[EzequielTMann]

Here's a link to Virginia Senator Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union address. He limited his comments to two areas, the economy and the Iraq War.

Here's some of what he said on the economy:

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace. And on Iraq:

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq. He summed up my views on the economy - great for the already-haves, and bad for everyone else. And I agree with what he said about Iraq. Iraq has grown beyond a purely military solution - we must seek a political/diplomatic answer.

[sarasaraseda]

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace. So whats his point curly? Is he suggesting that the government should take control of private businesses and dictate what CEO's may earn? We already have wage laws, so what's his beef ? Evidently he didn't offer up any solutions that his party would implement.......like a communistic approach to the private sector.

[StitsVobsaith]

The Democrats are frustrated because the economy is doing great, EVERYBODY'S tax rate has been reduced, and unemployment is low. Plus the Democrats realize that their Cut N' Run approach to national security doesn't cut it with the American people.

It would have been nice (but the Democrats in Congress are losers, so they couldn't bring themselves to do this) if the Democrats, in their response last night, had pledged themselves to wanting VICTORY in the war against Muslim Terrorism. But they repeatedly refuse to do that. The Democrat Party WANTS America to lose the war on terror.

[EzequielTMann]

So whats his point curly? Is he suggesting that the government should take control of private businesses and dictate what CEO's may earn? We already have wage laws, so what's his beef ? Evidently he didn't offer up any solutions that his party would implement.......like a communistic approach to the private sector.

Which is it? If he didn't offer any solutions, then he didn't offer the "communistic approach" crap, right? Government taking control of private businesses ... those are your words. Are you a communist?

But check the sentence right after the part you bolded. He said "Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world." In our economy today, a worker's productivity continues to increase while at the same time his wages, compared to those "in charge", are dropping.

It's a fundamental principle - one that is repeated often on USPO - that hard work is the way to get ahead. Well, people are working hard, with greater productivity than ever before, but the American Dream is getting harder to realize.

Another point he made on the economy was that the stock market isn't the best or only sign of a healthy economy, nor are the huge wages & bonuses given to CEOs. He also said:

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today. The middle class is being squeezed out of existence through government policies aimed at rewarding the rich at the expense of everyone else.

[Seiblybiozy]

Which is it? If he didn't offer any solutions, then he didn't offer the "communistic approach" crap, right? Government taking control of private businesses ... those are your words. Are you a communist?

But check the sentence right after the part you bolded. He said "Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world." In our economy today, a worker's productivity continues to increase while at the same time his wages, compared to those "in charge", are dropping.

It's a fundamental principle - one that is repeated often on USPO - that hard work is the way to get ahead. Well, people are working hard, with greater productivity than ever before, but the American Dream is getting harder to realize.

Another point he made on the economy was that the stock market isn't the best or only sign of a healthy economy, nor are the huge wages & bonuses given to CEOs. He also said:


The middle class is being squeezed out of existence through government policies aimed at rewarding the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Hmmmm, not long ago the Dems were saying what a great job Clinton did...Well, I haven't seen CEO's salaries go higher than that time period when compared to the average worker.

[EzequielTMann]

Hmmmm, not long ago the Dems were saying what a great job Clinton did...Well, I haven't seen CEO's salaries go higher than that time period when compared to the average worker.

It would be interesting to compare the stats from the two time periods - wages for workers versus salaries/bonuses for CEOs.

Of course, some of the CEOs from the dot-com era aren't around anymore, nor are the jobs.

[StitsVobsaith]

It's a fundamental principle - one that is repeated often on USPO - that hard work is the way to get ahead. Well, people are working hard, with greater productivity than ever before, but the American Dream is getting harder to realize.

Thanks to the Democrats (can you say "welfare state" and "Social Security" anyone?) and their agenda, a greater and a greater percentage of the workers' wages is taken away from them and given to the government, for spending and redistribution. Yet the Democrats pointedly REFUSE to reform their failed "Social Security" ponzi scheme. President Bush and the GOP tried, but the Democrats in Congress blocked them.

Everyone, from the President through the GOP Congress through the Chairman of the Fed, ALL of them keep warning the Democrats that their failed "Social Security" scheme and their welfare state are extracting a bigger and a bigger portion of the economy (i.e., the workers' paycheck) each year. But the Democrats REFUSE to reform their entitlement and SS schemes they concocted. "Great Society", my ass! The Democrats' policies are now proven FAILURES, yet even now the Democrats obstruct reform!

And the Democrats just got through voting to raise taxes on the oil producers. That selfish behavior of the Democrats will result in higher energy costs, ESPECIALLY FOR THE POOR. So much for the fabled Democrat Party "compassion for the poor".

It's EASY to say that it's getting harder and harder to take home a decent paycheck. What's galling is that the REASON for that is precisely the Democrat Party's perpetual desire for bigger central government and higher taxes.

The Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths.

[Seiblybiozy]

Of course, some of the CEOs from the dot-com era aren't around anymore, nor are the jobs.

Nope, they are not...they are in jail or had heart attacks.

[Xavier_Spinner_Wheels]

Nope, they are not...they are in jail or had heart attacks.

So you admit they aren't around anymore.

[Seiblybiozy]

So you admit they aren't around anymore.

What part didn't you understand ?

After the Clit-on admin, many were arrested or jailed or had strokes after Bush took office because the corrupt scandals were brought to light.

[EzequielTMann]

After the Clinton admin, many were arrested or jailed or had strokes after Bush took office because the corrupt scandals were brought to light.

You say "after Bush took office" as if that had something to do with, for example, Ken Lay and Enron (a scandal that broke in 2001). And you may be right - after all, Ken Lay was one of the single largest financial backers of George W. Bush's political career. Hmmmmm.

[sarasaraseda]

Which is it? If he didn't offer any solutions, then he didn't offer the "communistic approach" crap, right? Government taking control of private businesses ... those are your words. Are you a communist?

But check the sentence right after the part you bolded. He said "Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world." In our economy today, a worker's productivity continues to increase while at the same time his wages, compared to those "in charge", are dropping.

It's a fundamental principle - one that is repeated often on USPO - that hard work is the way to get ahead. Well, people are working hard, with greater productivity than ever before, but the American Dream is getting harder to realize.

Another point he made on the economy was that the stock market isn't the best or only sign of a healthy economy, nor are the huge wages & bonuses given to CEOs. He also said:


The middle class is being squeezed out of existence through government policies aimed at rewarding the rich at the expense of everyone else.

My point would be that while he was critical of the trend, he offered up no solution. My question is what additional role does he think the government should play in the operation of private business?

[Seiblybiozy]

You say "after Bush took office" as if that had something to do with, for example, Ken Lay and Enron (a scandal that broke in 2001). And you may be right - after all, Ken Lay was one of the single largest financial backers of George W. Bush's political career. Hmmmmm.

So then, why did Clit-on admins sweep the shit under the rug ?

[blackjackblax]

So then, why did Clit-on admins sweep the shit under the rug ?

wow clit-on. How childish is that? I wasn' t really that "into" politics during the Clinton era, but I think for the CLinton era it seems like the middle class and the upper class were both doing pretty well. Salaries increasing and everyone was making money, so nobody wanted to screw that up. I have no real evidence to back this up, but just going by what people that have worked for my company in the clinton era have said comparing it to the Bush era.

[EzequielTMann]

My point would be that while he was critical of the trend, he offered up no solution. My question is what additional role does he think the government should play in the operation of private business?

That's a fair question.

Solutions: Given that the Democratic response was much shorter than the State of the Union speech, I don't think Webb could have gone through a laundry list of suggested solutions. But he noted the passage of the minimum wage bill in the House, and said "We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We’ve established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We’re working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons."

Additional role: I didn't get the sense that Webb thought the government should play an additional role, but rather, would play the same role they have played for years, but for the benefit of ordinary people and not big business. One way would be to repeal some or all of the corporate tax cuts in recent years, cuts that have helped oil companies in particular reap huge, record-setting profits.

I think it's indicative of the type of senator he'll be that Webb's first action as Senator was to introduce S.22, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007, a new version of the GI Bill.

[ahagotyou]

Jim Webb is a dumb motherfucker.

I think he's been knocked upside the head too many times.

[Peterli]

He summed up my views on the economy - great for the already-haves, and bad for everyone else. And I agree with what he said about Iraq. Iraq has grown beyond a purely military solution - we must seek a political/diplomatic answer.

The statement about Iraq seems spot-on. The statement about the "haves/have-nots" seems like little more than pandering to the idea of class warfare. No real solutions are offered, and the argument seems not to take into account any complexities. For instance, left out is the fact that the standard of living has improved during the time he mentions for everyone. I'm not saying that the stats he quotes aren't true - just that they are quoted with an obvious agenda.

What answers does he propose to this solution. And, are the "have-nots" any worse off than they were 30 years ago, or are they, in fact, better off (from a standard of living perspective)?

[annouhMus]

The Democrats are frustrated because the economy is doing great, EVERYBODY'S tax rate has been reduced, and unemployment is low. Plus the Democrats realize that their Cut N' Run approach to national security doesn't cut it with the American people.

It would have been nice (but the Democrats in Congress are losers, so they couldn't bring themselves to do this) if the Democrats, in their response last night, had pledged themselves to wanting VICTORY in the war against Muslim Terrorism. But they repeatedly refuse to do that. The Democrat Party WANTS America to lose the war on terror.

Is it possible that they are just SMARTER than you, and Simply RECOGNIZE that the Iraq is a lost cause????

[EzequielTMann]

Here's part of a review of Webb's speech that mirrors my take on it.

A Powerful Response - Newsweek, Jan. 23, 2007:

Something unprecedented happened tonight, beyond the doorkeeper announcing, "Madame Speaker." For the first time ever, the response to the State of the Union Message overshadowed the president's big speech. Virginia Sen. James Webb, in office only three weeks, managed to convey a muscular liberalism—with personal touches—that left President Bush's ordinary address in the dust. In the past, the Democratic response has been anemic—remember Washington Gov. Gary Locke? This time it pointed the way to a revival for national Democrats.

Webb is seen as a moderate or even conservative Democrat, but this was a populist speech that quoted Andrew Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party and champion of the common man. The speech represented a return to the tough-minded liberalism of Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey, but by quoting Republicans Teddy Roosevelt (on "improper corporate influence") and Dwight D. Eisenhower (on ending the Korean War), he reinforced the argument that President Bush had taken the GOP away from its roots. According to this review, Webb was given a speech by the Democratic leadership in Congress ... and tossed it out, and wrote his own.

[Dfvgthyju]

My point would be that while he was critical of the trend, he offered up no solution. My question is what additional role does he think the government should play in the operation of private business?

Man, You've got a lot of nerve bringing up that point. What solution has Bush provided us for Iraq?
He all but avoided Iraq completely in the SoTU and offered only his standard line and reiterated the troop numbers.

He has no long term plan or solution. It's all too vague. Bush has had 6 years to do all the things he's proposing now as if he's just taking office. His speechwriters and advisors have concocted what seem like big positive issues to try and distract us from his (and now our) failure in Iraq. He gave us what amounts to a campaign speech midway through is second term as president. He seems pretty disconnected from the American people and pretty disconnected from reality.