Hell to the NO!

These people (the Pelosi-ites) crack me up. Their total ignorance of economics can appeal only to those who share it.

Raise the minimum wage, and see what happens. Better, see who suffers. Oh, a few, a very few, will benefit at the beginning, with that extra dollar or so an hour. But it won't take long for the infamous Unintended Consequences to catch up with the Dems, as they always do.

Say I sell widgets, and my largest market is seniors. I now have to pay my widget-packers more money. The only people in my company who make minimum wage are the marginal workers, who have no real job skills, or now and then a teenager during the summer or sometimes a few senior citizens who want to supplement their incomes. But now my payroll has gone up 33% for that segment of my employees. Hmmm. What to do. I can lay off some of the marginal workers and pay a little more to fewer better workers, since the differential between their wages has now shrunk. I can try to work out a way to keep my payroll about the same. But the most likely solution will be simply to pass on that payroll increase to my customers.

But I have some employees whose salary is tied to the minimum wage, so now I have to increase those salaries as well. So there go the costs to the consumers, up again.

But as so much of my market is fixed-income seniors, either they go widget-less or we have to increase SS benefits to keep up with the increased costs that inevitably follow across the board wage increases

And in a couple of years, when everything has equalized, everyone will still have the same differential in their income, it's just that the numbers will be bigger. No one call buy MORE widgets---they just pay more for the same number they bought all the time. We call this inflation. The money you have doesn't buy more, but the figures are bigger. This is why when we talk about prices in earlier years, we have to "adjust for inflation" or specify that we are talking in "1960's dollars" or some such qualifier, to let people know that we understand the inflationary effect of simply raising prices.

The Pelosi-type economic model is like a business plan that simply ays "I'll sell stuff and make money". She, and her equally ignorant Dems, say "We'll fix poverty by giving people more money, and we'll take more money from those who have it and give it to those who don't". Because that is exactly what her plan says. But there is absolutely no attention paid to loss of productivity, or inflation (which hits the lower and middle classes harder anyway) or any of the other Unintended Consequences of their silly pie in the sky "plans".

"Comrade?" You rally called her "comrade"? Shake the dust off, why don't you.

The Dems aren't just hypocritical about sexual trysts, as some have pointed out. When it comes to wealth, their real hypocrisy shows. They rant about the "gap between rich and poor" and about wealth is not "distributed" fairly, but have no problem with the huge amounts of wealth amassed by some on their side of the aisle, such as the Kennedys and Kerry, as you've pointed out, as well as Michael Moore, George Soros, Noam Chomsky, Jesse Jackson, and others. Kerry is the perfect example of a person the left loves to complain about. He is filthy rich because he is a married to a widow who inherited something like a billion dollars from her first husband, who inherited it though his father from his great grandfather. Thus, Kerry is the epitome of a man with wealth that the Dems would call "undeserved".

If the Dems and other lefties really think that those Bush tax cuts are so evil, let them all calculate the difference between what they paid and what they would have paid had the cuts not been made, and give the difference to charity. That way, they can put their money (just about literally) where their mouth is, without using government power to FORCE others to do likewise. Trouble is, that's precisely how the left defines "helping the poor". For them, it's not what you give from your own pocket, it's what you FORCE others into giving. By the way, Pelosi herself and her husband are multimillionaires, who preach respect for unions, but own a hotel which does not employ them.

Every political group---conservatives, liberals, socialists, libertarians----has done studies on the effects of tax cuts. And every one has had the same result, though the libs and the socialists refuse to tell you this.

The outcome is what some call the Wealth Factor. Basically, it is that for tax cuts to have any impact on the economy, they have to include the highest tax brackets.

At some income levels, tax cuts are merely symbolic---tax payments might go from $11.00 to zero. At the middle levels, the tax cuts result in a little more income retained by the taxpayer, but it is still probably less than a thousand dollars. That is important to the taxpayer, and he might use that money to buy a new refrigerator, or as the down payment on a car----economy-stimulating acts. Or he might just pay down his credit card bills on something he bought last year, having a smaller impact on the economy.

But in the higher reaches of taxpayers, the savings are greater, so the amount of money available is larger. Therefore, the impact THIS money has on the economy is far greater. It may be spent, or it may be invested in the stock market, or it may go back into the companies that produced the income in the first place, but it always goes back into the economy, and it always gives it a boost. The only way these tax savings can fail to enter the economy is if the person receiving them just buries the money in a coffee can in his back yard.

Making tax cuts effective only for lower level incomes has only one effect---that of pandering to a voter base which tends to be more dependent on government. Taking them away from higher income levels has two effects----it punishes those who have more, thereby playing into the class hatred tactics that the Dems depend on to keep their voter base, but it also stifles the economy.

It is an interesting pathology, class hatred, and it is a cornerstone of the socialist philosophy. 'They' don't 'deserve' to have more, so it is only right to take away what 'we' have decided 'they' should not have, and redistribute it to those 'we' think DO 'deserve' it. The Dems try to dress up this pathology as compassion or fairness or simple economic strategy, but it is really emotion-based, resentment-driven, surliness.

There was a time, coincidentally (?) during the era of greatest growth in this country, when people looked at the rich, the successful, and were inspired to try to achieve success and wealth. Now, too many look at the rich and successful and merely seethe with anger and resentment and envy, and instead of aspiring to accomplishment just try to bring the successful down to their own level.

And this pettiness is now celebrated and presented as not only a virtue but an economic strategy. Nothing like taking what used to be condemned as character flaws and elevating them by redefining them as virtues. So Orwellian, so typical of the neodems.

Pinch those pennies

A few morning funnies for you all

Gotcha

Bad Reflection

The Moral High Ground

You didn't post the first two things she would do:

"Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

Got any problem with those?

Average tax cut for middle class person in the United States was $20. What the House is missing is their freedom to be a check on executive power. Go back and read James Burnham's Congress and the American Tradition and you will plainly see how American conservatism has been hijacked by those who feel a 17% flat tax is "unfair". While you are there you might want to try Sen. John Danforth's Faith and Politics as well. If the GOP will come back to the center, those on the far left will look much more liberal to the conservative "base" than they really are. As long as voters have a choice between what appears to be reactionary religious hypocrisy and liberal laissez-faire they will take liberalism every time.

Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!

The weathly benefit from the capitalist system. You can't tell me that the about of work Bill Gates, H. Lee Scott and the Google brothers do justifies the money they make. There are probably thousands upon thousands of people in the US who work as hard or harder for a fraction of their pay.

Yes, our system rewards innovation and it should. It does reward hard work and it should. But in some cases hard work and innovation cause for an explosion of cash going to one person or company. Luck does have something to do with it a lot times.

Because our capitalist system rewards so richly and relies on low-wage workers to keep it going, I do not have any problem what-so-ever taxing the extremely weathly. They benefitted from the system, they can pay higher taxes.

if we follow Almiranta's augument to its logical conclusion there should be NO taxes on the high income segment of the population.

and just what is wrong about "Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients."

Aha, caught you in the act of poor bashing. Wouldn't want to help out the low income earners in the country at the expense of extra taxation of the top 5% richest people would we?

1) Try living on $7 a hour for a few months and still manage to pay your bills and save some money for the future. Pretty much impossible. Here in BC, the minimum wage is $8.50 an hour, when it was being raised the same people said the same things, it was going to drive businesses under, it was going to make it hard for business people etc. Did that happen? Nope. Business is flourishing and growing here.

2) Wouldn't want our kids to be paying as littlest as possible for their educations would we? If conservatives had their way, education costs would quadruple so as to allow only the richest kids to get a good education.

3) Wouldn't want to help the seniors out a little with lower cost medications would we? Again, if conservatives had their way, they would increase the cost of medication, putting it out of reach for many seniors, who would not live as long to burden the system.

Thank goodness you are in the minority, or America would be akin to Mexico

And as to widget making, nice selection of a market, but lts look at a different market. Lets say I own a small ice cream store. at the current wage my employees cannot afford to bring their kids in, but at the rasied salary, they may and hence my sales go up. Also my sales will go up not only from my employees, but from those at other area employers. The effect of increasing the minimum wage allows those workers more disposible income to return to the market, hence incresing the overall value in the marketplace in the same way all you NeoCons claim tax decreases add value to the market.

Axis:
You're totally welcome to post here (even though I think you're illinformed), but I am very curious as to WHY you post here.

Are there really that few liberals that they need to import them from Canada? Too bad we can't seize your lame ass comments as we seize your counterfeit perscription drugs and return them.

Tom,

And they do - the top 1% of wage earners pay 37% of all federal income taxes. Meanwhile, revenues from corporate taxation have risen 76% over the past couple years (hey, big surprise - profitable companies pay more in taxes! Shock to liberals everywhere).

But as a Catholic, I'm entirely with you on ensuring a decent provision for the poor and, of course, the only place we can get the money for this is from the more wealthy among us...but the next time you hear one of your Democrats say, "tax the rich", please realise that they are only taxing the working rich...those who might be worth a million or two but who put in 60 hour weeks to get it...meanwhile, you'll never hear your liberal leaders calling for a tax on wealth...you know, the extra mansions and yachts of the Kennedys, Kerrys and Pelosis of America...

I'll agree to tax the rich provided we really tax them...

Tax cuts don't work ... http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-10-06T171726Z_01_N06227599_RTRIDST_0_ECONOMY-DEFICIT-UPDATE-1.XML

So why not repeal them?

Tax and Spend, Cut and Run the Democrats new, new, newest plan, until they revise it then it will be Cut and Run, Tax and Spend.

Axis...how about some facts.

The Bush tax cuts were the largest tax cuts in history for the poor in this country.

Any other falsehoods you would like to try?

True compassion comes from the heart, not from threats of imprisonment by "failure to comply."

Democrats are hellbent on stealing all the golden eggs and redistributing them, but in their zeal forget that they murder the goose in the process.

Almiranta said: "Raise the minimum wage, and see what happens. Better, see who suffers. Oh, a few, a very few, will benefit at the beginning, with that extra dollar or so an hour. But it won't take long for the infamous Unintended Consequences to catch up with the Dems, as they always do."

True. It will catch up to the liberal Dems, however by the time it does, whomever is in charge of the Democratic party at that time will spin it to blame the Republicans and all those within the Democratic party will fall in liberal lockstep to keep the spin going. Plus the MSM will follow suit. The uber-liberal Dem. leadership like Pelosi doesn't care about long-term consequences. They never do. Hundreds of examples of liberal short-sightedness along with an equal number of example of the same liberals refusing to admit failure and try something different abound. For example, all those social programs created in the 60's like welfare that obviously aren't working as they were intended. The liberals refuse to admit it and try something else. There's a reason why liberal Democrats are considered "tax and spend" people.

Axis said: "Aha, caught you in the act of poor bashing. Wouldn't want to help out the low income earners in the country at the expense of extra taxation of the top 5% richest people would we?"

And as usual, Axis graces us with his/her ignorance. Increasing the tax on the top 5% richest people wouldn't benefit the poor. The liberal Dems tried this before and history shows that it didn't work. What has benefited the poor have been tax cuts which increased spending by the wealthy and middle-class which in turn benefitted the poor. However as Axis and other uber-liberals tend to do, they ignore historical facts that disprove their fantasy economics.

Tom Shipley said: "Because our capitalist system rewards so richly and relies on low-wage workers to keep it going, I do not have any problem what-so-ever taxing the extremely weathly. They benefitted from the system, they can pay higher taxes."

Tom (and Axis)...you realize the wealthy are already being taxed at well over 50% of their income, don't you? Give me a percentage of their income that you would be satisfied with? Should the government tax 75% of their income? 85%? How about 100% and eliminate their income altogether? Or how about just admitting that socialism looks good to you? Get it over with and move on.

OhioGolfer said: "And as to widget making, nice selection of a market, but lts look at a different market. Lets say I own a small ice cream store. at the current wage my employees cannot afford to bring their kids in, but at the rasied salary, they may and hence my sales go up. Also my sales will go up not only from my employees, but from those at other area employers. The effect of increasing the minimum wage allows those workers more disposible income to return to the market, hence incresing the overall value in the marketplace in the same way all you NeoCons claim tax decreases add value to the market."

You don't run a business in real life, do you? I feel you haven't and/or don't because you left out a whole host of factors that would affect your ice cream biz. Let's say you have 4 min. wage employees working the counter. Their min. wage increases. You have to pay them more. So does the supplier of the ice cream, the factory that bottles the milk, the electric plant that gives you the electricity to keep your stock cold, etc. They all raise their rates to make up the difference in the increased rates of pay for hundreds of employees. Layoffs usually ensure increasing the unemployment rate. Meanwhile you now have an increase of expenditures in terms of the wages you pay as well as supplies, maintainances, utilities, etc. You have three choices to keep your business afloat and profitable...1) lay off one or more of your employees; 2) increase your costs to your customers; or 3) both 1&2. These are consequences you obviously didn't take into account. Besides, how much would you wish to raise the minimum wage to? $9 an hour? How about $13 an hour? Heck, why not $20 an hour? Tell me specifically what is and acceptable living wage? Offer up specific numbers upon which everyone will agree.

Mark said: "But as a Catholic, I'm entirely with you on ensuring a decent provision for the poor and, of course, the only place we can get the money for this is from the more wealthy among us...but the next time you hear one of your Democrats say, "tax the rich", please realise that they are only taxing the working rich...those who might be worth a million or two but who put in 60 hour weeks to get it...meanwhile, you'll never hear your liberal leaders calling for a tax on wealth...you know, the extra mansions and yachts of the Kennedys, Kerrys and Pelosis of America..."

Ahhh...some good sound reason. The wealthy liberals in congress sure like to tax others but when it comes around to them, they wish to try to skirt the system. I agree...ideally there should be a fairer, more strict tax system for the "upper crust" with little wiggle room. However current inheritence taxes and other "death taxes" have hurt more middle-income people than have benefitted anyone. This is just an example of how short-sighted and stupid our current tax system is. It needs to be completely and utterly overhauled, however realistically, there is too much divisiveness ongoing to ever get such a thing done. Each year, both parties claim they will make the tax system fairer and easier yet each year the opposite occurs. It will take several powerful and brave leaders to overhaul it as it needs to be.

Excellent post, Carl.

I note that Ohio Golfer falls right into the old Lib trap of taking a comment to its most ridiculous and impossible extreme and then pretending that that is a response. It is what passes for political discourse on the far Left, and it contributes greatly to the contempt we have for their debating skills.

Carl makes the excellent point that these Libs simply do not run businesses. Everything they say points to a total ignorance of what it is like to run a business, or to make a profit.

And while they are whining about those who make a lot of money, I'll bet none of them has ever gotten a paycheck from someone who didn't make more than they do.

As a sidebar, many people do live, and live pretty comfortably, on very small incomes. They do it by ignoring popular American culture. They scrimp and save, they reuse things, they do not go to restaurants (including fast food) and cook and bake at home, they do not drive new cars or have cell phones or designer clothes or more than one TV. I have lived like that. I grew up living like that. But the "poor" in this country have a standard of living that is far beyond that of the middle class in much of the world, far beyond that of anyone in the world just a hundred or so years ago.

Maybe Ship and his fellow travelers should get out a little more. I was once invited to lunch by a very respectable retired lady in England, middle class, well educated, well traveled, spoke three or four languages, had been an executive. And her entire flat was not much bigger than my kitchen. This was quite the norm in London for the middle class, but to Shipley it would be a call to take someone else's money to fix this woman's 'problem'.

Shipley and his ilk seem to be telling us that WE have the responsibility for assuring a consumer-driven, socio-culturally acceptable lifestyle for those who can not provide it for themselves. And they seem to be telling us that WE are responsible for those who somehow manage to get into the position of having families to feed without ever gaining enough job skill to provide for them.

This fable of the hard-working adult family provider trying to get by on minimum wage is just silly. The statistics on those who actually earn mimimum wage show that the vast majority of those in that category are not heads of households---they are very young entry-level people, students, retirees, and part-timers. And most go on to develop the kinds of skills that actually support a higher wage.

If only the Left would argue an issue on its merits, using facts, it would be so much easier.

Bingo Almiranta!

I think the problem of "the poor" and the "middle class" and "well off/rich" is perspective.

Just as most racists don't identify themselves as racist to others, people have a hard time recognizing where they fit in the socio-economic ladder. This is not to suggest people should "know their role" and not want to improve their lives... but let's be real.

IN the "good old days" that Democrats keep talking about, only one parent needed to work to have a "middle class" life.

However... let's discuss progress.

In the 1950s... the "middle class" didn't involve:

-Having gargantuan size houses.
-Two or more vehicles.
-A TV in every room with the satellite/cable bill associated with watching TV.
-Everyone in the house having a cell phone bill.
-Having broad band internet access
-Gym memberships for everyone in the house
-Letting kids go hog wild at the mall buying $30 tshirts that say "open wide so I can see if you're the one"
-And then day care for their kids because both parents (if they are actually still married) have to work to afford the aforementioned.

I think that both Democrats and Republicans need to be honest about the "good old days" and speak honestly about how the poor can be helped.

I am about to get into trouble here, but how many "poor" people have much of the above list I mentioned earlier yet are poor?

So seriously... what's the best way to assist the poor? Is it to raise the minimum wage when nearly 90% of the American workforce already makes more than that, or is it to start teaching a different value system then trying to live like the fools on MTV's Cribs?

And finally, if you've ever seen that show; am I the ONLY person in America who doesn't own a ScarFace poster?

I like you Almiranta..(don't confuse that with an overtly friendly message).

The overriding problem we have here is that you can't argue with the Left because they have a delusional reality. The challenges they offer rarely contain "facts" to back them up and those that do are either extreme cases, are distortions of truth or are made up.

How do I know they are delusional? I don't have to know. Just look at the RESULTS (or as they say in sports, "Check the scoreboard") for the impact of tax cuts. It is difficult to argue against what is really happening with our booming economy, record high on the stock market and the Pies de resistance, the amount of money coming into the government (at record levels). Why would we even remotely entertain changing something that is creating such results?

Tom Shipley,

We've gone through all this before. Did you forget?

The "rich" already pay at a much higher rate than the poor (Who pay little or nothing. Some even get a tax credit, without paying any taxes), and the middle-class. Those in the top 5% income bracket pay over 55% of the taxes. Those in the top 10% pay over 66% of the taxes. Those in the top 50% pay over 96% of the taxes. These percentages have gone up as the tax rates have gone down.

So while you kick and scream about tax cuts for the rich, the result of the "tax cuts for the rich" is that the tax revenues have increased to a record rate, the rich are paying a greater percentage than ever before, and the "poor" are paying less than they ever did. Isn't this exactly what you want: the "rich" paying most of the taxes? They are now.

Raising taxes on the rich will do several things: decrease the tax revenues, negatively affect the economy, and decrease the amount and percentage the "rich" are paying. But the only thing important to liberals is feeling good because you "stuck it" to the rich. But you really would have stuck it to the poor and middle classes buy shifting the tax burden back to them.

"The Bush tax cuts were the largest tax cuts in history for the poor in this country."

The tax cuts didn't even effect the poor!...Hahaha!...What are you talking about?

The very thought of Speaker Pelosi makes me miss Speaker Tip O'Neill....

I’ve looked carefully at all of the indicators and come to this conclusion;

There will be an economic downturn in the 2nd quarter of 2007, GDP will begin to fall off and revenues to the government will drop as well. The housing market will soft land in 2007, but the bulk of the expanding market will begin contracting and investment capital will dry up; the Fed will lower rates to stave off a recession and will be successful. Unemployment will remain steady and maybe push up to 5%, maybe 5.1%.

All sectors of the economy will have built up such a head of steam by December 2006 that the market corrections will seem more severe than they actually are; investors won’t lose much, but after the “irrational exuberance” of the late 1990’s doomsayers will be predicting the next cataclysmic market crash that will never really happen, at least not for the next five years. Still some investors will sell short to avoid perceived losses. Every now and again you’ve got to shake out the wimps.

The private sector won’t feel the pinch until 3rd quarter 2008, although the MSM will be trumpeting the slowdown as proof of the failure of Bush’s fiscal policies. By 2009 the economy will have rebounded and begin growing again, although at a slower pace. I’m going to allow my investments to ride it out, although I may move into Bonds more aggressively.

Now to the subject of the thread; raising the minimum wage will affect the poor and minorities, and get more money into the hands of middle-class white kids; this is what always happens. It won’t have a major impact on the economy, and it certainly won't help the working poor, it never really does. Speaker Pelosi can enact all the neo-socialist agenda she wants; by the time it impacts the economy a new administration will be in office. By then, all bets are off.

Yes, I said Speaker Pelosi; I intend to sit out the November election, Republicans govern best when they’re out of power. Bush’s tax cuts worked, the market is solid and stong. This to the credit of the administration; but Congress has become more concerned with keeping power than doing the peoples’ business. There isn’t a whit of difference in the parties in that regard. I’d rather be stick to my principles then vote for the Republic-Crats. I also foresee major defeats in the global war on terror, but that’s going to happen anyway as long as we cannot stand together against the aggression of the enemy. This war won’t be lost in the hotbeds of islamofanaticism; it’s being lost right here, in my beloved country.

Bane--you won't be doing the country any favors. You're forgetting that we still have the problem of national defense to contend with.

It's just not safe to vote democrat.

Yes, I said Speaker Pelosi; I intend to sit out the November election, Republicans govern best when they’re out of power. Bush’s tax cuts worked, the market is solid and stong. This to the credit of the administration; but Congress has become more concerned with keeping power than doing the peoples’ business. -Bane

Beware, Bane, expect to be called a terrorist soon. Or that you hate America. Independent thought is not tolerated among the Goosesteppers.

I'm curious... besides changing House Rules (and I'm 100% they won't get rid of the perks that will benefit incumbents)... A Democratic House will get NOTHING done that a Republican Senate and/or a Republican President doesn't like.

They can't override a Veto, and they complained about Bush not using the veto in the past, they're about to see it in full force.

But I don't believe they have this in the bag yet.
Five days may have changed the prospects for Democrats, but there's still 32 days left. That's a long time in politcs.

Bane,

Much better to send a check to "Club for Growth" and cast a GOP ballot this November...The Democrats will bring forth articles of impeachment and cut off funding for the liberation of Iraq...national crisis and defeat in war, that is what a Democratic House majority would mean.

Economy; the recession of 2000 was overcome because Republicans had control of the spending arm of congress when the air went out of the market. The economy is too strong for the democrats to ruin in two years, but their socialistic wish list will make it plain they cannot be trusted with the peoples’ money.

GWOT; The victor will be the one that has the determination to win; currently we’re engaged in a war against ourselves, democrats are not serious about the threat, nor are they serious about engaging the enemy. The public will only respond when the threat is beyond eminent, once attacked we will find the will to fight back; until then the left will ensure defeat regardless of whose in power.

Two years in the political wilderness might bring the House Republicans to they’re senses. It may not give Republicans the House back in 2008, but the democrats' fiscal irresponsibility and political gotcha games will guarantee the White House goes to a conservative in 2008.

...The Democrats will bring forth articles of impeachment and cut off funding for the liberation of Iraq...

Mark,

You are seriously off your rocker if you think the Democrats are going to try impeaching Bush. George Bush's presidency is, by far, the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. He has alomst single-handedly turned the Reagan/Gingrich "Republican Revolution" from a practical, effective model of conservatism into one of the most mired, corrupt and disliked political horror shows in the history of this country.

Pelosi will have 730 days of punching-bag fun, letting up only as often as necessary to give the liberal media a breather from their frenzied 2-year "-gate"-a-thon.

You think you guys have it bad now? Just wait until we have Foley-gate every week for the next two years.

By the way...what happens to this website after 2008? Rename it blogsforgore.com?

Bane:

Your sentiment is not admirable but in a free country you can do as you please. Remember though just how dirty those are that will scorch the earth to get power.

Lack of action to make a point is essentially just a game you are playing; a risky and calculated one with extremely high risk and uncertain reward and with our nation's best interests at stake, it is not worth playing.

Remember, it is the left that plays games with the populus and it appears they have gotten to you.

If you are upset with the GOP, then let them know it in a more productive, less "let the other guy win to teach them a lesson" way. Rise above them. You can do it!

VoR,
When I read the unhinged ratings of the loony left (Jim Oliver) I’m tempted to hold my nose and vote GOP. Almost …

When I was young, I asked my dad why the west didn’t do more during the Hungarian revolts against communism. He explained to me that we should do absolutely nothing. I was shocked at his apathy for people struggling oppression until he explained that as long as we intercede, send food, medical supplies and other aid, the Hungarians will find reasons to become complacent with their communist overlords. Without our safety net they would eventually they become hungry enough, sick enough, and desperate enough to make the stand once and for all. That’s what finally happened.

Dennis Hastert has been an awful leader; the GOP should have pushed border security and the Party should have made the case for war against Islamo-fanatics in no uncertain terms. The Party has squandered power in favor of gamesmanship. When the Party learns that what got them in power is what will keep them in power they will be ready to take control again; until then we have to get hungry, tired, sick and desperate for real leadership. We won’t find that in the democratic party, there is hope for it in the Republican Party, at least the one I supported in 1994.

I can not, will not cast a vote for the party of appeasement, but for the good of the country, for the good of the Party, I’ll stand by and let the democrats foist themselves on their own petard to insure their next and final defeat in 2008.

That's my plan ....

Jim Oliver said: "You are seriously off your rocker if you think the Democrats are going to try impeaching Bush."

For the sake of argument, let's say the November elections go well beyond the Democrats' wildest dreams and they end up with complete control of the House and Senate. It's a forgone conclusion that they, with Nancy Pelosi's blessings, begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush. They won't be able to stop themselves. It's like having a window keeping a starving prisoner away from delicious food then removing the window...the result will be the the prisoner attacking the food ravenously. The same goes for the liberal Democrats. They are drooling at the chance...any chance...to drag President Bush through the mud whether fair or foul. They don't care if the charges will stick or not, they just want to get more opportunities to engage in their absolutely bitter and complete hatred for George Bush. Many such as Pelosi, Reed and Dean are absolutely fanatical in their hatred. It's long gone from merely politics with them...it's now personal. Some call it "Bush Derangement Syndrome"...some call it "unhinged." Whatever you call it, it's keeping them from the service to the country for which they were elected and has degenerated into personal, professional and political vendetta. That is why if the liberal Democrats win control of the House and Senate next month (God forbid), impeachment procedings will be filed as soon as the next session starts.

But...

If the Dems foolishly follow through on their threat of impeachment proceedings it pretty much kills any chance of them winning the Presidency in 2008.

Hi,

I have now been at the University of Oxford in England for the past few weeks, and I would like to say that I am SO GLAD that I chose Oxford over Columbia University in NYC because apparently many of the students there are massively misinformed and horribly aggressive towards any viewpoint that is opposite from the stereotypical "liberal" viewpoint.

This whole argument against the "conservative" way of thought and argument is completely false and utterly silly.

Living in England, I see, MORE THAN EVER, the need for supporting each other, and that "liberal" democrats need to come back to the center and respect people that disagree with them.

The totally sad and pathetic part is that I had to come all the way to Oxford to find some reasonable people to go to the pubs with!

PS- to all you lefties: there are conservatives being educated at your "prestigious" and "rich" universities, like Oxford, and the main thing that I, and all my co-horts are learning, is how superficial and mediorcre the "liberal" and "donkey" version of American politics actually are... and what might truly frighten you...I am in training to become a secondary mathematics teacher...so I will be teaching our young people...and I will teach them, in addition to maths, how to be responsible REPUBLICANS. Deal with it. I'll be teaching your children.

Being a mathemetician that is particularly obsessed with statistics, if you were familiar with common statistics, you would know that the majority of wealthy people in the USA are Democrats, NOT Republicans.

If you care to challenge me on any mathematical point of view, I will gladly take you on, after all, that is the subject of my dissertation.

Good day,

Minnie

I'm looking forward to seeing that dissertation published, Minnie--

Minnie said: "Living in England, I see, MORE THAN EVER, the need for supporting each other, and that "liberal" democrats need to come back to the center and respect people that disagree with them."

Minnie, as long as the uber-liberals exist, respect for opposing, conservative viewpoints will never come from them.