Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've seen Nader interviewed on this, and if I understand him correctly (he is a bit incoherent) apparently many of the fraudulent were by DEM placed operatives.

If the Democratic Party in Arizona were having their people go and sign Nader's petitions with fraudulent names in order to later raise a claim that the petitions were invalid, I would think that was a pretty shitty thing to do. Since Nader hasn't said this in any of the coverage I've seen, and he's generally known as an able -- if somewhat deathly (hi Hank!) -- advocate, I tend to doubt this. I think it's more likely that, lacking an organization and not getting help this time from the Green Party. Nader recruited or hired people to collect the petitions who were in over their heads, and -- no doubt stymied by finding not a lot of support for Ralph in Arizona -- they made up a lot of names to fill out their quotas.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
96 and 97* the President was basically allowing an extreme new threat to our very existance grow unchecked. He was apparently lulled into complacency because his predecessor had killed the prior threat.

ETA: It's intended to be "bait."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've seen Nader interviewed on this, and if I understand him correctly (he is a bit incoherent) apparently many of the fraudulent were by DEM placed operatives.

And we all know that Repubs accept anything said by Ralph Nader as pure Gospel.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And we all know that Repubs accept anything said by Ralph Nader as pure Gospel.

I was not vouching for him, just relaying what I saw. He also claimed something similar in Oregon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was not vouching for him, just relaying what I saw. He also claimed something similar in Oregon.

He didn't have to do this stuff last time because the Greens did it for him. They're not helping him this time, and he doesn't have another party to substitute. Ross Perot had the money to pay people to do it right, but -- despite Republicans' efforts to pump dollars into his campaign -- that doesn't seem to be Nader's strong suit either.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it added in notices dated June 25.

There were massive fuck ups going on at that time. this is nothing. 96 and 97* the President was basically allowing an extreme new threat to our very existance grow unchecked. He was apparently lulled into complacency because his predecessor had killed the prior threat.

*Larry, you know I love you, but if Ty brought this to Sidd in a brief Sidd would spazz. Sometimes a good headline has bad underlying facts and you gotta pass.

If you love me why won't you call?

I'm missing what the bad underlying facts are. I refrained from making my private thoughts known*, and simply pointed out that you would think that if the Prez wanted to clear up the whole attendance matter he would have checked the microfilm back before the AP had to file suit to make him do it. Was Clinton so derelict in his duty that he would allow the wholesale destruction of microfilmed national guard records? That conniving BASTARD, he will pay dearly.

* I'm saving those for the shirt I will be forced to remove at the GOP convention, which by the way is scheduled for the latest date of any political convention in our nation's history.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
If you love me why won't you call?

I'm missing what the bad underlying facts are. I refrained from making my private thoughts known*, and simply pointed out that you would think that if the Prez wanted to clear up the whole attendance matter he would have checked the microfilm back before the AP had to file suit to make him do it. Was Clinton so derelict in his duty that he would allow the wholesale destruction of microfilmed national guard records? That conniving BASTARD, he will pay dearly.

Well maybe its because your posts come from the same wire as Ty's. i thought you were implying Bush had the records destroyed.

* I'm saving those for the shirt I will be forced to remove at the GOP convention, which by the way is scheduled for the latest date of any political convention in our nation's history.

I found out the convention date was moved back because the Pakistanis said they need another week to guarentee Osama be caught.

[Replaced_Texan]

Did anyone catch it?

RT is probably talking about this, which I didn't even know was happening until I tried to figure out what she had in mind. -- T.S.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I know this is a litmust test for club, so here's an interesting article by Steven Landsburg in Slate opposing increases to the minimum wage. Further to the exchange club and I had about this, the reason isn't that the minimum wage kills jobs:

• In fact, the power of the minimum wage to kill jobs has been greatly overestimated. Nowadays, most labor economists will tell you that that minimum wages have at most a tiny impact on employment.
  
  Twenty years ago, they'd have told you otherwise. Back then, dozens of published studies concluded that minimum wages had put a lot of people (especially teenagers, blacks, and women) out of work. As the studies continued to pile up, you might think we'd have grown more confident about their common conclusion. Instead, the opposite happened.

Instead, Landsburg says the real reason to oppose them is that the benefits and costs are arbitrary and unfair. This strikes me as plausible, but I don't think he really makes the case that it's any worse than the alternatives.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I know this is a litmust test for club, so here's an interesting article by Steven Landsburg in Slate opposing increases to the minimum wage. Further to the exchange club and I had about this, the reason isn't that the minimum wage kills jobs:

• In fact, the power of the minimum wage to kill jobs has been greatly overestimated. Nowadays, most labor economists will tell you that that minimum wages have at most a tiny impact on employment.
  
  Twenty years ago, they'd have told you otherwise. Back then, dozens of published studies concluded that minimum wages had put a lot of people (especially teenagers, blacks, and women) out of work. As the studies continued to pile up, you might think we'd have grown more confident about their common conclusion. Instead, the opposite happened.

Instead, Landsburg says the real reason to oppose them is that the benefits and costs are arbitrary and unfair. This strikes me as plausible, but I don't think he really makes the case that it's any worse than the alternatives.

Not much meat in that story, just a bunch of conclusions.

Question: it seems to me that he is limiting his analysis to the direct effect of minimum wage increases. What about indirect effects like (a) inflation and (b) increasing of wages for those earning above minimum wage?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Instead, Landsburg says the real reason to oppose them is that the benefits and costs are arbitrary and unfair. This strikes me as plausible, but I don't think he really makes the case that it's any worse than the alternatives.

And we want our teenagers to be working in minimum-wage jobs rather than studying because of why?

85% of kids in this country have all the wrong incentives, and minimum wage is one of em.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not much meat in that story, just a bunch of conclusions.

Agreed.

Question: it seems to me that he is limiting his analysis to the direct effect of minimum wage increases. What about indirect effects like (a) inflation and (b) increasing of wages for those earning above minimum wage?

I would think (a) would be tiny. (b) might be larger, but that also seems dubious to me. I don't know the literature, though. Why not e-mail Landsburg and ask him?

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And we want our teenagers to be working in minimum-wage jobs rather than studying because of why?

85% of kids in this country have all the wrong incentives, and minimum wage is one of em.

I'm all about studying, but if you think it's only teenagers who work minimum wage jobs I'd like to move to your community, because it sounds pretty idyllic. I probably couldn't afford to buy a house there, but still.

[the Spartan]

Well, it looks like that 15% point bump that Edwards was going to bring Kerry is disappearing faster than a tipparillo up Monica's hoo ha.

The AP is reporting that President Bush has opened a slight lead over John Kerry while regaining the confidence of some voters on the economy and other domestic issues,

One voter put the renewed confidence in Bush in stark perspective:

"I want Bush in there, because the other guy is like sending a boy to do a man's job," said Glenn Foldessy, 45, of Streetsboro, Ohio, outside Cleveland.


Indeed. the nation certainly had its nauseating fill of adolescents pulling the levers of power during the Bill n Hill years. I for one enjoy having the adults in charge again.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'm all about studying, but if you think it's only teenagers who work minimum wage jobs I'd like to move to your community, because it sounds pretty idyllic. I probably couldn't afford to buy a house there, but still.

Not at all what I think, but if someone includes them in the group of "victims", then I'll count you in as my backup singer when I sing my right-wing protest songs (in favor of raising the minimum wage).