Clinton, Obama vote 'no' on Iraq bill

[Army_of_One]

WASHINGTON - Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal. Because you can't set a timeline on a war.....this is just ludicris...

"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator. um..would that be the cut and run strategy senator?

"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, with months of experience in politics... declared, adding that President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal. But alas...they did the flip/flop as usual...after all, Hillary voted for the war before she voted against it. So now she was for a deadline before she was against it...

On a vote of 80-14, the Senate cleared the measure and sent it to Bush.

Both Clinton and Obama have faced intense pressure from the party's liberal wing The Michael Moore/George Soros wing...and Democratic presidential challengers who urged opposition to the measure because it doesn't include a timeline to pull forces out of Iraq.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record) of Connecticut, who also voted against the legislation, was among the Democratic candidates calling for rejection of it, along with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Of the four Democratic hopefuls in the Senate, only Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware supported the bill. He said he did so reluctantly because he viewed the measure as flawed. But he added: "As long as we have troops on the front lines, it is our shared responsibility to give them the equipment and protection they need." A forward thinking liberal...amen.

With their "no" votes, Clinton, Obama and Dodd earned praise from the party's left flank, which has been pushing for a quick end to the war and is an important part of the Democratic base in the primaries.

"This bold stand by three of the four presidential candidates in the Senate won't soon be forgotten," promised Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org's political action committee.

Although they appeased the Democratic base, Clinton, Obama and Dodd did open themselves up to criticism from Republicans that they were denying 165,000 troops the resources they need — an argument that could be damaging in a general election.

Both Clinton and Obama had remained publicly uncommitted in the hours before the vote. Until the poll results came in...Neither were on the Senate floor as voting began. Halfway through, Obama walked into the chamber and cast his "no" vote. Clinton did the same a few minutes later.

Obama framed the vote as a choice between "validating the same failed policy" and "demanding a new one."

"I am demanding a new one," he said. "We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more," Obama said, calling for "a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."

Clinton put the blame on Bush, saying that he should have "followed the will of the people" and signed an earlier bill that would have both funded the war and started a troop withdrawal.

"But the president vetoed Congress's new strategy and so Congress must reject the president's failed policies," she said, adding that Bush should begin a phased withdrawal and "abandon this escalation."

Clinton voted to authorize the invasion in 2002. She has since become a constant critic of the Bush administration's handling of it but has refused to call her initial vote a mistake. She had adamantly opposed setting a hard deadline for troop withdrawals, but a week ago she voted to advance a bill that would cut off money to force a troop withdrawal by March 2008.

Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002. But he, like Clinton, prominently shunned earlier proposals to set a fixed timetable for an end to the war only to vote to advance last week's bill that included a date to bring home troops.

The voting went as expected in the GOP field.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a staunch supporter of the troop increase and the war itself but a longtime critic of the way Bush waged it, is the only top-tier Republican candidate in Congress, and he voted for the measure. A lesser-known GOP hopeful, Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas, did not vote. Way to take a stand Sam....

In the House, long-shot Reps. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., and Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., supported the bill, while Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, opposed it.

Not mentioned was the piles and piles of pork the dems included in the bill. It's amazing that they take advantage of our troops being funded by doing this.

I still can't figure out WHY we would make a formal timeline for quitting the war and broadcast it to the enemy? Can anyone explain that to me? Imagine if we did that in WWII? "Well Ike...if we don't win at France we are going to pull out and let Germany have everything..."

Clinton, Obama vote 'no' on Iraq bill - Yahoo! News

[wordsmythe]

I was completely dissappointed with the cavers on this one. They should have passed the same bill that fnded the troops as before and sent it back to W. His veto was the only thing keeping the funds from the troops.

More money than even he asked for was on his desk and he said I don't want it.

He's ignoring the will of the majority of the majority of the people.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

WASHINGTON - ..."I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator. um..would that be the cut and run strategy senator?

"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, with months of experience in politics... declared, adding that President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."...

Number of soldiers killed
Period 6: February 1, 2007 (The surge or troop escalation) through today's date.
Period Date US UK Other* Total
6 05/24/07--5--0---0-----5
6 05/23/07--2--0---0-----2
6 05/22/07--9--0---0-----9
6 05/21/07--3--1---0-----4
6 05/20/07--0--0---1-----1
6 05/19/07--9--0---0-----9
6 05/18/07--6--0---0-----6
6 05/17/07--6--0---0-----6
6 05/14/07--6--0---1-----7
6 05/13/07--2--0---0-----2
6 05/12/07--4--0---0-----4
6 05/11/07--1--0---0-----1
6 05/10/07--5--0---0-----5
6 05/09/07--2--0---0-----2
6 05/08/07--3--0---0-----3
6 05/06/07-10--1---0----11
6 05/05/07--3--0---0-----3
6 05/04/07--1--0---0-----1
6 05/03/07--8--0---0-----8
6 05/02/07--3--0---0-----3
6 05/01/07--2--1---0-----3
6 04/29/07--4--1---0-----5
6 04/28/07--5--0---0-----5
6 04/27/07--5--0---0-----5
6 04/26/07--3--0---0-----3
6 04/24/07--1--0---0-----1
6 04/23/07-11--1---0----12
6 04/21/07--6--0---0-----6
6 04/20/07--1--0---1-----2
6 04/19/07--1--2---0-----3
6 04/18/07--3--0---0-----3
6 04/17/07--1--0---0-----1
6 04/16/07--6--0---0-----6
6 04/15/07--1--2---0-----3
6 04/14/07--5--0---0-----5
6 04/13/07--1--0---0-----1
6 04/12/07--5--0---0-----5
6 04/11/07--1--0---0-----1
6 04/10/07--1--0---0-----1
6 04/09/07--4--0---0-----4
6 04/08/07--6--0---0-----6
6 04/07/07--5--0---0-----5
6 04/06/07--9--0---0-----9
6 04/05/07--2--4---0-----6
6 04/04/07--5--0---0-----5
6 04/03/07--2--0---0-----2
6 04/02/07--4--1---0-----5
6 04/01/07--6--1---0-----7
(SNIP)
6 02/01/07--7--0---0-----7
Total...... 355..19...4.....378


Looks like the current "troop surge" plan isn't going so well!

[jeezeweeze]

I get a news letter from Biden....He seems to be for America and not so party...I really like the immediate call for the vehicles our troops need ......to be safer
Im still just trying to figure out who is the best for America/Military ...not the party

I watched the senate hearing last night re/ troop's mental health and the care they are getting for it.........Im feeling a great fear ....from watching the hearing
Its gonna be deja vu Viet Nam for our returning vets....not from the people.... but from the gov....

Joe Biden for President

[JayhawkMom]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Not mentioned was the piles and piles of pork the dems included in the bill.

Pork? You mean like raising the minimum wage........a wage you and I couldn't raise a family on..........

I'm with Wordy.........I'm pissed that war funding passed......PERIOD. The minimum wage hike; that should have been done years ago...............

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by JayhawkMom

Pork? You mean like raising the minimum wage........a wage you and I couldn't raise a family on..........

I'm with Wordy.........I'm pissed that war funding passed......PERIOD. The minimum wage hike; that should have been done years ago...............

Before you open your pie hole on the minimum wage educate yourself on how many Americans actually work for the minimum wage. A lot of states already have a minimum wage above the national min wage. Furthermore it costs everyone more when they raise the wage and it's harder on small business. The min wage should be market driven....It's a way for the Dems to keep their voting base and continuing the have vs have not mentality in this country.

Relatively few Americans earn the federal minimum wage.[1] In 2005, 1.9 million Americans reported earning $5.15 or less per hour.[2] This amounted to 2.5 percent of all workers earning hourly wages and 1.5 percent of all workers in the United States. But these numbers include workers who also earn tip income. Many of those earning less than the minimum wage work in restaurants and so make more than the minimum after taking their tips into account. Using another measure of earnings that includes tips, 1.3 million Americans earn the minimum wage or less per hour, or 1.1 percent of the total working population.[3]

Minimum wage workers under 25 are typically not their family’s sole breadwinner. Rather, they live in middle-class households that do not rely on their earnings. For the most part, they have not finished their schooling and are working part-time jobs. These workers represent the largest group that would directly benefit from a higher minimum wage.



Here are a few important characteristics of the teenagers and young adults who earn the minimum wage or less:

* Fully 67 percent work part-time jobs.
* Their average family income is $64,000 per year.
* Only 17 percent live at or below the poverty line, while 65 percent enjoy family incomes over twice the poverty line.[5]
* They have less education than the population as a whole. Fully 36 percent have not completed high school, and 21 percent have only a high school degree. Another 37 percent have taken college courses but do not yet have a bachelor’s degree; many of these are college students working part-time while in school.
* Fully 65 percent are women.
* Only 5 percent are married.

Older Workers

Even the vast majority of older adults who earn the minimum wage live above the poverty line. They have an average family income of $33,600 a year, well above the poverty line of $19,806 per year for a family of four. Most of them choose to work part-time, and a sizeable number are married. The average older minimum wage-earner simply does not fit the stereotype of a worker living on the edge of destitution.



Here are a few important characteristics of the 47 percent of minimum wage-earners who are over the age of 24:

* More than half—56 percent—work part-time jobs.
* They have an average family income of $33,606 per year.
* Just 23 percent live in poverty, while 45 percent have incomes over twice the poverty line.
* They are better educated than younger minimum wage workers. Just 22 percent have less than a high school education, while 39 percent have only a high school diploma and 21 percent have taken some college classes.
* 66 percent are women.
* 43 percent are married.

Conclusion

Many support raising the minimum wage because they want to help low-income Americans get ahead. But while some minimum wage-earners do live below the poverty line, these workers are far from representative. Only one in five minimum wage-earners lives in a family that earns less than the poverty line. Three-fifths work part-time, and a majority are under 25 years old. Minimum wage-earners’ average family income is almost $50,000 per year. Very few are single parents working full-time to support their families—no more than in the population as a whole. It is not surprising, then, that studies show that higher minimum wages do not reduce poverty rates.[7] Instead of raising the minimum wage, Congress should look at other ways to aid the working poor that actually focus on providing help to those who need it.

Who Earns the Minimum Wage--Single Parents or Suburban Teenagers?

[wordsmythe]

It kills me that you are so against the minimum wage increase yet you have no problem with the big oil companies charging record prices by shutting down refineries just before peak driving season and by all the mergers in the industry.

This drives the price of EVERYTHING up much more quickly than a higher minimum wage ever will.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

I was completely dissappointed with the cavers on this one. They should have passed the same bill that fnded the troops as before and sent it back to W. His veto was the only thing keeping the funds from the troops.

More money than even he asked for was on his desk and he said I don't want it.

He's ignoring the will of the majority of the majority of the people.

One might say they cut and run…..

Maybe the "majority of the majority" ain’t thinking what you think they’re thinking. Then again, depending on how the numbers fall out, the “majority of the majority” could end up being the minority.

[JayhawkMom]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Before you open your pie hole on the minimum wage educate yourself on how many Americans actually work for the minimum wage. A lot of states already have a minimum wage above the national min wage. Furthermore it costs everyone more when they raise the wage and it's harder on small business. The min wage should be market driven....It's a way for the Dems to keep their voting base and continuing the have vs have not mentality in this country.

Relatively few Americans earn the federal minimum wage.[1] In 2005, 1.9 million Americans reported earning $5.15 or less per hour.[2] This amounted to 2.5 percent of all workers earning hourly wages and 1.5 percent of all workers in the United States. But these numbers include workers who also earn tip income. Many of those earning less than the minimum wage work in restaurants and so make more than the minimum after taking their tips into account. Using another measure of earnings that includes tips, 1.3 million Americans earn the minimum wage or less per hour, or 1.1 percent of the total working population.[3]

Minimum wage workers under 25 are typically not their family’s sole breadwinner. Rather, they live in middle-class households that do not rely on their earnings. For the most part, they have not finished their schooling and are working part-time jobs. These workers represent the largest group that would directly benefit from a higher minimum wage.



Here are a few important characteristics of the teenagers and young adults who earn the minimum wage or less:

* Fully 67 percent work part-time jobs.
* Their average family income is $64,000 per year.
* Only 17 percent live at or below the poverty line, while 65 percent enjoy family incomes over twice the poverty line.[5]
* They have less education than the population as a whole. Fully 36 percent have not completed high school, and 21 percent have only a high school degree. Another 37 percent have taken college courses but do not yet have a bachelor’s degree; many of these are college students working part-time while in school.
* Fully 65 percent are women.
* Only 5 percent are married.

Older Workers

Even the vast majority of older adults who earn the minimum wage live above the poverty line. They have an average family income of $33,600 a year, well above the poverty line of $19,806 per year for a family of four. Most of them choose to work part-time, and a sizeable number are married. The average older minimum wage-earner simply does not fit the stereotype of a worker living on the edge of destitution.



Here are a few important characteristics of the 47 percent of minimum wage-earners who are over the age of 24:

* More than half—56 percent—work part-time jobs.
* They have an average family income of $33,606 per year.
* Just 23 percent live in poverty, while 45 percent have incomes over twice the poverty line.
* They are better educated than younger minimum wage workers. Just 22 percent have less than a high school education, while 39 percent have only a high school diploma and 21 percent have taken some college classes.
* 66 percent are women.
* 43 percent are married.

Conclusion

Many support raising the minimum wage because they want to help low-income Americans get ahead. But while some minimum wage-earners do live below the poverty line, these workers are far from representative. Only one in five minimum wage-earners lives in a family that earns less than the poverty line. Three-fifths work part-time, and a majority are under 25 years old. Minimum wage-earners’ average family income is almost $50,000 per year. Very few are single parents working full-time to support their families—no more than in the population as a whole. It is not surprising, then, that studies show that higher minimum wages do not reduce poverty rates.[7] Instead of raising the minimum wage, Congress should look at other ways to aid the working poor that actually focus on providing help to those who need it.

Who Earns the Minimum Wage--Single Parents or Suburban Teenagers?

Geez AOO, gimme a break.............Let me tell ya ......as someone who started working for MINIMUM wage, my employer didn't increase my pay UNLESS the minimum wage went up.....so don't tell me who benefits and who doesn't...........typical conservative; screw everyone else as long as YOU'RE making money...............GD, we want people off of welfare and yet you expect them to make it on 5.15 an hour.......Jesus, 7 bucks isn't shit either, and you're trying to tell me THAT'S gunna hurt a small business? I thought you and I could at least agree that no one can make it in this country on 5.15/hr............I challenge you to try it Army.......without your parents helping you out...............

[wordsmythe]

Minimum wage means if we could pay you less we WOULD.