GoldenDogs

Just saying.

I appreciate all your comments, Roman, and look forward to chatting again with you. As a matter of fact, I look forward to starting over with you and would like to get to know you better, if that's okay with you. PM me or I can PM you... whatever you're most comfortable with. Let's put politics aside for a bit and just get to know one another... Sound good?

Thanks,

Brian

This is ridiculous. The fact is, to be a mainstream Republican these days you HAVE to be intellectually inconsistent. Big government is bad unless we are making more laws about abortion or DADT, Obamacare sucks even though it's essentially identical to the Republican counterargument to Hillarycare, tax cuts are great but Obama wanting to extend pay roll tax cuts is bad, spending sprees are wrong and the Bush presidency never happened. I could go on and on. Max is making more sense than most Republicans.

The fact that you seem to believe that you have to agree with the Republican mantra du jour which makes no sense when you really look at it to be an "ideologically consistent" conservative is what's really weak. You're basically asking Max to go with truthiness.

Actually, I'm asking Max to be consistent, regardless of his political stripes. Have you read this thread, Juppiter? Back on October 11, Max said to me:

Brian, I concede that some of my messages are contradictory, and you have every right to call me out on it.

Those are his words, not mine. The point I'm making is that I see Max melt like butter when engaged in many debates - like a kid who did the report but didn't really think too much about when he did it, then stands up in front of the class to recite it but can't remember the facts of it.

I've known for years, back to WoST days, that Max tends to be all over the map with his viewpoints. We probably agree some 40% of the time (correct me if it's more like 50% or 60%, Max). I think I've known Max long enough to identify certain traits in not just his posting style, but the questionable attributes to his posting style, as well. Again, he can correct me if I'm way off base.

You tend misrepresent my personal views, Juppiter. The fact is that, like Max, I don't always agree with the Republican line and I'm probably more independent right now than Republican. I lean further right than Max - or at least the Max of today (he seemed more right-leaning a few years ago, frankly). My wife and I are both considering registering as independents.

If you want to know my REAL views on issues, just ask. But please don't assign me to a specific column on the electoral sheet unless you know for sure. And as for Max, I call it like I see it... and admitted to presenting contradictory information. Just the facts, sir. :-)

This is ridiculous. The fact is, to be a mainstream Republican these days you HAVE to be intellectually inconsistent. Big government is bad unless we are making more laws about abortion or DADT, Obamacare sucks even though it's essentially identical to the Republican counterargument to Hillarycare, tax cuts are great but Obama wanting to extend pay roll tax cuts is bad, spending sprees are wrong and the Bush presidency never happened.

If you're telling me Democrats are making sense these days, then you've definitely lost me in this. Harry Reid said yesterday that the private sector jobs market was fine... but it's the GOVERNMENT JOBS that need help? SERIOUSLY? You agree with that, Juppiter? MORE MONEY to boost the GOVERNMENT PAYROLL? Intellectually inconsistent is the liberal call for an end to the death penalty while promoting government-funded abortions for one and all upon request. Tax cuts ARE great when they are permanent enough to allow employers to depend upon them thereby removing some uncertainty in the market, etc., rather than a temporary extension to pay roll tax cuts that don't really help long term (employers want assurance that their taxes won't skyrocket next year rather than hire someone, then lay them off a year or so later!) Yes, the Bush presidency happened and it is absolutely true that there was never a spending bill Bush wanted to veto - however, don't forget that the budget was crafted, promoted and pushed forth by the Democrat-controlled Congress who has fairly earned the reputation as tax and spend Liberals.

But all of those points don't really mean much... Obama has been in control for nearly three years now, the majority of his time with his party in complete control. How's that working out for us? Good times all around? The fact of the matter is that Obama and his party have more than quadrupled the debt. When Bush left office, the debt had grown by $6.7 billion a year. After three years of Obama, the debt has risen by some $1.116 trillion per year.

Not good and indefensible. No doubt, Bush stood by and let the deficit balloon. No defense for that. Can you say the same for Obama's performance on the budget or do you defend his actions?

MSNBC isn't just reporting the story. Its talking heads--including Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Martin Bashir, and Dylan Ratigan--have been praising this movement.

Roman, you are absolutely right about Fox News promoting the Tea Party. I despise Fox News just as much as MSNBC. Bais in the media has no place, and is equally wrong whether it is conservative or liberal bias.

And there you go again, Max... PANDERING. You're weak, dude.

Whatever the disagreements I have had in the past with Roman, at least he is intellectually honest and unwaveringly consistent. That much I give him. But you're all over the freakin' map, Max. If you, as the sole "conservative" voice in this forum, represent a more right-leaning point of view here, then those of us who truly lean right are not having that point of view accurately represented.

You dishearten me, sir; you definitely represent what is wrong in politics today - and that is MUSH. Yes, MUSH. Wishy-washy...

I would hope that Cain's continued rise tells Democrats that the GOP isn't a party full of racists (although we do have some).

Sometimes your statements baffle me, Max. Do you really feel the need to associate Cain's rise with a true anti-racist sentiment in the GOP? Seriously? I like the man's message - his skin color makes no difference and I see no need to make it an issue - well intentioned or not. It's about policy, plain and simple!

But those last few words of your post is what really kills me... Max, there are just as many racists in the Democratic party, Green party, etc. You tend to pander a little bit to our friends on the left in this forum... most of which are fair-minded enough to accept the fact that racism isn't owned exclusively by those on the right.

Besides, I believe that those who go OUT OF THEIR WAY to point out the color of a person's skin are generally the ones with racist tendencies in their heart.

My problem with Obama has always been, first and foremost, questions of policy. Now, of course, the problem has grown into one of job performance. With the current crop of GOP candidates, my concern is one of policy and what comes out of their mouth. Romney and Perry both have huge problems. That's why Cain looks so damn good right now. I like what Cain says... I like his humor... I like him. I hope he can entrench himself amongst the higher profile candidates and prove to be electable...

Obama spent years playing BFF with Republicans. The Republicans said at the start that their only goal was to make sure he lost re-election. If anything he's been too cordial about them. This is a party that spends more time investigating "fraud" in school lunches than they do in solving problems.

If Clinton had been elected people would say they should have gone for Obama. Given her support for the free trade policies that destroyed a lot of the economy, I doubt things would be different.

Having enjoyed your posts for a good while here, and been made to think about many points you have made during that time - I admit I'm baffled by your unflagging support for Obama, Carl. I mean... I get your political leanings (and I respect you for them because you make such rational, thoughtful, passionate posts - even when I don't always agree) - but you seem to gloss over the failings of Obama and how clearly he has steered the US in the wrong direction.

The quotes above are kind of like your best Obama bash - kind of sort of maybe indicating an Obama failing, but kind of sort of maybe indicating that it isn't totally his fault and that anybody else would have struggled given how awful the Republicans are... I just can't buy that, Carl. Obama NEVER pretended to be buds with the Republicans. He campaigned on unicorns and rainbows but became one of the most partisan shills EVER when he assumed office.

See, I go back to a very simple point: Obama HAD the government for two years. He had TOTAL control with Congress in his pocket and he STILL derailed the country. The point can't be made more clear than that: the man and his policies have failed. And to the point that even many liberals are now disgusted and frustrated... if for no other reason than Obama has damaged the true progressive movement because he is far more extreme than moderate liberals!

Looking at it from the other side of the fence... as awful as things are because of his failed policies and failed leadership, it has probably been a good thing in the long run for the United States of America as an extreme leftwing agenda has been hobbled. Had Obama approached things in a more moderate fashion this first term, he would have definitely enjoyed a second term to push forth a more extreme vision for the country. He was too aggressive and I believe it WILL cost him the election.

Carl, if you disagree with all this... tell me where I'm wrong. How has Obama's policies helped America?

Hi everybody! Just wanted to say what's up. And....I will discuss politics with anyone who wants to in a good natured manner. i see that is what's been happening. I hope you all are doing well. Have a good day.

Hey Roman! It's been a long time... good to see you; welcome back!

B

I don't even know where these liberals in the media are at this point.

They're interviewing the enlightened Janeane Garofalo, who states:

"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/29/janeane_garofalo_racist_republicans_support_herman_cain.html

Hi Carl...

I had to go elsewhere to see the video because that page wouldn't load for me... Anyway, that site and the other (Mediaite, I believe it was) stated that the "crowd" booed and you indicate in your post that the "GOP base" booed. I think to state that the "crowd" or "base" was booing the soldier is incorrect. The "crowd" sounded to be two (maybe three?) loudmouths in the audience and to suggest they comprise the "base" of the GOP is pure speculation.

This idea that those on the right are bigots who hate gays, blacks, whatever... it just isn't true. I'm not as moderate as our friend here, Max, who in my opinion represents moderates that might lean (just barely) to the right... I'm not obscenely right - as in extreme - but pretty decidedly right... and I harbor no ill will to anyone based on race, ethnicity, orientation, body type, disability, whatever and so on and on...

I just believe that personal business is just that - personal business. People should be who they are, where they come from, what they like - blah, blah... But it just shouldn't BE AN ISSUE. We all know somebody who identifies themselves as whatever category they feel they belong in, ie: "Hey baby, it's me the black lady!" -- or -- "Hey, what's up, it's me, the gay guy... helllooooo!" Okay, I'm over the top with that, but you get the idea. I don't care who is black or hispanic or gay or whatever... I don't deal with people on the basis of what column they check on an EEOC or census form - I deal with people based on their character and behavior. That's all that matters to me. Don't tell me your business and I won't ask... It's not my concern.

Anyway, that's my post for this year. :-) Good to see everyone again... hello... Things are well here. Hi Adam! I see you standing over there... Alpha, hi! I feel compelled to rip Max but I won't because he's typically the lone non-liberal in the room... LOL!

Best,

B

I watched Obama's press conference today and it's amazing how this guy says a whole lot of everything while saying absolutely nothing. I don't need my regular viewing interrupted only to hear he has faith in the American people to overcome economic "obstacles". If he can't provide a specific plan as leader to create jobs then he needs to STFU. He refuses to actually take a stand, formulate a plan and stick with it. He's too busy worrying about re-election and how he's perceived by Republicans. I have never seen a president literally scared to death of the other side.

This dude still thinks it's 2008 and he's riding the wave of charisma and bullshit.

Immigration reform is needed and many don't realize that with immigration reform implemented it would actually help the economy. If Obama was smart he would connect the both. It's one of the many resources not being tapped into to create jobs. After all the promises made to them I do think they deserve a path to legalization.

Agree with everything you've said here, Money...

I think Max you can figure out why they picked Obama over Hillary. There are a lot of facts of life that are better off unsaid but are true anyway, and a less than one term senator with no legislative record of note to his name doesn't get elected President unless there are extenuating circumstances. I thought the party abandoned Hillary and she and Bill should have said "call us when you suffer buyer's remorse if we're still interested we'll get back to you" but that wasn't a realistic option for them.

If this was "Facebook" - I would "LIKE" this comment... Instead, we're at SON so I will say this:

+1

Personal finances are not the same as the mammoth financial structure the government has. Some don't want to admit it, but it's apples and oranges.

You might be surprised that I disagree here... My feeling is that, while there are more tentacles on the big government octopus, it's still just an octopus. Whether it's yours or mine or Barack's bank account, the register at some point must be balanced. But the fiscal behavior modeled for us by DC goons (yes, of both parties) is to blame for the vast numbers of Americans living beyond their means. If Big Government doesn't have to pay its bills and balance its checkbook, why should anyone else?

Honestly, I don't think enough has been done to fix, improve, and develop our infrastructure, and that is due to the cut backs Republicans put into place. While such projects do cost money, they both benefit those looking for a job and the taxpayers themselves.

I think spending the people's money is a responsibility that lawmakers do NOT take seriously and they are very frivolous... it's abuse of our funds that make so many wary and suspicious and, as a result, worthwhile programs are often given the shaft. If both Dems and Reps would handle our money in a more responsible fashion, I wouldn't have such an aversion to sending more their way. How about some oversight? Americans really don't have a clue where our money is going and why, therefore it is hard to fathom why we should bother sending them more. I know many here don't feel our tax burden is over the top, particularly compared to some European countries (whose economies have tanked despite heavier taxation!), but don't forget that we have regulation upon regulation with sometimes triple taxation, local bond measure, etc. Just because individuals can spare an extra dime doesn't mean someone should take it from them...

And I wonder, just how much of the shrinking size of government, firings of government employees, abolishing certain departments, has contributed to the unemployment rate. I would think, very much.

See, I just think that government as a major employer is BAD on all levels. If there is some worthless, pointless department doing nothing except existing on our dime so that some folks have a job, that's not right. I'd rather spend some money to retrain those folks for whatever hot-button job there is today than keep them in pointless positions forever and ever on the taxpayer dime. Yes, me... one who leans right... is suggesting spend a little now so as not to waste a lot in perpetuity!

So.... if your car blows it's engine, do you use a credit card to fix your car so can go back and forth to work and earn money? Or do you call your boss and quit your job because you don't have the money to even pull your car out of the ditch? And you want to cut entitlements..... FINE. If you are of retierment age, and you have income of 100,000$ per year or more, then you ONLY get back waht you put in, and nothing more. How does that sound? Social Security is meant to be a safety net, not some damned IRA, like some people seem to think it would be. And it's real nice that you earn enough money to have savings in reserve.... I wonder if you were one paycheck away from living under a bridge and had no health insurance, you'd hold the same opnions on entitlements and government assitance.

Wow, Alpha... I'll try to respond to each point there. I'm not particularly happy about cuts to Medicare or Social Security. It sucks that old folks, once again, get the shaft. They shouldn't... Before we are forced to cut so much as a single percentage from some old person's monthly living allowance... I say we first clean house and eliminate wasteful spending throughout the government. But every representative and senator has some stupid pet project back home that they've promised to fund for someone in exchange for a vote. That needs to stop.

As for my ability to save some money... Yes, I'm fortunate but my job is shaky right now and on the bubble. My wife's job was shaky a couple of years ago, but stable now. I was unemployed for about a year in 2006... I received unemployment for six months, then lived off my savings account for another six until I found another job. I had no insurance that year. Good credit and a savings account carried me through. I have never lived beyond my means and that makes a difference. Yes, I was literally NO paycheck away from living under a bridge... and no, the experience doesn't change my mind about entitlements. I strongly believe government assistance should be something short-term, not a lifelong pursuit.

Anyway... employed or unemployed... I admit that I'm enjoying Big Brother this summer.

Yes but the more people save and save, the less money goes to develop anything. It's similar to the way that many people have been tightening their belts, because of the economy. If the government follows suit then it's a catch-22.

But, Carl, you DO develop something when you bank money - you develop wealth. And when people develop wealth in a stable and secure financial environment, they begin to spend it on things.

I don't see the catch-22 here... The government must do what you and I do when money is tight - invest wisely and selectively in what we want or need, and cut our spending to meet our obligations so we don't lose our shirts.

If you are suggesting that government shouldn't cut spending because it is a source of income and security for the masses, then we have a fundamentally different view of what the role of government should be.

Okay...

So, anybody here spend more per month than they earn? I don't. I budget myself so that my obligations can be met with some extra when/if needed. While I currenly have *zero* on credit cards, I do have five "loans" that are outstanding that I must pay monthly: two car payments, a mortgage, a low-interest home improvement loan from my bank, and the orthodontist for the boy's braces.

In order to meet those obligations and the other monthly bills/expenses such as water or electricity, I make sure I don't spend more than my family earns in a given month. We have built a decent savings account in case of trouble (or preferably, down the road for retirement/pleasure)... I shift a certain amount of money into what I call a "reserve" subaccount for the occasional ridiculously large bill auto insurance every six months so funds are there for that or something like it.

So then... why can't the government do it? Sure, governmental obligations are larger and the problems more complex... But COME ON.

Should I need extra money for something, I reduce my spending... I don't demand my employer give me more upon request. Does anyone else here do that?

Q-Fan, I was intrigued by your federal aid to states numbers and did a search... finding differing viewpoints on this. The fact of the matter is that blue vs. red gorging at the federal trough is roughly the same. I found these numbers that differ with your view from the Washington Post:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_responds_do_cons.html

And it is excerpted here:

First, I took the average amount of federal aid given to states won by Obama in 2008 versus those won by McCain. The Obama state average ($11,097,466,205.93) dwarfs that of the McCain states ($8,579,954,939.86), but that is to be expected, given that McCain's states tend to be smaller, and this measure does not take population into account. So I instead averaged the per capita aid given to each candidate's states.

While that may look dramatic, it is important to remember that a lot of federal aid to states -- Medicaid, welfare, education funds -- go disproportionately to poor cities, and Democratic states tend to be more urban than their Republican counterparts.

How you interpret the data depends on which side of the political fence you're on. All states suckle from the federal breast more than they should... it's because most of them have no clue how to govern. Of course, neither does Washington. We all get screwed.

But that's not true at all. The 1990s were a boom time, and look what America did next: decided "why should I pay for them?" and cut taxes. Then the wars came and there was no draft and Bush bribed everyone with some dumb $600 check to go shopping, and people still didn't want to pitch in and wanted taxes even lower. Then the country went broke and instead of saying "we have to take care of everyone" conservatives want to cut the social safety net even as they refuse to raise taxes. So when it comes to modern conservative theory, where is this sacrificing for the greater good?

The joke of it all is that while conservatives bemoan welfare and government subsidies, a run down of the states that get more federal dollars than they send to Washington, is state after state the reddest of red states. The very people who hate liberals and NY and the north and see me and my state and city as socialist anti-american atheist abominations, are the very people who come around every year with their palm facing up demanding a hand out. For all the republican talk about everyone has to be self reliant, how is it that it is the republican dominated states that are charity cases, and it's broke NY and CA that send more money to Washington every year than it gets back? And then these same states that take all the liberal tax dollars turn right around and say we are not real americans and and are socialists. Well we have to be socialists, because if we didn't use the government as a way to funnel money to Podunk, Green Acres and every other hick town in some backwoods state that doesn't believe in education, they'd starve.

I have no problem with government loans to auto companies. What was the cost of the loan, $14 billion? And lets think about all the jobs and cars that money went and saved. Now think how long $14 billion lasts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a week? Maybe two? So it is priorities. Do you consider the auto industry less or more important than two weeks in Kabul? And then if you think they are both important, well, take that 14 billion and drop it in the bucket that is the money that would have been saved if the Bush tax cuts expired. I think with the auto industry Obama did good. They're still there making cars, and if we can spend a trillion to save wall street we can spend a few billion to save all those union jobs in Detroit.

Well, then we have a clear and decided difference of opinion after all. That's fine... I live in California and I pay more than enough of my fair share and am unwilling to give even more to the government so that they can waste it on corporate welfare, social welfare, any war anywhere, or any other hairbrained scheme that seems to be a good idea to politicians but a bad idea to mostly the rest of us.

It was floated years ago and I say it should come back... a flat tax where everywhere pays their TRUE fair share based on a percentage of their earnings. If the government needs more to buy overpriced hammers or toilet plungers, then we all get evenly soaked.

According to a site called thetaxfoundation

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

in 1916 a married couple earning $250,000 paid a tax rate of 10%

in 1917 when WWI hit, the same couple, if I read this chart correctly, paid 46% to help finance the war

by 1925 things settled and they paid 25%

when the depression hit and FDR was elected, they paid 58%

by the time of WWII they paid 88%

So there is a logic. Times and huge events come up, expenses get incurred, the government raises taxes to finance the needs of the day. So what happened in recent years? Modern conservative thought has adopted this new theory that when times are good you cut taxes (Bush tax cuts) and when times are bad you cut taxes (today). How does that economic theory make any sense? Someone had to pay for all the bombs and soldiers, but nobody wanted to raise taxes to pay for this adventurous US policy. Now Obama is president and the very same people who just two years ago were all for financing wars on Visa and Amex suddenly want balanced budget amendments. They don't need an amendment for that, they just need Bill Clinton to tell them what to do.

The tax rates today are historically on the low end of the spectrum of the last 100 years. Not coincidentally, more and more money is being consolidated by an ever narrowing top tier of society. These people don't even want to cut loopholes for the wealthy. I never heard of a politician saying "I am pro loophole. I am pro legalized tax evasion if you have a good accountant" but there you have the republican position as it stands currently. And then to turn right around and want to cut social security and medicare? When each bomb costs tens of millions of dollars? If that is not class warfare, then I don't know what is.

Hey, Q-Fan...

I'll be the first in line to contribute my fair share and certainly more if events call for it... Americans have always sacraficed for a greater good. The problem is that nobody can define what the greater good is that our money today is going to. Think about it... Stimulus money, government loans to the auto companies, GE... All of this money well-spent? I guess I personally dig in my heels when asked to contribute more when much of what we've given has already been pissed away on foolishness and nonsense. My mom is on social security and medicare and wholly recognizes that cuts to these programs are inevitable to keep them viable.

I frankly wouldn't mind a modest increase in my taxes IF the government also makes a compromise... I'm sure we could all identify numerous social programs and/or services that should be reduced or eliminated altogether. There is massive waste in government - we all know this. I'm the kind of person who would also dig in his heels and be unwilling to give more of my money to support waste... The government does NOT have a good track record spending our money wisely. In the marketplace, I don't keep buying items or paying for services that don't measure up. We should honestly demand the same from government.

This isn't a partisan issue for me... Both parties have abused the public trust and neglected their responsibilities. There was never a spending bill out of Congress that Bush didn't like and Obama's economic policies have failed miserably (Dems held Congress the first two years of Obama's presidency and could have accomplished SOMETHING if they REALLY wanted to).

But I really can't argue the substance of your post, Q-Fan... great information and I appreciate it.

As always, reading this forum (when I do check in) with great interest. Unlike what I recall from a few years ago participating here, I now see a lot of thoughtful and well-composed thoughts on both sides and it's encouraging. I don't agree with all that I read, but at least everyone here is polite and some attempt is made to connect despite differing viewpoints. I'm not saying we could all do better if we were all in Washington, but I'll bet we all couldn't do any worse, that's for sure.

Anyway, I wanted to comment on the budget situation by making a simple point about how my family's budget is handled - granted, you can't compare the size of the government's budget (or lack thereof) with my household income. We do well, can afford what we want, etc. If either one of us lost our jobs, we could manage with belt-tightening and with money we have piled into the savings account because we have made good choices and have NOT lived beyond our means.

So, for most of us here... what do we do when times are lean? How many here immediately march to their employer and ask for more money? We cut back our household expenses, right? Instead of buying filet mignon, we purchase ground beef. Why does the government NEVER DO THAT?

All of us cut waste out of our budgets in a manner that is financially responsible. Why does the government NEVER DO THAT?

I'm not saying that some form of increased revenue for the government is likely possible... but why are WE always the answer when they overspend? Why can't they just stop pissing all the money away on crap?

Those are my thoughts... thanks for listening...

B

I stand by my statement. If you support a party that takes a government surplus, hands out tax cuts for the rich... blah, blah, blah

All I gotta say is that it ain't workin' now, friends... Obama is NOT performing well at all. His economic policies are failures... the stimulus was an outrageous waste of money that tremendously accelerated growth of the debt... foreign policy is in shambles... a trail of broken promises to every special interest group out there.

Clearly, this country is NOT in better shape today than when he took office.

Failure. Epic failure? Gettin' there...

By the way, I don't like Orrin Hatch, either. He's a dick. In fact, I'm not a big fan of most of the "entrenched" Republican leaders. Fresh blood, new ideas... that's what we need. And NOT the kind presented by Obama (because they're NOT WORKING!)

By the way... why the HELL do I STILL have a warn status on me? Not that I particularly care, but don't those things scab over and peel off ever? Geez... you'd think I was a frequent hellraiser around here!

Perhaps I could be again, though... Hmmmm... >

So.... i'm dying to know the going rates in California, how much does your gardener charge you? The thing that pisses me off, is that I've had people every once in a while balk at my price, and tell me it's too much. All of the larger companies in this area charge 50$ a man hour, and they just send out a crew of mexicans to do the work. I charge 20$ a man hour, and I had one guy (who was a consevative republican attorney)go with illegal alien labor rather than pay my rate which was less than every other company in town. That's why nothing ever gets done about the immigration problem, the wealthy don't want to let go of any of their cheap labor. Believe it or not, I rarely work for, and actually AVOID the rich, because in my experience... they have by and large been very cheap, and try to screw you at every turn. I work almost exclusively for middle class soccer moms and their families, and never have trouble with people being cheap or not paying me. Many times they are on a budget, but we always work together for an acceptable solution, they don't try to get something for nothing.... I do my work in "stages", and people like that.

Hey Alpha...

Sorry for the delay in responding... I haven't been around here much lately the past week...

Anyway, the past few gardeners have sort of inherited the previous rate charged, which was $80 a month. That is actually pretty low considering what I know others are charging... But it is ONLY for cutting the grass and occasional weed and feed (which he screwed up and did apply pre-emergence at the proper time and we've got weeds now). The previous gardener charged $80 for both cutting the grass and maintaining flowerbeds, but he wasn't maintaining the flowerbeds... It's been a mess. But I agreed with the current to just cut grass for $80 and we would take care of the flowerbeds ourselves. I would pay what it was worth to get a top-notch gardener or service... but two gardening services we inquired wouldn't call us back or show up to quote service. I'm the sort of guy who will happily pay more to get more...

But to better answer the question of going rates... I think anywhere from $150 to $200 and higher a month for basic gardening here in the Central Valley is probably more accurate... the current gardener would take on our flowerbeds for $120-$130 a month but I chose not to bit since I'm not 100% happy with what he's doing now. Why pay more for mediocre? If I lived by you, Alpha, I'd gladly pay you for the quality of work you describe... Hell ya... worth it.

Mind you, the above-prices are for a more accesably-priced region of California... Southern California? I'm sure it is WAY MORE...

Brian

HYPOCRISY...

U.S. says Libyan rebels may sell oil

A U.S. Treasury Department official said Libyan rebels would not be subject to U.S. sanctions if they avoid entities linked to Gaddafi's regime, which would allow them to sell oil under their control.

"The rebels are not part of the government of Libya. They are not subject to the sanctions," the official said.

A war all about oil... under OBAMA? Nahhhh... say it ain't so, Liberals! Say it ain't so!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-libya-oil-rebels-idUSTRE72R6X620110328

Alphaguy... I agree with your comments on illegal alien workers, the responsibility the private sector should take for the problem, and the ethics of workers in America today.

I had a place in the mountains some years ago and I needed some work done - lots of big trees and sloping land that was just two much for me and my family to tackle. The trees needed a proper trimming very badly. I called ads in both the phone book and newspaper, left messages... nobody called back. Those that did call back didn't show up to give an estimate for the work. These were independent folks with licenses, by the way. One guy gave me an estimate (was a bit high, I thought, but what do you do when nobody else will do the work!) - and HE never showed up on the scheduled work date! Finally found a guy to come out... licensed, good references (though I didn't call them). He did the work... half-assed. Butchered the tops of the trees (they eye level from the deck of the house), then left broken branches, etc. on the ground below them. I was PISSED. Told him I wouldn't pay him in full until the mess was cleaned up. Then HE got pissed but agreed to clean up. Again, a half-assed job. I finally gave him his balance to get rid of him... then promptly spread word to anyone and everyone I could talk to in and around the town (was a small town).

LESSON: Hire two queens and an old woman. JUST KIDDING! LOL... The lesson I learned is that sometimes you just CAN'T get good help.

I can't tell you how many gardeners we've been through here at home. The current one is the best... though he best communicates through his daughter. Now, I purposely sought to hire a gardener who was NOT undocumented and I'm positive the one I'm using now is legal because he is licensed and his daughter speaks perfect English and, in conversation, has told me how long her father and his crew have been working here. I admit that I'm puzzled as to why his English is so poor... but whatever. His price for the job wasn't the cheapest... But he actually shows up and leaves notes letting me know what's going on, his schedules, etc. AND, unlike some I have dealt with in the past two years here, he SHOWED UP.

Anyways... sorry for being long-winded with these stories. Just wanted to add that, as a resident of California, I see this problem every day... every time I leave the house. No joke. It's BAD here. And you see it in stores, on the roads, and affecting daily life here. I truly believe any business hiring undocumented workers should be heavily fined or shut down. Workers found to be here illegally should be deported, no exceptions.

Now, I see the other side... many of these people may be fleeing corruption in their home countries. I get that and feel badly for them... perhaps the money and resources we are pissing off in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq would be better spent shaping up OUR hemisphere. I say bring all troops home and protect the homeland. Leverage for regime change of corrupt governments in OUR hemisphere. Make things better for OUR neighbors and their people. I truly believe that the ineffective way the illegal immigration problem is being handled is resulting in more of these people being abused here... more laws broken, no accountability, etc.

Thanks...

Just to clarify, I may be a Democrat, however I am NOT a liberal.

And many of those Tea Party candidates were "nutjobs," just like Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, and Rand Paul. That is why I have to give Lisa Murkowski credit for standing up against them and not caving under pressure like Mitch McDonnell did with his sudden flip-flopping on earmarks after supporting them for years.

Just wait and see how well the Republicans handle things the next two years, and if Americans will be supporting them in 2012, and you can trust me on that one.

Duly noted with regard to the "Liberal" comment... As for Republicans and 2012, to build a greater majority, all they really need to do is what voters have asked them to do... And if they don't, I'll be the first in line to NOT vote for them.

Actually this election wasn't so much a vote for the Republicans as it was a vote against the Democrats because the instant gratification American public didn't get all the results they wanted fast enough. You have to remember that this nation suffered through eight years of Bush and his Republican cronies.....just like when Clinton and the Democrats had to clean up after the first president Bush back in the early '90s....it takes time to fix things.

And Obama is hardly a failure....just look at the years of 2001-2009 if you want to see what a failure looks like. Think of Hurricane Katrina, the so-called WMD's in Iraq, and all the other things which Bush failed at during his term in office. And no, I don't need to resort to "desperation and insecurity" there...the Republican Tea Party nutjobs did a perfect job of that all by themselves during this last election. Everyone should be thankful that Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell didn't win...

Hey Scotty, I agree that the vote was definitely against Democrats, but not because they didn't get "instant gratification" -- it was because the majority in America rejected a liberal agenda and Democrats totally ignored the thoughts and opinions of both the general public as well as the people they represented in their districts. Almost every poll taken underscored these facts and the election cemented them.

I absolutely agree that the popular vote was not FOR a Conservative Republican agenda... I do believe, however, that the wants and desires (and politically leanings right now) of the majority more closely identify with center-to-right-leaning candidates. I'm surprised that moderate Democrats were booted, which underscores the punishment mentality of voters this year... as if they were saying "You're Democrat? Get out!!!"

As for Republican Tea Party "nutjobs"... they kicked ass this election, whether or not you actually like them. The biggest mistake, Scotty, you or any other Liberal make is to so readily dismiss them as bigoted, clueless losers... Trust me on this one...

Nothing in any available data backs up a single thing you've said. All that has happened since the advent of Reaganomics is a consolidation of wealth, and the rich getting richer with a smaller and smaller percentage of the population hording a greater percentage of the wealth.

Where is the data for your statement? I suppose I could (should?) look up data, charts, graphs, etc. to illustrate my point, but the basis of my statements are drawn from shared experience and common sense in general:

Have you ever been hired to work for a poor person?

Do the downtrodden sign your paycheck?

Do the poor provide the necessary capital to start a business?

Does a 401k match come from a broke employer?

Class warfare has never worked and isn't working now. The rich who own business, even the nastiest amongst them, hire individuals and pay them a salary which goes back into the economy...

If you are concerned about hoarding of wealth, perhaps our friends in Hollywood should work for less and fork over a minimum of half their salaries to worthy causes for the most unfortunate in society. Maybe Al Gore can for cheap sublet some of the rooms in his mansion that requires multiple air conditioners to keep cool...

Interesting that you didn't address my point regarding Sarah Palin. But of course you couldn't, there's no justification for her idiocy.

And Obama isn't my president. I didn't vote for him. I was behind Hilary Clinton.

I addressed your point regarding Sarah Palin by referencing a few of the many stupid comments Obama has made. I can add to it by listing off the long list of ignorant statements made by the man who currently is just a heartbeat away from the Presidency, if you like. Does it make you feel better knowing that the painfully ignorant Palin is safely out of the way in Alaska while Joe Biden stands eagerly by?

As for Hilary... we agree. She would have been the better choice for Democrats and for the country.