(Untitled)

Sep 13, 2005 20:02


Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 11

mamaursula September 14 2005, 01:21:06 UTC
I had been thinking about public works myself for NoLa.
I didn't care that Kerry windsurfed, I cared that after the 2000 election that if that was the best the Democrats had to offer they had apparently not been paying attention.

Reply

palanthos September 14 2005, 03:35:52 UTC
*chortle*

And Bush was so much better than Kerry.

That's like saying I'm not going to move into the Playboy mansion because I've already got a condo in the Bronx.

Reply

mamaursula September 14 2005, 13:10:40 UTC
That is precisely my point. If the Democratic Party couldn't convince enough people with condos in the Bronx to elect Kerry in the Playboy mansion, then the Democratic Party failed. After everything that happened in 2000 I was *CERTAIN* that we would have a Democrat for President in 2004, imagine my surprise when Bush got re-elected. It only goes to show that the majority of people in the right places in the US like(d) Bush. Sorry, but what are you gonna do? Not re-elect him again?

Reply

palanthos September 14 2005, 13:57:25 UTC
The major failing of the Democratic bid for the presidency in '04 lies not just with their choice of candidate (I do think, "yeeeaarrrgghhh" not withstanding, Dean was the best choice), but also with the campaign they ran.

The Democrats were concerned with running a campaign that was too negative, that would turn off voters who disliked mudslinging and the like. They ran a campaign where instead of screaming and pointing, "look how screwed up things are because of this guy!," they tried to say, "we can do it better."

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, the Dems didn't do a good enough job of saying your condo in the Bronx sucks balls.

Reply


cussedness September 14 2005, 01:49:54 UTC
I think that public works would be a great thing, however, I doubt that's going to happen. Bush has already given a great many contracts out to people like haliburton to rebuild NoLa, and he's made an executive order allowing them to pay below the minimum wage.

Reply

palanthos September 14 2005, 03:40:13 UTC
It's a shame. Even in the face of an opportunity to do something great... ugh.

I hadn't heard about the executive order than bypasses minimum wage law. I wonder what the gross profit on these contracts will be? Hmmm.

Reply

barry September 14 2005, 13:00:48 UTC
Its not the minumum wage that they can pay under. Its the prevailing wage. There is a huge difference. Prevailing wages are minimum pay rates for specific areas of skilled labor in which you would have a required minimum amount of education such as a boilermaker, mason, or carpenter.

Prevailing wages are usually $15-$20 per hour plus a minimum requirement for benefits.

Reply

mamaursula September 14 2005, 13:12:51 UTC
Is that so they can get actual people to do the jobs, rather than wish they had people because the local companies don't have money, or is there some nefarious reason that I am too naive to see (such as profit, as the other more cynical people have indicated)?

Reply


aldiablo September 14 2005, 12:30:50 UTC
no doubt, Roosevelt's dead and could probably make better decisions.

Reply

internofdoom September 14 2005, 12:39:04 UTC
/signed

Reply


Leave a comment

Up