Posted on 01/02/2007 12:53:29 PM PST by Sub-Driver
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer 27 minutes ago
People overwhelmingly support two of the Democrats' top goals — increasing the minimum wage and making it easier to buy prescription drugs from other countries — as the party takes control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years.
By a smaller margin, the public also favors relaxing restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a third issue Democrats have promised to tackle during their first 100 hours in charge.
The jury is out on incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Most people say they do not know enough yet to have an opinion about the California Democrat who will be the first woman in that office, an Associated Press-AOL News poll found.
The survey results come as the 110th Congress is set to convene Thursday at noon. Voters last November toppled Republican majorities in both the Senate and House, exasperated by investigations into the ethics of GOP lawmakers and unhappy with the war in Iraq.
Democrats will hold a 233-202 edge in the House and will control the Senate by 51-49.
A boost to the $5.15-an-hour federal minimum wage would be the first since 1997. Democratic leaders have proposed raising it in stages to $7.25 an hour. President Bush has said he supports the idea, along with help for small businesses.
Fully 80 percent of survey respondents favor an increase, too.
Support is strongest among Democrats, 91 percent, while 65 percent of Republicans back the idea. Women, men without college degrees and single women all are especially likely to favor a minimum wage hike.
Nearly seven of 10 adults, 69 percent, favor the government taking steps to make it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from other countries,
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What "goals"? I haven't heard a single goal expressed coherently by a democrat yet.
Give a Liberal a thought and he'll repeat it mindlessly all day. Teach a Liberal to think for himself and he'll vote Republican for the rest of his life.
I wonder how those polled feel about some of their other goals like giving terrorist suspects more rights, cutting and running on the War on Terror, maintaining the right to partial birth abortion, maintaining and expanding affirmative action, giving more rights for illegals (why Pres. Bush isn't against this, I'll never understand), fighting school choice, etc
To paraphrase President John F. Kennedy:
Let every American know, regardless of his or her wishes, that we shall pay any price, impose any burden, force any hardship (upon you), support any enemy, oppose any friend to assure the survival and the success of socialism.
Such is the nature of liberalism and the goal of Democrats.
What, exactly, are their goals?
To paraphrase President John F. Kennedy:
Let every American know, regardless of his or her wishes, that we shall pay any price, impose any burden, force any hardship (upon you), support any enemy, oppose any friend to assure the survival and the success of socialism.
Such is the nature of liberalism and the goal of Democrats.
spend our money?
I am waiting for the AP story: "Public Overwhelmingly Supports Conservative Agenda."
"Give a Liberal a thought and he'll repeat it mindlessly all day. Teach a Liberal to think for himself and he'll vote Republican for the rest of his life."
That's the best line I've heard in a long, long time.
Thanks.
Ah the "mental disorder" catch phrase...I sense a Savage fan. :-) But seriously, I really don't think it's a mental disorder; it's just laziness. Back before we started resisting Darwin, lazy thinkers didn't survive.
Read the "Communist Manifesto" and you will have at least a basis for your expectations.
nits
specks
and
dust
Who'd they poll, New York city?
The poll shows 55 percent don't even know who Nancy is. Bush has an unfavorable rating higher than that. So who would the people turn to in a time of crisis?
Are you deliberately mischaracterizing the argument or are you simply misinformed on the issue?
The reason for price discrimination (for example, the sale of prescription drugs at different prices in different markets) is often very simple and also very understandable. Let's say for example, that you own the patent for a new drug that will cure AIDS. You have spent millions in R&D, testing, wining and dining FDA officials so that the approval process takes only years instead of decades, and also have production costs to consider. You want to make a reasonable return on your investment, and based on supply and demand the market would price your drug at $500 for a 30 day supply of the drug, with most AIDS patients needing the drug for 90 days. Most insurance companies in the US decide to include the drug in their prescription plans with varying levels of co-payment requirements, so you will have no problem selling your new drug in the US. However, Canada and other socialized medicine countries demand that you sell the drug to their socialized medicine programs at a cost of $75 per 30-day supply. This will just about cover your variable costs for whatever quantities you sell to them, based on your ability to sell your domestic supply at the market price, but if you had to sell all your production at the lower Canadian price you would never recoup your investment.
In a perfect world you could tell Canada and the other socialist countries to forget it -- if they want your new wonder drug they will have to pay the market price for it. But we live in an imperfect world in which the Canadian government brazenly threatens you that if you don't sell your new wonder drug to them at their demanded price they will subsidize a Canadian firm in stealing your intellectual property and producing their own generic version of your drug (perhaps not quite the same as yours and perhaps not quite as effective, but close enough that they can get away with selling it -- probably with your own brand name stamped on it) for production and distribution not only in Canada, but also in other markets where you would be selling your drug at the market price. Oh, and by the way, they will do this not only to your new wonder drug but also with your other products as well.
So, in order to protect your investment, you produce the drugs for the Canadians and other socialist health care systems and sell to those countries at the lower price. However, those sales are for distribution within those socialized medicine programs only and not for export to other markets. It is an unfortunate reality that to protect their intellectual property pharmaceutical companies have to subsidize the socialist healthcare systems of other countries. But if we are going to argue that we should import the "cheaper" prescription drugs of these socialized medicin programs into this country, then we might as well go all out and adopt socialized hillarycare across the board. That will help solve the social security problem as more and more of our people will be dying of variour illnesses at earlier ages that they would otherwise have survived.
"I think it is a small number of workers and that is why increasing it may really have little impact either way."
Exceept for some union wages paid as a multiple of minimum wages. If you are hired at 3x minimum that makes $15.45 an hour. If minimum goes up to $7.10, congrats, you just got a raise to $21.30 an hour.
It is my belief this is about just that.
lets hope so..
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.