Proof! Dems Don't Like Poor; Simply Hate Rich!!!

[mikhayl]

I never said the Republicans "supported the workers." I just said the Democrats truly don't if something like an estate tax exemption would derail it.

We'll see in 2008 when the Democrats are a lot closer to a majority in both houses just how untrue that is. I can almost guarantee they'll propose legislation increasing the minimum wage without piggy-backing some special interest crap onto it.

[StlSluggers]

I never said the Republicans "supported the workers." I just said the Democrats truly don't if something like an estate tax exemption would derail it.

We'll see in 2008 when the Democrats are a lot closer to a majority in both houses just how untrue that is. I can almost guarantee they'll propose legislation increasing the minimum wage without piggy-backing some special interest crap onto it.

But that doesn't change the fact that when it's come down to a choice between pro-poor or anti-rich, they chose the latter. If they truly were on the side of the "working American," then they would pass this now. Why?

• As AA was kind enough to point out earlier, how often are the Republicans ever going to agree to a increase min. wage jump?
• Can the Dems say for certain that they will have enough power to make this bill happen in the near-term without some concession to the Republicans?
• Most importantly, if poor people really have it so bad right now, and if the Dems are so adamantly on their side, don't the Dems need to pass this now? I mean, can poor people really afford to wait and hope that the Dems will have enough power to pass this without Republican support?

This turn of events shows that the Dems would rather see rich people not get richer than see poor people get the help they say they need so badly.

And I don't know if I need to say this, but I wish this bill would have passed in its current form. I don't care for minimum wage, but if it's going to happen, I'd like to see it happen in some sort of compromise like this bill where each side is giving something up. After all, isn't that the goal of the political process?

[Absolutely Adequate]

This turn of events shows that the Dems would rather see rich people not get richer than see poor people get the help they say they need so badly.

Why won't you just admit this is a political ploy? It's transparent.

I could say the same thing you're saying in this quote by turning it around. Republicans claim that they don't want to increase minimum wage b/c it will hurt small business owners. Therefore, according to your logic, this bill proves that the Cons are willing to hurt small business in order to give Paris Hilton a tax cut.

It's just bad politics. It's not a compromise, no. It's just playing politics with people's lives.

[acsguitar]

Fool me twice.... won't get fooled again.

Thats a saying they have in tennessee right or maybee texas

[Coppermine]

I never said the Republicans "supported the workers." I just said the Democrats truly don't if something like an estate tax exemption would derail it.

We'll see in 2008 when the Democrats are a lot closer to a majority in both houses just how untrue that is. I can almost guarantee they'll propose legislation increasing the minimum wage without piggy-backing some special interest crap onto it.

But that doesn't change the fact that when it's come down to a choice between pro-poor or anti-rich, they chose the latter. If they truly were on the side of the "working American," then they would pass this now. Why?

• As AA was kind enough to point out earlier, how often are the Republicans ever going to agree to a increase min. wage jump?
• Can the Dems say for certain that they will have enough power to make this bill happen in the near-term without some concession to the Republicans?
• Most importantly, if poor people really have it so bad right now, and if the Dems are so adamantly on their side, don't the Dems need to pass this now? I mean, can poor people really afford to wait and hope that the Dems will have enough power to pass this without Republican support?

This turn of events shows that the Dems would rather see rich people not get richer than see poor people get the help they say they need so badly.

And I don't know if I need to say this, but I wish this bill would have passed in its current form. I don't care for minimum wage, but if it's going to happen, I'd like to see it happen in some sort of compromise like this bill where each side is giving something up. After all, isn't that the goal of the political process?

Holy crap! I feel like I'm reading a transcript from the O'Reilly Factor!

Neither party is about compromise, don't you realize that?

First of all, I think that a minimum wage hike is inevitable; throughout the history of the united states, minimum wage has gone up at some point regardless of the party in power.

Now the democrats bringing up the minimum wage issue is the EXACT SAME as the Republicans bringing up gay marriage and flag burning. It's a way to pander to your base, to make the most staunchly left/right wing people know that you're on their side (as a politician). This, in spite of the fact that you are almost certain it won't pass.

Yes, the democrats' whole thing is "helping the poor," we know. But the Republicans were more than aware that almost all democrats do not, and will never support the estate tax repeal. So what a perfect little game to play in order to make the democrats look bad. It's politics, not about what side cares about who.

It makes even less sense to me because the whole republican defense AGAINST raising minimum wage is that it will cause workers to lose jobs and hurt the poor anyway.

To me, this is what the Republicans are saying "ok, ok, we'll FLIP FLOP on this issue of minimum wage, even though we keep saying it will hurt the poor more than help them, but, you have to help the wealthy too! And if you don't agree, like we know you won't, we can make dumb America think that you would rather hurt the rich than help the poor."

Come on, this is just politics. Both sides pull crap like this all the time. Since the democrats are the minority party, they can't piggyback their own agendas on bills like this.

No, this wasn't about compromise... it was the political strategy of Bill Frist and Rick Santorum trying to help their party by introducing a bill they knew full well that the democrats would never sign onto, and then spun it to make them look bad. If you really can't see that, I can hardly believe... no matter what party you belong to.

[5]

It's abundantly clear by now that it's time for a third party to be given some serious consideration.

[Pokeyouindaeye]

Somebody should go on the ballot who supports FSM.


I'd vote for them in a heartbeat, us Pastafarians need representation!

[StlSluggers]

AA... What you are missing is the Republicans have got to know that minimum wage will be increased one day. It's too popular. It's an inevitability (CU said that while I was typing this up). I don't like it, but it will happen. The situation isn't exactly reversible for that exact reason. So, if it's going to happen, why not make it happen on your terms?

As to your ploy comment, AA, of course it's a ploy. Aren't they all? I didn't realize I needed to concede that separately, as I figured it was a given.

Anyways, if you guys want to get something right, don't tell me that the Republicans are selling out when they are still getting something for themselves. That's smart politics on their part, and I can admire anyone for making a smart move when an opportunity presents itself.

If you want to make a real point, ask me why the Republicans didn't tie something "traditionally Republican," like cuts in government, to the minimum wage bill. That's where you should be sinking your hooks in, because I could agree with you there. Contrary to what you imagine (as evidenced by the O'Reilly comment), a guy bashing the Democrats isn't necessarily 100% pro-Republican.

[Pogotheostrich]

I never said the Republicans "supported the workers." I just said the Democrats truly don't if something like an estate tax exemption would derail it.

We'll see in 2008 when the Democrats are a lot closer to a majority in both houses just how untrue that is. I can almost guarantee they'll propose legislation increasing the minimum wage without piggy-backing some special interest crap onto it.

But that doesn't change the fact that when it's come down to a choice between pro-poor or anti-rich, they chose the latter. If they truly were on the side of the "working American," then they would pass this now. Why?

• As AA was kind enough to point out earlier, how often are the Republicans ever going to agree to a increase min. wage jump?
• Can the Dems say for certain that they will have enough power to make this bill happen in the near-term without some concession to the Republicans?
• Most importantly, if poor people really have it so bad right now, and if the Dems are so adamantly on their side, don't the Dems need to pass this now? I mean, can poor people really afford to wait and hope that the Dems will have enough power to pass this without Republican support?

This turn of events shows that the Dems would rather see rich people not get richer than see poor people get the help they say they need so badly.

The problem is that while they would get the wage increase a ton of money is going to be lost from the national budget without the estate tax. Without knowing what programs will be cut or what new taxes would be put in place to make up for it how can you be so sure that the bill as a whole would help poor people?

[StlSluggers]

The problem is that while they would get the wage increase a ton of money is going to be lost from the national budget without the estate tax. Without knowing what programs will be cut or what new taxes would be put in place to make up for it how can you be so sure that the bill as a whole would help poor people?

See? Pogo's a smart man.