who was content to sit on his couch while the minimum wage was $5.15, will decide to enter the market at $10.15. You, Sally, Bob, and Jim all need a job and apply for Wendy's. In this scenario, with the increased number of applicants, it is very likely that you could be unemployed today--Jim may have gotten the job. (Even if you did, Bob, Sally, and Jim are still unemployed.)"
...And this is assuming Wendy's (a fast food restaurant who is always short on front-end minimum waged employees) can afford to operate without Bob and Sally, and instead just one employee to handle the rush of customers. The also assumes that they would have to cut one position for every place that they operate in an effort to save more money than what the minimum wage is costing them.
Do you really think these multi-million dollar corporations are going to need to lay off minimum waged employees to make ends meet?
Now, this is presuming that this particular Wendy's is able to maintain a sufficient profit to stay in business (unlike the Burger King in my town). Whereas, absent the minimum wage, Sally and Bob keep their old jobs (hey $5.15 is better tho $0.00), you are hired at Wendy's (better than $0.00, and Jim goes back to watching Oprah. Thus, we are able to achieve maximum efficiency or "market equilibrium." While some people are made better-off by an increased minimum wage, a very large proportion are not. Overall, society benefits the most at the point of market equilibrium.
By your theory (which I do not believe) you are suggesting that each Wendy's could (and would) employee twice as many employees if the minimum wage were cut in half. Do you really think we're going to see twice as many of those minimum wage guys flipping burgers and taking orders for us when we go into Wendy's? And that is to assume that there are twice as many people applying for a corporation like Wendy's that is so deperate for employment that they hire convicted felons (tis true, at least for the Wendy's down the street from my house). Wendy's currently hires enough employees that they need, and tries not to exceed that to maximization their efficiency (in order words, lets say they hire enough people to handle the rush of customers). If minimum wage is doubled, do you think that would allow the company to cut the number of minimum waged employees in half in order to meet those budget cuts for them? so that when you go to Wendy's next time, you are waiting in line for three hours because they barely have anybody behind the counter working, just to save money (of which they won't make because of slower production at the register).
Maybe its just me, but would anyone like to stay with the Ford/Corker debate, instead of getting into an all-out Democrat vs. Republican and minumum wage issue argument?
Wow Joe. Wow.
I was going to say something about the minimum wage, and all but you pretty much covered it all.
Wow, that was some reply.
Joe-
Your reference to murdering American troops being the same as murdering unborn children is sick.
There is no cause to murder unborn children (which I understand that you don't agree with but support a political party that largly does.)
The war on Iraq- whether you and I agree or disagree with- there was a reason to go into this war and there is a reason to finish the war. Please for the sake of our faithful troops, who in a large part support this war, let them finish their task without a reference to them being mudered without the cause that they are faithfully enduring.
Without backbone, this country would not have finished any of the wars that protected our freedoms.
If I know your personal email, I would give this to you in a private message to avoid much fanfare. I don't require a long rebuttal, please just think about this and the party that you are serving. Republicans are not all right, and it has been quite obvious that none of the ones debating you are in total agreee ment with that party, but I know that you see the glaring flaws of simple moral issues associated with the party you support.
Also about the Playboy superbowl Party- I bet you didn't know but there were also Republicans there, but they didn't lie about it. JR the "christian" hasn't apologized for this lie or his being at the party. We have all made mistakes and we hope for forgiveness, but seeking forgiveness is a good first step. It pained me to see the negative ads, but lets not kid ourselves- there was negative adds on both sides.
God Bless.
I have come to the conclusion that you are incorrigible Joe. You have illustrated, and reaffirmed multiple times, my initial thesis: “Ignorance is the chief obstacle faced by conservatism in this country.”
I was dreadfully disappointed in your response (so-called). I had hoped that you and Dani were willing to engage in an intelligent dialogue on the “minimum wage” issue, however, it appears that “intelligent discussion” is beyond hope for you. You are what is wrong with this country: good people that are confused and misinformed.
Perhaps no comment so succinctly captured the essence of the problem that we conservatives face (i.e., widespread ignorance), than your following remark: “The market floor (the low point below market equilibrium) is affect by the changes in supply and demand, the min. wage has no effect on market equilibrium.” That is so utterly absurd that it is probably not worth the breath I’m wasting to respond. It illustrates your ignorance: go buy an economics textbook. Joey, a binding price floor is above market equilibrium, a binding price ceiling below it. Again, you illustrate your inability to engage in a rational discussion with the following comment: “Please explain to be (with referenced source) how exactly the minimum wage does the country harm (and associating it with supply and demand does not count)?” Explain how the minimum wage hurts the country economically without talking about supply and demand? That is like asking me to prove “unconditional election” without citing scripture. Oh brother...
[And, as a side-note, what is this about our “our horribly high unemployment rate”? It is actually a rather low 4.4% (or so); Bob and Sally were laid off by company A, not Wendy’s.]
I cannot even begin to respond to all the silly little comments that you made in response to my well-reasoned arguments. Basically, you didn’t understand anything that I said (though I labored to be as simplistic as possible). Though you deluged the reader in a torrent erroneous inferences, conjectures, and odd-ball comments--you never addressed my arguments. (I have, in vain, searched for some logic in your numerous comments, yet I find nothing really worthy of response.) I feel utterly unchallenged on any point that I made, and walk away with full confidence that I must certainly be the undisputed victor in this debate. The principles of conservatism and capitalism have once again triumphed!
I think a book could be published from these barrage of posts. Tensions may be flared, but let us remember that such a debate is conducive to freedom.
First,
The comparison between abortion and sending troops to war is fallacious. Abortion, is murder and it is wrong. Equating troop deployment with abortion is absurd.
Second,
Why do you persist in saying that we would support any candidate that has an R beside his name. I for one, do not. In fact, I would much rather prefer Zell Miller for example, than Linoln Chafee or Rudy Guilani. However, names and symbols mean something. A peron's party affiliation is often a good indicator of how he will vote. Sadly, many Republicans have deserted conservatism for big government and other liberalistic principles.
Third,
You say John Kerry opposed homosexual marriage. Do you know his stance on civil unions? For instance, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, as governor of Vermont, allowed civil unions in his state.
Fourth,
Why do you continue to chastise corporations and big business. Your depictions of them portray all of them as evil, greedy, power hungry, and detrimental to the country. You and I are not extremely wealthy. I however, do not share the same disgust you have for rich people. In fact, without a lot of these "snobs," many people would be out of a good job. As I have explained before, so will I now again the issue of tax cuts. Bob makes $100. Jim makes $10. Under a 10% tax cut, Bob would receive $10 back and Jim $1. Is this unfair? Assuredly not! If someone pays more in taxes, it stands to reason that he would receive more in taax cuts.
Fifth,
How do you know drilling in ANWR would be hazardous to the native animal life? Have you asked Alaskans of their opinion?
Sixth,
Corker, he whom you term "loser," was actually the winner in the election by a majority of voters in Tennessee. If we were to throw that term around, it would more aptly be applied to Ford, Jr. You charge Corker of not caring for Tennesseans. What basis have you for that? An accomplishment of Corkers? How about starting a small construction business from earnings he made from menial labor and building it into a sucessful enterprise that provided jobs for many employees?
Seventh,
I might also add that Social Security is on a dangerous precipice and if not corrected could cause drastic problems. Have the Democrats proposed any solution to this problem. Why do they oppose privatizing at least part of this fund to allow people more control over their hard earned money to perhaps invest and get better returns than from Social Security?
Eighth,
I would hardly call Harold Ford, Jr. the most conservative senatorial candidate from Tennessee within the last 20 years. Even though Frist may not be the acme of conservatism, I would place his name above that of Ford, along with Ed Bryant, Van Hilleary (from the primary) and Fred Thompson.
Ninth,
Are you happy with the current leadership of the House and Senate? What think you of Nanci Pelossi? If you term yourself conservative or even moderate, I would think that even you might be concerned concerning her political views.
Tenth,
I was wanted to type "tenth," to assume a sense of finality. A good day to you and I wish you profitable thoughts regarding the nature of government and political philosophy.
Minimum wage is affected by supply and demand. However, my only point here is that there are 5 people out there not working. So what that three sit at home and won't work for such low pay. When the pay is upped and they come looking for a job there are still 5 people out there not working. My Wendy's makes $3,000 or so a day much more on the weekends. It doesn't matter what minimum wage is (and in Alabama it is still 5.15), I still need 7 people during a good rush and 4 people to close. They still need 11 people during the day and 5 to open.
I am a night shift manager and close Thursday though Sunday night. Every night I am short handed. I'm not saying a pay raise would entice the entire city of Decatur to come to Wendys, but it couldn't hurt. The problem is that I have some really good employees but they can only work 40 hours a week, and even then it's not enought money to live on.
I understand the arguement that you are making, don't act like I can't think. My brother and I go round and round on this stuff. I don't have a problem with big business making alot of money. They got there it's there right, however I care how they treat their employees, and a minimum wage, a HIGHER minimum wage is not unreasonable.
The only trouble that I have with raising the minimum wage is what it does to small business. Those that are multi-million dollar corporations. I like mom and pop businesses, but raising minimum wage means that they don't grow as fast and they are forced to possibly lay off people. There is always a price however. I support a limited work week, work day, and minimum wage. Someone has to do those jobs whether it's fast food or whatever, and they should have to sell their soul to make ends meet. I don't hate big business and I don't hate rich people. However they got their money let them keep it and spend it and put it back in the economy. If we want to talk about buget problems lets start by cutting this welfare state. What Social Securtity, Unemployeement and the like has turned into is a joke.
Ya'll still don't get it. I should have left my example out, as it has become a distraction and point of confusion for some. I was trying to portray the market effect in miniature--the fact that though your Wendy's may have as sufficient profit margin to pay more and remain profitable (and people working at your Wendy's are better off), the overall result is detrimental to society. People from other companies will get laid off--perhaps those company's reach the point where it makes more sense to shut down, perhaps it becomes more cost effective to invest in machines, automation, etc., than to maintain the current level of labor input. The end result will be that there are fewer jobs available; those 5 people you mentioned (who were uninterested at $5.15, but are at $_.__)as well those laid off will now all be looking for a job. In the end 5+ people who want jobs are unemployed. Before the only people unemployed were the 5 who didn't want to work, and apparently don't need the $$$ as much. This policy actually often hurts those that need it the most (indeed, those willing to work at $5.15 may end up displaced by those new entrants only willing to work at the new min wage.)My primary objective in making my illustration was to demonstrate the economic argument in more tangible, concrete terms--and especially to get ya'll out the habit of referring to Wendy's as if it exists in a vacuum. I had hoped that you would see that the widespread effect would transcend across the entire market, and even affect applicants to Wendy's personally. For example, your friend that you mentioned could end up unemployed because new entrants to the market (who was unwilling to work at $5.15) may take one of those 11 positions at Wendy's that you made reference to (or someone laid off from another industry might get it.) More people want jobs, fewer are available.
This does not have anything to do, really, with whether you like or dislike large corporations, mom and pop businesses, etc. The real point is that it affects the economy in an adverse way: it creates higher unemployment.
I simply do not have the time to address the numerous fallacies and absurdities in each of your posts.I was tempted to enter into another lengthy refutation of your errors, and an explication of my economic arguments. However, I am convinced that it would be fruitless: my initial argument remains intact, and, in in fact stands as a perfect refutation of everything that you two have asserted. I'd have to see ya'll face-to-face clean up your muddled thinking (it probably wouldn't be efficient to trying to do so in this venue). However, I think that if you keep going to back the argument that I have articulated from my very first post onward, you will find that the logic is infallible. (I didn't come up with it, the economists did.)Upon a thorough reflection and investagtion of the facts, I am fully convinced that you will see the simple truths that I have expounded upon in my above comments. You must set aside attachment to party--whether Democrat or Republican--and plant your feet squarely upon principle. You musn't let your mind be clouded by party prejudice, Joe.
Rest assured, I don't believe that ya'll "can't think." Ya'll are, by all indications, two very bright individuals. I believe that you and Joe simply choose not to think.
Well, looks like I am seduced into another hour of responding to all my wonderful blawg readers. So lets get started...
Anonymous: "The war on Iraq- whether you and I agree or disagree with- there was a reason to go into this war and there is a reason to finish the war."
Besides oil? Please do give me a good reason for why we are at war, and don't say its to take out the terrorists because there are millions of terrorists around the world much worse and more powerful than Saddam.
Its clear that OSAMA attacked us, NOT SADDAM. I agree Saddam is a terrorist and not one we should deal with, and if he posed such a threat that we needed to take him out, then so be it. But why on earth are we trying to completely rebuild a supposedly "good" government over there? Yea I know that the people over there now would be as bad as Saddam, but do they pose a threat to the U.S. the same way Saddam did? Nope... And we're just letting our troops go over there and get killed right now, is that Pro-Life!!!
God bless our troops!!!
"Please for the sake of our faithful troops, who in a large part support this war, let them finish their task without a reference to them being mudered without the cause that they are faithfully enduring."
Please do give me a good reference to where a majority, or even a large part, of our troops support the "continuation" of a failed approach at war (notice I did not say anything about pulling out, so please don't convince yourself that that is what the Democrats want to do, because I assure you its much different).
"If I know your personal email, I would give this to you in a private message to avoid much fanfare. I don't require a long rebuttal, please just think about this and the party that you are serving."
joe444477@gmail.com and I believe you have gotten the impression that I, like many right-wingers, just support this one party no matter what decisions they make. As I have said before, I supported Jr. so strongly because he was an independent thinker. I love independent thinkers who are not focused on Democrat supremacy, or Republican supremacy, or any of this other garbage, but one who wants to brings the parties together, to work together to solve problems, and to maintain Christian faith in our government's work no matter what they do. Seriously, I don't know what it takes for people to understand that, but hopefully they will soon. Ford could be a Republican for all I care, I care that he is a well-spoken self-thoughtful politician respecting both parties, and not a rubber stamp for anyone.
"Republicans are not all right, and it has been quite obvious that none of the ones debating you are in total agreee ment with that party, but I know that you see the glaring flaws of simple moral issues associated with the party you support."
I don't stand here on a pedastal and act like the Democrats are the best party of faith, by any means. But you have to admit that the Republicans are NOT either. Honestly I dont think either party really supports what a true Christian should, but we vote for the better candidate of the two parties, based on the fact that their faith represents more of what we want to see in government. Between Ford and Corker, there is clearly no comparison which is more dedicated to Christianity and Christian viewpoints in his voting record.
"Also about the Playboy superbowl Party- I bet you didn't know but there were also Republicans there, but they didn't lie about it."
To be honest, I knew nothing of it before this election, so no I didnt know Republicans were there. But I'm sure its rather easy not to lie about something when you are not being questioned and taunted for making such a mistake.
"JR the "christian" hasn't apologized for this lie or his being at the party."
I'm sorry he "lied" about it? I never saw or read anything about Jr. denying that he went to that Superbowl party. All I saw was him admitting his flaw, and explaining what it really was. I do not defend him for going, but I forgive him. Much like I forgive Corker of his Walmart scandle and his allowing his daughter to get drunk at a frat party and make out with another girl.
"We have all made mistakes and we hope for forgiveness, but seeking forgiveness is a good first step. It pained me to see the negative ads, but lets not kid ourselves- there was negative adds on both sides."
There were definently negative ads against Corker, but your forgetting that they were all by the Democratic Senatorial Comittee. Ford did not approve them before they went on air. He did have the option to pull them, but considering they weren't X-rated like some of Corker's ads, and yet Corker was also spending millions of his own cash to trash Ford's family, schooling, living location, etc... then I dont blame Ford one bit for using his resources the best way possible.
"God Bless"
You too ;)
Jack Nips: I have come to the conclusion that you are incorrigible Joe. You have illustrated, and reaffirmed multiple times, my initial thesis: “Ignorance is the chief obstacle faced by conservatism in this country.”
By what? Exposing your flawed economic theory? Thanks for the encouraging way to say "Joe your ignorant," how Christian and defensive of the party that supposedly stands for faith and morals.
"I was dreadfully disappointed in your response (so-called). I had hoped that you and Dani were willing to engage in an intelligent dialogue on the 'minimum wage' issue, however, it appears that 'intelligent discussion' is beyond hope for you."
Dude, what the....? I mean, seriously, your giving here bogus claims about why the minimum wage is destroying the economy and your now claiming I am incapable of "intelligent discussion" because I come on here, expose your economic flaws, and provide challenging reasoning? I take it your not too good at debates...
"You are what is wrong with this country: good people that are confused and misinformed."
You know I could say the same to you and it would be even more truthful. But I'm not because its still not true, your not whats wrong with the country JDM. Whats wrong with the country are the people who are so full of rage and hate that they refuse to work with the Democrats (or the Democrats refusing to work with the Republicans) to solve these problems that we have in society. All I hear from right-wingers is "the Republicans are just way too Moderate" blah blah blah.... and then from the left-wingers its "I'm not voting for Ford, he's a Republican, and I'm sick of him turning so far to the right" more blah blah blah....
You know what, both parties, SHUT UP!!!!! Its this kind of whining thats what is really wrong with this country.
"'The market floor (the low point below market equilibrium) is affect by the changes in supply and demand, the min. wage has no effect on market equilibrium.' That is so utterly absurd that it is probably not worth the breath I’m wasting to respond. It illustrates your ignorance: go buy an economics textbook."
One more comment like this and I will be deleting your posts from my blawg. This type of childish (and false) insulting will NOT be tolerated on Joe's Blawg.
"Again, you illustrate your inability to engage in a rational discussion with the following comment: 'Please explain to be (with referenced source) how exactly the minimum wage does the country harm (and associating it with supply and demand does not count)?' Explain how the minimum wage hurts the country economically without talking about supply and demand? That is like asking me to prove 'unconditional election' without citing scripture."
Dude, thats nonsense, and you know it. You still didnt give me any reference so I'm not going to respond until I get something to reference your flawed economic assumption to.
"[And, as a side-note, what is this about our 'our horribly high unemployment rate'? It is actually a rather low 4.4% (or so); Bob and Sally were laid off by company A, not Wendy’s.]"
As I recall, that would still not equal the 3.8% Clinton acheived by the closing of his administration. You are right about the unemployment rate being at 4.4% and having declined since we controlled shipping jobs over seas since 2004, but there is a general increase expected in that rate in the next few months, so thats not a stable rate, by any means. Source
"I cannot even begin to respond to all the silly little comments that you made in response to my well-reasoned arguments."
pfft... LOL!!!!!!!!!
Yea dude, mine are silly, and yours are like totally genius....
"Basically, you didn’t understand anything that I said (though I labored to be as simplistic as possible)."
Well, since your trying to predict my sense of interpretation for me, I understand everything you said quite well. I just seemed rather bewildered that you actually thought that was the way the economy works.
"I have, in vain, searched for some logic in your numerous comments, yet I find nothing really worthy of response."
Your just going all out insulting tonight arent you. Maybe if you understood what I said a little better we could have more of a "debate."
"I feel utterly unchallenged on any point that I made, and walk away with full confidence that I must certainly be the undisputed victor in this debate."
Dude, you just got pwned in the worst why, why are you so insistant that your right and nobody else is.
Setiago: "First, The comparison between abortion and sending troops to war is fallacious. Abortion, is murder and it is wrong. Equating troop deployment with abortion is absurd."
Thats with the assumption your attempting to make that there was a justifiable reason for deploying our troops into harm's way, besides greed. I believe I referred to that reason above in response to Anonymous.
"Second, Why do you persist in saying that we would support any candidate that has an R beside his name. I for one, do not. In fact, I would much rather prefer Zell Miller for example, than Linoln Chafee or Rudy Guilani. However, names and symbols mean something. A peron's party affiliation is often a good indicator of how he will vote. Sadly, many Republicans have deserted conservatism for big government and other liberalistic principles."
I persist in saying that because it was not people like you that I was responding to. I know you, Seth, are not one to quickly defend Corker. Personally I think Ed Bryant would have been a much better candidate for yall, but in TN wealth and slander triumphs over credibility. So why is it that you voted for Corker over Ford? I mean, what on earth is so appealing about Corker (and please say something that does not relate to Jr in some way, we're talking about Corker here)?
"Third, You say John Kerry opposed homosexual marriage. Do you know his stance on civil unions? For instance, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, as governor of Vermont, allowed civil unions in his state."
John Kerry supported Civil Unions, just like Bush did about two weeks before the 2004 election (and then of course never implimented it afterwards, which I am actually glad of, except that he had to lie and same he supported it prior to the election).
"Fourth, Why do you continue to chastise corporations and big business. Your depictions of them portray all of them as evil, greedy, power hungry, and detrimental to the country."
Yep, two words: Bill Gates.
"You and I are not extremely wealthy. I however, do not share the same disgust you have for rich people. In fact, without a lot of these "snobs," many people would be out of a good job. As I have explained before, so will I now again the issue of tax cuts. Bob makes $100. Jim makes $10. Under a 10% tax cut, Bob would receive $10 back and Jim $1. Is this unfair? Assuredly not! If someone pays more in taxes, it stands to reason that he would receive more in taax cuts."
That assumption refers to both Bob and Jim paying the same original percentage in taxes. But even with that assumption, the purpose of this "tax break" is to stimulate the economy, which of course is untrue by all means. If Bob gets that $10 back, he is not going to be as motivated to spend it, being that he has $90 in the bank already. However, Jim only has $9 in the bank, so getting that $1 could mean another meal for his family, or something of more value, since he is less capable of spending than Bob. If the poor are getting barely anything in tax cuts, and the rich and wealthy are getting all the glory, why would this stimulate the economy any more effectively than a any other type of tax cut? It seems to me this is looking out more for the interest of wealth-dominance than actually making things fair.
"Fifth, How do you know drilling in ANWR would be hazardous to the native animal life? Have you asked Alaskans of their opinion?"
Well, how do you know that it would NOT be hazardous? This is over 10 billion barrels of oil we're talking about, do you not think it will have any kind of effect on the endangered wildlife environment?
"Sixth, Corker, he whom you term 'loser,' was actually the winner in the election by a majority of voters in Tennessee. If we were to throw that term around, it would more aptly be applied to Ford, Jr. You charge Corker of not caring for Tennesseans. What basis have you for that? An accomplishment of Corkers? How about starting a small construction business from earnings he made from menial labor and building it into a sucessful enterprise that provided jobs for many employees?"
Well if Corker didnt have to buy his votes then yes I believe he would be coined a phrase other than "loser" but instead he is no true winner (regardless of what the polls say), and I am ashamed to have him elected to the Senate. I do hold confidence that in 6 years he'll be easily booted out in the Republican primary, so its no concern, we've dealt with ignorance at a national level before (eg. Fred Thompson, who's only quality is a good last name).
"Seventh, I might also add that Social Security is on a dangerous precipice and if not corrected could cause drastic problems. Have the Democrats proposed any solution to this problem. Why do they oppose privatizing at least part of this fund to allow people more control over their hard earned money to perhaps invest and get better returns than from Social Security?"
Are you suggesting the Democrats do not have the proposed solutions to fund for social security? Because they are supporting limited spending, which will in turn allow us to reinvest in programs like medicare and social security (programs that would really help my 94 yr old great aunt, right now).
"Eighth, I would hardly call Harold Ford, Jr. the most conservative senatorial candidate from Tennessee within the last 20 years. Even though Frist may not be the acme of conservatism, I would place his name above that of Ford, along with Ed Bryant, Van Hilleary (from the primary) and Fred Thompson."
I believe I said Ford was the most Conservative "Democrat" Senatorial candidate in the last 20 years.
"Ninth, Are you happy with the current leadership of the House and Senate? What think you of Nanci Pelossi? If you term yourself conservative or even moderate, I would think that even you might be concerned concerning her political views."
I am not very thrilled with Nancy Pelosi, but I am very happy to have Sen. Harry Reid, a rather Conservative Democrat, as Majority leader.
"Tenth, I was wanted to type 'tenth,' to assume a sense of finality. A good day to you and I wish you profitable thoughts regarding the nature of government and political philosophy."
Thank you very much, and a good day to you as well. God bless
Dani: Minimum wage is affected by supply and demand."
The only way that could be so is if companies are hiring and firing based entirely on the minimum wage they are paying their employees. Its not quite that simple. Companies must hire based on how to most effectively and efficiently maintain the production of their stores/services/etc... If minimum wage is increased, they cannot so easily downsized in number of employees, because that would hinder overall store operation and result in further losses.
"The only trouble that I have with raising the minimum wage is what it does to small business. Those that are multi-million dollar corporations. I like mom and pop businesses, but raising minimum wage means that they don't grow as fast and they are forced to possibly lay off people."
That is also a concern for me, but personally I think it will have a small effect on small businesses, as those mom and pop stores tend to be self-employeed (the owner does the basic hands-on work, they may also hire a couple employees, but its not as extensive as a large corporation).
Jack Nips again: "the fact that though your Wendy's may have as sufficient profit margin to pay more and remain profitable (and people working at your Wendy's are better off), the overall result is detrimental to society. People from other companies will get laid off--perhaps those company's reach the point where it makes more sense to shut down, perhaps it becomes more cost effective to invest in machines, automation, etc., than to maintain the current level of labor input. The end result will be that there are fewer jobs available;"
I don't deny that certain there are some business, though very few, that would have to downsized in employment if a higher minimum wage was established, but its not nearly the effect that JDM is trying to make it out to be. It will raise the standard of living for those who are working hard but do not have the opportunity of a higher wage salary available to them. The current minimum wage of $6.25 is unlivable, there is no way to pay for any kind of bills with that type of meager income. It is ridiculous, and not even HS or college students are satisfied with trying to make a living at this pathetic level of income. The minimum wage is long overdue for a raise.
"This does not have anything to do, really, with whether you like or dislike large corporations, mom and pop businesses, etc. The real point is that it affects the economy in an adverse way: it creates higher unemployment."
All this is leading back to the untrue theory that employment can be dramatically reduced based on giving minimum waged workers an income that can actually help get them through college, or pay the bills.
Those who are sitting around on their rear ends and doing nothing, no I do not sympathize with that, but those who are working hard and just don't have opportunities for better paying jobs, I can sympathize with because they are still putting in a hard day's work, they deserve a raise.
"I simply do not have the time to address the numerous fallacies and absurdities in each of your posts."
Honestly, dude I appreciate your comments, but it is very immature to speak to people commenting on my blawg this way, and like I said before if it continues I will be deleting your comments. Please, EVERYONE, be respect to one another in the way you address them about these controversial issues. Thank you.
"I'd have to see ya'll face-to-face clean up your muddled thinking (it probably wouldn't be efficient to trying to do so in this venue)."
I'm sorry dude, I didn't realize you were Jesus.
"However, I think that if you keep going to back the argument that I have articulated from my very first post onward, you will find that the logic is infallible.(I didn't come up with it, the economists did.)"
Someone please tell me can you get anymore stuck up?
"You must set aside attachment to party--whether Democrat or Republican--and plant your feet squarely upon principle. You musn't let your mind be clouded by party prejudice, Joe."
I would agree, but look who's talking here.
Nawill: "yeah Jr. is against Gay marriage, without getting in the way of the civil rights of gays and lesbians, or so he said on his website."
I'm not denying you (yet, until I can provide the record to prove it) but can you please provide me with a link to that particular site that you read him saying that.
"JoeT, ok so since there were 3,000 people at the playboy party then it was ok. Jr. never appologised, in an interview with a guy from WKNO he said, 'I cant help it if I like girls.'"
Maybe so, and like I said already I am not defending Jr on this, but I seem to also recall an interview where he was actually unfamiliar at the time entering that it was a Playboy sponsored party, and being as large as it was I would think that an easy mistake to make. Jr was still in the wrong, but never lied about it. Corker lied about numerous things (eg. "I never said stay the course" and "You [to Ford Jr.] voted 4 times against the ban on Partial Birth Abortion") and though it was never publicized so he didnt have to endure the same stuff he was throwing at Ford, his daughter Julia he raised in a horrible way to do what she did at that frat party. Tennessee deserves better.
"JoeT, The fact that you mentioned abortion and the War in Iraq in the same post is sick."
So what are you saying, lets just go send our troops to any country that remotely dislikes Americans (which is well over 100 other countries right now) and if anyone questions the fact that our troops are getting killed they are SICK for comparing it to a child being killed before physical birth. Just because yall's party has never made a political realm of it, doesn't mean that you shouldnt stay Pro-Life after birth.
"By the way John Kerry, Teddy 'hiccup' Kennedy and The William J. Clinton all expressed the need to go into Iraq, and some even voted that way, but as soon as the media makes things look terrible then they will not touh that with a 10 foot pole."
Dude, where on earth did any of them say that? Unless your referring to after 9/11 when the Bush administration made a mess of that issue. And even Ford Jr. voted for giving Bush the authority to go to war, and made it well-mentioned on his campaign trail for the Senate. He said that he was wrong for doing so (which I agree wholheartedly) but why would he be ashamed of his voting record?
"Remember all wars have taken long WWII was 6 years I believe."
Length is not the question here, its progress. WWII involved hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, this war is still in the single digits of the thousands (and low, at those) and we are not making any progress with it. Plus, in WWII we werent trying to set up an entire government for a country that could not work that way.
"FIRE MIKE FRATELLO!"
Dude, you listen to Calkins too much. :P
Jack man, I understand your arguement. I just don't agree that raising minimum wage would have that BIG of an impact, for the market as a whole. The idea that the friend at Wendy's could lose the job because there are more applicants is nonsense. She has a job, and provided that she doesn't do anything stupid, she will continue at said job. It just might make it more difficult for her to find a new job if she so chose. I do think it affects the market, but I don't think it does that much. Besides if you give people more money they will have more to spend above and beyond bills, in which case they buy things and make the market stronger.
... I'm another Anonymous writer - not to be confused with the first Anonymous writer.
I just want to quickly comment on the minimum wage issue. You really don't need to buy textbooks or even study economics to understand why raising minimum wage is not a good thing.
If minimum wage raises - inflation raises higher. We have all experienced this and know enough about history to see that this is true.
I'm for having a minimum wage, but I'm against raising it. It sounds really good... but keep in mind what will happen to inflation. Raising minimum wage will hurt the middle class much more than the upper class. If minium wage is raised and inflation raises higher, who has a harder time buying food? Raising the minimum wage hurts the middle class and causes the US dollar to decrease more in value.
Amen!
"but instead he is no true winner (regardless of what the polls say),"
Joe i must say i found this rather humorous, because i distincly recall, that in past arguments, you have had a tremendous tendency to cling to the polls. i dont have time to give ou links to the comments, but i could find them, and i think you know i could.
one other thing,
you asked for the link of the web page where nawill read Jr.'s statement about gay's civil rights. here it is.
" I will continue to be pro-family, including supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, without taking away the civil rights of gays and lesbians."
http://www.haroldfordjr.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=149&PHPSESSID=0785d7a1403d79bd12ba57d09900f4a7
Gays are entitled to civil rights the same as everyone. It is a sin like any other, do you suggest that we give sinners no civil rights, of course not we all are. Just think about it a minute.
Okay, let's give murders the same rights as those who do not murder people. Think about it a minute. Your argument is horrible! There's a difference between a blood-washed sinner and a practicing sodomite.
Anonymous, could you please elaborate more on your opinion here.
"Your argument is horrible!"
I would like to, most respectfully, ask that you make a different choice of words in responces on my blawg in the future. I am fine with good challenging debate, but I would like for all comments to keep a certain level of respect for the others they are responding to, and something like that exceeds that level of respect.
This is a Christian blawg, and I would like to keep that Christian spirit in debates and other such topics discussed, that is my only requirement for comments. Thank you.
are ya'll okay?
Post a Comment
<< Home