Why not be an Independent?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>I was listening to both America Right and Air America on my XM radio the other night, and was amazed, though its been happening for years, how wacked-out, polarized, and rant-rave happy both Republicans and Democrats have become. Don’t moderates and Independents exist anymore? Why does it have to be everything or nothing?</p>

<p>Take, in example, a bill proposed by a republican congressman recently. It would raise the minimum wage $2.25 over three years and repeal the estate tax for all but the richest estates, and the richest estates is where the most money comes from. Republicans hate that to repeal the estate tax, they have to raise the minimum wage. Democrats are vise versa. Both sides think it is a dirty trick and the bill will fail I think, but at least the congressman is thinking independently and daring to get some thing done.</p>

<p>It’s a welcome reprieve from the pointless stuff congress has been doing lately. Republicans with thier doomed-to-fail amendments against gay marriage (thinking that restrictive amendments actually work) and Democrats with their non-binding resolutions about Iraq withdrawl (It’s non-binding. A non-binding resolution asking for The State Department to toilet paper the Justice Department would have the same amount of clout.). Similarily, when congressman do compromise to get stuff done, such as the Gang of 14, their supporters lambast them for “dealing with the enemy” </p>

<p>I have to say I’m fed up with this political turf-war, and I’m glad that it’s not a geographic divide, or we could eventually risk another civil war. Congress should see that the asile isn’t an ocean but a few feet of carpet. Until then, we need a few independents, or at least more men like the republican congressman mentioned above, to ask as liasons between the two sides until they shrink their own egos (Sen. Clinton and Rep. DeLay) or are no longer afraid of their constituents (everyone else)</p>

<p>Now I know alot of you will hate this for many reasons, including, but not limited to, these:
Using Clinton’s or Delay’s names in vain
Saying a republican congressman had a good idea
Supporting the repeal of most of the estate tax and raising the minimum wage
Siding with the “ememy”, whomever that may be</p>

<p>Should give you something to chew on anyway</p>

2

<p>why would anyone want to resist raising min wage? how long has it been since min wage was raised to keep up with COA?
min wage in my state is $7.63- which is still pretty low, but annual adjustments are made using the consumer price index.
In Texas the wage is $5.15. how far exactly does 40 hours at $5.15 go?
Whats even more difficult, is if you are working at a company that pays min wage, you are likely not have have full time work. Some companies keep their employees, just on the low end of full time, so they don’t have to pay benefits, which forces people to find more than one job.</p>

<p>I don’t understand why you have the impression dems have been against raise in pay for low income workers.

</p>

3

<p>the minimum wage in pennsylvania is 5.15. it was 4.75 but was raised in 1997 and has been 5.15 since. you CAN NOT live on minimum wage.</p>

4

<p>Minimum wage keeps unskilled employees like me unemployed. Look at France for example. Thinking the minimum wage helps the poor is a fallacy.</p>

5

<p>Minimum wage is ridiculous. The rhetoric is that people aren’t “supposed” to be able to live on minimum wage…that it’s only a “stepping stone” to better opportunities, here in the land of opportunities.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, that isn’t the case for many people. Read “Nickled and Dimed” for just one example.</p>

6

<p>I put that “Democrats are vise versa”, and if you read the first post, you will see that i ment Democrats are for the raising of the minnimum wage and against repealling the estate tax for all but the richest estates. Democrats view the bill as a cheep trick so that they would have to repeal the tax for all but the richest estates to raise the minimum wage.</p>

<p>My point is not limited to the raising of the minnimum wage. my point is finally a congressman reached out to the other side to get things done, rather than ranting and raving on talk radio and the floors of the house and senate, fear-mongering their respective radical bases.</p>

<p>This “By God I’m a Democrat” and “By God I’m a Republican” and “I won’t listen to the devilry of the other side of the asile” has to go.</p>

<p>And both parties used to be so much better in certain ways. A republican president freed the slaves and the party helped black people rise to power, one even becoming the Speaker of the Mississippi house, during Reconstruction; now they can’t get minorities to vote for them. Likewise, in the Kennedy years, Democrats actually had a backbone, standing up to the Soviet Union. I’d like to see today’s democrats do that.</p>

7

<p>bmsnnd2, I’m sick of the partisan bickering such that I don’t listen to talk radio much anymore nor the political cable shows. I’m sick of hearing for the last 20 years, “Vote for me - I’ll fight for you, etc.” Then they get up to Washington, vote straight party lines or “compromise” for some political trade-off, and nothing gets done. It seems they are against whatever the “other” party is for.</p>

8

<p>High minnimum wage hurts employment. Labor can be thought of as a good similar to a pack of gum. If the government artifically raises the price of a pack of gum less people will buy it. Similarly, if the government artificially raises the price of ones labor less people will buy that labor.</p>

9

<p>Raising the minimum wage increases inflation.</p>

10

<p>High minimum wage hurts employment…well…of course! <insert sarcasm=“” icon=“” here=“”></insert></p>

<p>That’s why businesses hire illegal immigrants and pay them less than minimum wage, for back breaking work that no Americans want to do! Better for the corporate mucketedy mucks botttom line! More money for the rich! Better for the economy!!</p>

11

<p>-Allmusic-, you are right, it is better for the economy. The US economy. This ‘benefit to the economy,’ however, also increases the rift between the rich and the poor. It is a tradeoff (and also why there are such strong opinions on both sides)</p>

12

<p>But is it better for Americans to have such a rift between rich and poor?</p>

<p>And people wonder why we have so many illegals in this country? No one even wants to pay miminmum wage…much less MORE than that! It’s all market driven, but then people can’t complain that we have two million illegals in this country, because THAT is apparently good for the economy too.</p>

13

<p>Alas, my point is proven. No one wants to think independently. Its either all one way or all another way. You are turning this into a partisan debate</p>

14

<p>The minimum wage/estate tax bill is a cynical exercise, not “independent thinking.” </p>

<p>Moderates still exist, though elected moderate Republicans are an endangered species and some samples may soon be captured, crated, and installed in the Smithsonian.</p>

<p>As for not being registered as an “Independent,” the biggest reason is to have effect in the primaries on who the eventual candidates are. Many battles are lost/won in the primaries to a degree that most voters don’t appreciate. If you want the moderate Democrat/Republican instead of a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican, the primary is the place to do it.</p>

<p>I strongly disapprove of “open primaries,” currently in vogue, where you can vote in either party’s primary. I believe that you should have the minimal commitment of registering for the party before voting in it. You have to be a member of the family before your vote on what to have for dinner counts; the same principle should apply to voting for candidates.</p>

15

<p>Skisoman,
“High minnimum wage hurts employment” </p>

<p>Couldn’t the same be said of a higher level of exemption on estate taxes? Does it help america? Could Paris Hilton survive on less than 28 million a year in inheritance she collects? What would she have to give up if say she only got 20 million a year? :slight_smile: That 8 million could be recirclated back into the economy benefiting many more people who buy much more stuff than Paris does and thus raising employment and productivity. How many refriderators does Paris need? :)</p>

<p>To tie legislation to help the working poor with estate tax is pretty evil. </p>

<p>There are many, many inexpensive ways to remove moneys from an estate to minimize the taxes. They’ve been used for decades and they will continue to be used. </p>

<p>How many ways are there to minimize a substandard living wage for the working poor?</p>

<p>What I find funny is alot of the people arguing for estate tax relief will never, not ever, get there to where it is a problem. A problem that can be easily solved.</p>

16

<p>Well its also her money. Your missing that funamental issue. In any case i bet the 8 mill will be recirculated into the economy through her spending</p>

17

<p>You obviously have not studied the bill</p>

<p>The richest estates, including Paris Hiltons, would be taxed still</p>

18

<p>How have i turned this into partisan debate? From an economic point of view, I have stated facts. It is up to each person to place a valuation on those facts (or, for some, to ignore the economic point of view and decide based on social reasons).</p>

19

<p>think about this, firus. would you be willing to raise the minimum wage if it ment repealling the estate tax on all but the largest estates?</p>

20

<p>I want to address the actual question raised by the OP, not the substance of the issues. </p>

<p>As TheDad said, the minimum wage/estate tax bill is not at all an example of a congressman reaching out to work with the other side. It was a top-down decision by the Republican leadership in the House, over the strong objections of the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee. Many Republicans agree that the minimum wage has to be raised; they are getting killed on the issue in local politics, and here in Pennsylvania the conservative Republican legislature just passed a state minimum wage increase to avoid getting beaten with the issue in November. Attaching the minimum wage increase to estate tax reduction (which several moderate Republicans in the Senate oppose), along with some very specific pork targeted to a couple of Democratic Senators, was a fairly naked attempt to cobble together a majority for an initiative that is pretty much a radical-right issue – the estate tax – that could not be enacted otherwise. (More modest estate tax reduction probably could get enacted, by the way. The issue is the depth of the cuts and the tiny number of extremely rich people who have an interest in the issue.) In addition, putting the minimum wage provision into the estate tax bill meant taking it out of another bill, on pension reform, which essentially trashed the deal that would have gotten that bill – an actual bi-partisan compromise that was years in the making – enacted. The net result of the move right now seems to be no pension reform, no minimum wage increase, no estate tax reduction. There is an argument to be made that the Republican leadership is perfectly content to see all three provisions go down in flames, as long as it looks like the Democrats’ fault.</p>

<p>You’re not going to hear moderates on talk radio, though, because moderation doesn’t work so well as a radio strategy. Talk radio is entertainment, first and foremost. Outrage, ridicule, and hyperbole work as entertainment for the broadest audience possible, especially when people duck in and out of listening, and can be gone at the push of a button. But outrage, ridicule, and hyperbole are not really the tool set of a moderate position.</p>

<p>Our political system at the moment also tends to favor relative extremists over moderates. We really have a two-party system, and repeated attempts at establishing a centrist third party have not been successful. Within each party, zealots tend to constitute a significant plurality of primary voters in many districts; it’s really hard to win a contested primary without their support. So the successful candidates from each party tend to be significantly to the left or the right of their party as a whole. In the House of Representatives, where most seats are pretty “safe” for one or the other party, this ensures that a majority of each party are zealots who are under no real electoral pressure to moderate their positions. Senators from many states, and maybe 20% of House members, do have to reach out to voters from the “other side” to get elected and re-elected, but the current structure pretty much assures that they will be a minority in their caucuses (and that they will periodically get defeated, too, or redistricted out of a job). Even if the centrists can get together on a compromise, it is awfully hard to enact over the objections of extremists from both sides.</p>