Speaker Pelosi

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Jan 4, 2007.

  1. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #1
    Today, my Congresswoman became the first woman to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. After almost 220 years since the adoption of the Constitution and the creation of the office, it is about damn time. Good luck, Nancy, and give 'em Hell. ;)

    San Francisco Chronicle
     
  2. sethypoo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA, USA
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    i'm hoping my senator can make some kind of similar history...

    [​IMG]

    edit: oops! didn't mean to put up that picture of UBL. ;-)
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #4
    Let's hope not only that she's successful, but that the Republican Woman Haters Club comports itself with some semblence of dignity and doesn't try to smear her the way they smeared Pat Schroeder, Hillary Clinton and others.
     
  5. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #5
    let's hope she stands by her convictions, and makes progressives proud. i'd certainly feel more strongly supporting her than hillary.
     
  6. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #6
    congrats to Pelosi!!!
    also

    another interesting combination, this one:
    [​IMG]
     
  7. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #7
    uggh. why can't bill just take her place...
     
  8. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    "a crazed pelosi attempts to mallet a newborn while the newborn's sister protects her from pelosi's wild and liberal swings. to her immediate right, child-hero adam rodriguez, 8, subdued pelosi in the ensuing melee."
     
  10. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #10
    haha, luv it.
     
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    She wants to raise the Minimum wage with no Gimmicks. Imagine.

    Congress has given itself 10 raises in a row while raising the minimum 0.
    (Republicans)
    (edit) then Home Depot CEO gets 250 million for quiting???
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #12
    Just heard on the news that some Republican is already bitching that Pelosi is freezing out his party during the Democrats' first 100 hours.

    Altogether now:

    WAAAAAH!! WAAAAHHH!!!

    [​IMG]

    (For those who don't know why it's such a big crybaby issue, the matter has been discussed here.)
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    Well, she did snub Stephen Colbert, but she's pushing for lobbying reform... so I'm kinda torn. I guess I'm willing to give her a chance. As long as she actually does something good. And makes up with Colbert.
     
  14. Trowaman macrumors 6502a

    Trowaman

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Location:
    CD: TX-14
    #14
    Heh, great day.
    Must say, I was very VERY proud to hear my new Representative, the replacement for Tom DeLay, Rep. Nick Lampson call out Pelosi in his vote for Speaker. It was also good to hear Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS-4) vote for her as well, he voted Present in the last 2 Speaker elections instead of for Pelosi.

    Also, Pelosi's speach, I had not hit me until then, but when she started talking about Iraq that's when it started to hit me, something has actually changed. When it comes to Iraq Dems now own the bully pulpit and have the ability to put serious pressure on Bush from now on. Something is going to change now. Watching Rep. Zach Space, Jerry McNerney, Paul Hodes, Kristin Gillibrand and others speaking on the floor today, it just gave me hope.
     
  15. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #15
    I've liked her so far. I listened to her long speech on CNN today, overall I thought it was good.

    e
     
  16. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #16
    The footage of Hastert during Pelosi's swearing-in ceremony that Keith Olbermann showed last night was priceless, looked like he was nearly in tears
     
  17. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    Folks talk of the desirability of raising minimum wage. That's helpful for the five percent of the workforce that gets minimum wage. Of that 5%, around one-half are part-timers or are (approximately) highschool-age beginners in the World of Work.

    The problem is that most of those people work for small businesses. When the minimum-wage folks get a raise, the bussinessman is obligated to give a raise to all other employees who are in the lower strata of the pay scale.

    Which means that either more work is done in order to maintain income of the business, or the overhead requires layoffs and a constant level of output by fewer people. Generally, the latter case holds. Generally, a rise in the minimum wage means bottom-end folks get laid off.

    So, a nice "spin" headline could be, "Pelosi Favors Higher Unemployment".

    Pelosi has already said she favors hitting on Big Oil for more taxes and for provision of 85% ethanol "gasahol". Today's Christian Science Monitor has an article about the effects of increased usage of corn and the profitability of the producers of ethanol. The farmers would profit, but corn exports would drop. Because of increased corn costs, ethanol costs would rise (or the producers would cease production) and thus motor fuels would cost more.

    The US Government has entered into written contracts--repeat, written contracts--with Chevron and others to allow offshore drilling--even though much of this is in international waters (Chevron' "Jack 6", e.g.) Pelosi has stated she wants these contracts revisited such that higher fees can be charged. She has further stated that the present prices are a "subsidy". Aside from the issue of violating a written contract, this sort of action inhibits further exploration and development of domestic supplies of oil and gas. Note that the US government cannot require permits of foreign companies in the same area; international waters. So, how is there a "subsidy"?

    Has Pelosi, et al, spoken to rescinding the anti-civil rights provisions of the Patriot Act, or said anything about how Homeland Security goes about its business or about the weirdnesses of the TSA? About the "No Fly" list, where you can't even find out why you're on it?

    Note that I've called no names. I've merely pointed out some realities of the world we live in, and asked a few questions.

    I'm glad that folks are happy with this dawning of a new day, but I don't see nearly as much sunshine as some.

    'Rat
     
  18. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #18
    where does this statement come from?
    first question, can you tell me first, who are the people that receive minimum wage?

    and as your logic

    only increasing salary for rich people will not cause problem, so .......
     
  19. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #19
    i never understood how folks who were so pro free and open market couldn't deal with the fact that sometimes, if a company can't afford various things (environmental/safety safeguards/equipment, decent wages, etc), it should go out of business. it's not fit to be in business. i'm not saying that a start up company shouldn't get some help and be encouraged to grow. but if our "tax cuts" went to small businesses and lower income people instead of big businesses who have no need (besides lining ceos' backpockets), then this wouldn't be as big an issue.
     
  20. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #20
    Why is it that the minimum wage increase always has to be a zero sum game?

    Why can't the increased earnings of the lower income brackets translate into more sales (since the lower income brackets are more likely to spend the extra money while the rich are more prone to save it). Or might the increased income also offer more incentive for some of the lower income brackets to work harder, increasing production and profits?

    When one stock goes up does that mean another has to go down?

    Heck, production costs increased with gas prices as well, I didn't hear the GOP condemning the layoffs that occurred because of rising fuel costs...
     
  21. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #21
    Your analysis is fine in theory but most small businesses are minimally staffed in the first place, few could afford the luxury of operating with fewer people. For most small businesses, layoffs aren't going to happen.

    The headlines this week have been filled with the idiot at Homebase who got a $250 million payout for quitting his job. If big business were truly interested in the bottom line, they would focus on insane payouts to executives not a small increase in entry level wages. How many people at Hombase got reduced raises or lower benefits just to fill this greedy SOB's pockets?
     
  22. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #22
    No he/she isn't. The Tories used that exact argument about pay differentials to try and prevent the introduction of a minimum wage in the UK. They predicted unemployment was going to skyrocket (didn't happen) and the workers just above the minimum level would strike for more pay (didn't happen). People at the bottom of the wage scale aren't as obsessed with status and hierarchy as those higher up.

    BTW, when the minimum wage came in here, unemployment actually dropped. The rich had less to spend skiing in Switzerland or on new German cars, but the lower paid had more to spend on their homes, food and families. So the services-led UK economy benefited.
     
  23. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #23
    Have you ever owned/operated a smallish retail business? Or a small manufacturing operation? I'm thinking of an employee range of maybe a half-dozen to maybe fifteen employees.

    You have a profit margin, which hopefully allows paying all the bills. You have an average monthly rate of income: How do you increase that? How do you suddenly increase your gross income at the same time as you have a major jump in overhead?

    Clinton's answer to the pizza guy in Chicago in 1996 was, "Why don't you just raise your prices?"

    You can, of course, but then your sales go down. Economics 101. Or you only raise them by some minimum amount; you still might then have a lesser profit margin but the doors stay open. And you hope you can raise them again, later on, and still get customers.

    Wikipedia might have something about the Elasticity of Demand and the Inelasticity of Demand. Pizza is elastic; "real" food isn't. Along this line are some comments in Gary North's article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north499.html Specifically, scroll down to "What Is Your Fall-Back Position"

    Any rational business owner seeks to maintain profitability at the lowest reasonable overhead. That's a constant. It must be so in order that the business succeed; there's no choice.

    If your overhead increases but sales are relatively constant--which is what's gonna happen with a wage hike--then the owner either fires one or two of his least productive employees, or works them harder for more productivity--said productivity not being obvious in a retail store. Dust faster? Sweep faster? Rearrange the displays faster? Where's the profit?

    I can tell you that "working them harder" isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, since most folks already think they're already overworked. It's a lot easier for the owner to lay off the low-productivity guys, and hope that the layoffs scare the rest of the workforce into doing more. Psych 101. It's not overnight, nor is it necessarily firing. Somebody quits, they're not replaced.

    The last time the minimum wage was raised, my wife didn't replace three of her fifteen employees. They were half-time types. When a full-timer quit, that meant her payroll was back to near the pre-raise level. A bit of pushing and the production stayed about constant. After all, everybody else had gotten a raise. IOW, she dropped around 15% of her workforce.

    I'm not predicting that there's gonna be anything like a 15% reduction ahead, but any percentage of seven million people is an appreciable number. Call it an "historical imperative", if you like.

    'Rat
     
  24. SharksFan22 macrumors regular

    SharksFan22

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #24
    I had a discussion about this topic with a friend of mine last night -- she was furious that Nardelli got a huge bonus for walking away. Part of me thinks it's absurd as well, but objectively, who is the "bad guy" here? I don't think it's him, it's the board of directors of the company that signed the check and gave him six years on the job. Nardelli did what was asked and was paid for it, but a bunch of board members that negotiated a contract that cost their shareholders, their company, and their employees $200M+. Oh, and by the way, if you are upset about this, don't shop at Home Depot. Falling sales will cause changes faster than anything else.
     
  25. SharksFan22 macrumors regular

    SharksFan22

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #25
    Because what happens is that when a company's expenses are raised, they have two choices - (a) cut other expenses to keep overall expenses constant or (b) raise prices to maintain their profit margin. If they choose (a) that might mean purchasing less from suppliers or trimming workforce. If they choose (b) they may actually sell less product and have less revenue since now their prices are beyond what the market will accept.

    I once worked for a startup with a group of installation technicians who were paid with competitive salaries and stock options, just like the rest of the company. As we started growing the company, an outside union attempted to convince the technicians that they should be unionized and that the company "owed" them all kinds of additional benefits. This of course caused a great deal of division in the company and eventually was solved with basic common sense -- we had a "all hands" meeting where the numbers were put up for all to see. If the technicians unionized, the company would cut jobs due to increased costs with no associated increase in revenue. If the technicians did not unionize, we would continue on the growth path with more jobs and steady performance-based raises. Every one of them chose the second option.
     

Share This Page