Politics

[DSully1995]

I wasn't talking about just raising wages for the sake of raising wages.

My main point was cutting down to a 35 hour work week, then maybe a 32.5, and eventually to a 30 hour work week in 2-3 decades. I had 3 points with this:

1- For every 8 workers that lose 5 hours ideally you need a new currently unemployed worker to make up for the work that was lost from cutting hours. The math says we need to increase the workforce 12.5% to make up for the loss of hours. The reality wise is companies will continue to find ways to do more with less but don't need 12.5% we only 7.5% to get 100% employment, and even a 3-4% gain of workers would drop the unemployment to very low levels.
2- With new technology advancements workers are becoming more productive so it allowing companies do more with less. This is only going to get worse. My arguement instead of having less people do more, lets have more people do less.
3- There could potentially be numerous benefits for communities, traffic congestion, and other areas of society.

The BIG! downside is that 40 hour a week hourly earning workers are essentially getting a 12% pay cut. I thinking of raise to offset that until wages along with prices of goods and services in the economy adjust.

Oh gotcha. Yes thatd be better overall, but legislating/imposing that in a country so dedicated to freedom and individualism would be a nightmare, foxnews would just be too ecstatic

 

[Rizzophil]

If you want to make more money and advance, then you should work more.

If you want to sit on your rear, wait for the world to come to you, and be dependent, you should work as few hours as possible.

 

[Black Irish]

I wasn't talking about just raising wages for the sake of raising wages.

My main point was cutting down to a 35 hour work week, then maybe a 32.5, and eventually to a 30 hour work week in 2-3 decades. I had 3 points with this:

1- For every 8 workers that lose 5 hours ideally you need a new currently unemployed worker to make up for the work that was lost from cutting hours. The math says we need to increase the workforce 12.5% to make up for the loss of hours. The reality wise is companies will continue to find ways to do more with less but don't need 12.5% we only 7.5% to get 100% employment, and even a 3-4% gain of workers would drop the unemployment to very low levels.
2- With new technology advancements workers are becoming more productive so it allowing companies do more with less. This is only going to get worse. My arguement instead of having less people do more, lets have more people do less.
3- There could potentially be numerous benefits for communities, traffic congestion, and other areas of society.

The BIG! downside is that 40 hour a week hourly earning workers are essentially getting a 12% pay cut. I thinking of raise to offset that until wages along with prices of goods and services in the economy adjust.

If you cut hours you'd be cutting people's pay and if a business has to hire more people to make up the shortfall, at best, their payroll will stay the same but more likely will increase. It would be like my boss coming to me and saying "you and the rest of your management team work too hard, so we're not going to work you one minute over a 40 hour week." I'd say great. "But the bad news is that we'll need to hire another manager to pick up the slack, and we'll have to cut all of your salaries by 15-20% in order to afford to pay him." I don't think I'd take that deal. I'm not saying that's what you are advocating, Chicago, but that's the likely scenario I'd see playing out here.

 

[Ndaccountant]

If you cut hours you'd be cutting people's pay and if a business has to hire more people to make up the shortfall, at best, their payroll will stay the same but more likely will increase. It would be like my boss coming to me and saying "you and the rest of your management team work too hard, so we're not going to work you one minute over a 40 hour week." I'd say great. "But the bad news is that we'll need to hire another manager to pick up the slack, and we'll have to cut all of your salaries by 15-20% in order to afford to pay him." I don't think I's take that deal. I'm not saying that's what you are advocating, Chicago, but that's the likely scenario I'd see playing out here.

It would no doubt increase. People think of wages as the only business expense, but when you factor in benefits, training, etc the cost of an additional head is much greater than the reduction of hours.

It's an idea for sure, but the simple asnwer is that if the economy grows more rapidly, empoyment will follow. Slow economic growth is a drag on certainty & employment.

 

[chicago51]

If you cut hours you'd be cutting people's pay and if a business has to hire more people to make up the shortfall, at best, their payroll will stay the same but more likely will increase. It would be like my boss coming to me and saying "you and the rest of your management team work too hard, so we're not going to work you one minute over a 40 hour week." I'd say great. "But the bad news is that we'll need to hire another manager to pick up the slack, and we'll have to cut all of your salaries by 15-20% in order to afford to pay him." I don't think I's take that deal. I'm not saying that's what you are advocating, Chicago, but that's the likely scenario I'd see playing out here.

You are 100% correct. I'm not even sure I am in favor of mine own idea. Cutting down to a 35 hour work week is 12.5% pay cut on 40 a hour a week work plain and simple.

Realistically most hourly as opposed to salary earner are in the bottom 3 tax brackets (under 83k). So could give those tax brackets a tax cut. A 5% tax cut be a $120 billion dollar a year tax cut so $1.2 trillion on the 10 year budget projection. I think you could offset that by closing loopholes, going back to the higher 2009 estate tax rate (lowering the estate tax nothing for the economy). You might be able to push the tax cut even higher with tax on wall street trades. The bottom line though is that you be able to cut taxes 6-7% not nearly the 12.5% of pay that would be lost. I don't disregard that being a huge, huge problem.

I'm just saying long term it is something to think about. When 1 machine could do the job of 10 people to raises the question is are current path of employing workers is sustainable. You run a huge stimulus putting people to work on the roads, airports, and mass transit projects but not everyone can do construction. You can put more people to work in community and recreational projects with a stimulus as well but that doesn't solve the long term issue.

I am not saying we should reduce the work week today but I think reducing hours to keep up with technology increased producitivity may be something that has to be done if we don't want double digit unemployment to be the new normal.

 

[chicago51]

It would no doubt increase. People think of wages as the only business expense, but when you factor in benefits, training, etc the cost of an additional head is much greater than the reduction of hours.

It's an idea for sure, but the simple asnwer is that if the economy grows more rapidly, empoyment will follow. Slow economic growth is a drag on certainty & employment.

See my previous post, I agree with the downsides.

We talk about employment following economic growth but what if doesn't? If you look at this recovery it has been unlike any other economic recovery. All the other economic indicators: corporate profits, the stock market, to a large extent GDP growth would tell the economy has largely come back. Yet the unemployment although improving remains stagnent.

Why is that? Democrats want to blaim Republican obstruction, while Republicans want to blaim Obama. The white elephant in the room is that companies are getting better at doing more with less largely because of technology.

I wish Buster was on right now. I don't agree with on many things but I am starting to buy what he is selling about someday having these crazy high unemployments.

 

[Ndaccountant]

See my previous post, I agree with the downsides.

We talk about employment following economic growth but what if doesn't? If you look at this recovery it has been unlike any other economic recovery. All the other economic indicators: corporate profits, the stock market, to a large extent GDP growth would tell the economy has largely come back. Yet the unemployment although improving remains stagnent.

Why is that? Democrats want to blaim Republican obstruction, while Republicans want to blaim Obama. The white elephant in the room is that companies are getting better at doing more with less largely because of technology.

I wish Buster was on right now. I don't agree with on many things but I am starting to buy what he is selling about someday having these crazy high unemployments.

Don't confuse profits with growth.

Look at top line revenue growth adjusted for currency and inflation and that will tell you the real story. Also, you still need to consider that we are still at really low levels of housing starts, heavy manufacturing is soft given China and other EM, commodities are softening and capital spending has been low.

When the real economy picks up, employment will follow. Unfortunately up to this point, we are still low in many key industries.

 

[chicago51]

Speaking of China. Months back I talked about tariffs and they it was a non starter.

The response I got was that it will make things cost more. So I got rehashed a new proposal revenue neutral tariffs.

What if we did revenue neutral tariffs and offset 100% of higer prices of goods resulting from the tariffs with lower taxes, or tax rebates. So right now our average tariff is 2% and we make about $30 billion a year. Say the average tariff was 16% so we generate roughly $240 billion a year but assume because that imports declince so we generate $200-$210 billion. Income taxes are responsible for $2 trillion a year in revenue. Why not just cut the rates by 10%. Since any tax affecting sales is regressive and affects the poor more because as a % percentage of income the poor spend more and save less meaning they a greater sales tax as % of income so maybe reduce all taxes a little and do more tax cuts and more rebates in the lower tax brackets.

I think competition of products rather it be national or global is a good thing. I would prefer equalizer tariffs in terms of wages, environmental, and working conditions that puts US companies on equal footing not necessarily better footing. Ultimately it would done country by country based on scientific analysis.

Basically why not force jobs back to the United States and then offset the entire cost by in effect giving all the tariff revenue back to population? We can also exempt certain goods that we feel we either can't produce ourselves or a vital to the economy like say foreign oil imports which we are trying to cut down on but ultimately still need.

 

[chicago51]

Now I ask fiscal conservatives, wouldn't have been cheaper to fix the bridge before it collapsed?

Yes I know the gas tax is no longer bringing in enough to fund the highway program and yes our highway system isn't exactly well designed when it comes to sustainability. We have do something though to fix the backlog of deffered maintenance and then upgrade our infrastructure for the good of our economy.

Bridge Collapse Likely to Fall on Deaf Ears in Congress -- Again - ABC News

This is from a recent bridge collapse in Washington state.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If you want to make more money and advance, then you should work more.

If you want to sit on your rear, wait for the world to come to you, and be dependent, you should work as few hours as possible.

Or vote left and point the finger at successful people who don't pay their "fair share" for all your shortcomings. Either or.

 

[potownhero]

Speaking of China. Months back I talked about tariffs and they it was a non starter.

The response I got was that it will make things cost more. So I got rehashed a new proposal revenue neutral tariffs.

What if we did revenue neutral tariffs and offset 100% of higer prices of goods resulting from the tariffs with lower taxes, or tax rebates. So right now our average tariff is 2% and we make about $30 billion a year. Say the average tariff was 16% so we generate roughly $240 billion a year but assume because that imports declince so we generate $200-$210 billion. Income taxes are responsible for $2 trillion a year in revenue. Why not just cut the rates by 10%. Since any tax affecting sales is regressive and affects the poor more because as a % percentage of income the poor spend more and save less meaning they a greater sales tax as % of income so maybe reduce all taxes a little and do more tax cuts and more rebates in the lower tax brackets.

I think competition of products rather it be national or global is a good thing. I would prefer equalizer tariffs in terms of wages, environmental, and working conditions that puts US companies on equal footing not necessarily better footing. Ultimately it would done country by country based on scientific analysis.

Basically why not force jobs back to the United States and then offset the entire cost by in effect giving all the tariff revenue back to population? We can also exempt certain goods that we feel we either can't produce ourselves or a vital to the economy like say foreign oil imports which we are trying to cut down on but ultimately still need.

Tariffs with the offset you desribe will hurt the poorest among us.

 

[Black Irish]

Speaking of China. Months back I talked about tariffs and they it was a non starter.

The response I got was that it will make things cost more. So I got rehashed a new proposal revenue neutral tariffs.

What if we did revenue neutral tariffs and offset 100% of higer prices of goods resulting from the tariffs with lower taxes, or tax rebates. So right now our average tariff is 2% and we make about $30 billion a year. Say the average tariff was 16% so we generate roughly $240 billion a year but assume because that imports declince so we generate $200-$210 billion. Income taxes are responsible for $2 trillion a year in revenue. Why not just cut the rates by 10%. Since any tax affecting sales is regressive and affects the poor more because as a % percentage of income the poor spend more and save less meaning they a greater sales tax as % of income so maybe reduce all taxes a little and do more tax cuts and more rebates in the lower tax brackets.

I think competition of products rather it be national or global is a good thing. I would prefer equalizer tariffs in terms of wages, environmental, and working conditions that puts US companies on equal footing not necessarily better footing. Ultimately it would done country by country based on scientific analysis.

Basically why not force jobs back to the United States and then offset the entire cost by in effect giving all the tariff revenue back to population? We can also exempt certain goods that we feel we either can't produce ourselves or a vital to the economy like say foreign oil imports which we are trying to cut down on but ultimately still need.

As long as I don't have to pay more for Irish whiskey and Italian wine.

 

[irishff1014]

Now I ask fiscal conservatives, wouldn't have been cheaper to fix the bridge before it collapsed?

Yes I know the gas tax is no longer bringing in enough to fund the highway program and yes our highway system isn't exactly well designed when it comes to sustainability. We have do something though to fix the backlog of deffered maintenance and then upgrade our infrastructure for the good of our economy.

Bridge Collapse Likely to Fall on Deaf Ears in Congress -- Again - ABC News

This is from a recent bridge collapse in Washington state.

I would like to see the paper trail that this bridge was inspected. Yes i know freak things happen.

 

[Downinthebend]

I wasn't talking about just raising wages for the sake of raising wages.

My main point was cutting down to a 35 hour work week, then maybe a 32.5, and eventually to a 30 hour work week in 2-3 decades. I had 3 points with this:

1- For every 8 workers that lose 5 hours ideally you need a new currently unemployed worker to make up for the work that was lost from cutting hours. The math says we need to increase the workforce 12.5% to make up for the loss of hours. The reality wise is companies will continue to find ways to do more with less but don't need 12.5% we only 7.5% to get 100% employment, and even a 3-4% gain of workers would drop the unemployment to very low levels.
2- With new technology advancements workers are becoming more productive so it allowing companies do more with less. This is only going to get worse. My arguement instead of having less people do more, lets have more people do less.
3- There could potentially be numerous benefits for communities, traffic congestion, and other areas of society.

The BIG! downside is that 40 hour a week hourly earning workers are essentially getting a 12% pay cut. I thinking of raise to offset that until wages along with prices of goods and services in the economy adjust.

Excepting potown's objection, I think this is a fine idea if we could trust that the tax cut would remain lower, rather than be raised at some later point while the tariff remains higher.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

From an interesting article on the Dalai Lama:

In his 1944 book The Abolition of Man, Lewis wrote in support of the great moral tradition that units nearly all of humanity who seek wisdom in ancient texts and modes of life. We have a choice, he argued, of either being part of this great tradition that he called “The Tao” (or “The Way”) or we can be outside all legitimate claims of morality. Morality is to be found, not created, he taught.

“The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in.”

It is modern man, scientific and materialist man, who seeks to break the cake of old morality to fit his new ambitions rather than to make his ambitions fit within the larger scheme of natural law that unites so much of the Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Confucionist, Roman, Greek and pagan traditions. Despite our political divisions, the true divide in the contemporary world might be between those who seek to live their lives within the Tao and those who seek to blot any such concept out of the hearts of men and thereby liberate us to be anything any current generation of individuals choose.

 

[pkt77242]

I would like to see the paper trail that this bridge was inspected. Yes i know freak things happen.

A semi carrying equipment hit a beam. The bridge is listed as a type that will collapse if one part fails. Not shocking that part of it collapsed considering what happened. In fact it should be expected.

 

[MJ12666]

So in case anyone has notice the deficit is falling like really fast. Don't get me wrong there are still long term issues but even doing nothing all it is going to fall below GDP growth by 2015.

I am just really shocked that with the deficit falling so quickly that nobody has tried to take credit for it. You think the Republicans would talk about how much has been cut since they took the House or you think the Democrats would talk about how Obamacare really appears to be slowing the growth in Medicare spending, along with the boost in tax revenues from the ATRA.

You just think with these Washington egos someone would try to take the credit.

I now no why no politician is taking credit. An article published this weekend in a NJ newspaper, the Daily Record, entitled "Toms River hospital lays off 68 workers" states:

Cuts to Medicare and the restructuring of hospital care resulting from the implementation of the Affordable Care Act were cited as the chief reasons positions were eliminated at Toms River Community Medical Center.

Not going to hear the Administration or Congress taking credit for deficit reduction as I am sure that these types of layoffs resulting from the ACA are not going to be limited to NJ. I also saw on the news last night that Oncologists are not treating some patience because the reimbursement under the ACA is too low. These patients will need to get their chemo treatments at hospitals at a great net expense to taxpayers. The fun is only beginning!

 

[Buster Bluth]

So in case anyone has notice the deficit is falling like really fast. Don't get me wrong there are still long term issues but even doing nothing all it is going to fall below GDP growth by 2015.

I am just really shocked that with the deficit falling so quickly that nobody has tried to take credit for it. You think the Republicans would talk about how much has been cut since they took the House or you think the Democrats would talk about how Obamacare really appears to be slowing the growth in Medicare spending, along with the boost in tax revenues from the ATRA.

You just think with these Washington egos someone would try to take the credit.

Your boy Ezra Klein:

Stop celebrating our falling deficits

 

[Bluto]

From an interesting article on the Dalai Lama:

That is an interesting article. It is also interesting to myself how unquestioningly "conservatives" cling to the idea of laise faire capitalism (ie neo-liberalism) and then bemoan the loss of traditional culture that results.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That is an interesting article. It is also interesting to myself how unquestioningly "conservatives" cling to the idea of laise faire capitalism (ie neo-liberalism) and then bemoan the loss of traditional culture that results.

Agreed. I'm coming to understand how hopeless the GOP is. There are no real conservatives in America; just neo-liberals suffering from cognitive dissonance. They'll fight to the death over the trappings of traditionalism, but the social conventions that once supported it have long since been destroyed. Do they understand what they're fighting for? Or more importantly, what they're fighting against?

From the article:

At the root of the Dalai Lama’s understanding of the good life is a profoundly illiberal understanding of humanity. Where the modern liberal project is based on the Lockean and Hobbesian lie that everything rests on the autonomous individual, the Tibetan gave us a vision of humanity existing in families and in community with one another.

What are the chances of reviving a genuine conservatism that challenges the core assumptions of the American experiment? I despair.

 

[chicago51]

That is an interesting article. It is also interesting to myself how unquestioningly "conservatives" cling to the idea of laise faire capitalism (ie neo-liberalism) and then bemoan the loss of traditional culture that results.

Laise faire capitalism is essentially like playing monopoly one person always win and in the end their is no "free market". Although I would argue what we have is almost government controlled corporatism and both parties are in on the game. I do appreciate this thread as it has made reflect on my own views and rethink things.

I've come to grips that Democrat party has not come to grips with confronting corporatism just as today's GOP doesn't. Sure they are in favor of using tax payer dollars to subsidize those that can't afford to live the corporatist world but they don't address the problem of coraptism itself.

Corporatism is like a victim being stabbed repeatedly with a knife. Modern day democrats chose to put a bandaid over the wound but they don't address guy stabbing them with the knife over and over. The result is ultimately alot of waste because the need for bandaging the wounds over and over. The modern day Republicans do recognize that bandaging the wound over and again is wasteful but like the Democrats they don't address the root of issue. They just let the victims bleed out. Neither choice is the correct choice.

The correct choice I feel is to have a legitimate safety for those who need it. The main thing though is address corporatism so there is really competition in the marketplace. More competition equals better prices, more companies equals more jobs. We need ultimately have a better set of conditions were individuals have a better chance for social mobility so we don't use as much resources on the safety. Ultimately I think we need to ensure fair wages. I recognize though that minimum wage increases favor large companies as small employers struggle to meet the cost. If there was more competition between many small companies instead a few big ones with a few small one's trying to make then a minimum wage hike would much more fair for companies across the board.

I would ditch the Democratic party in a heartbeat if I felt their was another Teddy Roosevelt style Republican that would go after the "too big to fail" companies and regulate the market place so that we had more competition and a truly free market with resonable standards for worker safety and consumer protection without overbearing regulation that it prevents new competion in the market place.

I compare to wear America is today in some ways to the Gilded Age were we essentially had a growing wealth cap between the rich and poor. The Gilded age was also kind of a prolonged recession.

Thing about the Gilded Age was that we got out of it as it sparked the progressive era with the TR and Wilson presidency's (and somewhat during the Taft presidency). The progressive era was essentially both a push for economic populism and social liberatarianism (women sufferage came at the end of the progressive era). I think we are seeing roots of that start to develope today. The issue today is that oligarchs are spending huge amounts to keep "governmnet regulated oligarchy dominated corporatism" in place. So while the big social push of this era, marriage equality although receiving some push back is not receiving corporate push back, on the other issues addressing economic equality/fairness are receiving a great deal of push back from the corportate world.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Laise faire capitalism is essentially like playing monopoly one person always win and in the end their is no "free market". Although I would argue what we have is almost government controlled corporatism and both parties are in on the game. I do appreciate this thread as it has made reflect on my own views and rethink things.

I've come to grips that Democrat party has not come to grips with confronting corporatism just as today's GOP doesn't. Sure they are in favor of using tax payer dollars to subsidize those that can't afford to live the corporatist world but they don't address the problem of coraptism itself.

Corporatism is like a victim being stabbed repeatedly with a knife. Modern day democrats chose to put a bandaid over the wound but they don't address guy stabbing them with the knife over and over. The result is ultimately alot of waste because the need for bandaging the wounds over and over. The modern day Republicans do recognize that bandaging the wound over and again is wasteful but like the Democrats they don't address the root of issue. They just let the victims bleed out. Neither choice is the correct choice.

The correct choice I feel is to have a legitimate safety for those who need it. The main thing though is address corporatism so there is really competition in the marketplace. More competition equals better prices, more companies equals more jobs. We need ultimately have a better set of conditions were individuals have a better chance for social mobility so we don't use as much resources on the safety. Ultimately I think we need to ensure fair wages. I recognize though that minimum wage increases favor large companies as small employers struggle to meet the cost. If there was more competition between many small companies instead a few big ones with a few small one's trying to make then a minimum wage hike would much more fair for companies across the board.

I would ditch the Democratic party in a heartbeat if I felt their was another Teddy Roosevelt style Republican that would go after the "too big to fail" companies and regulate the market place so that we had more competition and a truly free market with resonable standards for worker safety and consumer protection without overbearing regulation that it prevents new competion in the market place.

I compare to wear America is today in some ways to the Gilded Age were we essentially had a growing wealth cap between the rich and poor. The Gilded age was also kind of a prolonged recession.

Thing about the Gilded Age was that we got out of it as it sparked the progressive era with the TR and Wilson presidency's (and somewhat during the Taft presidency). The progressive era was essentially both a push for economic populism and social liberatarianism (women sufferage came at the end of the progressive era). I think we are seeing roots of that start to develope today. The issue today is that oligarchs are spending huge amounts to keep "governmnet regulated oligarchy dominated corporatism" in place. So while the big social push of this era, marriage equality although receiving some push back is not receiving corporate push back, on the other issues addressing economic equality/fairness are receiving a great deal of push back from the corportate world.

Eh. I'll comment on this when I'm off work. I 70% agree with this.

 

[chicago51]

Eh. I'll comment on this when I'm off work. I 70% agree with this.

Please do.

While don't always agree I do respect you as some who is not an idiot.

 

[DSully1995]

Doubt true free markets would lead to monopolies in most markets ( almost all who dont need any gov. regulation). I mean if it were to become a monopoly, and that monopoly turns to price gouging to raise profits, there should be a flood of competition.

(obvious eception is natural monopolies ie. electricity power or scarce ressources)

The reality is that its almost government that creates and enforces monopolies, im not saying that Bayer shouldnt be rewarded for developing life saving drugs (they should and are) but the constant creation and destruction of the free market should prevent the overlord type industries you fear. Barriers to entry are largely from the regulations in place.

 

[Black Irish]

Doubt true free markets would lead to monopolies in most markets ( almost all who dont need any gov. regulation). I mean if it were to become a monopoly, and that monopoly turns to price gouging to raise profits, there should be a flood of competition.

(obvious eception is natural monopolies ie. electricity power or scarce ressources)

The reality is that its almost government that creates and enforces monopolies, im not saying that Bayer shouldnt be rewarded for developing life saving drugs (they should and are) but the constant creation and destruction of the free market should prevent the overlord type industries you fear. Barriers to entry are largely from the regulations in place.

+1. Stacking the deck against the little guy contributes mightily against real change happening in both markets and politics.

 

[chicago51]

Doubt true free markets would lead to monopolies in most markets ( almost all who dont need any gov. regulation). I mean if it were to become a monopoly, and that monopoly turns to price gouging to raise profits, there should be a flood of competition.

(obvious eception is natural monopolies ie. electricity power or scarce ressources)

The reality is that its almost government that creates and enforces monopolies, im not saying that Bayer shouldnt be rewarded for developing life saving drugs (they should and are) but the constant creation and destruction of the free market should prevent the overlord type industries you fear. Barriers to entry are largely from the regulations in place.

Well in the 1870s to 1900s free markets pretty much did lead to monopolies. Standard Oil is a good example. That is what anti-trust laws are for though. I would take 1906 rather than 2013 at least in terms of the way we deal corporations. Let competition run its course and if need be take anti-trust action. However in 2010s yes we essentially have government created oligarchies.

I would like to see the drug patent at 2 years not 7.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

"Sometimes a nut is just a nut."

"This is a good riddance moment."

-Steve Schmidt, McCain 2008 Campaign Manager (speaking of Michele Bachmann)

 

[chicago51]

"Sometimes a nut is just a nut."

-Steve Schmidt, McCain 2008 Campaign Manager (speaking of Michele Bachmann)

Bachmann is not running for election in 2014.

It is actually a good day for the Republican party and I think a good day for America.

I hope the Republican party sheds more nuts like Bachmann. A better Republican is better for the Democratic Party as it should push them to improve as well and it is better for America as well.

We got 5 and half more years at least but would like Ted Cruz to go.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Bachmann is not running for election in 2014.

It is actually a good day for the Republican party and I think a good day for America.

I hope the Republican party sheds more nut like Bachmann. A better Republican is better for the Democratic Party as it should push them to improve as well and it is better for America as well.

We got 5 and half more years at least but would like to Ted Cruz go.

That was my point. Good for America. Facts are important. She doesn't deal with facts...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...29/michele-bachmann-truth-o-meter-politifact/

 

[potownhero]

Bachmann is not running for election in 2014.

It is actually a good day for the Republican party and I think a good day for America.

I hope the Republican party sheds more nut like Bachmann. A better Republican is better for the Democratic Party as it should push them to improve as well and it is better for America as well.

We got 5 and half more years at least but would like to Ted Cruz go.

Who said that if we like our insurance plans that we could keep them? Who was that nut? Who were the nuts that believed him? Let's face it, if Bachmann falls under the nut category, this President does as well.

Do you remember when he talked about giving a kid with asthma a breathalyzer...or when he talked about visitng 57 states...what a nut! I could go on and on with the nutty things that he's said...

Like your health care policy? You may be losing it: Associated Press - MSN Money