seems the repubs can't give up

[vidcc]

their unethical habits (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/17/senate.ethics.ap/index.html) :dry:

Every one of them voted against closure on ethics reform. Harry Reid, the sponsor of the bill, had to vote against closure so he could bring it up again at a later date.

The repubs are saying they are blocking it because the Democrats wouldn't allow an unrelated amendment to it (give Bush a line item veto)..... If that was so important why didn't they do it over the last 6 years when they held all 3 "houses"?

[Busyman™]

The repubs are making me angry on this one.:angry:

However, when it "with the approval of Congress" does that mean that there is a vote if the Prez wants single out individual items for elimination?

Why give the Prez that power and why make that the reason to stifle ethics reform?

[Ava Estelle]

There will be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this, and I'm sure j2 will be along soon to put the record straight. :)

[vidcc]

Today the repubs filibustered the minimum wage increase.

[Ava Estelle]

The Dems should now deny funding for the war in Iraq.

[Chip Monk]

You crazy yanks with your checks and balances.

[Ava Estelle]

Chip monk, what is it with your sig, instead of showing a pic it throws up a username\password box.

[bigboab]

I am gettin the same pop up. I have not noticed that it is connected to to a particular poster.

P.S. It is an Australian auto parts site.:whistling

[vidcc]

Unrelated quote of the day


There is something deeply amusing about the idea of the president using a 747 to travel from DC to Wilmington, Delaware, and back, in order to make “a sales pitch for [his] plan to reduce projected gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

[Busyman™]

Unrelated quote of the day


There is something deeply amusing about the idea of the president using a 747 to travel from DC to Wilmington, Delaware, and back, in order to make “a sales pitch for [his] plan to reduce projected gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

:lol:

[Ava Estelle]

P.S. It is an Australian auto parts site.:whistling

Australian? I don't think so Bob, have another look, it's all American.

If you want the connection to the pop-up, have a look at chip monks sig now ..

http://www.allanrodandcustom.com/images/2005riddler.jpg

[vidcc]

SicFn8rqPPE

He's a bit of a windbag at times, but he knows how to put "oohmf" into a speech.

[GepperRankins]

"conscientious republican" :pinch:

[EisDann]

As far as the minimum wage goes an increase in the minimum wage causes unemployment. Its simple economics it puts in an artificial price floor which throws off the balance of supply and demand. The increase will help some who make minimum wage, but it will also cause some of the to lose or not be able to find jobs.

[vidcc]

As far as the minimum wage goes an increase in the minimum wage causes unemployment. Its simple economics it puts in an artificial price floor which throws off the balance of supply and demand. The increase will help some who make minimum wage, but it will also cause some of the to lose or not be able to find jobs.
It's a compelling theory but not born out in practice.

We've been through this before, all the states that increased the minimum wage on their own saw an increase in jobs and growth in their local domestic product exceeding that of the states that did not raise it.

[Busyman™]

As far as the minimum wage goes an increase in the minimum wage causes unemployment. Its simple economics it puts in an artificial price floor which throws off the balance of supply and demand. The increase will help some who make minimum wage, but it will also cause some of the to lose or not be able to find jobs.

Man, you buy anything Repubs tell you.:dry:

[GepperRankins]

As far as the minimum wage goes an increase in the minimum wage causes unemployment. Its simple economics it puts in an artificial price floor which throws off the balance of supply and demand. The increase will help some who make minimum wage, but it will also cause some of the to lose or not be able to find jobs.
:dabs: wages go up, profits go up, prices go up. that's simple economics.

[Barbarossa]

1. Profits go up.
2. Wages go up.
3. Prices go up.
4. Goto 1.

That's simple economics. :dabs:

[GepperRankins]

1. Profits go up.
2. Wages go up.
3. Prices go up.
4. Goto 1.

That's simple economics. :dabs:
smart arse

[Chip Monk]

1. Profits go up.
2. Wages go up.
3. Prices go up.
4. Goto 1.

That's simple economics. :dabs:

3.
1.
2.
4.

I would have said.

Mebbes we should ask manbacus.

[MCHeshPants420]

1. Profits go up.
2. Wages go up.
3. Prices go up.
4. Goto 1.

That's simple economics. :dabs:

3.
1.
2.
4.

I would have said.

Mebbes we should ask manbacus.

Does that mean prices would go up once then we'd have a continuing loop of higher profits and wages? :dabs:

[Chip Monk]

3.
1.
2.
4.

I would have said.

Mebbes we should ask manbacus.

Does that mean prices would go up once then we'd have a continuing loop of higher profits and wages? :dabs:

Yes, I believe it does.The rate of change may vary but the trend would be the same.

[manker]

There's no such thing as :earl: simple economics.

As we're talking about the minimum wage, the idea is that when it goes up or is first implemented, that profits don't go up or down as a direct result.

Prices are altered to absorb the hike.

Whether profit goes up or down is dependent on many other factors such as whether your price hike (which depends upon the number of staff you employ that are affected by the enforced wage increase) is more or less than that which your competitors implement, which will then affect demand for your product and by implication your profit levels.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Spammer

[vidcc]

We should spare a moment to reflect on the hardship endured by poor old Roy Blunt (R-MO)......he wants his raise.:cry:



Politics Could Scuttle Raising Pay for House Members

By CARL HULSE
Published: January 30, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — The annual raise for members of the House is on the verge of being eaten up in political payback.

Republicans, who were attacked by Democrats in the 2006 campaign for accepting annual raises while not increasing the federal minimum wage for 10 years, say they are inclined to oppose any increase for representatives. And Democrats say they are not likely to enact one on their own, which would open them to attack in the next campaign.

Republican leaders point a finger at the hard-hitting Democratic campaign operation of last year, saying Monday that making the raises a political issue violated a longtime unwritten agreement between the parties.

“It was absolutely understood and agreed to,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the second-ranking Republican.

Mr. Blunt and others said the raises were crucial for members of Congress who are not independently wealthy and must operate two households on the current $165,200 salary. The annual raise for this year was set at 1.7 percent, about $2,760.


source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/us/30cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

That's not mentioning all the perks they get above their basic pay for a job they actively sought and spent a lot of money trying to get.

[vidcc]

wsqprEihjXg

republic party :glag:

[GepperRankins]

wsqprEihjXg

republic party :glag:
i want to punch him for every time he said "republic". i do think it's hilarious that the repubs are constantly getting kicked around and caught out spinning shit. ya hear that j2? you should bookmark this post lolololololololol

[vidcc]

i want to punch him for every time he said "republic".

Do you feel the same way every time they say democrat party?:unsure:

[GepperRankins]

i want to punch him for every time he said "republic".

Do you feel the same way every time they say democrat party?:unsure:
if they're doing it just to be annoying, yes

[GepperRankins]

btw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otPheWE_6YI

[vidcc]

Do you feel the same way every time they say democrat party?:unsure:
if they're doing it just to be annoying, yes

Just wondered as he was doing it after hearing "democrat party" all day.(as well as for the last few years)

[vidcc]

btw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otPheWE_6YI


youtube has been slow all day :unsure:

I hadn't seen that interview but the whole "planegate" thing is just another "fauxbama"

One thing that springs to mind though on the security issue.

Pelosi is more at risk from a domestic attack at the hands of a Malkin/Coulter/Morgan disciple than AQ....

[Busyman™]

btw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otPheWE_6YI


youtube has been slow all day :unsure:

I hadn't seen that interview but the whole "planegate" thing is just another "fauxbama"

One thing that springs to mind though on the security issue.

Pelosi is more at risk from a domestic attack at the hands of a Malkin/Coulter/Morgan disciple than AQ....

Funny I thought the same thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if she were assassinated. People with a little bit of logic tend to piss off those who have "been getting away with being illogical".