The First Hundred Hours

[John Wayne]

The 100 hours of the New Congress began today; so what does everybody think about the Dem's goals and if they will be achieved?

[over-man]

What goals? The democrats are going to continue funding this war and will favor Bush's increase in troops out of fear of being called cut and runners.
The democrats are just as utterly impotent and worthless as they were in the minority.
Edit: Actually they are probably even more impotent now as they are scared at losing their seats.

[danzig]

The 100 hours of the New Congress began today; so what does everybody think about the Dem's goals and if they will be achieved?

The goals are basically pandering, popular type issues, it doesnt address the major concern of most Americans ie Iraq. Min wage increase = useless, living wage is what is necessary and its why various states have their own 'living wage' min.

[President Dick]

Nothing at all will happen now. Change is always slow. No agreeing. Both parties are not a good choice, and that sucks for Americans.

[Nationalist_Cause]

What all you guys said. Democrats were elected mostly as a rejection of Republican support for a debacle in Iraq. (Though most Democrats supported the war initially has gone unnoticed.) Democrats seem to be basically passing through a bunch of easy, unimportant, and....unimportant legislation. They were elected to help extricate ourselves from Iraq and that is what they ought to be doing.

I don't believe for a second that they have any better idea how to do that than anyone else but they could at least pretend.

[AMERICARULES]

Nothing is gonna happen. If this stuff makes it out of the Senate (extremely unlikely), Bush won't sign it into law anyways. It's all political posturing by the democrats to appeal to the masses.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Nothing is gonna happen. If this stuff makes it out of the Senate (extremely unlikely), Bush won't sign it into law anyways. It's all political posturing by the democrats to appeal to the masses.

Well aren't they supposed to be representing the "masses"? It is who elected them after all...I don't get how trying to do what the public favors is now a bad word: pandering.

[danzig]

Well aren't they supposed to be representing the "masses"? It is who elected them after all...I don't get how trying to do what the public favors is now a bad word: pandering.

Because the public wants alot of things but it doesnt want to pay for them Thats why when you ask voters do you want a national health care system everyone says yes then you ask them do you mind that you maybe paying for your neighbors health care at some point they all scream screw that! To put it in perspective alot of Americans want tax cuts but yet this new Democratic congress is actually going to indirectly (no doubt to be able to say well we didnt raise taxes we simply allowed tax cuts to go away) kill the tax cut by spending requirement changes despite the fact the masses love tax cuts.

What is good for the US isnt always what is popular so pandering can often be bad.

[Nationalist_Cause]

Well aren't they supposed to be representing the "masses"? It is who elected them after all...I don't get how trying to do what the public favors is now a bad word: pandering.

I agree with you. However, I view "pandering" as giving a minority pressure group a disproportianate amount of attention / influence compared to the voting public. But my argument is semantic. Like I said, I agree with you.

[Tom Paine]

Well aren't they supposed to be representing the "masses"? It is who elected them after all...I don't get how trying to do what the public favors is now a bad word: pandering.

Actually they are meant to represent the best interests of the nation; including those who cannot vote, and those who did not vote for them. That is different, note, from the wants of the people.

[Evariste]

Please keep discussion on topic. The topic here is the Democratic Congress' plan to push forward several pieces of legislation in the first one hundred hours in the 110th American Congress. If you'd like to discuss Amerocentrism, please start a new thread.

[Evariste]

I've been casually following this, and from what I can tell both sides have been pretty hypocritical. What with the 109th's Democrats demanding a minority faction bill of rights, and the Republicans flatly refusing. In this new congress, the roles have very much switched...

I'm not so sure about this whole "bipartisanship" mantra that Pelosi is pushing. First, I don't really believe it, and second, is bipartisanship really a good thing? Won't this just cause watered-down bills that don't really please either party?


On second thought, that might not be too bad...

[ErikinWest]

I think most of it makes sense, except the increase in a minimum wage!!!!!!!!!

Erik

[Tom Paine]

Minimum wage is only effective if its above the living wage, and as America has problems over its poverty issues, its a sensible measure. The invisible hand does not, in fact, work in the regulation of wages.

[Evariste]

Minimum wage is only effective if its above the living wage, and as America has problems over its poverty issues, its a sensible measure. The invisible hand does not, in fact, work in the regulation of wages.

I can't argue to save my life, and Wikipedia said it better than I ever could.

Critics argue that basic economic theory suggests a mandated minimum price for labor, a "living wage," is harmful to low-wage workers and increases unemployment. Artificially fixing a price for labor above the market price causes a decrease in the overall demand for labor, leading to increased unemployment and a deadweight loss. Workers who lose their jobs would not receive the living wage. Furthermore, such wage increases can cause inflation, increasing the cost of living and decreasing the relative buying power of the living wage, which leaves the minimum wage earner no better off.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage


As for the first part of the first hundred hours, it looks like they passed some legislation implementing some suggestions made by the Iraq commission...

:hmmm:

[ErikinWest]

Minimum wage is only effective if its above the living wage, and as America has problems over its poverty issues, its a sensible measure. The invisible hand does not, in fact, work in the regulation of wages.

That's nonsense. After 50 years of empirical economic study on the subject, 99% of studies conclude that the minimum wage has adverse affects. If the minimum wage could be raised without adverse affects, why not make the minimum wage $50 an hour?

Erik

[John Wayne]

The bill that would place every suggestion made by the 9-11 Commission was just passed in the House, now onto the Senate.

Only problem I have with it, as it is the only part I actually know of, is the requirement of every object being shipped into the USA (by plane and boat) must be checked before leaving (air)port. This would force the nations we trade with to spend billions of American dollars on cargo checks, which would be uneconomical for various ports (such as Rotterdam and Hong Kong).

[Farnan]

I'll explain why increasing the minimum wage will have adverse affects on American citizens in one word:

Outsourcing

As it gets more expensive to hire Americans, the more companies will move out of country for their workers.

[hsimoorb]

I'll explain why increasing the minimum wage will have adverse affects on American citizens in one word:

Outsourcing

As it gets more expensive to hire Americans, the more companies will move out of country for their workers.

Unless they actualy have it in them to solve a problem in this country. They should punish companies that outscorce more harshly too. And I hate to say it, minimum wage job in this country can't realy be outscourced too easily. How are people in another country going to serve me hamburgers in a backcountry Illinois suburb? How can we export agricultural jobs to mexico?

Fact is, all the jobs we can export to other countries, we have. Modern idustrial workers, the few that are left, make way more than the minimum anyways. Raising the few people's wages that are actualy lower than the living wage isn't going to do much to our economy.

[ErikinWest]

Fact is, all the jobs we can export to other countries, we have. Modern idustrial workers, the few that are left, make way more than the minimum anyways. Raising the few people's wages that are actualy lower than the living wage isn't going to do much to our economy.

You bring up a valid point that only about 1-2% of the workforce is on minimum wage, which is a very small amount of people. Secondly, I'd like to point out that high income countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, Sweden, and Denmark do not have minimum wages. In fact 7 EU countries do not have minimum wages.

Erik