bhodilee wrote:I thought after the first week of FMLA you qualified for Short Term Disability (provided you have it of course)

Pregnancy and subsequent birth qualifies for STD under every policy I've seen. Not sure if that was a mandate due to FMLA or not. Also, STD policies all seem to have that one week "waiting" period before they kick in. What I have seen different is the period for birth, ranging from 6 weeks to the full 13 weeks for STD. For pregnancy related, such as bed rest, all the STD policies I've seen allow for the full 13 weeks (total). Then your long term policies kick in.

For a society that preaches "family values" at every turn, I'm rather surprised at the horror shown by the government making it less burdensome to have, and properly take care of, a newborn child. I agree that we ought not to subsidize other people's poor life choices, but to help somebody who has a job to be able to properly take care of their family for a few weeks seems downright rational and decent. Not necessary, maybe, if everybody actually planned well and all that, but doesn't seem so bad to me. It also seems like a small cost for a lot of benefit - primarily for the newborn baby.

klezman wrote:For a society that preaches "family values" at every turn, I'm rather surprised at the horror shown by the government making it less burdensome to have, and properly take care of, a newborn child. I agree that we ought not to subsidize other people's poor life choices, but to help somebody who has a job to be able to properly take care of their family for a few weeks seems downright rational and decent. Not necessary, maybe, if everybody actually planned well and all that, but doesn't seem so bad to me. It also seems like a small cost for a lot of benefit - primarily for the newborn baby.

well, I heard a story that in Canada new mothers (birthers, but not adopters?) get an entire year off with pay...

joelsisk wrote:Pregnancy and subsequent birth qualifies for STD under every policy I've seen. Not sure if that was a mandate due to FMLA or not. Also, STD policies all seem to have that one week "waiting" period before they kick in. What I have seen different is the period for birth, ranging from 6 weeks to the full 13 weeks for STD. For pregnancy related, such as bed rest, all the STD policies I've seen allow for the full 13 weeks (total). Then your long term policies kick in.

Is this a private insurance thing or a state-funded thing? I'm getting confused about which is which.

chemvictim wrote:Is this a private insurance thing or a state-funded thing? I'm getting confused about which is which.

those are all private insurance.

The pay equivalent to unemployment for new fathers in Cali was public.

To my knowledge FMLA (the federal law) does not provide any compensation itself, just job protection and time limits.

joelsisk wrote:those are all private insurance.

The pay equivalent to unemployment for new fathers in Cali was public.

To my knowledge FMLA (the federal law) does not provide any compensation itself, just job protection and time limits.

yes to FMLA, just protection.

When it comes to babies, even Fox News conservatives get confused about they "deserve." It's fun, really.

Megyn Kelly is confused

chemvictim wrote:This is fascinating, really. We talk about entitlements and welfare a lot here, but this seems like the first, real-live, specific example of a program that made me say "WHAT????" The fact that it's California, with such well-publicized money problems, makes it even more eye-opening. I assume this is confined to California? I think I'd be pretty unhappy about paying loads of taxes to support this kind of thing. Does that make me selfish and cranky? Maybe.

Sanity - do we have any crazy stuff like that in NV? I don't know much about politics here yet. Eeek it's August...not much time.

Not quite that crazy - Go here to find out what our state disability program covers.

The landscape of the voting population is changing, which means more entitlement programs are on their way, unless.....

Many states cover 6 weeks disability pay for new mothers. That's been going on for a long time; different benefits are covered under various programs, some with time and pay, some with time and no pay.

klezman, I disagree; not entirely out of principle, but partially out of reality. Many of the people that have babies, shouldn't, for so many reasons, one of which is affordability. I'm not talking about money being tight - I'm talking about how from the time the baby is born, or before, there is government assistance, to the time they become adults, then enter the system. This has been discussed here before. My tack is a little different; if you've planned ahead, you have plenty of time to organize the finances so it is not a burden on others when you have the baby. Having a baby is not a disability. And by suggesting that the government reward a "good" parent for providing, is jumping in the middle of the issue, imho. Why not let the government reward the parents instead, for planning properly and not needing public assistance, for say, 2 years to start. Or, let's reward the small businessman who creates jobs, takes no public assistance, pays all his taxes and fees. OK, so I'm playing devil's advocate.

joelsisk wrote:well, I heard a story that in Canada new mothers (birthers, but not adopters?) get an entire year off with pay...

Yeah, that's true in most of the country, I think. I also think that's excessive and a big burden on businesses. 6 weeks feels kind of short to me, but at least there's something. Personally, I think something more like 2 months feels more balanced intuitively. However, I'm not going to pretend that it's a negligible burden on the employer. It's a balancing act.

sanity wrote:klezman, I disagree; not entirely out of principle, but partially out of reality. Many of the people that have babies, shouldn't, for so many reasons, one of which is affordability. I'm not talking about money being tight - I'm talking about how from the time the baby is born, or before, there is government assistance, to the time they become adults, then enter the system. This has been discussed here before. My tack is a little different; if you've planned ahead, you have plenty of time to organize the finances so it is not a burden on others when you have the baby. Having a baby is not a disability. And by suggesting that the government reward a "good" parent for providing, is jumping in the middle of the issue, imho. Why not let the government reward the parents instead, for planning properly and not needing public assistance, for say, 2 years to start. Or, let's reward the small businessman who creates jobs, takes no public assistance, pays all his taxes and fees. OK, so I'm playing devil's advocate.

You raise a few good points. I wholeheartedly agree that many who choose to have babies are nowhere near financially able to care for them. That ought not to be encouraged. I could be persuaded that as a matter of public policy we should only require employers to hold on to a job rather than pay their employees for parental leave. It's another question whether society wants to encourage new parents to spend time with their children by eliminating one potential barrier by subsidizing parental leave with tax dollars. On the whole, I think the benefits outweigh the costs, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

I think we often forget that business isn't the be-all of life. I think this country would benefit from focusing less on work and profit and more on quality of life. But then shareholders would see reductions in growth. Oh my.

klezman wrote:
I think we often forget that business isn't the be-all of life. I think this country would benefit from focusing less on work and profit and more on quality of life. But then shareholders would see reductions in growth. Oh my.

Now THAT is exactly how I have felt for some time!

klezman wrote:I think we often forget that business isn't the be-all of life. I think this country would benefit from focusing less on work and profit and more on quality of life. But then shareholders would see reductions in growth. Oh my.

It's very easy for all of us here to take a perspective such as this - after all, we're all socioeconomically in at least the top 5-10% or higher (even if students whose current income doesn't put them there, that reflects background and prospects). For most people in this country, and even more throughout the rest of the world, there aren't meaningful choices to 'work less and focus on the quality of life more' - they're at the edges of or in poverty now. Accepting an intention reduction in the size of the 'pie' would have a very different meaning for them than it would for us. By the way, this reflects one of the real tensions in the Democratic coalition over the past 40 years between the elite and the working class which has contributed to the defection of much of the (white) working class.

Telling the people in general that we should focus less on business and more on quality of life often means essentially telling them to forgo their ambitions to improve their lot or their children's.

Obviously, given my interests in wine, food, sport, philosophy and ideas generally, I focus a great deal on the quality of life rather than on amassing the biggest pile of money that I can. But, I am very much aware of my own privileged position historically and currently, and the fact that I have the luxury of being able to make such choices.

sanity wrote:klezman, I disagree; not entirely out of principle, but partially out of reality. Many of the people that have babies, shouldn't, for so many reasons, one of which is affordability. I'm not talking about money being tight - I'm talking about how from the time the baby is born, or before, there is government assistance, to the time they become adults, then enter the system. This has been discussed here before. My tack is a little different; if you've planned ahead, you have plenty of time to organize the finances so it is not a burden on others when you have the baby. Having a baby is not a disability. And by suggesting that the government reward a "good" parent for providing, is jumping in the middle of the issue, imho. Why not let the government reward the parents instead, for planning properly and not needing public assistance, for say, 2 years to start. Or, let's reward the small businessman who creates jobs, takes no public assistance, pays all his taxes and fees. OK, so I'm playing devil's advocate.

I'm with you on this one. I can see STD after childbirth, that's a physically demanding ordeal that will take you out of commission for a little while. I'm having difficulty seeing snuggle time as a disability.

I can see how it benefits the parents, but I'm questioning how it benefits society as a whole. Obviously I don't have kids, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the process of screwing up your kids is a years-long endeavor. The first few months are only a tiny part of it. I suspect that people who weren't inclined to bond with their baby in the first place are going to use the time off to play video games or whatever.

chemvictim wrote:I'm with you on this one. I can see STD after childbirth, that's a physically demanding ordeal that will take you out of commission for a little while. I'm having difficulty seeing snuggle time as a disability.

I can see how it benefits the parents, but I'm questioning how it benefits society as a whole. Obviously I don't have kids, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the process of screwing up your kids is a years-long endeavor. The first few months are only a tiny part of it. I suspect that people who weren't inclined to bond with their baby in the first place are going to use the time off to play video games or whatever.

I need to clarify part of my statement. I refer to those who are working on some level, and also on some form of assistance. Those who have been in the system, and play it for every penny are another sort not included here. And then, we could get into the debate about the right to have children; that's not where I was originally going with my comment. I also believe that there are many types of professionals who should not have families - ideally, the military should not have to be saddled with the expense of caring for families to the extent that it does. But then, how would you get those willing to be career soldiers? What about police officers, spies, I have thought a lot about this, but don't have the time right now to get into it further.

When my son was born, I never felt like he was mine, as so many other women have described to me, nor did I feel many of the things they described. I did feel an overwhelming sense of need to take care of him properly, it was actually an "aha" feeling for me; I got what drives parents to do things they don't want to do, to provide for their kids.

He's 19, almost 20, and driving me nuts, and I'm crazy about him, as those of you know who've met him.

edit: And yes, screwing up your kids is a years-long process. He and I got an early start on the therapy, so hopefully that will pay off in the long run!

rpm wrote:It's very easy for all of us here to take a perspective such as this - after all, we're all socioeconomically in at least the top 5-10% or higher (even if students whose current income doesn't put them there, that reflects background and prospects). For most people in this country, and even more throughout the rest of the world, there aren't meaningful choices to 'work less and focus on the quality of life more' - they're at the edges of or in poverty now. Accepting an intention reduction in the size of the 'pie' would have a very different meaning for them than it would for us. By the way, this reflects one of the real tensions in the Democratic coalition over the past 40 years between the elite and the working class which has contributed to the defection of much of the (white) working class.

Telling the people in general that we should focus less on business and more on quality of life often means essentially telling them to forgo their ambitions to improve their lot or their children's.

Obviously, given my interests in wine, food, sport, philosophy and ideas generally, I focus a great deal on the quality of life rather than on amassing the biggest pile of money that I can. But, I am very much aware of my own privileged position historically and currently, and the fact that I have the luxury of being able to make such choices.

Yup, agreed. You're taking the bottom-up view, though, and I was making a top-down argument. Part of the reason, imo, that we have the current situation is the short-term outlook taken by most businesses to drive their immediate profits higher and increase shareholder value (whether public or private company or a partnership). This incentive isn't necessarily in line with the best interests of the employees, aside from actually having a job.

klezman wrote:Yup, agreed. You're taking the bottom-up view, though, and I was making a top-down argument. Part of the reason, imo, that we have the current situation is the short-term outlook taken by most businesses to drive their immediate profits higher and increase shareholder value (whether public or private company or a partnership). This incentive isn't necessarily in line with the best interests of the employees, aside from actually having a job.

It's not simply that businesses take a short term view and are concerned only with profits; the far greater problem is that politicians are concerned only with gaining and keeping power by any means necessary, regardless of the economic stupidity involved.

rpm wrote:It's not simply that businesses take a short term view and are concerned only with profits; the far greater problem is that politicians are concerned only with gaining and keeping power by any means necessary, regardless of the economic stupidity involved.

I think it's fair to say that both are significant problems (as far as Klezman's post about short-term outlooks and looking for immediate profits, yes, that problem is everywhere, but I think it is clearly much more severe in companies that have gone public than in private companies/partnerships).


---

On a side note, I'm now about 100 pages into Murray's "Coming Apart," and outside of being exasperated at its use of endnotes in lieu of footnotes (especially maddening given that a third of the notes contain interesting side-discussions that I want to read, while the other two thirds are merely sources and citations), I am finding it interesting so far. I wonder if the social problems we have been discussing in this thread are partly caused by the self-segregation of Murray's 'new upper class,' but will leave discussion of that (and other points) until I'm through the rest of the book, which I should be able to finish this weekend.

rpm wrote:It's not simply that businesses take a short term view and are concerned only with profits; the far greater problem is that politicians are concerned only with gaining and keeping power by any means necessary, regardless of the economic stupidity involved.

Career politicians is not what representative government was meant to produce, buts its unfortunately what we are stuck with.

cortot20 wrote:Career politicians is not what representative government was meant to produce, buts its unfortunately what we are stuck with.

Only because we pay them. Perhaps politicians should have to pay the public for the privilege of serving. Or, perhaps we should take a leaf from the model of the Roman Republic and limit executive officers to single one year terms. As long as politics as a career pays, we will have career politicians.

Washington was really pretty close to a Cincinnatus. Now we have politicians so venal they would make the Gracchi blush.

rpm wrote:Only because we pay them. Perhaps politicians should have to pay the public for the privilege of serving. Or, perhaps we should take a leaf from the model of the Roman Republic and limit executive officers to single one year terms. As long as politics as a career pays, we will have career politicians.

I am probably in the minority among those of a conservative bent, but I don't *necessarily* mind having paid politicians, and I'm not convinced of the benefits of term limits as they have been implemented, given that I don't believe they have reduced the number of career politicians out there (instead we just have career politicians who serve out however many terms they can in one position, then move onto another position, and then another*... etc). Perhaps if we could combine term limits with a limit on the total number of years that one could serve as an elected official at any and all levels things might be better. Though of course it might just end up devolving political power to parties and political machines, depending on the electorate involved.



*In California, at any rate, a typical career of a politician is 1) Elected to State assembly, stays there until middle of last term, at which point he: 2) gets elected to a local county board or city council, where he stays until the middle of his last term, at which point he: 3) gets elected to the State senate, where he serves out his term, until he is 4) appointed to some state board that pays a good deal of money. Granted California recently passed Prop 28, which limits the total number of years one can serve in the state legislature to 12, regardless of which house, but when you combine that with local positions and federal positions available.... well, having a lifelong career as a politician is still very, very possible.

jawlz wrote:I am probably in the minority among those of a conservative bent, but I don't *necessarily* mind having paid politicians, and I'm not convinced of the benefits of term limits as they have been implemented, given that I don't believe they have reduced the number of career politicians out there (instead we just have career politicians who serve out however many terms they can in one position, then move onto another position, and then another*... etc). Perhaps if we could combine term limits with a limit on the total number of years that one could serve as an elected official at any and all levels things might be better. Though of course it might just end up devolving political power to parties and political machines, depending on the electorate involved.



*In California, at any rate, a typical career of a politician is 1) Elected to State assembly, stays there until middle of last term, at which point he: 2) gets elected to a local county board or city council, where he stays until the middle of his last term, at which point he: 3) gets elected to the State senate, where he serves out his term, until he is 4) appointed to some state board that pays a good deal of money. Granted California recently passed Prop 28, which limits the total number of years one can serve in the state legislature to 12, regardless of which house, but when you combine that with local positions and federal positions available.... well, having a lifelong career as a politician is still very, very possible.

I don't think you're in the minority regarding pay (although I hazard many would agree that our politicians are overcompensated). If there was 0 pay, that would likely increase incentives for graft and other frauds. Should politics be a full time job? We need congress to declare war (for an example) which I guess that means they need to be available to be called to session.

One of my bigger gripes, especially at the federal level but certainly true down the ladder, is that politicians leave wealthier by far than they arrived. Senators want 250k or whatever? They should not be able to invest a penny outside of blind trusts or sit on a single board for a decade out of office.

rpm wrote:Only because we pay them. Perhaps politicians should have to pay the public for the privilege of serving. Or, perhaps we should take a leaf from the model of the Roman Republic and limit executive officers to single one year terms. As long as politics as a career pays, we will have career politicians.

Washington was really pretty close to a Cincinnatus. Now we have politicians so venal they would make the Gracchi blush.

I'd be ok with having co consuls. Alternate days, it'd be fun. Oh, and I get to make my horse a senator.

rpm wrote:It's not simply that businesses take a short term view and are concerned only with profits; the far greater problem is that politicians are concerned only with gaining and keeping power by any means necessary, regardless of the economic stupidity involved.

I agree both are clearly problems. In business it's too often short term outlook (but the companies that take a longer view do end to do well - cf GE Research, IBM, Xerox back in the day and of course Bell Labs), and in politics it's too often kicking the can down the road just to get reelected to kick the problem further into the future. Not sure they're related, but both are clearly problems.

rpm wrote:Only because we pay them. Perhaps politicians should have to pay the public for the privilege of serving. Or, perhaps we should take a leaf from the model of the Roman Republic and limit executive officers to single one year terms. As long as politics as a career pays, we will have career politicians.

Washington was really pretty close to a Cincinnatus. Now we have politicians so venal they would make the Gracchi blush.

Turns out we discussed this idea at lunch briefly. It would likely bring different troubles, but that may be what we need. Or it would enshrine the Romneys of the world as the political class and that would likely not be much better.

I generally like to steer clear of of @$%! like this, but a pox on both their houses, our government is too large and intrusive.

Virginia vintners taste the police state

While the Obama administration is busy eviscerating private property rights at the federal level, Republican-controlled Fauquier County, Va., has decided to follow suit in its own way. Fauquier's Board of Supervisors recently passed a winery ordinance that tramples private property rights and some fundamental civil liberties.
Continues...

klezman wrote:Turns out we discussed this idea at lunch briefly. It would likely bring different troubles, but that may be what we need. Or it would enshrine the Romneys of the world as the political class and that would likely not be much better.

I'm a big fan of the Glenn Reynolds proposal for massive surtaxes on job-related income over government salaries earned by elected and appointed government officials who move to the private sector.

The place where this is actually the biggest problem is for government lawyers, given how much experienced lawyers already make in the private sector, and how comparatively small government salaries are for lawyers. Maybe the way to square the circle is to link it back to previous salaries, rather than government salaries...

rjquillin wrote:I generally like to steer clear of of @$%! like this, but a pox on both their houses, our government is too large and intrusive.

Virginia vintners taste the police state

While the Obama administration is busy eviscerating private property rights at the federal level, Republican-controlled Fauquier County, Va., has decided to follow suit in its own way. Fauquier's Board of Supervisors recently passed a winery ordinance that tramples private property rights and some fundamental civil liberties.
Continues...

That's nuts. And for what purpose? Could it be an anti-alcohol thing? One of the comments suggested it was members of the community who didn't want the tourism. If that's true, that the citizens if the county want to discourage tourism, isn't it their right to do so? I know many of you here are in favor of deciding things at local levels, and if people don't like it they should go live somewhere else. Is it okay for a community to decide not to encourage, or to actively discourage, certain types of businesses for any reason they want?

Just as an aside, I thought it was silly that the author kept trying to bring Obama into this, although it is not a federal thing in the first place, and that's a Republican-controlled county. Plenty of valid reasons to pick on Obama, just annoys me when they try to bring him into everything. He's not everywhere, like Santa Claus. Author also tries to sell the "punishing success" angle, but it appears that the ordinances would affect the smaller vintners as well.

chemvictim wrote:That's nuts. And for what purpose? Could it be an anti-alcohol thing? One of the comments suggested it was members of the community who didn't want the tourism. If that's true, that the citizens if the county want to discourage tourism, isn't it their right to do so? I know many of you here are in favor of deciding things at local levels, and if people don't like it they should go live somewhere else. Is it okay for a community to decide not to encourage, or to actively discourage, certain types of businesses for any reason they want?

Nuts? Couldn't agree more.
On a more positive note, is seems some local SD county regs may have been recently changed to allow wineries to allow onsite tasting. The vineyard I visited last week just opened their tasting/sales room last year as a result. They commented to the effect, 'how are we supposed to sell wine we can't allow potential customers to taste?'
Makes sense to me.

rjquillin wrote:Nuts? Couldn't agree more.
On a more positive note, is seems some local SD county regs may have been recently changed to allow wineries to allow onsite tasting. The vineyard I visited last week just opened their tasting/sales room last year as a result. They commented to the effect, 'how are we supposed to sell wine we can't allow potential customers to taste?'
Makes sense to me.

How many wines does the liquor store open for you? Or woot? ....

rpm wrote:How many wines does the liquor store open for you? Or woot? ....

Not many. BevMo does tastings now and again, I think I've seen three or four, but I'm not there much either.

I'm happy for the change here, just frustrated with what seems to be going on in the article.

How do these flunking people keep getting elected?

edit: fixed link (I hope)

bhodilee wrote:How do these flunking people keep getting elected?

Link doesn't work but I recognized the story from the web address. I honestly don't get it, either. We already established here that people will sacrifice personal freedoms in exchange for lower taxes, especially when it's other people's personal freedoms and not their own. But this guy...combining social conservatism with unabashed stupidity. I don't know why anybody would vote for that combination. Here's another link. I wonder if he also believes in the wandering uterus theory.

chemvictim wrote:Link doesn't work but I recognized the story from the web address. I honestly don't get it, either. We already established here that people will sacrifice personal freedoms in exchange for lower taxes, especially when it's other people's personal freedoms and not their own. But this guy...combining social conservatism with unabashed stupidity. I don't know why anybody would vote for that combination. Here's another link. I wonder if he also believes in the wandering uterus theory.

The link didn't work because the Woot filters changes words inside links as well.

Your link doesn't work as well, since the Woot filter will change it too (same word). If you hover over the link, it should show you the filter for that word. Which used to show as Snuffleupagus.


But you do wonder, except realize he's from the deep south.

MarkDaSpark wrote:
But you do wonder, except realize he's from the deep south.

I'm from Arkansas. It's no excuse. And the voters are in Missouri, not the deep south, so what about them?

Edit: maybe it's a bible belt thing? As in, they don't care if he's stupid as long as he says the right stuff about Christianity. Is Missouri bible belt-ish?

chemvictim wrote:I'm from Arkansas. It's no excuse. And the voters are in Missouri, not the deep south, so what about them?

Edit: maybe it's a bible belt thing? As in, they don't care if he's stupid as long as he says the right stuff about Christianity. Is Missouri bible belt-ish?

ish, yes.

chemvictim wrote:I'm from Arkansas. It's no excuse. And the voters are in Missouri, not the deep south, so what about them?

Edit: maybe it's a bible belt thing? As in, they don't care if he's stupid as long as he says the right stuff about Christianity. Is Missouri bible belt-ish?

The Republicans are all over this guy - they NRSCC has cut off funding and everyone is telling him to drop out. Ironically, though he won the primary (not by a lot) he was the weakest of the three major GOP candidates against McCaskill. He's a total numbnuts.

Curiously, though, were he a Democrat he'd gotten a pass...Biden says equally stupid things all the time.

Gettin' awfully tired of the double standard in the media....

rpm wrote:The Republicans are all over this guy - they NRSCC has cut off funding and everyone is telling him to drop out. Ironically, though he won the primary (not by a lot) he was the weakest of the three major GOP candidates against McCaskill. He's a total numbnuts.

Curiously, though, were he a Democrat he'd gotten a pass...Biden says equally stupid things all the time.

Gettin' awfully tired of the double standard in the media....

I'm glad the Republicans are all over him. If it were my party, I wouldn't want him representing me either. It's hard to take the party seriously under a constant barrage of this crap. After Santorum's antics especially, I think a backlash is forming against this kind of willful stupidity.

Can't deny that Biden does say stupid things, as does Obama. I don't hear about all of them, I'm sure. I was under the impression that Fox News et al. covered these things 24/7?

I'm really not convinced that a Democrat would get a pass if he'd said that same thing. He wouldn't get a pass from me, anyway. Anybody want to share their favorite stupid comment from Biden?

chemvictim wrote:I'm glad the Republicans are all over him. If it were my party, I wouldn't want him representing me either. It's hard to take the party seriously under a constant barrage of this crap. After Santorum's antics especially, I think a backlash is forming against this kind of willful stupidity.

Can't deny that Biden does say stupid things, as does Obama. I don't hear about all of them, I'm sure. I was under the impression that Fox News et al. covered these things 24/7?

I'm really not convinced that a Democrat would get a pass if he'd said that same thing. He wouldn't get a pass from me, anyway. Anybody want to share their favorite stupid comment from Biden?

There's so many!


Although this is close: "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."

This is my favorite: "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept. 12, 2008

MarkDaSpark wrote:There's so many!


Although this is close: "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."

This is my favorite: "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept. 12, 2008

Those may be bad, but they're not policy bad. I don't see them showing that he would support legislation that has no right to be passed, whereas the Missouri dude's comments certainly did.