Former vice presidential nominee John Edwards, who connected with voters in 2004 with his “two Americas” stump speech, is again focusing on poverty in preparation for a possible run for the presidency. Hurricane Katrina, he says, made the issue more urgent.
The Washington Post detailed his plan, which he would pay for by rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans: “His policy proposals include raising the minimum wage to $7.50 an hour, which he said would lift a million people out of poverty. He also proposed creating a million temporary government-subsidized jobs over five years, tax credits for first-time home buyers, a radical overhaul of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, tax credits to help low-income workers establish savings accounts, and expanded opportunities to attend college.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
48 Comments
Raising the minim wage is good as long as it does not also raise the cost of living, that would defeat the purpose. We actually would do more good by lowering the cost of living, it would serve better to increase the buying power of money that people have so it could be spread out farther.
Welfare as it is administrated it more a trap, instead of a hand up it is used as a hand out. example: You are judge to receive at total of seven hundred dollars a month this includes food stamps and a monthly allotment. If you work a minim wage job part time in that month, what ever you receive in pay is then deducted from your next month’s welfare. There is no net gain from your working, as such you will remain at the same level that qualified you to be on welfare in the first place. In most states a full time minim wage job does not equal the benefit you would receive on welfare, so where is the incentive to get a job?This needs to be fixed as a country’s real wealth is not in a few being wealthy but everyone doing well.
The idea of savings account is nice, tax cuts are swell. But like the so called tax cut that was nothing more then to forestall paying the same amount owed. But instead of spreading it out over a year, you had to pay the amount that had not been paid at the end of the year. If the money is not there, it makes no difference how it is to be spent. If it is taking every cent just to live, where is the money to be put into a savings?If you fall short to be able to pay for life, a tax cut will do little to better your situation.
Such programs are based on a shortsighted view of a person’s life, much like the so called tax cut it makes the assumption that there is extra money to begin with and all it takes is a realignment.
There’s a bigger audience of have nots this time.
Sounds like the typical Democrat message here. Don’t do anything for yourself just sit back and wait for the government to do everything for you. If you offer enough freebies the people will come and come they are. Hard working people are paying for these programs so that others can collect a check and food stamps. The hard working cannot get ahead because of taxes eating their paychecks up. But let’s make sure we take more so that we can create more welfare programs and have the government be our savior.
sts, I notice you havent posted on the previous thread? Afraid of getting your republican butt kicked?
Or do you only proll certain threads?
When the Democrats say raise the minimum wage, they are not targeting the people who are making minimum wage.
Less than 2% of the workforce make minimum wage and a vast majority of them are teenagers. Everybody uses the McDonalds analogy. Go into a McDonalds here in town and they will hire you for $7 an hour, not minimum wage.
The Democrats make it out like that vast amount of the working poor are minimum wage earners and that is not true.
The truth of the matter is that many union contracts have their wage index to the minimum wage. So if you raise the minimum wage $2 an hour, a Union Worker making $25 an hour just got an automatic raise to $27 an hour.
That is why the largest group of people pushing minimum wage are DING DING DING! Unions! Not because minimum wage earners are represented by unions or that the union people even care about them, it’s because of the index.
Just a secret Union pandering scheme to get votes from the Union. Nice disinformational trick Democrats. But what do you expect.
Joe the bell is for you. You do not get to ring it.
The gist of Joes post is that wages rise for everyone in the working class when the minimum wage rises.
This is a bad thing?
Well only for those who are actively pursuing increasing the gap between the haves and have lesses.
JR dont you know that in joe’s world
workers = bad
Big business = good
welfare = bad
corporate handouts = good
Dont you wish it was all so simple in the real world?
JR,
Joe can do whatever he wants JR. Contrary to your opinion of yourself, you are not the almighty supreme king of the blog. Everything doesn’t revolve around you.
How did that boycott of yours turnout JR?
Seemed to me that plenty of people showed up even with your protesting.
KFG,
I think Joe can explain his thoughts better than you can. Go back to doing whatever it is you do around here…
JR,
I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to say anything about KFG’s posts…
Something aong the lines of:
“Why post that? I have no idea as to its relevance. Further it is a baseless, personal, assumptive shot.”
Well as much as I might be perceived as “trying to run things” Nathan even though you are wrong at least its just a blog. I don’t busy myself telling other people how to live or posting personal hit pieces like you do. And as to my boycott and it only being me. Just how would you know? All I wanted was for the Eagle to sell it better. It is easier to be you and slobber all over the editors than to take a stand.
If anyone actually looked at Edwards agenda and policies he is one of the most openly socialist candidates I have seen.
If you like socialism, then this is your guy.
My friends and I had a conversation about the minimum wage the other day.
The question came up:
Can you name one place that you know only pays minimum wage besides working as a server at a restaurant?
WD,
You are correct about the deducting of money earned. I’m assuming you chose the $700 number at random, and that’s fine.
But let’s clear up some of this.
A household consisting of one, single person does not receive $700 in assistance in this state. Not even by combining TAF and Food Stamps. A household of two does not receive as much as $700.
For a single parent receiving child support who is on assistance, that child support goes to SRS and becomes a part of TAF (cash assistance).
If child support is not being paid at the time TAF is being administered, if and when child support IS paid, a part of each payment is deducted and repaid to SRS until the total is paid off.
And this is especially for sotheysaid:
There is a 60 month lifetime limit on TAF.
1 cent of each tax dollar goes into TAF. More of your tax dollar is going to corportate welfare.
If anyone honestly believes people can life on welfare, please think again.
http://www.srskansas.org/
I’ve read Joe just as long as you have Nathan. And longer than kfg has.
I’d call her assessment of Joe posts dead on.
Awww whatsamatter Nathan? Did that little quote of mine from another thread you just threw at me hit ya a little close to a tender spot?
Good!
JR,
I am still waiting for you to say anything about the crap your great and wonderful pal KFG posts.
She will post 15 times the crap that anyone of us will and yet you are going to get you panties in a wad because I called you a miserable little coward?
Stop your crying.
JR,
In that case JR, I would call my assessment of you being a miserable little coward dead on too.
LOL
When the minimum wage is raised the wages for all rise.
Isn’t that sorta a version of a rising tide lifting all boats?
Oh I forgot, yachts hit ground in the shallow water. That deep keel and all.
JR,
Who pays minimum wage?
On top of that, what do you think happens to a business when the minimum wage is increased? Do you think the managmenent just eats the cost or do they simply raise their prices?
Nathan,
Waitresses and waiters do not make minimum wage. Hourly wage for those jobs is far below minimum wage because they receive gratuities (tips).
Now for a look at minimum wage:
Minimum Wage and Overtime Premium Pay Standards Applicable toNonsupervisory NONFARM Private Sector EmploymentUnder State and Federal LawsMarch 1, 2006
5 states (Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, and South Carolina) do not have a minimum wage law.
In Kansas, the minimum wage is $2.65, and the State law excludes from coverage any employment that is subject to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
Oh, and just an FYI, red states receive more welfare than blue, paid for by blue states. Sorry, I don’t have that link anymore.
Methinks I hit Nathan in the meme yesterday.
“Waaaaa mommy, waaaaaa, kfg is posting again. Waaaaa, and she is being truthful, I mean hateful. Waaaaaaaaa”
Nathan, the only crybaby around here is YOU! Get over it… heheh
I am merely saying what joe ALWAYS says, just using fewer words. IF posting someone’s words back to them is a personal cheap shot… I dont get it.
But you sure do, since posting your own words back to you is a surefire way of pointing out your inherently illogical, inconsistant, and self contradicting statements.
You also dont like being called on the meme or talking point of the day. We are on to you nathan.
If you believe your own afflack, er, posts, why do you care if we RE-POST? I mean, if brilliant once, why not twice? heheh
“Waaaa, mommy, kfg is telling others what I said. Waaaaa”
Why do you hate it that I have friends?
Why do you hate friendship? heheheh
I think the CEOS and stockholders can more than make up the dif Nathan.
I just love when I drag Nathan out from behind verbal and logical gymnastics kfg. Watching his Christian demeanor melt away and seeing him get mad and start taking personal shots is the sugar on my cereal!
KFG,
LOL, I don’t caer what you post it is just that you purposefully twist and distort what people say.
If you and JR want to be best of friends more power to you. It wont change the fact that he is a miserable little coward and you are nothing more than a hateful mean old woman.
Those are not personal attacks, they are an honest evaluation of your posting here.
heheh. why would nathan want to turn the direction of this thread and make it about JR. OR me? heheh RD, what number on the list is re-directing a thread?
Notice how and when nathan uses this tactic. When the posts on the thread dont follow him, he re-directs, and then… ACCUSES OTHER OF DOING IT! Like STS on the loanmax thread. Dont like it? Re-direct, and then accuse ME of redirecting.
MEME ALER!!!!!!
Up is down and black is white. And when all else fails, change the subject.
Now back to your regular programing of all meme all the time. Let’s get back to edwards…
JR,
I aim to please.
“It wont change the fact that he is a miserable little coward and you are nothing more than a hateful mean old woman.”
Damn, twofer meme.
I am HOWLING with laughter. JR, your cereal must have so much sugar in it you will get diabetes from eating it!!!!
heheh. predicable. Waaaaaaaaa…
The only thing nathan hates more than homosexual pastafarians and single liberal fathers is being laughed at.
heheheh
By all means keep sputtering Nathan. Do wipe off your screen now and again.
You are melting down Nathan.
For purposes of reader information, kfg is 50
So we may determine that to Nathan, 50 is “old”
Furhter, Nathan has met kfg IN PERSON twice. I was there. She was in no way “mean” to him or anyone else!I think she even gave him a hug! I know she sent food home for him and his dad after providing enough for everyone else who came.
SO Nathan is EITHER melting down to meme “mean” personal baseless shots, OR he is simply a happy liar.
I say he is melting down.
KFG…I’m checking on the list now…have printed the directive, er, points.
Raising minimum wage does nothing but hurt the economy. Yes! Union workers benefit. But Unions are only good for exisiting workers, they are terrible for those just entering the work force and for future generations.
Look at the Union control over GM and Ford. Sure they get paid way above their skill and education level, but they are sacrificing the future generation but not allowing them to enter the workforce due to Union senority system and the pay range out of wack causes it to move elsewhere.
That is why Automobile Manufacturing is moving to the South, and who is suffering? Detroit.
When you have an average age of workers in GM around 48 years old, and less than 3% of workers are under 30 years of age, that is a problem.
Union workers make great money, but their children suffer for their selfishness.
Raising the minimum wage won’t hurt anybody but the people that are making it. Forcing mom and pop stores to pay more for the teenage worker will do nothing but limit the number of jobs available to them.
Nobody but union workers index to minimum wage benefit. You, JR! Aren’t going to benefit, because you make more than minimum wage, same with KFG, unless you work for a union contract index to it.
Raising the minimum wage will adversly effect the people who make it. Small town mom and pops will suffer and teenagers will find employment opportunities lacking. so the people at the bottom end of the pay scale will suffer.
As my example. The Democrats will have you believe that getting rid of the minimum wage will make companies pay next to nothing an hour and exploit them. Same with a low minimum wage. That companies comply with just paying minimum wage.
If that was the case, why does McDonalds pay $7 to $8 an hour, Wal-Mart pay $8 an hour, A cook at Applebees make $10 an hour? You tell me who makes minimum wage? Tell me anybody you know.
The truth of the matter is that the MARKET determines the wages, not government minimum.
Raising the minimum wage really wouldn’t do anything if it is set lower than the MARKET economy. But once you start raising it above that, then you will be in a world of hurt.
How about we just raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour? That way everybody could live the good life. What do you think? $20 an hour sound good?
OMG, I just have two words about that post. Tortured logic. I wouldnt even know where to start unraveling the leaps in it. This is just ONE example:
“Union workers make great money, but their children suffer for their selfishness.”
?????
I’m too stunned to even ring da bell.
Joe,
It’s been figured that the minimum age at this point in time should be around $12, considering all economic factors. $20 an hour would then equate to what is currently $8.
I remember saying during the Nixon administration that economics are circular. When the minimum wage is raised, eventually the prices of all products increase. Funny thing is, the minimum wage hasn’t gone up in 9 years, and prices are definitely higher than they were then. So any way we go, we’re screwed.
It’s time to re-evaluate our ecomonics. It’s time to take a close look at those who are making the big bucks versus those who aren’t making enough to live on and see how we need to adjust.
For those mom & pop stores, most often, a raise in minimum wage won’t affect what they pay. In many states, they fall under the # of employees. And here in KS, well…
Ding ding ding ding! Hate to ring and run. I’ll take that all apart later for ya Joe.
“The Truth of the matter is that the market determines wages, not a government minimum.”ding ding ding ding! (Little dings cause you are only half wrong here)
Yes Joe, market forces DO determine wages. WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE AS THE FLOOR!
Take out or lower the floor and those market forces will go the same direction.
Gotta go now. Joe have you considered digging up the old tower thread we helped you get and posting your new web page there during a heavy traffic time?
Just an idea.
OMG! Raise the minimum wage to $12. Welcome to unemployment hell!
RD! You really don’t understand economics.
You raise the minimum wage to $12, and most of anybody making under that amount will be unemployed.
Raising minimum wage to $12 an hour is an equivilant of making an employer pay $20 an hour.
A teenager employee making $5.15 an hour really cost the employer close to $10 for that employer.
It’s not as simple as you say it should work, because it doesn’t work that way.
Government mandidate on wages and prices have always proved to be a systematic failure.
We shouldn’t have it in the first place. Let the market economy take care of wages, like it does now. You make the government dictate wages and you will see so much offshoring, business closures, and unemployement. It will make your head spin.
Just look to socalized Europe as an example. Unemployment in the double digits, life time employment laws making it impossible for young people to find jobs, and etc. Trust me you don’t want this system in USA.
It is the fault of leftist clowns like edwards and fat teddy that we have increasing poverty and a growing gap between haves and have nots. Immigration both legal and illegal and the inlux of low iq cretins from the third world have contibuted to the decrease in wages and the standard of liveing for all Americans! Edwards is trying to talk out of his mouth and backside at the same time!
Importing PovertyImmigration’s Impact on the Size and Growth of the Poor Population in the United States
By Steven A. Camarota
——————————————————————————–
What is Poverty?
Most examinations of poverty in the United States have typically focused either on how broad economic trends and social welfare policy affect the size of the population living in poverty or the socio-demographic characteristics of those in poverty. Almost no research has examined immigration’s impact on the incidence of poverty in the United States. This report looks at the composition of persons living in poverty in 1979, 1989, and 1997 in order to evaluate the effect of immigration policy on the size and growth of the poor population (poor and poverty are used synonymously). The findings indicate that despite a strong economy over much of this period, the poverty rate for persons in immigrant-headed households not only has remained high, but actually has increased significantly in the last two decades. As a result, immigration has become a major factor in the size and growth of poverty.
Findings
The gap between immigrant and native poverty almost tripled in size between 1979 and 1997. The poverty rate for persons living in immigrant households grew dramatically, from 15.5 percent in 1979 to 18.8 percent in 1989 and to 21.8 percent in 1997, while over the same period the poverty rate for persons in native households stayed relatively constant at roughly 12 percent.
In 1997, more than one in five persons (21.6 percent) living in poverty resided in an immigrant household. And nearly one in four children in poverty now lives in an immigrant household. In comparison, only 9.7 percent of the poor lived in immigrant households in 1979.
The growth in immigrant-related poverty accounted for 75 percent (3 million people) of the total increase in the size of the poor population between 1989 and 1997. This increase is enough to entirely offset the 2.7 million reduction in the size of the poor population that results from the $64 billion spent annually on means-tested cash assistance programs.
Immigration is one of the primary factors causing the nation’s overall poverty rate and the number of people living in poverty to be higher today than they were 20 years ago. If immigrant-headed households are excluded, the total number of people in poverty in 1997 and the nation’s poverty rate would have been only slightly higher than it was in the late 1970s.
This rise in immigrant-related poverty was caused partly by an increase in the poverty rate for each wave of new arrivals. In 1979, the poverty rate for persons living in households headed by an immigrant who arrived in the ten year prior was 23 percent; by 1997, the poverty rate for individuals in households headed by a new immigrant had increased to 29.2 percent.
The increase in immigrant-related poverty was also caused by a slowing in the pace of progress immigrants make in moving out of poverty over time. For example, the poverty rate for immigrant households who arrived in the 1980s was still over 25 percent in 1997 — double that of natives.
The increase in the poverty rate for immigrant households in the 1990s was very broad, affecting persons with different levels of education and individuals in and out of the labor force, as well as households from most parts of the world. The rise in the poverty rate was particularly large for children in immigrant households, increasing from 24.8 to 30.9 percent.
The gap in the poverty rate for persons in immigrant and native households widened in every region of the country and in almost every major metropolitan area during the 1990s.
The poverty rate varies significantly by region of origin. Immigrants from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America have the highest poverty rates, while those from Europe and Asia tend to have the lowest.
In addition to an increased likelihood of living in poverty, people in immigrant households are also more likely to be near-poor. In 1997, 13.4 percent of persons in immigrant households had incomes that were only 50 percent above the poverty line compared to 8.6 percent of natives. In total, 35.2 percent or 12.4 million persons in immigrant households live in or near poverty.
The high poverty rate associated with immigrants is primarily explained by their much lower levels of education, higher unemployment, and larger family size. However, even after controlling for a wide variety of factors, including race, age, family structure, and education, statistical analysis indicates that persons in immigrant households are still significantly more likely to be living in poverty than individuals in native households.
Welfare reform does not seem to have caused the rise in immigrant poverty. Immigrant poverty was increasing well before 1996, when Congress curtailed benefits to legal immigrants. Moreover, the gap between the poverty rate for people living in immigrant and native households has actually narrowed slightly since welfare reform was enacted.
The rise in immigrant poverty was not caused by an increase in the recency of the immigrant population. Since newly arrived immigrants tend to have higher poverty rates than those who are more established, an increase in the proportion of persons living in households headed by a newly arrived immigrant might account for the rise in poverty. However, this is not the case. Households headed by new arrivals account for a smaller share of the total population living in immigrant households in 1997 than in 1979.
The high poverty rate associated with immigrants is not explained by the presence of illegal immigrants. Although their poverty rate is high, illegal aliens comprise only an estimated 22.5 percent of persons in immigrant households living in poverty in 1997.
Why Care About Immigration’s Impact on Poverty?
Impact on the Poor Already Here. Probably the most obvious reason for concern about immigration’s impact on the incidence of poverty in the United States is the effect on the poor already here, both native and immigrant. The cost of means-tested programs designed to help the poor depends in large part on the number of people who are eligible to receive benefits and services. If immigration increases the number of people who are in need of assistance, then this can only raise the cost of such efforts and undermine political support for programs that already are unpopular. Alternately, if overall government expenditures on programs for the poor are kept constant, each recipient’s benefit must be reduced so that all can be covered. Therefore, if one is concerned about the poor already here, increasing the number of people in or near poverty through immigration is clearly counter-productive.
Effect on the Tax Base. Because of their very low incomes and the progressive nature of most taxes, individuals in poverty pay very little in taxes. Not surprisingly, they also tend to use a great deal of services provided by the government, especially means-tested programs. As a result, they are, almost without exception, a net drain on public coffers. If immigration increases the size of the poor population, then this is very likely to have a negative effect on the tax base, particularly in those cities and states where most immigrants settle.
Impact on Political and Social Stability. As well-known political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset has observed, democracies can only really work in societies that are not beset by large-scale poverty and deprivation. Widespread poverty makes it much more difficult to engage in the kind of give and take that is an integral part of the democratic process. Social science research also indicates that the distribution of income has an impact on how people view one another: with more poverty comes less trust and greater suspicion of others. Great disparities in income cannot help but create greater social distance between members of a community and this in turn is likely to have a negative impact on political and social harmony. Moreover, it is well established that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to be involved in illicit activity, have higher teenage pregnancy rates, exhibit lower academic achievement, and suffer from a host of other social problems that are much less common among children who do not grow up poor. The poverty that the children of immigrants experience today is likely to have long-term consequences for them and our nation.
Implications for Immigrant and Immigration Policy. In addition to the impact on American society in general, looking at poverty among immigrants is also important because it is one way of evaluating the consequences of current immigration policy. It also gives us a good idea of how immigrants admitted in the future are likely to fare if current policy remains in place. This is particularly important because, without a change in immigration policy, 10 million new immigrants likely will settle permanently in the United States in just the next decade. The success, or lack thereof, of past immigrants is probably the best means we have of predicting how tomorrow’s immigrants will do if the same selection criteria continue to be used.
In addition to immigration policy, which is concerned with who may come and how many, there is immigrant policy, which deals with how we treat the foreign-born living in the United States. Looking at poverty among immigrants is necessary, whatever immigration policy is adopted in the future, because a large percentage of immigrants and their children already here are living in poverty. Our immigrant policy as well as our anti-poverty efforts must take into account this new reality.
What’s Different About Poverty Caused by Immigration? In any discussion of poverty resulting from immigration, it is important to remember that immigration is a discretionary policy of the federal government. The federal government determines the size, growth, and characteristics of the foreign-born population by setting the level of legal immigration and by the amount of resources it devotes to controlling illegal immigration. While the government can certainly do things to ameliorate poverty caused by such factors as changes in family structures or the economy, these things are complex social phenomena and are not the direct result of a specific federal policy. In contrast, the poverty that results from immigration is avoidable in a way that is not the case for poverty caused by domestic conditions.http://cis.org/articles/poverty_study/execsummary.html
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!!
DING DING DING! The Dingbat rings again and your totally wrong.
“Yes Joe, market forces DO determine wages. WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE AS THE FLOOR!
Take out or lower the floor and those market forces will go the same direction.”
That makes no logical sense. If there is a floor, then why are 97% of wages HIGHER than the FLOOR?
Are you to tell me that if there was no minimum wage then the 97% of wages above the prior floor would go down? I seriously doubt it.
The Market Forces have already been taken over, not govenrment minimum mandates. That wouldn’t matter.
That is like saying the Govenment said that you must sell Oranges for a minimum of $.10 but they can sell it for $.50 because of the market forces. Then the government said, I’ll decrease it the said price to $.05 instead. Do you thinkt he price of that orange will really go down? NOPE!
But if you use the same analogy and the government said you must sell oranges at a minimum of $1.00 (above the market prices), you will see nobody buying oranges and they will rot on the grocery stand.
Get it?
And wages are price setting. They are the same as a product or service. You are setting the price of the service of labor.
Um, Joe, honey? Where did I say that we should raise the min. wage to $12? I simply stated that, considering inflation and the cost of living, it should be at $12.
And notice that I also said that economics are circular. Raise the min. wage, and eventually the cost of products and services will also rise to cover the increase. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that.
Joe,
Can you give me a link to that 97% you keep talking about? Not that I don’t believe you, but I’d like to see something that backs it up. Say, DoL stats?
Thanx
Joe I can see both side of this, some years ago I heard a little fact. The minim wage was established in 1938. It was 25 cents an hour, in order to have the same buying power of the 1938 quarter. Minim wage would have to be 10.00 dollars an hour.
Prices had gone passed the arguement that there have been effected by minim wage. But it could be seen that to increase the wage could be pass on to the consumer. Since the prices have gone up with out the wage then it is more likely that rather then coming out of profit. The raise would be passed on.
Great now I am running out of time…Later.
Still waiting for some stats from Joe…
I see you are still waiting here RD. DO ya think he left ya at the alter? heheheheheheh
ROFL, KFG!
Yeah, still waiting, still checking, still finding…NOTHING!
And, damn, I already have my rebuttal ready. Curses! Foiled again!
teehee
You two!
You drag me all the way over here to see what?
Joe posted a fluffydumb and never backed it up?
And you are waiting for this to change?
Gotta steal a line here.Move on nothing to see here.
heheh JR. The real fun is on the cut and run thread. Nathan and Hank are denying and spinning so fast it is making me laugh like crazy.
So I see kfg.
I was just over here looking for Joe. I sometimes wonder if he is really Stephen Colbert. Given Colberts take today on minimum wage I just saw which jibes with Joes and given that Colbert is on TV and Joe is not here……..