http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/ ... index.html

(These were amendments to a bankruptcy reform bill in the US Senate)
This is what the Republican party is all about, IMO. They lure lower and middle-class people in with talk on lowering taxes and shrinking government, and then they kick them in the face. With recent studies indicating that most middle-class Americans are just one medical disaster away from financial ruin, the Republicans say "too bad, so sad; try and be more careful in your next life."

If they want to make it harder for people to walk away from debts when they abuse credit, that's OK, but I wouldn't call having to pay medical bills and trying to squeeze in normal life expenses (food, clothing, shelter) "abusing" credit.

I guess it goes without saying that:


I guess the quote from a famous Republican from 150 years ago isn't relevent to neo-cons anymore: "Of the people, by the people, for the people...".

What is the TFA?

If Kennedy gets his way, it won't take a medical disaster to bank rupt them. Raising minimum wage 40.7% in 2 years is insane. Either no middle class citizens will be able to afford any goods, or no one will have a job, since all of the products made here will be forced to outsource to sweatshops in bfe. I don't agree with the bankruptcy reform bill but you should also mention how stupid Kennedy's idea is.

TFA is Slashdotspeak for "The {Fine, Fucking, Fair, {other adjectives that start with F}} Article".


That's fine (well it's not, but...) but I wasn't talking about the minimum wage amendment (which was a different amendment if I'm not mistaken); I was talking about the medical debt amendment.

I was just mentioning something that stuck out to me. But, I have to agree with you about how shitty of idea it reads to me. I think I would like to see the bill though (probably wouldn't do any good though, damn that legalese) because shit like this
bothers me.

Kinda like how Social Security was in trouble under Clinton, but all of the sudden it is completely fine, no problems, none.

ya, how in a few years people will completely change their statements just to be contrary to the opposing party, esp democrats. i know both parties do it, dont ream me, but ive seen MANY more dem do it than anyone else, esp with social security

Note to both of you, shut the hell up with painting people with broad bushes. I am a conservative and I'll bet I put in more volunteer hours in a month than most of you have in your lives. However, there are also money grubbing conservatives out there who would screw their own mother for a buck.

That having been said, how many liberals who are supposedly fighting for the common man drive around in limos and buy suits that cost 5 grand? Conversely, there are also very dedicated liberals who put an enormous effort into very good work.

So zkissane, Before you start jumping on what you deem "the so called compassionate conservative", you'd better look hard within your own party at the greedy liberals. And the same goes for you jthxv. Learn to live in the gray areas, the world is not as black and white as either of you make it out to be.

WTF did that come from?

Probably true.

Ad hominem circumstantial. I'm sure there are liberals who truly are fighting for the common man who drive around in limos and buy suits that cost $5k. I'm also sure that there are psuedoliberals who pretend to fight for the common man who drive around in limos and buy suits that cost $5k.


1) We've been around here on Seek for a while, and I don't categorize you in the same group as I do the likes of Dubya, Cheney, Ashcroft, and their pals. I see you as an "old-school" Republican, not a neocon. I find old-school Republicans to be much more tolerable than neocons.

2) I criticize "compassionate conservatives" because I find that defeating the amendment above to be anything but compassionate. And since the leader of that party has characterized himself as a compassionate conservative (he even coined the term), and that his neocon allies in Congress seem to be going along with it fairly well, I feel motivated to point out why they are not what they say they are.

I won't lie and say that I'm not biased. Rarely a day goes by that I don't curse* Bush and/or Bushies. I still think my criticism here is valid.

*By "curse" I mean "goddamn I hate those motherfuckers", not "OMG I cast a negative eleventy billion spell on you!"

Perhaps one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Only in Rolla would that clarifacation be necessary...


wow

I just don't like the term "compassionate conservitive." It implies too much. For one, it implies that if you are normally right wing, that you are not compassionate. Second, it seems to much like a lame marketing technique. I don't understand the nessesity of the adjective "compassionate." Are they trying to win more moderates over to the right? That's like the democratic party suddenly calling itself a group of "fiscal liberals" to win over moderates.

It all seems like a cheep shot.

T
K
O

granted however, I do believe there are plenty of people on both sides of the political fence who work hard for social issues. There are compassionate conservitives in this world, just not a party of them.

I think that's the only thing I've ever read and agreed with so much that I would not even try to insult you.

The NY Times view on the bill.

It's not a stupid idea, Raising the minimum wage is one of the ways the political and economical division in the country is going to end, especially when the conservatives seem to have stop caring about the latter. Raising the minimum wage increases a sort of tax on commodity businesses, i.e. walmart, the mom and pop stores, maybe restaurants. These businesses very occasionally provide healthcare coverage, it seems like the least they can do is pay more in hourly wages.

The way it stands, employers pay only for healthcare (very few taxes), and these are the same employers who have horded huge cash positions over the last 4-5 yrs. corporate america is sitting on a lot of cash (there are index-type indicators that show what i'm saying, they also determine corporate spending cycles among other things, for the big financial firms). I'm not for a government healthcare system until these companies are taxed more or the minimum wage rises, and they start to hire more people with the cash they have saved up.

The separation of church and state you say? how about the, very bad for the average american, marriage of big business with the state... If this goes on, that will be the lesson America will leave the rest of the world.

No, I didn't say that, I am not sure if you were talking to me or not, but I would still like to see where that comes from.

If you bounce the minimum way up, the only thing you will get, is more illegals working for a couple of bucks a month, taking the place of actual citizens. Also, the place that will not hire illegals will go out of business, because, not only can they not compete with the businesses that hire illegals, but they also will be killed by compition over seas who don't have minimum wages. So how will you close the dreaded "economical division." What a joke, why don't we just change to communism, that way all the wages can be controled. I am so sick and tired of this boo hoo I don't make as much as the owner, or the VP, or whatever. I can't believe these people, the people who put up the capital (and the risk) should make the money. If I go into McD's and get food poisening, I am not going to sue the cooks, I am going to sue the owner. So why should someone not taking any risks be making a lot of money?

It's not "a lot of money", it's "a fucking living wage".