Daily Kos crashes Microsoft’s gate

Tamara Pesik has the coolest job at Microsoft. She arranges for cool speakers to come on campus as part of her efforts over in Microsoft Research. Today she had Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga over to talk to Microsoft employees (here's a picture of her introducing Markos, left, and Jerome, middle). They wrote an excellent book (yes, I have read it, thanks to Raines Cohen for giving it to me at SXSW) about the state of politics (from the progressive view) in America. Those who don't recognize these names might not know that Markos started the "Daily Kos" site. Very popular. Gets half a million visits per day. Jerome started MyDD political site that gets more than 50,000 visits a day and they both worked on Howard Dean's campaign.

I didn't realize that many of these talks are put onto the "ResearchChannel" site. If you visit there you'll see all sorts of technical talks given by leading experts around the world with a few business and political talks (Malcolm Gladwell has a talk up there, for instance) interspersed. There's a ton of talks there done by computer scientists (most of whom don't work for Microsoft) that you might find interesting too.

Tamara says that the talk today should be on the site in a few weeks, so I'll point that out when it appears. In the meantime there's a treasure trove of good stuff to watch.

Oh, and if you want to see Jerome or Markos, they'll be giving two more talks in the Seattle area. One tonight, one tomorrow. Details are on their book site.

They worked on Howard Dean's campaign and have many interesting insights about the state of American politics. If you care about that topic, this is a "don't miss."

Markos was on the Colbert Report last night, the CrooksAndLiars blog has links to the video.

Comments

  1. Why would I want to get insights from a group that couldn’t even get there candidate nominated by their party? What possible helpful insights would they have? Unless one wants insights on how to flame out a campaign overnight.

  2. Why would I want to get insights from a group that couldn’t even get there candidate nominated by their party? What possible helpful insights would they have? Unless one wants insights on how to flame out a campaign overnight.

  3. Well Dmad should be congratulated for not going too far in terms of crapping all over the point of Democratic netroots. After all one could have over-reacted to the the propgress of Republican radicals in the early 80s. ;)

  4. Well Dmad should be congratulated for not going too far in terms of crapping all over the point of Democratic netroots. After all one could have over-reacted to the the propgress of Republican radicals in the early 80s. ;)

  5. That Markos clown is probably the clearest example there is of the desperate need for some leadership in the democratic party. After Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, they are so hopeless that they turn to this loudmouth nobody who tells them that they’re losing because they’re not angry ENOUGH?

    The dems are going to continue to lose support as long as they keep up that obnoxious affectation of moral superiority. Yeah, we know.. You’re against Bush. How about telling us what you’re FOR? Why in the world would we believe that you’d spend any less of our money than the republicans do? Why would we believe that you’d care any more about our civil rights? Clinton was only too happy to try to keep us from even having decent crypto, for craps sake!

  6. That Markos clown is probably the clearest example there is of the desperate need for some leadership in the democratic party. After Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, they are so hopeless that they turn to this loudmouth nobody who tells them that they’re losing because they’re not angry ENOUGH?

    The dems are going to continue to lose support as long as they keep up that obnoxious affectation of moral superiority. Yeah, we know.. You’re against Bush. How about telling us what you’re FOR? Why in the world would we believe that you’d spend any less of our money than the republicans do? Why would we believe that you’d care any more about our civil rights? Clinton was only too happy to try to keep us from even having decent crypto, for craps sake!

  7. many interesting insights about the state of American politics.

    Ummm, yeah? Just the usual shrill mean downright annonyingly obnoxiousy liberalish Bush-hating crude-sexual jokes yadda yadda angry ‘volume on 11′ yelling, from the microwaved-brain-dead nutso Deaniacs. If the Demos or the Left are ever going to make any headway in terms of media figures, they need someone with a reasoned approach, with a sense of humor and a warm, friendly approach. Not more Randi Rhodes…whom was always a great source of crazy amusement back in my jet-set poverty Lake Worth’ian Palm Beachy days, off-season is heaven, on-season is richie charity ball hell. But Randi’s always mad.

    Unless one wants insights on how to flame out a campaign overnight.

    My thoughts exactly. Every Dmad post gets my gold star. ;)

  8. many interesting insights about the state of American politics.

    Ummm, yeah? Just the usual shrill mean downright annonyingly obnoxiousy liberalish Bush-hating crude-sexual jokes yadda yadda angry ‘volume on 11′ yelling, from the microwaved-brain-dead nutso Deaniacs. If the Demos or the Left are ever going to make any headway in terms of media figures, they need someone with a reasoned approach, with a sense of humor and a warm, friendly approach. Not more Randi Rhodes…whom was always a great source of crazy amusement back in my jet-set poverty Lake Worth’ian Palm Beachy days, off-season is heaven, on-season is richie charity ball hell. But Randi’s always mad.

    Unless one wants insights on how to flame out a campaign overnight.

    My thoughts exactly. Every Dmad post gets my gold star. ;)

  9. Hi Robert,

    Do they provide balance at these things? Kos equals Ann Coulter so I assume she’s next? Or is Microsoft more of a Kos crowd?

  10. Hi Robert,

    Do they provide balance at these things? Kos equals Ann Coulter so I assume she’s next? Or is Microsoft more of a Kos crowd?

  11. While Kos gets a lot of traffic, and clearly has a lot of influence on the left, I’m not sure I would consider him an expert on practical politics and the Internet. He has publicly backed some 15 candidates now. His record on victories by those candidates? Zero for 15.

  12. While Kos gets a lot of traffic, and clearly has a lot of influence on the left, I’m not sure I would consider him an expert on practical politics and the Internet. He has publicly backed some 15 candidates now. His record on victories by those candidates? Zero for 15.

  13. @4 Well, that’s a good point, if only the Dems would actually put it in practice. How frequently have the Dems controlled the White House in the past 40 years? Yea, they do seem to be learning from their mistakes. Hell, look how horrible Bush is doing, and they still couldn’t find a way to beat him. Again, if there were evidence that the Dems were actually LEARNING something, you would have point. But, like with every other counter argument you attempt to make, it doesn’t stand up.

    @10 Well, considerning Ballmer’s flip-flop bumbling of support for a Washington state gay rights bill; ultimately acquiesing to a ransom note written by some internal group,http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2005/tc20050512_7358_PG2_tc024.htm one might conclude they were KOS through and through.

    @11. I wonder if he gets a lot of traffice because, like they say.. Misery loves company

  14. @4 Well, that’s a good point, if only the Dems would actually put it in practice. How frequently have the Dems controlled the White House in the past 40 years? Yea, they do seem to be learning from their mistakes. Hell, look how horrible Bush is doing, and they still couldn’t find a way to beat him. Again, if there were evidence that the Dems were actually LEARNING something, you would have point. But, like with every other counter argument you attempt to make, it doesn’t stand up.

    @10 Well, considerning Ballmer’s flip-flop bumbling of support for a Washington state gay rights bill; ultimately acquiesing to a ransom note written by some internal group,http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2005/tc20050512_7358_PG2_tc024.htm one might conclude they were KOS through and through.

    @11. I wonder if he gets a lot of traffice because, like they say.. Misery loves company

  15. Billy: Markos says his record is 3 out of 17 (watch the Colber Report video). He hopes his record will hold. He predicted yesterday that the Dems wouldn’t win much next election.

    Dmad: oh, if misery loves company, go listen to Rush Limbaugh. He has at least 20x the traffic that Daily Kos does.

    Mike: yeah, we have lots of Repubs visit campus too. I’ll cover the next one that comes on campus. We hired Bush’s former National Press Secretary too (he was in the audience yesterday and had Markos sign his book).

    I thought these two were more funny than shrill screamers. The Dean scream was totally blown out of proportion anyway by the audio equipment in the room.

  16. Billy: Markos says his record is 3 out of 17 (watch the Colber Report video). He hopes his record will hold. He predicted yesterday that the Dems wouldn’t win much next election.

    Dmad: oh, if misery loves company, go listen to Rush Limbaugh. He has at least 20x the traffic that Daily Kos does.

    Mike: yeah, we have lots of Repubs visit campus too. I’ll cover the next one that comes on campus. We hired Bush’s former National Press Secretary too (he was in the audience yesterday and had Markos sign his book).

    I thought these two were more funny than shrill screamers. The Dean scream was totally blown out of proportion anyway by the audio equipment in the room.

  17. @13, Again, I thought this wasn’t a numbers game. I’m so confused about your position. Or is only not a numbers game when you can’t support your position?

    Maybe Limbaugh has 20X the traffic because people like to side with a winner?

    So, if we can also learn from losers, can we expect an interview with Ray Noorda on how to be successful in the NOS business? Can we expect an interview with Pete Peterson on how to be successful in the Word Processing business? Can we expect an interview with Jim Manzi on how to be successful in the spreadsheet be business? How much money are those guys making on the lecture circuit?

    I think I’d much rather get the wisdom of those that have proven to be successful. I mean, hell, most every pollitician can take a lesson from Clinton. But those running Dean’s campaign? Sorry. That’d be like trying to learn how to be a head football coach from Norv Turner.

  18. @13, Again, I thought this wasn’t a numbers game. I’m so confused about your position. Or is only not a numbers game when you can’t support your position?

    Maybe Limbaugh has 20X the traffic because people like to side with a winner?

    So, if we can also learn from losers, can we expect an interview with Ray Noorda on how to be successful in the NOS business? Can we expect an interview with Pete Peterson on how to be successful in the Word Processing business? Can we expect an interview with Jim Manzi on how to be successful in the spreadsheet be business? How much money are those guys making on the lecture circuit?

    I think I’d much rather get the wisdom of those that have proven to be successful. I mean, hell, most every pollitician can take a lesson from Clinton. But those running Dean’s campaign? Sorry. That’d be like trying to learn how to be a head football coach from Norv Turner.

  19. Dmad: I was listening to Rush back when the Republicans weren’t winning all that much (back when he was only one one station in Sacramento).

    People listen to people partly because they are entertaining. Hey, Howard Stern has even more listeners!

  20. Dmad: I was listening to Rush back when the Republicans weren’t winning all that much (back when he was only one one station in Sacramento).

    People listen to people partly because they are entertaining. Hey, Howard Stern has even more listeners!

  21. If Markos and Jerome are harmful for the Left, the Right should be quiet and let them talk the Democratic party into the ground.

    Yeah, the Democratic party is losing elections. But the party elite aren’t listening to the netroots. I’d hardly fault them for the losses.

  22. If Markos and Jerome are harmful for the Left, the Right should be quiet and let them talk the Democratic party into the ground.

    Yeah, the Democratic party is losing elections. But the party elite aren’t listening to the netroots. I’d hardly fault them for the losses.

  23. The reason most of the candidates Markos has supported have lost is because he supports underdogs that the Democratic party won’t support because they know they will loose. He supports candidates that need money because they are running in heavily Republican districts and are getting no money from the party.

  24. The reason most of the candidates Markos has supported have lost is because he supports underdogs that the Democratic party won’t support because they know they will loose. He supports candidates that need money because they are running in heavily Republican districts and are getting no money from the party.

  25. @ 6 The Democrats are for affordable health care, a living wage, affordable higher education, social security, a balanced budget, they are for following the law. Democrats submitted multiple bills to fund the security of our ports long before the Dubai ports controversy. All the port security bills were defeated by Republicans.

    They are against tax cuts for corporations and millionaires while the country is at war. They are against the weakening of environmental and labor laws. They are against cronyism.

    Bush is doing so horrible that Republicans have to spread the talking point that Democrats aren’t for anything. And people like you actually buy it.

    What are the Republicans for? Besides corporations and tax cuts for millionaires and increasing the size of government.

  26. @ 6 The Democrats are for affordable health care, a living wage, affordable higher education, social security, a balanced budget, they are for following the law. Democrats submitted multiple bills to fund the security of our ports long before the Dubai ports controversy. All the port security bills were defeated by Republicans.

    They are against tax cuts for corporations and millionaires while the country is at war. They are against the weakening of environmental and labor laws. They are against cronyism.

    Bush is doing so horrible that Republicans have to spread the talking point that Democrats aren’t for anything. And people like you actually buy it.

    What are the Republicans for? Besides corporations and tax cuts for millionaires and increasing the size of government.

  27. yea, that’s great. A “living wage”? What the hell is a “living wage?” Because whatever number you come up with, someone will eventually say it’s not enought. And who pays this “living wage?”. You and me, in the form of more expensive goods and services. At some point this “living wage” becomes prohibitive for small businesses to afford and drive them out of business. Great idea. The Dems are for “feel good” programs with no idea how to pay for them or their affects on society.

    Like they say: TNSTAAFL.

    Democrats also don’t understand the affect higher taxes have on society, either. Ooh.. bad rich people. Since when do they get to decide how much money people get to keep?

  28. yea, that’s great. A “living wage”? What the hell is a “living wage?” Because whatever number you come up with, someone will eventually say it’s not enought. And who pays this “living wage?”. You and me, in the form of more expensive goods and services. At some point this “living wage” becomes prohibitive for small businesses to afford and drive them out of business. Great idea. The Dems are for “feel good” programs with no idea how to pay for them or their affects on society.

    Like they say: TNSTAAFL.

    Democrats also don’t understand the affect higher taxes have on society, either. Ooh.. bad rich people. Since when do they get to decide how much money people get to keep?

  29. yeah dmad and it’s exactly that attitude that will prevent there EVER being true prosperity in this country. It is that very attitude that will continue to allow the rich to keep a permanent stranglehold on wealth and make the concept of upward mobility a meer marketing ploy to keep the lower class voting for candidatesd running on lower taxes and eliminating decent social programs and domestic spending.

    Maybe that’s really the way it should be. Cold, heartless, primal, backstabbing, social darwinism. Maybe. Or maybe it’s only because, historically, the people who have the guns and the gold think that way. Liberals/progrssives don’t think that is how it should be. And we say that proudly. The least you conservatives could do is come clean and at least admit that you DO believe that is the way it should be and STOP PRETENDING that you don’t.

  30. yeah dmad and it’s exactly that attitude that will prevent there EVER being true prosperity in this country. It is that very attitude that will continue to allow the rich to keep a permanent stranglehold on wealth and make the concept of upward mobility a meer marketing ploy to keep the lower class voting for candidatesd running on lower taxes and eliminating decent social programs and domestic spending.

    Maybe that’s really the way it should be. Cold, heartless, primal, backstabbing, social darwinism. Maybe. Or maybe it’s only because, historically, the people who have the guns and the gold think that way. Liberals/progrssives don’t think that is how it should be. And we say that proudly. The least you conservatives could do is come clean and at least admit that you DO believe that is the way it should be and STOP PRETENDING that you don’t.

  31. The Republicans on this board sure don’t like the Kos very much. That tells me he is doing something right. I’m going to redouble my donations to the candidates he supports.

    69 percent of Americans think this country is headed in the wrong direction. National politics is currently dominated by the corrupt GOP and the people are rightly disgusted.

  32. The Republicans on this board sure don’t like the Kos very much. That tells me he is doing something right. I’m going to redouble my donations to the candidates he supports.

    69 percent of Americans think this country is headed in the wrong direction. National politics is currently dominated by the corrupt GOP and the people are rightly disgusted.

  33. @21. I’m happy to entertain any successful examples of government funded, socialized healthcare. Hell, I’m happy to entertain successful examples of prosperous societies were the govt takes more money from the people who earn it.

    Read the Constitution once. Where does it say the govt has the authority to determine how much of your money you get to keep.

  34. @21. I’m happy to entertain any successful examples of government funded, socialized healthcare. Hell, I’m happy to entertain successful examples of prosperous societies were the govt takes more money from the people who earn it.

    Read the Constitution once. Where does it say the govt has the authority to determine how much of your money you get to keep.

  35. @24 uh, I actually keep a copy on my desk at all times….maybe YOU should try reading the constitution. Article 1 section 8 explicitly provides for taxation. Now if you are being pedantic it doesn’t say “10%”, “25.5%”, or anything like that but it provides for Congress to determine what they see fit.

    As for your first questions. I’ve never lived anywhere but here but my friends and colleagues from Canada and at least half of Europe speak highly of their socialized healthcare. They grumble a bit about the higher rates of taxation but unlike most Americans they understand the value and benefit it allows their societies to enjoy. I certainly don’t want to see their plans equally adpopted here, it wouldn’t likely work, but a basic but significant nationalized healthcare IS coming here. It will be an important first step in a more equitable and prosperous society because when a company doesn’t have to spend so much on employee healthcare it will allow for more jobs and higer wages. And analysis of living wage effects in cities with living wage laws are rather positive suggesting that there is a benefit for all parties involved.

  36. @24 uh, I actually keep a copy on my desk at all times….maybe YOU should try reading the constitution. Article 1 section 8 explicitly provides for taxation. Now if you are being pedantic it doesn’t say “10%”, “25.5%”, or anything like that but it provides for Congress to determine what they see fit.

    As for your first questions. I’ve never lived anywhere but here but my friends and colleagues from Canada and at least half of Europe speak highly of their socialized healthcare. They grumble a bit about the higher rates of taxation but unlike most Americans they understand the value and benefit it allows their societies to enjoy. I certainly don’t want to see their plans equally adpopted here, it wouldn’t likely work, but a basic but significant nationalized healthcare IS coming here. It will be an important first step in a more equitable and prosperous society because when a company doesn’t have to spend so much on employee healthcare it will allow for more jobs and higer wages. And analysis of living wage effects in cities with living wage laws are rather positive suggesting that there is a benefit for all parties involved.

  37. @25. you conveniently left out the why: “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” The “general welfare” was not intended to mean create a welfare state. In the Federalist Papers the framers were pretty clear about that. As I’m sure you know.

    As for your healthcare plan, I think P.J. O’Rourke said it best: “If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it’s free”

    And it curious how many Canadians come to the US when they need major, quality healthcare. Nothing incents like the free market.

    Again, define “living wage”. Because whatever figure you come up with, I can pretty much guarantee it will be too low. It’s not the job of the federal govt (let alone a state, or local govt) to dictate to private businesses how they should be run. Of course you know that, because you have the Constitution sitting on your desk. Can you point me to the Article and section that grants the Fed Govt that authority?
    I saw the press release in the Hartford Courant on the “positive effects” of their living wage law. I’ve not seen many others. And simple economics would tell you it would have a negative affect on labor and prices. The costs have to be absorbed somewhere.

    Also, please explain how unemployment amongst black teens (and teens and low skilled workers in general) has risen steadily since the implementation of minimum wage laws.
    Again, TNSTAAFL.

  38. @25. you conveniently left out the why: “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” The “general welfare” was not intended to mean create a welfare state. In the Federalist Papers the framers were pretty clear about that. As I’m sure you know.

    As for your healthcare plan, I think P.J. O’Rourke said it best: “If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it’s free”

    And it curious how many Canadians come to the US when they need major, quality healthcare. Nothing incents like the free market.

    Again, define “living wage”. Because whatever figure you come up with, I can pretty much guarantee it will be too low. It’s not the job of the federal govt (let alone a state, or local govt) to dictate to private businesses how they should be run. Of course you know that, because you have the Constitution sitting on your desk. Can you point me to the Article and section that grants the Fed Govt that authority?
    I saw the press release in the Hartford Courant on the “positive effects” of their living wage law. I’ve not seen many others. And simple economics would tell you it would have a negative affect on labor and prices. The costs have to be absorbed somewhere.

    Also, please explain how unemployment amongst black teens (and teens and low skilled workers in general) has risen steadily since the implementation of minimum wage laws.
    Again, TNSTAAFL.

  39. @26 I left out nothing. Because I was not quoting anything!! I was simply responding to you asking “where does it say the govt has the authority…” Don’t try to misrepresent what I said.

    Where in the Federalist papers does it say that “general welfare” does NOT mean food stamps or home heating assistance? Illuminate the audience to which essay and the first few words of the first sentence to support your claim.

    I’m pretty certain that if it was as you put it “the framers were pretty clear about that.”, that there would be no “welfare” as we are referring to in the first place.

    Read this, for a start, on living wage impact of economies http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp170

    As you will read your prediction from “simple economics”, while accurate, will certainly fail to prove that a living wage is a massive burden on the economy.

    MY healthcare plan? LOL. You silly conservatives. Go back and read what I said.

    Yes. The US has some awesome healthcare. No, universal healthcare would probably not cover some of the things that RICH foreigners come here for but it would likely cover most basic services, which would cover the overwhelming majority of all visits to the hospital/clinic. That’s an important distinction. BUT since there is no plan or bill written to dissect it’s all speculation.

    “Can you point me to the Article and section that grants the Fed Govt that authority?”

    Is that a serious question? I’m not sure you’ve ever read the document or even taken a government class. Let me help you out. Article 1 Section 7 and 8 to begin with outlay the the basics for enacting laws and such. Laws that can expand or limit lots of things, yes, even on what private businesses can do. Oh and Article 5 which you may remember led to Amendment 13. OMG!!! The federal goverment abolishing an entire PRIVATE industry!?!?!

  40. @26 I left out nothing. Because I was not quoting anything!! I was simply responding to you asking “where does it say the govt has the authority…” Don’t try to misrepresent what I said.

    Where in the Federalist papers does it say that “general welfare” does NOT mean food stamps or home heating assistance? Illuminate the audience to which essay and the first few words of the first sentence to support your claim.

    I’m pretty certain that if it was as you put it “the framers were pretty clear about that.”, that there would be no “welfare” as we are referring to in the first place.

    Read this, for a start, on living wage impact of economies http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp170

    As you will read your prediction from “simple economics”, while accurate, will certainly fail to prove that a living wage is a massive burden on the economy.

    MY healthcare plan? LOL. You silly conservatives. Go back and read what I said.

    Yes. The US has some awesome healthcare. No, universal healthcare would probably not cover some of the things that RICH foreigners come here for but it would likely cover most basic services, which would cover the overwhelming majority of all visits to the hospital/clinic. That’s an important distinction. BUT since there is no plan or bill written to dissect it’s all speculation.

    “Can you point me to the Article and section that grants the Fed Govt that authority?”

    Is that a serious question? I’m not sure you’ve ever read the document or even taken a government class. Let me help you out. Article 1 Section 7 and 8 to begin with outlay the the basics for enacting laws and such. Laws that can expand or limit lots of things, yes, even on what private businesses can do. Oh and Article 5 which you may remember led to Amendment 13. OMG!!! The federal goverment abolishing an entire PRIVATE industry!?!?!

  41. Cooper,

    You ignorant little moonbat.

    Anytime you intervene in a market to set a price, you will either cause a glut or a shortage. In the case of setting minimum wages according to your knee-jerk impulses, you don’t raise anyone’s pay, you simply make it illegal to employ anyone whose labor isn’t worth the price that you’ve decided upon. Every time you raise the minimum wage, you price the poorest people out of the market altogether. Thanks a lot, asshole.

    Go take a look at the socialist worker’s paradise in France, and tell us how they could possibly have 25% unemployment among entry-level workers, when their government is made up of people with your same mind-set.

  42. Cooper,

    You ignorant little moonbat.

    Anytime you intervene in a market to set a price, you will either cause a glut or a shortage. In the case of setting minimum wages according to your knee-jerk impulses, you don’t raise anyone’s pay, you simply make it illegal to employ anyone whose labor isn’t worth the price that you’ve decided upon. Every time you raise the minimum wage, you price the poorest people out of the market altogether. Thanks a lot, asshole.

    Go take a look at the socialist worker’s paradise in France, and tell us how they could possibly have 25% unemployment among entry-level workers, when their government is made up of people with your same mind-set.

  43. @28 J. Random Wingnut. It’s EXACTLY that attitude from people EXACTLY like you that fought against minimunm wage laws to begin with. It’s EXACTLY people like you who fought against child labor laws. It is EXACTLY people like you who fought against women’s rights. It is EXACTLY people like you who fought against anti-slavery laws. You are an anachronism. Attempting to lecture someone on the theories of economics that you express flies completely in the face of what has ACTUALLY happened.

    If we left it up to employers to pay people what they decided upon, and I’m specifically referrring to the low-end unskilled labor, which are the people affected by living-wages, then the gap between rich and poor would be more hideous than it is now. Poverty, homelessness, perhaps even lawlessness would make the US more like Brasil or Mexico. It would concentrate more wealth among the already rich and do nothing for the lower classes.

    Maybe you all should do what Barbara Ehrenreich did and go live on $6/hour for a while and THEN tell us what you think about minimum and, gasp!, living wages.

    “Every time you raise the minimum wage, you price the poorest people out of the market altogether.”

    Utter B.S. and you know it. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

    Look at the minimum wage increase over time http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm

    In 30 years it slightly more than doubled from $2.30 to $5.15. Then, take for instance the average price of a car in the mid 70s: ~$4400 (import), ~$5000 (domestic). Now, ~ $27,000 (import); ~$20,000 (domestic). A 4-6 fold increase in price. And it’s like that across the board. So when you hear that the minimum wage isn’t keeping up with the cost of living this is one example. Of course the wealthy either don’t care or don’t know about this. Which one are you?

    BTW it’s typical of the right-wingers like yourself to assume that when someone thinks having a minimum or even living wage is a good thing that makes them a French-loving socialist. What an idiot. That may fly among your crowd but it sure as hell doesn’t among the majority of Americans. Thanks for the stupidity.

  44. @28 J. Random Wingnut. It’s EXACTLY that attitude from people EXACTLY like you that fought against minimunm wage laws to begin with. It’s EXACTLY people like you who fought against child labor laws. It is EXACTLY people like you who fought against women’s rights. It is EXACTLY people like you who fought against anti-slavery laws. You are an anachronism. Attempting to lecture someone on the theories of economics that you express flies completely in the face of what has ACTUALLY happened.

    If we left it up to employers to pay people what they decided upon, and I’m specifically referrring to the low-end unskilled labor, which are the people affected by living-wages, then the gap between rich and poor would be more hideous than it is now. Poverty, homelessness, perhaps even lawlessness would make the US more like Brasil or Mexico. It would concentrate more wealth among the already rich and do nothing for the lower classes.

    Maybe you all should do what Barbara Ehrenreich did and go live on $6/hour for a while and THEN tell us what you think about minimum and, gasp!, living wages.

    “Every time you raise the minimum wage, you price the poorest people out of the market altogether.”

    Utter B.S. and you know it. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

    Look at the minimum wage increase over time http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm

    In 30 years it slightly more than doubled from $2.30 to $5.15. Then, take for instance the average price of a car in the mid 70s: ~$4400 (import), ~$5000 (domestic). Now, ~ $27,000 (import); ~$20,000 (domestic). A 4-6 fold increase in price. And it’s like that across the board. So when you hear that the minimum wage isn’t keeping up with the cost of living this is one example. Of course the wealthy either don’t care or don’t know about this. Which one are you?

    BTW it’s typical of the right-wingers like yourself to assume that when someone thinks having a minimum or even living wage is a good thing that makes them a French-loving socialist. What an idiot. That may fly among your crowd but it sure as hell doesn’t among the majority of Americans. Thanks for the stupidity.

  45. agentcooper,

    as someone who actuaqlly lived in Canada, and married a Canadian who couldnt wait to escape that “socialist utopia” you are dead wrong.

    why dont you read up on the stats of Canadians who come to America for their healthcare, because they die waiting inline up there? (did you forget a conservative PM just got voted in?)

    as for Kos, and Randi Rhodes and all the rest of the Deaniacs – PLEASE keep speaking up! You will assure the GOP stays in power for a long, long time to come. Those of us on the right get a LOT of entertainment from those guys and gals :-)

    Dems dont seem to have the stomach of protecting this country – but trying to turn it into a socialized nightmare that has failed everywhere else in the world. No thanks.

    And for the record, Bush isnt running again. Time to get something new to bitch about kids!

  46. agentcooper,

    as someone who actuaqlly lived in Canada, and married a Canadian who couldnt wait to escape that “socialist utopia” you are dead wrong.

    why dont you read up on the stats of Canadians who come to America for their healthcare, because they die waiting inline up there? (did you forget a conservative PM just got voted in?)

    as for Kos, and Randi Rhodes and all the rest of the Deaniacs – PLEASE keep speaking up! You will assure the GOP stays in power for a long, long time to come. Those of us on the right get a LOT of entertainment from those guys and gals :-)

    Dems dont seem to have the stomach of protecting this country – but trying to turn it into a socialized nightmare that has failed everywhere else in the world. No thanks.

    And for the record, Bush isnt running again. Time to get something new to bitch about kids!

  47. J. Random Poster..

    dont tell agentcooper, but there is pretty much zero unemployment in the US today.

    *gasp* .. how did that happen??

    and thanks for using that word “moonbat” .. I thought I was the only one who knew about that word around here..
    :-P

  48. J. Random Poster..

    dont tell agentcooper, but there is pretty much zero unemployment in the US today.

    *gasp* .. how did that happen??

    and thanks for using that word “moonbat” .. I thought I was the only one who knew about that word around here..
    :-P

  49. if it wasn’t for strawmen you conservatives would truly have nothing to knockdown.

    (paraphrasing) “You liberals only want socialism”, “you Dems want a French (or Canadian, or Swedish, or British, etc.) healthcare system”

    The problem is that no liberal/Dem/progressive has ever said that. We may say, “hey they have a universal health care, their people like it, let’s see what they are doing right” but it stops there. The beauty of our country is that there are fifty, mostly autonomous, states. That means there are lots of places to experiment with wage laws, environmental regulations, healthcare, zoning laws, whatever. Even more if you count individual cities. We have a way to ask: within the confines of our laws and within the spirit of our National identity and character what can we do for [insert issue] that may be adopted nationwide?

    And we do that all the time. This is how it will be done with universal health-care. And I don’t think it will be a nationalized *plan* but rather a nationalized *mandate* that would require each state to find the best way to cover all their residents. It will happen and it will work because 1) we want it, and 2) we can achieve anything we want if we are serious about it.

    As for Canada, they overwhelmingly want univeral coverage. They will not give it up. Their long waits to treatment are a significant problem, yes. But the main problems are that they’ve banned private insurance and don’t have co-pays. Do you honestly think that is what Dems/Libs want in this country? Don’t be so transparently stupid. And don’t for a second think that because the Canadian government is turning a little more conservative that that signals a desire to move away from universal healthcare. That’s what Bush thought about Social Security. Idiot.

    BTW – I’m no fan of Randi Rhodes. AND don’t you EVER think that because I support universal health care and minimm wage laws that I’m against protecting this country! Your slander and bullshit has served you sycophants longer than it should have and I won’t stand for it. So fuck you now and fuck you in the future if you keep thinking that. Your Dear Leader has done more to undermine the security of this country than anyone in our history. You should be running FROM him…oh wait, people are. What was the latest polling, 32-36% approval? 55% plan on voting for the Democrat (whoever it is) over the Repub. Etc, etc. Oh yes. Get use to hearing from us.

  50. if it wasn’t for strawmen you conservatives would truly have nothing to knockdown.

    (paraphrasing) “You liberals only want socialism”, “you Dems want a French (or Canadian, or Swedish, or British, etc.) healthcare system”

    The problem is that no liberal/Dem/progressive has ever said that. We may say, “hey they have a universal health care, their people like it, let’s see what they are doing right” but it stops there. The beauty of our country is that there are fifty, mostly autonomous, states. That means there are lots of places to experiment with wage laws, environmental regulations, healthcare, zoning laws, whatever. Even more if you count individual cities. We have a way to ask: within the confines of our laws and within the spirit of our National identity and character what can we do for [insert issue] that may be adopted nationwide?

    And we do that all the time. This is how it will be done with universal health-care. And I don’t think it will be a nationalized *plan* but rather a nationalized *mandate* that would require each state to find the best way to cover all their residents. It will happen and it will work because 1) we want it, and 2) we can achieve anything we want if we are serious about it.

    As for Canada, they overwhelmingly want univeral coverage. They will not give it up. Their long waits to treatment are a significant problem, yes. But the main problems are that they’ve banned private insurance and don’t have co-pays. Do you honestly think that is what Dems/Libs want in this country? Don’t be so transparently stupid. And don’t for a second think that because the Canadian government is turning a little more conservative that that signals a desire to move away from universal healthcare. That’s what Bush thought about Social Security. Idiot.

    BTW – I’m no fan of Randi Rhodes. AND don’t you EVER think that because I support universal health care and minimm wage laws that I’m against protecting this country! Your slander and bullshit has served you sycophants longer than it should have and I won’t stand for it. So fuck you now and fuck you in the future if you keep thinking that. Your Dear Leader has done more to undermine the security of this country than anyone in our history. You should be running FROM him…oh wait, people are. What was the latest polling, 32-36% approval? 55% plan on voting for the Democrat (whoever it is) over the Repub. Etc, etc. Oh yes. Get use to hearing from us.

  51. Wow… such language agentcooper! Did we hit a nerve?

    Face it, the only reason Billy Boy Clinton snuck into office was because of a third party candidate. He NEVER got a majority – and he ran from every terrorist that went after us for 8 solid years. If that isnt spineless I dont know what is.

    At least Bush takes the fight to the people who want it. And he’s a Texan to boot which is my native state – so, he’s A OK with me and the majority of Americans who voted for him!

    Dems dont have anything to offer, and if you believe those “polls” that say the GOP is running away from Bush? Youre quite naive. This country is conservative thru and thru – and Dems are far too marginalized to realize that yet.

    As for Canada? Quebec is the King County of that entire country. What Quebec wants, washes over the whole populace. Try talking to ANY Canadian between Vancouver and the east coast and they are all conservative and getting more so. They now see what cradle to grave socialism looks like – and they dont like it anymore. They’d rather keep their money than give it away.

    I have a LOT of family up there – I think I’m fairly in touch with what they think.

    As for national health care in the US? I think Hillary tried that (who voted her in back in??) and it was roundly dismissed, as it should have been.

    Bring in socialized medicine and watch America’s best and brightest doctors flee this country. America is THE tops for a reason, agentcooper. And its because of our capitolism and competitiveness, whether you agree with it or not.

    Take out the need to strive or dream and watch this country fall apart fast.

    No thanks ..

  52. Wow… such language agentcooper! Did we hit a nerve?

    Face it, the only reason Billy Boy Clinton snuck into office was because of a third party candidate. He NEVER got a majority – and he ran from every terrorist that went after us for 8 solid years. If that isnt spineless I dont know what is.

    At least Bush takes the fight to the people who want it. And he’s a Texan to boot which is my native state – so, he’s A OK with me and the majority of Americans who voted for him!

    Dems dont have anything to offer, and if you believe those “polls” that say the GOP is running away from Bush? Youre quite naive. This country is conservative thru and thru – and Dems are far too marginalized to realize that yet.

    As for Canada? Quebec is the King County of that entire country. What Quebec wants, washes over the whole populace. Try talking to ANY Canadian between Vancouver and the east coast and they are all conservative and getting more so. They now see what cradle to grave socialism looks like – and they dont like it anymore. They’d rather keep their money than give it away.

    I have a LOT of family up there – I think I’m fairly in touch with what they think.

    As for national health care in the US? I think Hillary tried that (who voted her in back in??) and it was roundly dismissed, as it should have been.

    Bring in socialized medicine and watch America’s best and brightest doctors flee this country. America is THE tops for a reason, agentcooper. And its because of our capitolism and competitiveness, whether you agree with it or not.

    Take out the need to strive or dream and watch this country fall apart fast.

    No thanks ..