Author Topic: Political warfare  (Read 2303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2266
  • Darwins +120/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #87 on: November 27, 2013, 04:34:23 PM »
A 31-Year-Old Is Tearing Apart the Heritage Foundation / Think Republicans have been making fools of themselves? Blame Michael Needham.

Quote

With DeMint’s arrival, Heritage’s government relations team, which once boasted the ability to meet with 250 GOP and as many as 40 Democratic congressmen on any given day, disappeared. “The people at government affairs would go down to the Hill, and they had Hill folks saying, ‘Listen, we don’t want to meet with you because of what the folks at Heritage Action did yesterday,’” says the former Heritage staffer. Heritage analysts now have a hard time getting meetings on the Hill, even with Republicans.

...

In meetings, congressional staffers couldn’t even get Heritage Action to entertain the possibility that the strategy might fail. “They never wanted to discuss anything past defund,” recalls the Republican staffer. “We would ask, ‘What if [Democrats] say no and don’t budge, what do you do then?’ They kept saying: ‘That’s not our role. You figure it out.’ ”
...

On the morning of October 16, just hours before a deadline whose crossing could have pushed the United States into default, and hours before a deal averted that possibility and ended the 16-day government shutdown, after weeks of pushing House Republicans not to back down from the defund Obamacare plan that had gotten everyone to this point to begin with, Needham appeared on Fox News. “Everybody understands that we’re not going to be able to repeal this law until 2017 and that we have to win the Senate and we have to win the White House,” he said.



John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #88 on: November 27, 2013, 07:01:49 PM »
They are just apeshit over this health insurance reform.

I really don't understand what their objections are.  Normally in an argument or debate, if it's rational one should be able to state the opponent's viewpoint.  Most of us here could probably play devils advocate for various religious actions and practices.  We don't agree with them, but we understand them and the viewpoint well enough to do so.

The republican viewpoint though... makes no sense at all.  That's why I think people fall back on the whole 'it must be racism' argument.  At least we can understand racism.  Heck, we can even understand the whole taxes thing.. the motives of the wealthy wanting more wealth are ultimately not that complicated.

This mindless obstruction, and endless hatred for the PPACA makes no sense.  Even if I did not have a license to sell health insurance in CA the laws components would still make sense to me given their stated goals.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline shnozzola

Re: Political warfare
« Reply #89 on: November 27, 2013, 07:33:04 PM »
..... Michael Needham

Good article.

This line from the article is exactly what is wrong with the current direction of the republican party:
Quote
The scandalous Heritage report on immigration, co-authored by a scholar who had once claimed that Hispanic immigrants have lower IQs than whites........

If you have people who think like that making policy, you are doomed.  Current policy of republicans is only to want democrats to fail, not to improve the country - not to say - this is what is wrong with Obamacare, and this is how we can help fix it.  But it may be no different if the roles are reversed.  It would be interesting to see if a President Chris Christie would put up an idea for universal healthcare and have democrats try to stop it dead.   

Unless the US gets more mature in our politics, it will be a slow decline away from progress.
“I wanna go ice fishing on Europa, and see if something swims up to the camera lens and licks it.”- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #90 on: November 27, 2013, 07:42:56 PM »
Okay. My understanding of politics and policy is about as clear as mud. For the most part. I made up my mind a long time ago that a politician by any party affiliation is a politician. Full stop.

I assume most regular members of this forum vote Democrat (or something similar for those living in other countries) So on this forum I see many comments complaining about politicians on the "right".

I am getting responses, examples and explanations which I still don't fully understand. Instead of trying to pick out each statement that confuses me and addressing it I want to start this process over with one question at a time. For those of you who wish to engage after this point, you have my most sincere gratitude.

First question

Are there any Republican policies currently in place which (if you had the power) you would change. Why?

   Alternate question

Are there any Democrat policies currently in place which (if you had the power) you would change. Why?


For the sake of brevity, please pick just one policy at a time if you have several.

Also, for this part of the conversation I do not wish to go over the constitution or the bill of rights. Plenty of other threads for those cans of worms. I also don't want to get tangled up in a pissing match about which side lies more than the other. We can sit here and toss out examples back and forth all day long and never make any progress.

     
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #91 on: November 27, 2013, 07:56:55 PM »
I would dearly like for our Conservative[1] Party to cease its policy of threatening and punishing any federal scientists who discuss their fields of study with the public.
 1. "Republican of the North"
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #92 on: November 27, 2013, 08:03:03 PM »
I would dearly like for our Conservative[1] Party to cease its policy of threatening and punishing any federal scientists who discuss their fields of study with the public.
 1. "Republican of the North"

What's going on with that?
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #93 on: November 27, 2013, 08:08:56 PM »
Sorry in advance for the huge image.



First question

Are there any Republican policies currently in place which (if you had the power) you would change. Why?

Trickle down, or top down taxation.  The idea that letting the wealthy have more money results in the poor having more jobs and thus more of their own money has been shown time and again to be pure fantasy.

If you look at a chart of income, taxes and income disparity in this country you'll see that largely it follows this trend in taxes.  Note the point where the major shift in the countries income starts.  That's the point right about where we made our shift in capital gains taxation.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html





   Alternate question

Are there any Democrat policies currently in place which (if you had the power) you would change. Why?


Trickle down, or top down taxation, and treatment of Wall st.  The Democratic party has for the last few decades abandoned it's Progressive roots.
I'm well aware of the so called 'laffer curve' and I disagree with the current conservative interpretation of it and say that the numbers should be set WAY higher than they are.

I would say that the problem with the Democratic party is that they have fallen into the propaganda trap set by the religious right.


Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #94 on: November 27, 2013, 08:09:42 PM »
I would dearly like for our Conservative[1] Party to cease its policy of threatening and punishing any federal scientists who discuss their fields of study with the public.
 1. "Republican of the North"

What's going on with that?

Climate change, fracking, evolution, taxes.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #95 on: November 27, 2013, 08:32:09 PM »
I would dearly like for our Conservative[1] Party to cease its policy of threatening and punishing any federal scientists who discuss their fields of study with the public.
 1. "Republican of the North"

What's going on with that?

The same as with their policy of having nixed the long-form census.

Or rather, the mandatory long-form census, which is randomly assigned to people.  Without making it mandatory, the information it gains is not statistically useful.  Hence, it's been nixed from a scientific perspective.

Truth is not the friend of the modern conservative movements.  That's what's up.  Science is a way to get at truth.  Statistically useful census data is a way to get at truth.  But truth is the enemy, and so these things must be kept from the public eye.  By force if necessary.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #96 on: November 27, 2013, 08:43:17 PM »
Trickle down is the theory, what is the actual bill or policy or law or whatever that kicked in the theory back in the 70's? What was the piece of legislation voted on to bring about this change and what was in place before it?

I found a wiki article describing the theory but am not having much luck in getting specifics.

Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #97 on: November 27, 2013, 09:11:52 PM »
Just also realized...don't know if this makes a difference but from 1947 up till 1979 in that chart is called the great prosperity. Everything is on the up and up. If my memory serves me...the "rich" were taxed at something close to 80 or 90% following the great depression and the war. Apparently the graph shows that allowing the "rich" people to keep more of their money hurts everybody else. I don't understand (in a broad sense) how that can be true.

Going back to one of my 4 points

3. We should be able to keep the fruits of our labor.
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #98 on: November 27, 2013, 09:14:35 PM »
What is our labour?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #99 on: November 27, 2013, 09:18:03 PM »
What is our labour?

Anything you do to gain fruit.

Edit correction

Something an individual does in order to gain fruit.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 09:19:51 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #100 on: November 27, 2013, 09:35:27 PM »
Trickle down is the theory, what is the actual bill or policy or law or whatever that kicked in the theory back in the 70's? What was the piece of legislation voted on to bring about this change and what was in place before it?

I found a wiki article describing the theory but am not having much luck in getting specifics.

What you want to look into is Supply Side Economics and the Laffer Curve. 

Reaganomics.  Note the follow up links below for related topics such as stagflation and supply side.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp

The so called Laffer Curve
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

Here is a pretty good article on Supply Side Economics.  It's reasonably unbiased.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp


Just also realized...don't know if this makes a difference but from 1947 up till 1979 in that chart is called the great prosperity. Everything is on the up and up. If my memory serves me...the "rich" were taxed at something close to 80 or 90% following the great depression and the war. Apparently the graph shows that allowing the "rich" people to keep more of their money hurts everybody else. I don't understand (in a broad sense) how that can be true.

Going back to one of my 4 points

3. We should be able to keep the fruits of our labor.


Is it keeping the fruits of your labor if the corporation that employs you keeps virtually all of the income your production creates?  Take a worker at McD.  They create XX dollars of income, yet they receive effectively the  minimum legal wage.  McD keeps the rest and pockets it.  As a result the rest of us wind up paying for low wage subsidies to the workers who can't live on what they make.  We pay this through taxes, taxes that we pay but McD doesn't.  Keeping the fruits of our labor would imply that the workers at McD earn a wage more in sync with their level of productivity.  The argument on the part of McD is that their profits will go down and they won't be able to hire as many people.  I don't accept that argument.  They will hire whatever number of people they need to get the job done and no more.  If their profits drop... too bad.  There are better things to spend my tax dollars on than CEO salaries.

If you really want to know how much we spend as a nation subsidizing low wages take a look at this.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/publiccosts/fast_food_poverty_wages.pdf





Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +507/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #101 on: November 27, 2013, 10:43:24 PM »
3. We should be able to keep the fruits of our labor.
Indeed!  The problem is that most workers don't keep the fruits of their labor.  It all gets sucked upwards, in what almost amounts to a legal pyramid scheme.  And it's one that's gotten worse in recent years, as upper management salaries have spiked compared to worker salaries.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #102 on: November 27, 2013, 11:01:04 PM »
in every job I have ever applied for the fruit has been negotiable and agreed to before labor was provided. Except for twice. We negotiated the price during the interview and agreed upon it but my first paycheck was $1.00 less per hour than what was agreed on.

I quit immediately without further notice. 

In the other, apparently there was fine print and my compensation was .50 less than I understood it to be because of a loop hole. I also quite that job, although with that one I waited until I found another job...then quite without notice. It was McDonald's.

What seems to be argued is that the "minimum" wage should be raised. That is a slightly different argument than being able to keep what you agree to earn.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 11:04:38 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #103 on: November 27, 2013, 11:09:57 PM »
What is our labour?

Anything you do to gain fruit.

Edit correction

Something an individual does in order to gain fruit.

That's pretty useless as definitions go.

What I was about to try to get at is, how is the value (fruit) of one's labour calculated?  What is the methodology used?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #104 on: November 27, 2013, 11:13:03 PM »
in every job I have ever applied for the fruit has been negotiable and agreed to before labor was provided. Except for twice. We negotiated the price during the interview and agreed upon it but my first paycheck was $1.00 less per hour than what was agreed on.

I quit immediately without further notice.

What is the incentive for an employer to negotiate with a worker for their labour?  This does not usually happen in the real world.

In the other, apparently there was fine print and my compensation was .50 less than I understood it to be because of a loop hole. I also quite that job, although with that one I waited until I found another job...then quite without notice. It was McDonald's.

What seems to be argued is that the "minimum" wage should be raised. That is a slightly different argument than being able to keep what you agree to earn.

Just because you agreed to something, that doesn't mean it was fair.

If one's options are between agreeing to a shitty wage, or to continue job-searching for another month and be a month behind on one's rent, the agreement is made for reasons other than fairness.  Does that make that person's "fruits of labour" worth objectively less?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 11:15:20 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #105 on: November 27, 2013, 11:54:44 PM »
This does not usually happen in the real world.

Everything is negotiable...what world do you speak of?
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #106 on: November 28, 2013, 12:04:38 AM »
What is our labour?

Anything you do to gain fruit.

Edit correction

Something an individual does in order to gain fruit.

That's pretty useless as definitions go.

What I was about to try to get at is, how is the value (fruit) of one's labour calculated?  What is the methodology used?

That...I don't know precisely because I have never owned my own business and paid people to work for me in that capacity. I recently negotiated with a couple of local septic companies for a better price than what they originally quoted me.
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +507/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #107 on: November 28, 2013, 12:27:34 AM »
Please don't try to tell me that you think the money the average worker earns is anything close to what their labor is worth.  Most large employers have every reason to find employees who will work for what the employer wants to pay them, rather than what the job is actually worth.

Take Wal-Mart, for example.  Their whole business model is based around finding the cheapest possible suppliers, and then forcing other suppliers to follow suit if they want Wal-Mart to carry their products.  They carry the same attitude towards their employees - if you aren't willing to take what Wal-Mart offers, you don't get the job.  It's not even close to negotiable.  Most of the low-end service jobs are exactly like that, and they employ a lot of people, who generally live paycheck to paycheck.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #108 on: November 28, 2013, 12:32:53 AM »
Please don't try to tell me that you think the money the average worker earns is anything close to what their labor is worth.  Most large employers have every reason to find employees who will work for what the employer wants to pay them, rather than what the job is actually worth.

Take Wal-Mart, for example.  Their whole business model is based around finding the cheapest possible suppliers, and then forcing other suppliers to follow suit if they want Wal-Mart to carry their products.  They carry the same attitude towards their employees - if you aren't willing to take what Wal-Mart offers, you don't get the job.  It's not even close to negotiable.  Most of the low-end service jobs are exactly like that, and they employ a lot of people, who generally live paycheck to paycheck.

I completely take your point here, but I am left uncertain as to what actually constitutes a fair wage? Taking the Wal-Mart example, what would be a fair wage and how is that determined?

Interesting discussion. Annoyingly interesting, only a mouse click away from my boring reports..
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #109 on: November 28, 2013, 01:09:04 AM »
Please don't try to tell me that you think the money the average worker earns is anything close to what their labor is worth.

Their labor is worth what they agree it's worth. Everybody wants more, especially when they have more years of experience.

Quote
Most large employers have every reason to find employees who will work for what the employer wants to pay them, rather than what the job is actually worth.

Who's responsibility is it to determine what a job is worth?

Quote
Take Wal-Mart, for example.  Their whole business model is based around finding the cheapest possible suppliers, and then forcing other suppliers to follow suit if they want Wal-Mart to carry their products.  They carry the same attitude towards their employees - if you aren't willing to take what Wal-Mart offers, you don't get the job.  It's not even close to negotiable.  Most of the low-end service jobs are exactly like that, and they employ a lot of people, who generally live paycheck to paycheck.

According to the chart provided by MadBunny it's a lot more than just WalMart and McDonald's workers who aren't able to keep up with inflation. Nobody is forcing people to work for Walmart or McDonalds. Nobody is forcing people to buy products from Walmart or McDonalds

1. We should never force anyone to do anything against their will.
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #110 on: November 28, 2013, 01:19:11 AM »
Are you sure you're not a theist Mr. Blackwell?  Because you just casually with a comment discount the amassed evidence of decades showing that while productivity has risen have not. 

Ignored the parts regarding laffer curves, supply side economics, income disparity.. all of that with a pithy story about how you negotiated your own wage and quit when you didn't get it. 

Remember the huge Ezra Klein chart I posted?
Where has the profit from that increased productivity gone? 

Taxes?  Nope, they're at near historic lows.
Entitlements, welfare etc?  Nope, those get paid through taxes.
Unions, maybe all the unions are eating them up.  Nope, union membership only accounts for a tiny fraction of the workforce as does pension entitlements which are quickly disappearing.
That Obamacare thing?  Not that either, it's effectively revenue neutral, and hasn't fully been implemented anyway.

Plus this has been happening for decades regardless of the party in power at the time.

If the profit from increased productivity is not going to the people who're actually working than it's going somewhere.  That somewhere is the top of the money chain.
The wealthy have had their incomes SKYROCKET over the last few decades while everybody else has had their wages stay stagnant.  You're the one that asked what I would change about the respective parties.  My answer remains the same: tax policy.

It's hurting us all.



Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #111 on: November 28, 2013, 01:21:30 AM »
According to the chart provided by MadBunny it's a lot more than just WalMart and McDonald's workers who aren't able to keep up with inflation. Nobody is forcing people to work for Walmart or McDonalds. Nobody is forcing people to buy products from Walmart or McDonalds

1. We should never force anyone to do anything against their will.

Have you ever noticed how all the gas stations in your area are within a few cents of each other on gas prices? 
Tell me, are you able to negotiate lower gas prices just because you don't think you should be forced to pay those prices against your will? 

You could always not purchase it. 
You could always walk.


I'm going somewhere with this, and I'm curious to see if you get the analogy.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #112 on: November 28, 2013, 01:50:05 AM »
...you just casually with a comment discount the amassed evidence of decades showing that while productivity has risen have not.

I asked for specifics. What caused productivity rates to rise? Was it some sort of legislation? If yes, which legislation? How much does automation influence the rise of productivity?

Quote
Ignored the parts regarding laffer curves, supply side economics, income disparity..

I haven't looked up the laffer curve or supply side economics yet. Still don't know what that is all about or why it is "bad".

Quote
all of that with a pithy story about how you negotiated your own wage and quit when you didn't get it.

Sorry my life is pithy. It is my life and it is all that I know.   

Quote
Remember the huge Ezra Klein chart I posted?
Where has the profit from that increased productivity gone?

I don't know...do you?

Quote
Taxes?  Nope, they're at near historic lows.
Entitlements, welfare etc?  Nope, those get paid through taxes.

Who pays taxes? I have never paid income taxes in my life. I pay all kinds of other taxes but not income and I'm not alone...roughly 50% of American households do not pay taxes on the fruits of their labor.

Quote
Unions, maybe all the unions are eating them up.  Nope, union membership only accounts for a tiny fraction of the workforce as does pension entitlements which are quickly disappearing.

I am jealous of union workers. I really am. I would dance on my mother's grave for a union job. I don't think I am cut out for a union job though...I have known and currently know plenty of union workers and they are all assholes who don't give a fuck about anyone else. They won't lift a finger to help you unless there is something in it for them in return. So, I am not sure I am cut out for that type of gig.

Quote
That Obamacare thing?  Not that either, it's effectively revenue neutral, and hasn't fully been implemented anyway.


I haven't really made up my mind if Obamacare is good or bad. I have heard that it is not revenue neutral and considering they have spent almost a billion dollars on the website alone...I don't see how it CAN be revenue neutral anytime soon. 

Quote
Plus this has been happening for decades regardless of the party in power at the time.

My point exactly.

Quote
If the profit from increased productivity is not going to the people who're actually working than it's going somewhere.  That somewhere is the top of the money chain.
The wealthy have had their incomes SKYROCKET over the last few decades while everybody else has had their wages stay stagnant.  You're the one that asked what I would change about the respective parties.  My answer remains the same: tax policy.

How would you change it? How would that change help the overall economy?

Quote
It's hurting us all.

I still can't see how me making more money than my neighbor to the left hurts him or how my neighbor to the right making more money than me hurts me.
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #113 on: November 28, 2013, 01:57:08 AM »

Have you ever noticed how all the gas stations in your area are within a few cents of each other on gas prices? 
Tell me, are you able to negotiate lower gas prices just because you don't think you should be forced to pay those prices against your will? 

You could always not purchase it. 
You could always walk.


I'm going somewhere with this, and I'm curious to see if you get the analogy.

I have walked...but currently choose the cheapest. At this moment I don't get the analogy. I think I might sort of get it but am not sure how it applies to wages.
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +507/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #114 on: November 28, 2013, 02:36:09 AM »
Their labor is worth what they agree it's worth. Everybody wants more, especially when they have more years of experience.
Bargaining power.  Employers have it, and for the most part individual employees don't.  That's why we have things like unions and collective bargaining, which for all their problems are still far better than the alternative.

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell
Who's responsibility is it to determine what a job is worth?
Don't try to dismiss this issue with pithy statements.  Trying to act as if the employee carries the ultimate responsibility for the terms of their employment is short-sighted at best.  Employers are the ones who determine what a job is worth to them, and for the most part employees get to take it or leave it, unless they're independently wealthy or something and can afford to take the time to find a good job.  Income is not wealth.

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell
According to the chart provided by MadBunny it's a lot more than just WalMart and McDonald's workers who aren't able to keep up with inflation. Nobody is forcing people to work for Walmart or McDonalds. Nobody is forcing people to buy products from Walmart or McDonalds
When you don't have income, and nobody to help support you, if you can get a job and thus income from Wal-Mart or McDonalds, you're not to argue about how much you're paid because even minimum wage with no benefits is better than no income.  That's what companies like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and most of the major service sector businesses count on - people who need income, even crappy income, and thus will take what they're offered without arguing or negotiating.  That's what allows them to get away with selling things so inexpensively and thus allows them to stay in business - because they can avoid having to pay their workers anything resembling a reasonable wage.  In point of fact, businesses ultimately hurt themselves by this kind of conduct.  When you offer rock-bottom wages, you get rock-bottom employees for the most part.

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell
1. We should never force anyone to do anything against their will.
Indeed not.  But it sure is easy to take advantage of someone's helplessness to get them to agree to something whether they like it or not.  That's using force against them just as surely as if you were holding a gun to their heads or had a knife to their necks.  You're using the fact that you have leverage and they don't to try to force them to accept your terms.  You may not actually be holding a gun or a knife, but you're perfectly willing to take advantage of their poor circumstances to get the best possible deal for yourself.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #115 on: November 28, 2013, 02:41:19 AM »
I can see that this problem is bigger than I had originally thought.  It seems that you have a lot of pre-formed opinions as well as some that are outright false.  The 47% thing as an easy example. 

The so called 47% who pay no income taxes only do so largely because of tax cuts.  In other words the majority of them actually do pay taxes but through poor tax policy much of this gets reduced to zero.  This is the result of some arguments from the business community (read: chamber of commerce) against raising wages. In essence a targeted tax cut instead of a wage increase.  Now many years later all that argument is forgotten and all we hear is that they don't pay taxes.  Amusingly, the majority of those 47%ers?  In red states.  http://www.theamericanconservative.com/where-do-the-47-percent-live/




As for supply side economics and the laffer curve, they're not that complicated, though given your tendencies I suspect you'll initially find yourself in agreement with them.  If it helps you can think of it at the walmart model.


Quote
Remember the huge Ezra Klein chart I posted?
Where has the profit from that increased productivity gone?

I don't know...do you?

Yes, Mr. Blackwell.  I do.  It went to the wealthy.  If wages for all quintiles had risen at the same rate of productivity what is currently the minimum wage would be about $30.  They didn't rise for all quintiles though, only for the top.




If the profit from increased productivity is not going to the people who're actually working than it's going somewhere.  That somewhere is the top of the money chain.
The wealthy have had their incomes SKYROCKET over the last few decades while everybody else has had their wages stay stagnant.  You're the one that asked what I would change about the respective parties.  My answer remains the same: tax policy.

How would you change it? How would that change help the overall economy?

The explanation largely depends on how sophisticated your understanding of basic economics is.

Put simply: supply side economics favors the wealthy in all areas.  This is a problem because as we see SSE doesn't work for the economy as a whole, only for the people at the very top.  We need to reverse the trend from SSE and move toward more progressive taxes. 

Put even more simply: the people who own all the stuff and making all the money should be paying all the taxes.  When the people who have 90% of all the money pay 90% of all the taxes it'll be 'fair'.  If you don't want that group to be the super rich then find a way to put that wealth in the hands of the people in the middle.




Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.