Posted on 01/29/2007 11:47:35 AM PST by DredTennis
Laura Ingraham, the willowy, conservative radio talker, really nailed it. She was speaking last Friday night as part of a panel discussion at a "conservative summit" in Washington held by National Review magazine. Ingraham said she was impressed by Jim Webb's televised rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address, particularly the part that hit on economics. In his talk, the newbie U.S. senator from Virginia launched a populist attack on the Bush economic years, railing about growing income inequality, skyrocketing CEO pay, outsourcing, and the so-called middle-class squeeze. Although Webb's stern speaking manner and improbable hair are easy to mock, Ingraham urged her fellow conservatives to pay serious attention to his message. "The party that comes off as the party that represents the American worker best is the party that wins in 2008," she said, adding that the GOP will be relegated to the political wilderness if it goes back "to being the party of the elites."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
No.
What Laura Ingram and I am saying is, the GOP had better come up with a way to deal with the resentments that are building up because of decreasing wages for these kind of jobs. A P'Od meat packer has the same vote as a CEO.
Another "blame everybody but the Republican party" clueless wonder.
Earth to Republicans. I don't owe your party anything. Grow a pair, state your principles and stand up for them. If you don't, you will NOT get my vote. If you don't want my vote, then don't whine if your party loses.
It was unfortunate that a person like Bill Clinton took advantage of Republican stupidity, but it does not excuse them.
This is not much different from what the DUmmies were hollering on the morning Kerry conceded.....
"There's nothing wrong with US!!! It's those damn ignorant VOTERS!!"
Anything grown/raised in Texas/Calif./ southwest can be grown/raised in Mexico.
In theory, in actuality Mexico needs to cut back on corruption before it can produce anything.
He got fired. The pay reflected the contract he got when Home Depot recruited him. He was one of the runners up for Jack Welch's job at G.E. and a hot commodity.
This happens in other arenas too. T.O. hasn't done much for the Dallas Cowboys for his $26 million, but there were high hopes when he was brought in. He's good, but not great. He's not even the #1 receiver on the team. Will T.O. be around next season? Who knows.
Katie Couric is pulling down $60 million to pull CBS into the ratings toilet. Someone at CBS must have thought replacing a lefty with an even bigger lefty was a great idea, if only because she was so perky. Will she see the end of her contract? Yeah, but probaby not as network news anchor.
People make mistakes in hiring for top positions just like the do for entry level ones. The difference is the people at the top have contracts that must be honored. It's not unfair. It's a reflection that the people are "perceived" to be among the very best in their fields of work.
It's a reflection that the people are "perceived" to be among the very best in their fields of work.
It's a reflection that companies need to start paying according to actual performance on the job and not according to perceptions.
The food industry can do the same thing and the Mexican Government will welcome them.
No doubt you're correct that more and more of the food industry will move south. It makes sense on several levels. They have the labor already and can produce the off season produce due to their latitude.
Well, pay does catch up to performance eventually. Only full commission salespeople and business owners are paid purely on performance.
You seem hostile about it. Why?
Ingraham is basically saying the GOP needs to return back to its economic roots. Lower taxes, less government, fair trade policies...remember those?
You seem hostile about it. Why?
I used to work for a company that was run by one of the bad ones. I left there to start my own business before they closed the last plant but five years later many of the former workers are at $10/hour jobs. Of course most executives aren't like that one, but I still have no respect for people who have never taken the risk to start their own business and yet get paid multi millions. It seems to me that earning potential should go hand in hand with risk.
Fair trade sounds Reaganesque.
Bump for later reading. Yes, this is a real phenomena.
GOP's love of free trade cost us in November. Whether you agree with free trade or not (I don't) it is rapidl falling out of favor with voters.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116321182770520568-YgmqKBgqd0_Sw5C3Hd5FC0NQvto_20061210.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009282
I did not say it was right ( I for the record support fair trade adn trade reciprocity), there could be and has been many 500+ post thread on that alone. But my point is this, more and more people are turning against it. And voting accordingly. They did so in 2006 and I suspect more will do so in 2008. It is a big loser for us and could really help get a rat elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.