Friday Open Thread
What can Hillary do in the final days of this campaign to reverse the trends? It doesn't look good in Texas and is getting worse in Ohio
. That calls for desperate tactics
.
Hope you all are having a great Friday!
Submitted by Ender on Fri, 2008-02-29 09:57
Tags:
Comments :
Why is ignoring the rules suddenly a problem?
I mean isn't this the same party that ignored the laws in NJ and gave use Frank Lautenburg ... again?
I mean isn't this the same party that ignored the laws in FL in 2000 regarding the rules for certifying the election results?
Both of which were "changing them mid-contest". What a self-serving moron wanker.
I find it hilarious how the Democrats are getting pissed off by the Clintons using the Democrat tactics against Democrats. Seems they can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
hehehe
hilariously true.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The trouble is
while you may find it amusing, and while it may be a certain sense of poetic justice for past misdeeds (as if your side is as pure as a babies bottom), there is a groundswell of folks who don't care about this tit for tat bs partisanship anymore, and are much more interested in what is actually good for America and it's people who are looking at an economy that under republican ideology is not serving Americans well.
It is the economy, stupid.
And would you be one such person?
If so then why are you so resistant to discussing the abuse of prosecutorial discretion in a non-partisan manner? I have been arguing that we should discuss it across the boards. You have been arguing that we should not look at the past, only the current example which, surprise surprise, happens to have Republicans in the role of the meanies.
Now I see why you like Obama so much. You talk just like him. Spouting grand platitudes which noone will disagree with and yet they mean completely different things to different people. You are all for getting past the partisan BS as long as you get to continue to bash Republicans in the process. That attitude sort of undercuts your indignation expressed by your premise.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Write a hit piece on your favorite
Texas partisan prosecutor, if that is where you want to focus.
Then it can be tit for tat all day long. ..... just like you like. :0
It is the economy, stupid.
And yet again you make my point ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
which is what.....
that nobody's perfect.
Wow! That's a newsflash.
Your point is trite.
It is the economy, stupid.
True Democrats aren't pissed off
True Democrats recgonize this as merely being a hard-fought campaign. To the extent that one campaign may color outside the lines from time to time merely reflects both campaigns' desire to win so that they can do good work for the country. A gentle reminder is all that is needed in these cases.
The ones whining the most and loudest about Hillary's campaign are for the most part not True Democrats. It is a motley crew of Socialists, Greens, Naderites, race-baiters, and disenfranchised Edwards groupies.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
She could change the rules in mid-stream
by threatening to sue Texas for it's caucus system, if the results don't bode well for her!
She can find another picture of Obama in Africa and continue whisper about Obama's muslim roots. insuating that his church is muslim and so is he.
As long as it gives her a chance at winning. That all that matters right?
It is the economy, stupid.
According to Democrat standard operating practices ...
that does seem to be the case.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Another photo that the GOP doesn't want you to see...
Oops!
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
OMG!
Does GHWB have Arab-Islamic ties? Is he a true American, or does he do business with terrorists?
It is the economy, stupid.
One time I forgot to take my hat off for the anthem
It was at a Chargers game, and of course San Diego is a big Navy town. So anyway, at HALFTIME, a good TWO HOURS LATER, this little old lady accosts me as I was headed for concessions, and berated me for not taking off my hat, really lit into me. She stewed about it for two hours apparently. She planned her ambush of me for two hours! That kinda bothered me. Of course, she made her point, because now I'm very mindful, bordering on paranoid, about taking off my hat for the anthem.
I dunno, I guess everybody has their pet issues. Some people think that these rituals are pretty damn important. But people forget. Papa Bush just forgot to put his hand over his heart. He's an old man, it happens. I was down with the patriots when they booed Roseanne for disrespecting the national anthem. But I don't think that forgetfulness is the same thing as active disrespect for national symbols and rituals.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
The point is that Obama didn't do anything disrespectful ....
There is no protocol for placing your hand on your heart for the National Anthem.
This WASN'T the pledge of allegiance....
The point is, that anybody questioning Obama's patriotism for not placing his hand on his heart for the National Anthem is a hypocrite if they don't also question EVERYONE who has not done so.... including a Republican ex-President.
It points out the silliness in the argument.... it points out the silliness of the right-wing in this country.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
So, where were you yesterday?
Because this logic:
sounds a whole lot like this logic:
which the local liberals have deemed to be either a Strawman or a Red Herring. What say you?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
GR = One Trick Pony
What is it with you? You won't discuss issues now, you'll only point to tangental/peripheral things and then suggest they are pertinent.....
Doesn't really lead to much in the way of conversation now, does it?
And it isn't as if there aren't a whole slew of Democratic/liberal positions you could choose to make fun of. But you choose to do this instead.
The baby must be making you tired.
Well, at least I HAVE a trick. He he.
Come on, be fair. I did eventually engage you directly on your point, but you don't seem to want to discuss my counter point:
Why?
That sort of depends. If you decide to continue the conversation regarding the tangential point that I find interesting then there would be a conversation, right? You're just upset because I won't bite on discussing your narrowly defined and somewhat cherry picked topic.
This doesn't even make sense. I want to discuss the blatant hypocrisy of the liberals that was being displayed yesterday in a manner analogous to PM's point about the GOP above. Why is this not a valid topic of discussion?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
While it may be valid as a topic
for discussion, inserting your 'dems are blatant hypocrits' into every post is a bit tiresome and off point.
It shows a trendline that you are the one inserting partisanship into every post, while claiming that it is everyone else that is partisan. hmmmmm......
How about something new, instead of these same old tired arguments.
It is the economy, stupid.
And there you go again ...
refusing to be non-partisan. I am perfectly happy to discuss the topic in a non-partisan way (i.e. where BOTH Democrats and Republicans are equally villified). You seem unwilling to do so.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Right.... fair and balanced
just like Fox News.
It is the economy, stupid.
That little old lady
remembers the huge shared sacrifice of WWll. When the whole nation rallied behind a common purpose and many sent their sons to fight and die. If you talk to folks that lived through that time, it is much easier to understand that taking off your hat, etc. is to honor those who lost their lives during a time when the country was united for the common good.
Times are much different today. We are asked to cheerfully open up our wallets to pay high prices for oil, cheerfully put more debt on our credit cards for America's bottom line, and cheerfully ignore the needs of everyday Americans so that we can give our tax dollars to build schools in Iraq, while ignoring children in New Orleans.
I would salute out of respect for what the older generation went through. But I understand why the younger generation might feel differently.
I like that little old lady's spunk! :)
It is the economy, stupid.
You must not wear a hat
You can't see what's on top of your head! Easy to forget :-)
She wasn't the widow of a WWII vet, not that old. More like a garden variety SoCal Republican, probably a Duke Cunninham voter :-p
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Not hat for me....
I want to show off my pretty shiny beautiful hair! :)
Crazy woman waiting to scold you! Well that's a lesson you won't forget!
It is the economy, stupid.
hehe come to think of it...
I probably had long shiney beautiful hair at that time too, which probably contributed to why Mrs. Patriot felt free to call me out ("That disrespectful man with the too long hair is wearing his hat during the national anthem!"). Here's a picture of me from a couple years back, it doesn't show it too good, but you can sorta tell that there's a lot of hair under the hat and down the back of the neck...
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Holy Cow
Everything under that hat looks PDG (pretty darn good) from my perspective.
Or what some call easy on the eyes.
It is the economy, stupid.
Youth and California sun makes everyone look better :-)
You don't think I'd post a bad looking picture of me, do you? I got 8 years and a good 10 lbs. on that young guy in that picture and I'm thinning just a bit on top now, so I've got the hair cut short. The long hair works better at 29 than at 37 :-(
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
You don't think that's really his picture do ya?
Wanna buy some real estate? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Bah!
You made me waste 5 minutes figuring out how to get to my webcam :-p Sorry I didn't shave for ya, sunshine!
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
wassup
You still look good ten years later....... ;-}
Love the personal message card for GoRight!
It is the economy, stupid.
LOL, nice one Skymutt.
I never really doubted it was you. He he. At least now you remember how to access that webcam again!
Wait, maybe that still isn't you. Maybe you just know the guy in the photo? He he. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ha!
This is why I love this place...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Mmmmmm
(obligatory response from the SC Ladies Club)
That 37 still looks good Skymutt ;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
*blushes*
:-)
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Another boo-freaking-hoo Hillary moment
Sounds like it's hard work being President. Gee, where have I heard THAT before?
And she doesn't expect sympathy? Ha! That's rich. This whole interview was about getting sympathy.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The Economy
I've been looking at some prices for basic things comparing what the price was when bush43 took office (January 2001) vs what they are yesterday:
The Euro to the Dollar
1/01 1 Euro to 1.066 Dollars
2/28/08 1.53 Euro to 1 Dollar
Oil (price per barrel light sweet crude)
1/01 $30.
2/28/08 $102.59
Gasoline (price per gallon unleaded regular)
1/01 $1.70
2/28/08 $3.30
Wages have been stagnant.
Housing prices have tanked
Can we just have the election right now and swear whomever in right away?
Well to be fair...
Housing prices have not tanked with repsect to when Bush took office. Unless you're in Cleveland or Detroit, they are still mostly well above 2001 levels
. In fact, in many cities, even after the recent declines, investing in housing in 2001 would have been a better investment than buying euros and stuffing them under your mattress. Which doesn't say much for the Bush economy, but it's about all they've got.
Don't forget also the fact that the S&P 500 is almost dead even from when bush took office. Another case where you might as well have stuffed dollar bills under your mattress instead of investing, and if you bought euros and stuffed them under your mattress, you are miles ahead of the game.
When returns on hoarding beat returns on investing in production by this wide a margin for this long, I think eventually that has to show up in the form of a significant decrease in production in your economy, and therefore a big recession. I just heard someone say today that US multinationals are sitting on huge positions of cash to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars, but it's unlikely that they will invest that money in the U.S. anytime soon, because they can't get the returns on investments made here. I think we are in for some realy rough times ahead. We ain't seen nothin yet. I'm paying off debt and saving as much as possible, and investing in select businesses overseas, where consumers aren't broke.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
When will America
become a good investment again.
I find it very very disturbing that all economic incentives encourage investment overseas, and not in our own country. Tax cuts to investors who invest overseas. Wall Street Profiteers who invest overseas.
Re: Housing prices. The housing bubble was so calcuated and manipulated and just purely irrational excuberance on steroids. It is time for housing prices to go back down to normal, so a 15% drop isn't even close to be a return to normal.
It is the economy, stupid.
RE: When will America
I am not being partisan here. The simple reality is that overseas investment and outsourcing will not stop until the US worker's cost per unit output is in line with their overseas competitors. It is a simple economic and business reality that you may not like, but it is not something the Republicans created.
If you (and everyone else, of course) would agree to pay 5X as much for everything we could keep the jobs right where they are now and at the same salaries. I doubt that you like that answer either but it comes down to simple mathematics of the cost of labor.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
We just need a fair playing field
Did you know that the airplane you fly on is worked on some certified and some uncertified units over seas, because omg, it's so much cheaper? That means foreigners from whatever country (there are 700 such air repair shops) without background checks, and without much training are doing the maintenance on your airplane. It's all about cheap labor and big payouts for CEO's. Nevermind that any of these goofs might plant a bomb on an airplane you fly on.
It isn't as simple as you suggest. When a CEO makes in one hour, what a worker makes all year, tell whose profits are being protected. People are angry about it.
It is the economy, stupid.
What's unfair about the current playing field?
Also, see comments below.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
tax subsidies
for American businesses who go off shore.
Unequal tariffs between countries.
Americans being asked to compete with laborers who work for a few pennies or dollars a day.
Americans being asked to compete with laborers that are essentially children, who are forced to work in unsafe conditions for 60 - 80 hours a week.
Foreign producers who see labor as expendable, and don't give a sh*t if they spray lead paint in rooms with no windows or ventilation, yet Americans just love the cheap products produced in conditions that cause people to die young.
It is the economy, stupid.
And what, exactly, makes these things unfair?
Everyone has to deal with them so how are they unfair?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Apparently fairness is in the eye of the beholder
and depends on which end of the stick they get.
Sic semper tyrannis
Tax subsidies for American businesses who go off shore...
I pretty much understand your other points. But could you say more about this tax subsidies bit? Is the US government actually giving subsidies to companies if they offshore their labor force?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
GoRight calls for reducing Managers/CEO's Pay!!!!
Woo Hooo!!!! He's gonna vote socialist yet!
Let's compare, shall we?(source CNN)
In the 1982's (26 years ago) upper management pay was 42 times what line workers pay was.
In 2001 upper management pay was 525 times what line workers make.
American products would be easier to sell to consumers if upper management wasn't such a bunch of greedy bastards. Plus, these are the same folks bush43 threw all that money at with his tax cuts.
So....rich people get richer at obscenely higher rates in 26 years and poor working stiffs get to pay their taxes to fund stupid wars in Iraq. No wonder dubya is smiling like the cat that ate the canary.
You can spout your class envy all day ...
but the simple fact is that the total (aggregate) compensation payed to CEOs is a drop in the bucket when compared to the total (aggregate) compensation payed to the average worker. And even if we reduce CEO compensation to zero that the total cost per unit production for an American is significantly greater than the total cost for the same unit of production for a foreign worker (at least it looks that way on paper to the bean counters). This is the simple reality driving the outsourcing.
It's not really complicated at all. If you were to agree to work for the same amount as the guy from India, the job would stay here and that's a fact. Alternatively you could keep your high paying salary but agree to pay 5X for everything to cover them. Your choice.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Do you live in India? I live and pay taxes in the US.
So why do you keep yapping about how my wages should be that which is paid to people in India?
And I notice you never TOUCHED the moral implications of the shift of management pay going from 42x to 525x worker pay in 26 years. Yea...you are one principled and moral guy....
Seriously....I do actually like you. I just disagree with you in many ways. No! No! No! I don't like you the Republican way
!
I keep yapping about it ...
because that is the source of the problem you seem to be complaining about.
Look, it is really very simple. Company A needs a source for widgets. Here in America you want to charge them say $10 per hour to produce 1 widget per hour. In India they want to charge $2 per hour to produce 1 widget per hour, so even with an extra $1 shipping per widget their cost is only $3 per widget to your $10 per widget.
So, as the CEO of Company A, who do you contract with to purchase your widgets? The Indian guy, of course.
Now, if you, as an American, agreed to produce your widgets for even $3 per hour to produce 1 widget per hour Company A may still be willing to give you the contract since you are a home town boy and all. But if you agree to match the pay scale of the Indian, i.e. $2 per hour to produce 1 widget per hour, well then you will find him to be more than willing to give you the widget contract.
You may have good reasons why you think you are entitled to or even need to have $10 per hour to produce 1 widget per hour but as long as you continue to demand that price Company A is going to shop elsewhere for their widgets (assuming the world labor market for widget production continues to be less than $10 per hour for 1 widget per hour). It is simple bean counting math and not mysterious at all.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
There is a way
to rectify this by charging customs duties equal to the the price difference.
On the second though that smacks of protectionism and unfair stifling of the free trade just because some dumb peons in the US like to have electric and phone service, cook their food with gas, drive cars, shop, have more living space at home than 40 square feet per person, furniture, lawns, suburbs, malls, etc. Basically people should forget about the American way of life, adopt the Indian, Chinese, or whichever is the cheapest one and then happily compete in the International labor market, being able to support their families at $1/hr.
Sic semper tyrannis
I am not advocating here ...
I am simply explaining reality whether we like it or not. Either way we have to adapt and deal with it.
Artificially keeping the prices for widgets high through tariffs/duties or such only has the effect of keeping the cost of anything that contains widgets artificially high. This is fine for the American widget manufacturers but it also keeps the cost of living artificially high to the extent that widgets factor into the overall cost of living.
Raise the cost of those widgets high enough and you won't be able to afford that phone service anymore. Or stated another way, prevent the drop in the costs of widgets long enough you won't be able to afford that new fangled call waiting feature that just came out because you still have to spend that money paying for high priced widgets just so the American widget manufacturers can stay living high on the hog (artificially so, of course, and at everyone else's expense).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
It's hardly that simple
You didn't factor in the cost of shipping the widgets, transporting them on trucks to the destination. (petrol is a limited resource) The duty fees if there are any.
Nor did you factor in that the Indian making the widget was a farmer who was forced to let his fields sit fallow, because our trade deals stifle competition in food prices in order to rig prices. The INdian farmer had to swallow his dignity move to an overcrowded city, work for sub-standard wages.
You may be good at counting some of the beans, but there are a lot of peas that you left out of your equation of the real cost.
Ten dollars an hour isn't an outstanding wage, nor is two dollars an hour, yet somehow you want us to believe that this is a fabulous arrangement.
It is the economy, stupid.
Ummm, did you not see this part?
:)
None of which factors into Company A's decision regarding widget suppliers. This is just the free market sorting out what the going price for a widget should be in India vs. the cost of farm produce their. Obviously the Indian farmer feels his lot in life is better producing widgets than farming under the current economic conditions or he would still be farming.
Not really. Dream up whatever additional costs you want and I'll just assume that they are already incorporated into my example figures. The whole and entire point from Company A's point of view is that they can get their widgets cheaper from India, even with shipping costs added in, than they can get them in the US. If this were not the case they would buy them here. And it is also a fact that the greatest proportion of expense in the production of almost anything is the people cost ... the cost of labor.
Duh. These are not meant to be actual hourly figures. They are simply examples to illustrate the point. And I am not saying whether this is, or is not, a fabulous arrangement. I am merely saying that this is the reality whether you like it or not.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Moral implications ...
I don't know what you expect me to say here. It is what it is. You think it is evil. I do not. Is there anything more to say?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So you're atheist to Jesus' word too now?
Man....my head is spinning.
You may find solace and a certain amount of uplifting from this message from one of your bretheren:
Hands on work, working as an intern
Why would I care what Jesus said?
I'm not a Christian. I have made this clear many times.
Oh, and why so silent on the post above?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Because you do.
I'm not saying you're an evangelical but you are a guy of strong moral convictions. You think of yourself as principled and I expect that you would live by your principles.
Funny thing is that goes the same for the rest of us too, even though we may not share the same views.
Me too.
I'm paying down my loans. I didn't charge a thing this Christmas.
Guess I should have had my 401(k) in Big Oil.
Endpoint sensitivity....
Overall, It's been a pretty good time to be a US investor. Point taken, it's generally been a better time to (as an American) to invest overseas due to the currency factors (in local currency terms, American companies have stacked up well vs. their foreign competition.)
What you see is the 2000-2002 bear market being a significant drag on performance overall. It is what it is, but shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum. Valuations were really out of whack in that 1999 period when the P/E for the S&P 500 peaked at around 35. (Current valuations are around 15ish.) So I'd argue that market valuations were correcting to more sustainable long-term levels. Shortly after Bush came to office, we went into technical recession as well. Add in the September 11 period and we were probably due.
That's not to say I'm not concerned about the markets into 2008 with the potential of recession looming, but I don't think you guys are taking a balanced perspective on what's happened....I mean, basically every market in the world muddled through the 2000-2002 period.
It is different now
in 02 we didn't see financial institutions short on credit for loans. We didn't see banks with huge 'write downs' due to iffy bookkeeping. We didn't see bond insurers looking at lower ratings. We didn't see $100 a barrel oil. And we weren't paying such high prices for the cost of food. And we didn't have so many folks facing forecloser.
As of today, your dollar is worth less around the world, and buys less here at home at the very same time the price of durable goods is rising.
Valuations are based on speculative trading. Everyone is a 'brilliant' speculative trader now shorting the margins and raising the actual cost of say, wheat with their gambling on futures. If oil wasn't traded on Wall Street, and if speculators would stop gambling on what the future price was going to be and trying to make money whether it goes up or down, our economy would be a lot better off.
Putting money in Wall Street doesn't seem to be doing that much good when it comes to actually investing in the land where are feet are walking, America.
It is the economy, stupid.
Let's be more thorough, MissL
Currency values depend on lots of variables. Inflated money supply caused by interest rates over the long being a major, major factor, among others.
**Speculators are responding to what they see....which is considerably different from creating the reality out of nothing.
Yes let's be more thorough shall we.....
Bottom line, if you want to protect your investments according to the Wal_Street gurus your best bet is not to invest your money in America.
Inflation is growing and the dollar is shrinking. That's reality. Folks have less money to spend, and supposedly the American consumer drives the economy. When is someone going to start remembering that they aren't gonna make money if folks can't buy stuff?
Speculators are trying to make money every which way they can, creating profits on the margins...... up or down. Rolling the dice with oil prices, food prices, whatever they think is in their own self interest for profits sake.
At some point this seems like it becomes a national security risk, speculating on necessary durable goods, with the potential to create economic downturns both nationally and globally. And this has included those crazy sivs that help create the credit crunch in the first place.
People in Pakistan for example can't eat because the price of wheat is so high, including shipping costs (oil). This creates political unrest, which creates unnecessary instability, possibly of a global nature.
It is the economy, stupid.
You just don't get it ...
And how are the companies going to get the money to pay the higher salaries without raising prices? Doh.
So its like I said, either you (Joe/Jane average citizen) agree to work for less or agree to pay more because there ain't no magic money machines lying about.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No you don't get it.....
They don't raise prices anymore, they just look for cheaper labor wherever they can find it, and use tricks to create money or credit on the balance sheets that isn't there. These are the folks that play by with 'creative financing and investment', not the normal rules.
The game has been rigged, and we are now seeing the consequences. The robber barrons are discovering that their little nest egg has disappear in leveraged margins.
It changes nothing. Prices are still high, and your dollar still is worth less.
It is the economy, stupid.
Sorry, I don't speak nonsense ...
which is apparently what you message is written in. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Take a 20 dollar bill out of your wallet.
Go to the grocery store or the gas station, and see what you get in exchange.
Check your budget records from 2,000, and you will understand what I am saying. Your money doesn't buy what it used to.
And if you are lucky enough to have a savings account, check out how much interest it was earning in 2,000 vs how much interest it's earning today.
It is the economy, stupid.
Now take that $20 and divide it by your gross income
in each of 2000 and 2007. Now multiply those results by the total number of hours you worked in 2000 and 2007, respectively. See, you had to work longer in 2000 to make that $20 which is why it bought more back then. It's called inflation, and it isn't a dirty Republican trick. It is the natural effect of labor demanding increasingly higher wages (amongst other things, of course).
The simple truth is that you have to work fewer hours today to buy most things than you did to buy the equivalent items in 2000 or 1990, or 1980, etc. Ergo, your actual cost of living in terms of hours you have to work for a fixed about of stuff has gone down. So why is everyone working so hard today? They have a lot more stuff than they did in 2000, or 1990, or 1980, etc.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Er, totally wrong
Completely void of facts here bud.
It may sound