I'm just sick of voting defensively. I considered not voting but supposedly the governor's race is close (though I don't think it is).
Nothing will change at the national level. I'm in a safe state legislature district with little risk of those seats changing hands. There were no major ballot initiatives or props to vote on. It really felt like a waste of time this year.
I don't know how excited I'm supposed to be about voting for a guy I don't like because the other guy is even worse.
I really just wish we had ranked voting so I could actually be excited to vote for SOMEONE who reflects my views more accurately.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Our ballot in Colorado was three pages long, and included ballot questions on both the local and state levels.
I'm curious to see how it pans out. The local news center comments section was grossly off from how people actually voted (i.e. no one was in favor of an energy initiative that actually passed with 77% of the vote.) and the senator who's been doing most of the advertising (Udall) is slated not to win. Hope that's not the case though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm sick of living in states that are overwhelmingly against the things I want as a voter.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Things have broken strongly for Republicans.
It looks like they will probably have a 54-46 majority in the Senate (assuming Alaska follows current polling), which is 1.5 more seats than the fivethirtyeight model had them at. And were it not for a Libertarian spoiler in VA, they likely would have taken another (and still might, although probably not).
Meanwhile, most of the close governor races have broken toward the Republicans, including blue state races they weren't favored in like IL and MD and states with controversial or unpopular Republican incumbents like WI and FL. Even Sam Brownback looks like he might hold his seat in KS. Greg Abbott is winning by historic margins in TX where Democrats had earlier hoped for a good showing from Wendy Davis (although her campaign had imploded more than a month ago).
All in all, a good night for the GOP.
[ November 05, 2014, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We'll see. They have no agenda, and they think the people agree with some nebulous slop they refer to as a mandate. It's a pretty awful combination.
I fully expect them to continue to be idiotic, and come 2016 they'll hand over both houses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And, it goes without saying, a pretty terrible one for the country.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
For the Democrats to take the House in 2016 they'd need about a 60 seat swing. That happened in 2010, but in that election Democrats were defending a set of Reps voted in during their 2008 wave, and the GOP had their own 2010 wave at their backs. The last time prior to 2010 there was a swing that large was 1948. Given that 2014 is, at best, a minor Republican wave, I'd put the likelihood they win back the House as very low.
They have a better shot at the Senate, but a 54-46 split gives the GOP a bit of buffer. A priori, I expect Republicans will probably (but not necessarily) lose IL, WI, and probably PA. Second tier states held by Republicans that I expect would be very close are NH, NC, OH, FL and maybe AZ or GA. If all those break against the GOP, the Senate would flip back to a 55-45 Democratic majority, but I think that's pretty close to an upper limit on their gains. On the other hand, I think Bennet is possibly at risk in CO, especially given Gardner's strong showing tonight, and I also think it's unlikely that all those states flip. More likely (I think) is something like an even-ish split, resulting in roughly a 52-48 Democratic majority. And none of that accounts for the possibility of Obama reaching Bush-esque levels of unpopularity, which could result in 2016 looking like 2008 in reverse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It should be noted that Republican gerrymandering of Wisconsin has made it very unlikely that you'll see Democratic gains there in this generation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hahahaha oh my god how dumb is Kansas
they really re-elected Brownback, didn't they
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
What, he only singlehandedly bankrupted the state. So it's not like that's a big deal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Brownback, bless his soul, is actually one of those things that history direly needs. A dyed in the wool conservative gets cart blanche to go in whole hog on THE conservative economic policy idea. With no liberals to get in his way (or blame later). Turn an entire American state into a testing ground on which conservative economics can be proven.
They dug in on the whole lazy faire tax-cuts-for-the-rich trickle down laffernomics thing. The tax structure imploded, kansas' economic growth stagnated, the schools are in dire condition, and the state has even had its credit rating downgraded. The whole thing was such a complete disaster! It's amazing! Brownback protested that he obviously just needs more time to make it work. And more cuts and regressive tax policies, of course!
And Kansas just gave him that time. Godspeed, you poor little mess of a state.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Meanwhile in Florida, Rick Scott gets re-elected and medical marijuana rejected.
I don't really understand the argument against legalizing marijuana. Even if medical marijuana is just a cover for getting it fully legalized down the road, what's the argument against it? AFAIK, the gateway drug thing has been thoroughly debunked.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Meanwhile in Florida, Rick Scott gets re-elected and medical marijuana rejected.
I don't really understand the argument against legalizing marijuana. Even if medical marijuana is just a cover for getting it fully legalized down the road, what's the argument against it? AFAIK, the gateway drug thing has been thoroughly debunked.
Technically it was "Accepted" by a majority of the people in Florida. But they passed a stupid law making all initiatives need 60%, it only got 58%...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If you are going to legalize recreational use, then do it. But don't try and tell me that law with all it's loopholes was medical in nature...
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Meanwhile in CA, if the current vote totals hold up the GOP will have elected its first openly gay Congressperson (Carl DeMaio) who also allegedly has a penchant for public masturbation and sexual harassment. So that's progress.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We had "advisory questions" on the ballot in Illinois. Raising the minimum wage, raising the income tax on people making over a million dollars, requiring prescription birth control be covered by insurance. Two-thirds of the voters of Illinois voted "yes" on those questions. And we elected a governor who opposes those things. How stupid are we?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We had "advisory questions" on the ballot in Illinois. Raising the minimum wage, raising the income tax on people making over a million dollars, requiring prescription birth control be covered by insurance. Two-thirds of the voters of Illinois voted "yes" on those questions. And we elected a governor who opposes those things. How stupid are we?
It's possible to disagree with a politician on some issues but still approve of his character and other factors enough that he still earns your vote.
Perhaps that's how many voters in your state felt.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Brownback, bless his soul, is actually one of those things that history direly needs. A dyed in the wool conservative gets cart blanche to go in whole hog on THE conservative economic policy idea. With no liberals to get in his way (or blame later). Turn an entire American state into a testing ground on which conservative economics can be proven.
They dug in on the whole lazy faire tax-cuts-for-the-rich trickle down laffernomics thing. The tax structure imploded, kansas' economic growth stagnated, the schools are in dire condition, and the state has even had its credit rating downgraded. The whole thing was such a complete disaster! It's amazing! Brownback protested that he obviously just needs more time to make it work. And more cuts and regressive tax policies, of course!
And Kansas just gave him that time. Godspeed, you poor little mess of a state.
Damn, that sounds a lot like the first two years of Obama's presidency.
Great night for republicans, though I don't think McConnell will be a good majority leader.
I'm curious to see if many of you "anti-obstructionist" types will still be complaining about obstruction now that the republicans have control. Will you say it is obstruction when democrats don't vote for bills on a partisan line, or will you come up with excuses?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well if you can get several top level democrats to say that the primary objective will be to ensure a one-term presidency as a goal in and of itself, you'll be getting somewhere.
The truth is you know this. You've copped to it before, but this isn't a very good climate for acknowledging problems with the team.
-------- Kwea,
The important thing is to make sure dangerous drugs like marijuana don't escape medical allowances. That might be a gateway to tobacco or alcohol or something!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We had "advisory questions" on the ballot in Illinois. Raising the minimum wage, raising the income tax on people making over a million dollars, requiring prescription birth control be covered by insurance. Two-thirds of the voters of Illinois voted "yes" on those questions. And we elected a governor who opposes those things. How stupid are we?
It's possible to disagree with a politician on some issues but still approve of his character and other factors enough that he still earns your vote.
Perhaps that's how many voters in your state felt.
Even if the politician were a really great guy (and unless you consider making billions from price gouging heart medicine for premature infants, outsourcing US jobs, and putting elderly people at risk by running dangerous nursing homes to be the actions of a man of great character, he isn't) voting for people who will make policy that is contrary to your beliefs is just stupid.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Brownback, bless his soul, is actually one of those things that history direly needs. A dyed in the wool conservative gets cart blanche to go in whole hog on THE conservative economic policy idea. With no liberals to get in his way (or blame later). Turn an entire American state into a testing ground on which conservative economics can be proven.
They dug in on the whole lazy faire tax-cuts-for-the-rich trickle down laffernomics thing. The tax structure imploded, kansas' economic growth stagnated, the schools are in dire condition, and the state has even had its credit rating downgraded. The whole thing was such a complete disaster! It's amazing! Brownback protested that he obviously just needs more time to make it work. And more cuts and regressive tax policies, of course!
And Kansas just gave him that time. Godspeed, you poor little mess of a state.
Damn, that sounds a lot like the first two years of Obama's presidency.
Great night for republicans, though I don't think McConnell will be a good majority leader.
I'm curious to see if many of you "anti-obstructionist" types will still be complaining about obstruction now that the republicans have control. Will you say it is obstruction when democrats don't vote for bills on a partisan line, or will you come up with excuses?
They don't have a fillibuster-proof majority, so what you asking is the filibuster fair when my side does it? I think statistics will tell which party is actually the problem with this one. Statistics show that yes, republicans have been being bigger legislative pains than any time in history, over all level things (except TV commericial volume, that was a by-partisan effort).
I suspect the best bet for Democratic obstruction is a presidential veto.
I'm curious to see how many times Obama's going to have to veto Obamacare repeals.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I find it interesting to watch people on this message board reacting to politics. It is very telling, though not very surprising. The ones who are poor winners when their candidates win elections are also poor losers when their candidates lose. Surprise!
And to Samprimary in particular: I grew up in Kansas and most of my family lives there. Your comment "Hahahaha oh my god how dumb is Kansas" is offensive. If someone made the same comment about another group of people ("How dumb are Jewish people?" or "How dumb are gay people?" or "How dumb are evolutionists?") you would throw a hissy fit. You act as if you are smarter or more enlightened than all of those dumb hick Kansans.
How arrogant. How sad.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Samp is smarter and more enlightened than every single Kansan who voted for Brownback, yes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, the problem here is that Samprimary's criticism was directed at a geographic group of people based on choices they made. So gays and Jews (depending on if you mean culturally Jewish, or religiously Jewish, etc.) don't really wash.
Also, a tip in general: if you're going to criticize someone for being a poor loser and arrogance at the same time, it's probably best not to be a poor winner yourself while doing so in a post dripping with arrogance and condescension yourself. Don't get me wrong, Samprimary will sometimes-often-drip with both himself, especially on politics, so I do get the impulse to gloat.
Just...maybe don't buff that hypocrisy finish to such a shine next time you're going to do it? You'll get the thing you apparently seek in political discussions, that is to say credibility.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: And to Samprimary in particular: I grew up in Kansas and most of my family lives there. Your comment "Hahahaha oh my god how dumb is Kansas" is offensive.... You act as if you are smarter or more enlightened than all of those dumb hick Kansans.
How arrogant. How sad.
I grew up in Kansas, and most of my family lives there. I didn't find Sam's comment offensive. It's a slam on those Kansans who voted for Brownback. Those people voted for an ideologue who has done incalculable damage to the state. They have made a horrible choice, and one which the vast majority of them will be actively harmed by. I don't find Sam's response to that unreasonable.
I despair for the state at this point. I'm glad I'm not living there anymore, which is something I've never felt, and I wish that my friends and relatives weren't either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
All the Kansans I know would agree with you, Jake. Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Rakeesh - You don't see any irony in telling me my post was dripping with arrogance and condescension? Really?
My post wasn't meant to be arrogant. I made a general observation, then spoke specifically to Samp to say his post was offensive to me. I admit there was condescension - mostly because I feel a line was crossed. It's fine to make fun of the stupid crazy creationists in fly-over country, because "Boy howdy! They're idiots!" That's what Samp's comment implied to me. And TomDavidson said it plainly.
There's a reason I rarely interact with many of the members here, and it isn't because I think I'm smarter or better than everyone else. It has to do with having common decency toward someone when you disagree with them. Some people here lack basic respect.
But whatever. I'll quiet down like all of the other conservatives here. I'm sorry I ruined the echo chamber.
(Oh, look! Here come the usual suspects to attack me now! Fun!)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Some people here lack basic respect. ... Here come the usual suspects...
Yeah. In related news, DustinDopps is from Kansas. You can draw your own conclusions. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dustin,
Well, I wasn't lecturing you on arrogance and condescension while being arrogant and condescending. I was talking about appearances. Though it is gracious of you to acknowledge your own hypocrisy-or else how would my criticism have any merit?
Anyway, you've got a valid point about an echo chamber here though lately even the echoes have quieted down due to a much slower posting frequency. Guys like Samprimary who will get smug at the drop of a hat (though this is more often than not a deliberate attempt to bait posters such as yourself) don't help. Some might say I don't help much either, but I hope I don't flatter myself that I'm at least a little more issues-oriented.
I remember you, Dustin. You've lost your cool more than once here, so please don't attempt to assume the moral high ground. That I will happily get snotty about. You could have had what you wanted-the moral high ground-and made Samprimary's bad-losing gloating look like sour grapes and childishness, but you let him bait you before you were even present in the conversation.
As for creationists, though, while believing in creationism does not make one stupid or crazy, creationism is a crazy and stupid belief. I would be less willing to be blunt about that, were it not for attempts to teach only creationism (when there were no challengers), criminalize teaching science in science classes (when creationism's many, many, many flaws began to be revealed by science), and then lie about things like 'teaching the controversy' and 'intelligent design' in an effort to subsidize lying to everyone's children in support of the foundering belief in creationism espoused by some parents.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I am clearly the most arrogant and condescending person here. And when people don't happen to notice it happen, I feel smug as hell.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: If you are going to legalize recreational use, then do it. But don't try and tell me that law with all its loopholes was medical in nature...
There's a lot of winking and nodding with the medical stuff. A lot of pro-legalization people (using the medical excuse) are trying to turn it into some sort of health thing. In reality, drugs are prescribed because their sides effects (which yes, marijuana has these) are outweighed by the benefits. It is generally not beneficial and to take drugs when you don't have the problem they are meant to treat (antibiotics, ADHD pills, painkillers and chemo).
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Brownback, bless his soul, is actually one of those things that history direly needs. A dyed in the wool conservative gets cart blanche to go in whole hog on THE conservative economic policy idea. With no liberals to get in his way (or blame later). Turn an entire American state into a testing ground on which conservative economics can be proven.
They dug in on the whole lazy faire tax-cuts-for-the-rich trickle down laffernomics thing. The tax structure imploded, kansas' economic growth stagnated, the schools are in dire condition, and the state has even had its credit rating downgraded. The whole thing was such a complete disaster! It's amazing! Brownback protested that he obviously just needs more time to make it work. And more cuts and regressive tax policies, of course!
And Kansas just gave him that time. Godspeed, you poor little mess of a state.
Damn, that sounds a lot like the first two years of Obama's presidency.
Great night for republicans, though I don't think McConnell will be a good majority leader.
I'm curious to see if many of you "anti-obstructionist" types will still be complaining about obstruction now that the republicans have control. Will you say it is obstruction when democrats don't vote for bills on a partisan line, or will you come up with excuses?
They don't have a fillibuster-proof majority, so what you asking is the filibuster fair when my side does it? I think statistics will tell which party is actually the problem with this one. Statistics show that yes, republicans have been being bigger legislative pains than any time in history, over all level things (except TV commericial volume, that was a by-partisan effort).
I suspect the best bet for Democratic obstruction is a presidential veto.
I'm curious to see how many times Obama's going to have to veto Obamacare repeals.
Probably not many. Unless the Republicans change the threshold needed for overcoming a filibuster.
Obama will likely veto quite a bit, but he needs to be careful with it. If he were to veto, say, the Keystone Pipeline, it would likely cause his and other democrats approval ratings to drop even more.
Likewise if a bill to secure the border (actually secure it) went to his desk and was vetoed, he'd be in some trouble.
Both of those topics have majority support from Americans.
I'm hoping for a Clinton style final 2 years, unfortunately after the President's speech earlier today I don't have much hope for it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Brownback, bless his soul, is actually one of those things that history direly needs. A dyed in the wool conservative gets cart blanche to go in whole hog on THE conservative economic policy idea. With no liberals to get in his way (or blame later). Turn an entire American state into a testing ground on which conservative economics can be proven.
They dug in on the whole lazy faire tax-cuts-for-the-rich trickle down laffernomics thing. The tax structure imploded, kansas' economic growth stagnated, the schools are in dire condition, and the state has even had its credit rating downgraded. The whole thing was such a complete disaster! It's amazing! Brownback protested that he obviously just needs more time to make it work. And more cuts and regressive tax policies, of course!
And Kansas just gave him that time. Godspeed, you poor little mess of a state.
Damn, that sounds a lot like the first two years of Obama's presidency.
Great night for republicans, though I don't think McConnell will be a good majority leader.
I'm curious to see if many of you "anti-obstructionist" types will still be complaining about obstruction now that the republicans have control. Will you say it is obstruction when democrats don't vote for bills on a partisan line, or will you come up with excuses?
They don't have a fillibuster-proof majority, so what you asking is the filibuster fair when my side does it? I think statistics will tell which party is actually the problem with this one. Statistics show that yes, republicans have been being bigger legislative pains than any time in history, over all level things (except TV commericial volume, that was a by-partisan effort).
I suspect the best bet for Democratic obstruction is a presidential veto.
I'm curious to see how many times Obama's going to have to veto Obamacare repeals.
Probably not many. Unless the Republicans change the threshold needed for overcoming a filibuster.
Obama will likely veto quite a bit, but he needs to be careful with it. If he were to veto, say, the Keystone Pipeline, it would likely cause his and other democrats approval ratings to drop even more.
Likewise if a bill to secure the border (actually secure it) went to his desk and was vetoed, he'd be in some trouble.
Both of those topics have majority support from Americans.
I'm hoping for a Clinton style final 2 years, unfortunately after the President's speech earlier today I don't have much hope for it.
I was in middle school for Clinton's final years, all I remember is the impeachment trial and bombing Bagdad on the day before one of the votes. Is that what you want?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Meanwhile in Florida, Rick Scott gets re-elected and medical marijuana rejected.
I don't really understand the argument against legalizing marijuana. Even if medical marijuana is just a cover for getting it fully legalized down the road, what's the argument against it? AFAIK, the gateway drug thing has been thoroughly debunked.
Technically it was "Accepted" by a majority of the people in Florida. But they passed a stupid law making all initiatives need 60%, it only got 58%...
I've seen that reaction a lot, and I have to say, there is absolutely nothing "stupid" about such a law. In fact it was passed in 2010 in Florida, in the wake of California, which has a 50% constitutional ammendment law, passing prop 8. And California's constitutional process is a mess because of this: we can vote in changes to the constitution for virtually anything, as long as they're mildly popular at the time. That's not a smart way to treat your supreme law.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Brownback, bless his soul, is actually one of those things that history direly needs. A dyed in the wool conservative gets cart blanche to go in whole hog on THE conservative economic policy idea. With no liberals to get in his way (or blame later). Turn an entire American state into a testing ground on which conservative economics can be proven.
They dug in on the whole lazy faire tax-cuts-for-the-rich trickle down laffernomics thing. The tax structure imploded, kansas' economic growth stagnated, the schools are in dire condition, and the state has even had its credit rating downgraded. The whole thing was such a complete disaster! It's amazing! Brownback protested that he obviously just needs more time to make it work. And more cuts and regressive tax policies, of course!
And Kansas just gave him that time. Godspeed, you poor little mess of a state.
Damn, that sounds a lot like the first two years of Obama's presidency.
Great night for republicans, though I don't think McConnell will be a good majority leader.
I'm curious to see if many of you "anti-obstructionist" types will still be complaining about obstruction now that the republicans have control. Will you say it is obstruction when democrats don't vote for bills on a partisan line, or will you come up with excuses?
You really are a silly person. I hope you know that.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I'll post a post from SA I agree with:
quote: I tend to agree with the postmortem I'm hearing, which is that the Dems refusing to actually point out successes and support Obama's victories basically made it a choice between a Republican and a Democrat campaigning like a Republican, which of course means the Dems lose.
Not emphasizing the successes of Obamacare and the economy are just ridiculous, and those guys deserved to lose. Gary Peters in MI played it right and won pretty easily.
Once again the Dems played the game of the other side and lost.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Brownback, bless his soul, is actually one of those things that history direly needs. A dyed in the wool conservative gets cart blanche to go in whole hog on THE conservative economic policy idea. With no liberals to get in his way (or blame later). Turn an entire American state into a testing ground on which conservative economics can be proven.
They dug in on the whole lazy faire tax-cuts-for-the-rich trickle down laffernomics thing. The tax structure imploded, kansas' economic growth stagnated, the schools are in dire condition, and the state has even had its credit rating downgraded. The whole thing was such a complete disaster! It's amazing! Brownback protested that he obviously just needs more time to make it work. And more cuts and regressive tax policies, of course!
And Kansas just gave him that time. Godspeed, you poor little mess of a state.
Damn, that sounds a lot like the first two years of Obama's presidency.
Great night for republicans, though I don't think McConnell will be a good majority leader.
I'm curious to see if many of you "anti-obstructionist" types will still be complaining about obstruction now that the republicans have control. Will you say it is obstruction when democrats don't vote for bills on a partisan line, or will you come up with excuses?
They don't have a fillibuster-proof majority, so what you asking is the filibuster fair when my side does it? I think statistics will tell which party is actually the problem with this one. Statistics show that yes, republicans have been being bigger legislative pains than any time in history, over all level things (except TV commericial volume, that was a by-partisan effort).
I suspect the best bet for Democratic obstruction is a presidential veto.
I'm curious to see how many times Obama's going to have to veto Obamacare repeals.
Probably not many. Unless the Republicans change the threshold needed for overcoming a filibuster.
Obama will likely veto quite a bit, but he needs to be careful with it. If he were to veto, say, the Keystone Pipeline, it would likely cause his and other democrats approval ratings to drop even more.
Likewise if a bill to secure the border (actually secure it) went to his desk and was vetoed, he'd be in some trouble.
Both of those topics have majority support from Americans.
I'm hoping for a Clinton style final 2 years, unfortunately after the President's speech earlier today I don't have much hope for it.
This is just wrong and essentially one giant false equivalency.
How is the first two years of the Obama presidency at all similar or analogous to the complete disaster that is Kansas? (It is Kansas correct?)
Obamacare *works*, that's a fact, nothing Brownback did is working.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Meanwhile in Florida, Rick Scott gets re-elected and medical marijuana rejected.
I don't really understand the argument against legalizing marijuana. Even if medical marijuana is just a cover for getting it fully legalized down the road, what's the argument against it? AFAIK, the gateway drug thing has been thoroughly debunked.
Technically it was "Accepted" by a majority of the people in Florida. But they passed a stupid law making all initiatives need 60%, it only got 58%...
I've seen that reaction a lot, and I have to say, there is absolutely nothing "stupid" about such a law. In fact it was passed in 2010 in Florida, in the wake of California, which has a 50% constitutional ammendment law, passing prop 8. And California's constitutional process is a mess because of this: we can vote in changes to the constitution for virtually anything, as long as they're mildly popular at the time. That's not a smart way to treat your supreme law.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: And to Samprimary in particular: I grew up in Kansas and most of my family lives there.
That's very tragic! My condolences to them and everyone who has to deal with the fallout of idiots re-electing Brownback. Perhaps if they're lucky, they can move to a less tragic state that isn't inflicting an economic implosion on itself.
quote:Your comment "Hahahaha oh my god how dumb is Kansas" is offensive. If someone made the same comment about another group of people ("How dumb are Jewish people?" or "How dumb are gay people?" or "How dumb are evolutionists?") you would throw a hissy fit.
I'm really sorry that you can't tell the reasons why what I did is different from what you are comparing them to, and why there is subsequently a major difference in outrage between the two categories (or would be from me). Since you at least got to be educated in Kansas before the hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding shortfall that Kansas now has to grapple with, I will charitably presume you can at least see the error in your reasoning now that it has been described to you.
Future generations of Kansans may not be so lucky, I am afraid
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also
quote: I made a general observation, then spoke specifically to Samp to say his post was offensive to me. I admit there was condescension - mostly because I feel a line was crossed. It's fine to make fun of the stupid crazy creationists in fly-over country, because "Boy howdy! They're idiots!"
creationists? when did that come in to play? what. is there some unrelated baggage coming in to play with your response to me i guess. Also is stuff like "how arrogant, how sad" included in your standard for having 'basic respect' because you are sometimes confusingly hypocritical
quote: you let him bait you before you were even present in the conversation.
lastly i guess i should note: what baiting? there was no motivation to bait. I didn't know or care that there were kansans on this forum who were going to be offended that I think what kansas is doing is exactly as dumb and tragic as my language stresses.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not Dustin specifically, Samp. Cmon, are we going to pretend your language isn't to some extent calculated? I don't personally mind as much as I should, but seriously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i don't have to pretend that my language was not intended to 'bait' anyone. if that was your assumption about my intent with my post that talks about kansas (and how I legitimately feel what's going on there is horrifically dumb), it's not correct. i just figured you would want to know.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
At least here, the Republicans who won did it by pretending not to be very Republican at all. Mr. Rauner's best weapon (aside from being able to pretty much fund his own very expensive campaign from his own pocket) was his self-identified liberal wife reassuring us in ad after ad that her husband was okay. Mr. Dold did something similar using his sister and using the word "independent" a lot and "Republican" hardly at all. I had to google him to find out he was a Republican.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: At least here, the Republicans who won did it by pretending not to be very Republican at all. Mr. Rauner's best weapon (aside from being able to pretty much fund his own very expensive campaign from his own pocket) was his self-identified liberal wife reassuring us in ad after ad that her husband was okay. Mr. Dold did something similar using his sister and using the word "independent" a lot and "Republican" hardly at all. I had to google him to find out he was a Republican.
I like these people though. They still vote in lockstep when their party wants them to, and I'd rather have seats go to Democrats, but quite frankly, we need more moderate Republicans in Congress. We don't have many right now at all.
Why? Assuming they actually are moderate, what does that mean when it comes to how they vote?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For everyone talking about how 2014 Democratic weaknesses will carry over to 2016 should consider turnout between elections. Democratic turnout in midterms is almost always bad. In 2016, with strong turnout for the General, Dems will recover a lot of their strength in states that went the other way this year. The GOP will only have the Senate for two years, and their lead in the House will be dramatically cut back in 2016.
I'm glad they took over. Now they have to put their money where their mouths are, and since they haven't really proposed much of anything in the last few years, that'll really be a sight to see.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
It means they are more likely to vote for bi-partisan efforts, or pass a liberal bill.
It also prevents parties from appealing too much to the extreme ends of their base.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Unlikely. Moderates have been sidelined for years when they manage to make it into Congress at all. Structural forces make it unlikely for moderates of either party to command much more space in Congress for years to come.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Meh. Every little bit helps.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Because I'm tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I'm tired of getting them elected! We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, "'Liberal' means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to!" And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties...!", we cowered in the corner, and said, "Please. Don't. Hurt. Me."
the west wing seems to have predicted the future
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Meanwhile in Florida, Rick Scott gets re-elected and medical marijuana rejected.
I don't really understand the argument against legalizing marijuana. Even if medical marijuana is just a cover for getting it fully legalized down the road, what's the argument against it? AFAIK, the gateway drug thing has been thoroughly debunked.
Technically it was "Accepted" by a majority of the people in Florida. But they passed a stupid law making all initiatives need 60%, it only got 58%...
I've seen that reaction a lot, and I have to say, there is absolutely nothing "stupid" about such a law. In fact it was passed in 2010 in Florida, in the wake of California, which has a 50% constitutional ammendment law, passing prop 8. And California's constitutional process is a mess because of this: we can vote in changes to the constitution for virtually anything, as long as they're mildly popular at the time. That's not a smart way to treat your supreme law.
IMO There's a big difference between passing something that is going to be ruled unconstitutional (Banning Gay Marriage) and which is a Civil Rights issue, and Allow something to be done that doesn't hurt others.
Democratic Votes (Of which California IS one of the most Direct Democracy States in the Union) is supposed to be Majority rule. But that's why we have courts and higher courts, and federal law. To determine if the "Will of the people" should be accepted, or if it becomes the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
huh, that reminds me. I need to check and see how liberals did nationally on initiatives while they weren't otherwise getting their lunch eaten by the big boys for terms of office
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Voter suppression watch: In the North Carolina Senate race, Thom Tillis beat Senator Kay Hagen by 48,000 votes. North Carolina’s voters were, for the first time, voting under one of the harshest new election laws in the country — which Tillis helped craft. The Election Protection hotline reported widespread problems with voter registrations and voters being told they were in the wrong precinct. Numbers from recent elections suggest the magnitude of voter suppression is close to 45,000 to 50,000 votes.
Similarly, in Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback beat back challenger Paul Davis by fewer than 33,000 votes. The Kansas secretary of state says more than 24,000 Kansans tried to register this year but their registrations were held in “suspense” because they failed to present the documentary proof of citizenship now required by state law. And the Government Accountability Office found that Kansas’s voter ID law reduced turnout by 17,000 voters in 2012. You do the math.
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Meanwhile in Florida, Rick Scott gets re-elected and medical marijuana rejected.
I don't really understand the argument against legalizing marijuana. Even if medical marijuana is just a cover for getting it fully legalized down the road, what's the argument against it? AFAIK, the gateway drug thing has been thoroughly debunked.
Technically it was "Accepted" by a majority of the people in Florida. But they passed a stupid law making all initiatives need 60%, it only got 58%...
I've seen that reaction a lot, and I have to say, there is absolutely nothing "stupid" about such a law. In fact it was passed in 2010 in Florida, in the wake of California, which has a 50% constitutional ammendment law, passing prop 8. And California's constitutional process is a mess because of this: we can vote in changes to the constitution for virtually anything, as long as they're mildly popular at the time. That's not a smart way to treat your supreme law.
IMO There's a big difference between passing something that is going to be ruled unconstitutional (Banning Gay Marriage) and which is a Civil Rights issue, and Allow something to be done that doesn't hurt others.
I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea to have a 50% majority rule for changing your state constitution.
What you're saying is that a 50% majority should be allowed to change laws, as long as the changes are "right." Well, what I think Florida was thinking in 2010 when they altered that arrangement, was that this is what the legislature is for. Not the constitution.
It *should* be easier to elect a new legislature than it is to change your constitution. Otherwise it's rule of the mob, and for every "good" law that you want to see pass because it has over 50%, there are 10 bad ones that might get close to that as well.
Literally nothing stops people amending their constitutions to do literally anything, and bypass their own legislatures. Lower taxes? Yeah, we did that in California, thanks. It's worked out great, just look at the schools. Top 5 in the nation until the 1970s, then we passed prop 13, and now we're comfortably in the top 40.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote: Voter suppression watch: In the North Carolina Senate race, Thom Tillis beat Senator Kay Hagen by 48,000 votes. North Carolina’s voters were, for the first time, voting under one of the harshest new election laws in the country — which Tillis helped craft. The Election Protection hotline reported widespread problems with voter registrations and voters being told they were in the wrong precinct. Numbers from recent elections suggest the magnitude of voter suppression is close to 45,000 to 50,000 votes.
Similarly, in Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback beat back challenger Paul Davis by fewer than 33,000 votes. The Kansas secretary of state says more than 24,000 Kansans tried to register this year but their registrations were held in “suspense” because they failed to present the documentary proof of citizenship now required by state law. And the Government Accountability Office found that Kansas’s voter ID law reduced turnout by 17,000 voters in 2012. You do the math.
I'm doing the math on just the numbers in that blurb and the only way anything changes is if near 100% of the suppressed voters would have voted democrat. I'm sure a large percentage of them would have but there is no way all of them would.
No that doesn't make it right. I agree with the point you're trying to make but the blurb said do the math and the math says the Republicans won either way.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Because I'm tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I'm tired of getting them elected! We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, "'Liberal' means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to!" And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties...!", we cowered in the corner, and said, "Please. Don't. Hurt. Me."
the west wing seems to have predicted the future
I've been thinking of watching that since I've really enjoyed Newsroom. Worth watching?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you enjoyed Newsroom, I would be almost literally astounded if you didn't like West Wing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:almost literally astounded
So much fail in three words... look you. 'Literally' is a binary concept; either something actually does happen as in the words described, or it happens in a metaphorical sense. And what does it mean to be 'literally astounded'? 'Astounded' is not a metaphor. "My head asplode" is a metaphor, and if someone said "my head literally asploded" they would be a filthy liar, but they wouldn't be incoherent; 'literally' would be adding information, albeit false information. This here is like saying "I am literally typing this on my literal keyboard." Yeah, no, really? What the devil good is 'literally' doing in this sentence? Throw the bum out!
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote: Voter suppression watch: In the North Carolina Senate race, Thom Tillis beat Senator Kay Hagen by 48,000 votes. North Carolina’s voters were, for the first time, voting under one of the harshest new election laws in the country — which Tillis helped craft. The Election Protection hotline reported widespread problems with voter registrations and voters being told they were in the wrong precinct. Numbers from recent elections suggest the magnitude of voter suppression is close to 45,000 to 50,000 votes.
Similarly, in Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback beat back challenger Paul Davis by fewer than 33,000 votes. The Kansas secretary of state says more than 24,000 Kansans tried to register this year but their registrations were held in “suspense” because they failed to present the documentary proof of citizenship now required by state law. And the Government Accountability Office found that Kansas’s voter ID law reduced turnout by 17,000 voters in 2012. You do the math.
I don't fully understand this voter suppression issue. Is requiring a photo ID to vote really that much to ask for?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to vote? Should people be able to just walk in to a polling location and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The first question, since voting is supposed to be a fundamental right that we ought to be very, very wary of impeding (even in small ways) is this: is fraud a problem?
The simple answer is that the sort of fraud designed to be impressed by voter ID is not a problem. It is in fact an incredibly rare thing, for someone to go in person to vote fraudulently.
That's a fact, and it's really all that needs to be said about whether more stringent voter ID laws are needed anywhere. As to *why* it is such an issue in many places now...well. I wonder if it has anything to do with the possibility that making voting even $10 more expensive and an hour on a weekday more difficult is going to have impact on some kinds of turnout more than others, and to ask who benefits.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
How do we know it's not a problem? How do we know there aren't people voting with others' identities in places where photo ID isn't required and they just aren't being caught?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Around 11% of Americans don't have a valid photo ID. Mostly because they don't have a car (so no drivers license) and don't travel. (no passport) Do you want to hazard a guess as far as what socioeconomic, age, racial, and political groups most of these people fall into?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Edit: that should read "American voters."
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I get that. But it isn't all that hard to get photo ID even if you don't drive. And if you actually care about voting, it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Also, 11%? That seems fairly high. Do you have a source for that?
And I still don't understand how we can know what percentage of votes were fraudulently cast to know if it's a significant problem or not.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
If you're going to infringe on a person's rights, it is customary to prove the necessity. So if you don't know how many fraudulent votes there are, you don't know if you need to require voter ID and thus shouldn't impose burden on people's ability to vote.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I get that. But it isn't all that hard to get photo ID even if you don't drive. And if you actually care about voting, it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Also, 11%? That seems fairly high. Do you have a source for that?
quote:And I still don't understand how we can know what percentage of votes were fraudulently cast to know if it's a significant problem or not.
Well, you could read numerous, numerous articles about how there has been no real evidence of voter fraud in recent elections despite an intense monitoring effort, but let me try this from a different angle:
let's assume that fraudulent voters (however many dozens there are nationwide) are out there casting their fraudulent votes. I would assume that there would be a roughly equal number on both sides of the aisle politically, right? Unless you're positing that one party is actively encouraging it's voters to commit fraud, there's a conspiracy, or that a lack of integrity will make you vote a certain way. (which I doubt you are) So the net result is pretty much neutral.
OTOH, due to the socioeconomic and demographic reasons why they wouldn't have them, people who lack photo IDs are pretty heavily skewed towards one political party. And passing laws requiring photo IDs to vote is a pretty great way to disenfranchise them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It actually is hard for some people. Offices where you can get a license can be far away and you usually can't do it by mail so you have to be there in person.
If you don't drive, how do you get there?
If you work, when can you go?
Is there a fee? How do you pay it?
What sort of documentation is needed? Especially for older minority voters, many do not have the necessary documents (birth certificate) to even get it. There are whole non-profits in some southern states dedicated to helping people find their birth certificates.
So is it impossible? No, not for most people. But is it easy? Not automatically. It's pretty easy for me. It's not necessarily easy for everyone.
But it seems to me that the "but how do we know it isn't a problem?" line is a pretty weak excuse for instituting measures that restrict voting. Wouldn't the proper action to take to be to demand a full scale investigation into voter fraud to see if it is a problem first?
Going right to a solution with huge consequences before establishing a problem exists is incredibly stupid. Studies have been done in many, many states over the years and generally find voter fraud rarely even counts into the double digits. Find the problem first. Then we can talk about solutions.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I get that. But it isn't all that hard to get photo ID even if you don't drive. And if you actually care about voting, it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Really now? Have you ever gotten a valid photo ID without applying for or using a drivers license/passport? (I'm not talking about a library card, I'm talking about a valid ID issued by your state) Do you know how, off the top of your head? I'm sure you could Google it... what if you didn't have access to Google? What if you didn't even know it was now a requirement until you went in to vote and got turned away? Do you think you can get one issued to you in a few hours? What paperwork do you need? How long does the process take?
What if it costs $100 (because you have to order an original birth certificate or something) and you have to choose between exercising your right to vote, and buying enough Mac & Cheese to feed your kids for another week? Or paying your rent? Do you think that people without valid photo IDs might also be the sort of people without a lot time or money?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Is there a fee? How do you pay it?
Oooh! This is one I actually know! Here, the DMV takes cash, but if you're applying for a valid ID through the office of the Lieutenant Governor, you have to pay them by *money order*. Cash, checks, credit cards not accepted. Do you know how to do a money order? I don't.
I say this because my wife is involved in a similar process (not for an ID)) and so far it's taken her over a month and over a hundred dollars. Because they want a birth certificate *certified within 60 days* of the process happening (so her birth certificate was invalid), which meant she had to call a bunch of courthouses in Illinois and pay a ridiculous fee to get them to mail it to her in a timely manner. I say "so far" because they've turned her application back several times, the most recent time simply because they forgot to check their own paperwork to see she had already sent them a $50 money order.
How easy,, exactly, do you think it is for someone without internet, reliable transportation, or much money to track down all these documents and repeatedly take off work to go visit an office 20 miles away with hours of 8 am - 4 pm?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I hadn't actually considered the difficulty of the PROCESS of paying. I was talking about how a poorer person comes up with the money given the hypothetical situation you highlighted two posts up.
I know how to do a money order, but it usually involves one of two things: 1. You have to pay a fee at a bank to have it done. 2. You have to have a bank account (which many, many poor people do not have). That in itself is complicated.
Getting a birth certificate can be tricky too. Here, you have to go, in person, to the country records office, which for me is 25 miles away. They no longer give out original copies, only photo copies, but some places demand an original so it's not perceived as fake.
Also, do you have the right documents to get a birth certificate? Here most people would use a driver's license to get their Birth Cert. But what if you don't have one and need a B.C to get one? Kind of a Catch 22. I guess you'd need a SS Card, but how do you get a SS Card with no B.C or driver's license?
I'm sure there's a way, but it's incredibly complicated.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It occurs to me that what Democrats should be doing is getting behind voter ID with plenty of compliance assistance. Make sure we make it easy and free to get the required ID, while undercutting the right wing narrative that opposition to voter ID stems from a desire to exploit the welfare system.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
What? You mean these red state legislatures passing voter ID laws aren't making any serious effort to make getting a photo ID easy and intuitive? I am shocked, absolutely shocked.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:And I still don't understand how we can know what percentage of votes were fraudulently cast to know if it's a significant problem or not.
Well, you could read numerous, numerous articles about how there has been no real evidence of voter fraud in recent elections despite an intense monitoring effort, but let me try this from a different angle:
let's assume that fraudulent voters (however many dozens there are nationwide) are out there casting their fraudulent votes. I would assume that there would be a roughly equal number on both sides of the aisle politically, right? Unless you're positing that one party is actively encouraging it's voters to commit fraud, there's a conspiracy, or that a lack of integrity will make you vote a certain way. (which I doubt you are) So the net result is pretty much neutral.
OTOH, due to the socioeconomic and demographic reasons why they wouldn't have them, people who lack photo IDs are pretty heavily skewed towards one political party. And passing laws requiring photo IDs to vote is a pretty great way to disenfranchise them. [/QB]
The first link uses a smartphone app dependent on anecdotal reports to determine how many instances of voting fraud there was. Not exactly a scientific study. The second link uses the same "report" as the first one.
As I've said, I don't think it's possible to know how many cases of voter fraud there have been. If I know my neighbor isn't going to vote so I walk into a poll and vote for him without photo ID, how will my fraudulent vote ever get counted towards studies examining how widespread voter fraud is? No one will ever know I did it.
Maybe it's not a problem at all like these articles claim. But we'll never really know. The simple solution seems to be require photo ID to vote and start a government program to ensure those 23 million citizens can have an easy way to obtain photo ID, as it is a helpful document to have even if you don't vote. And by the way, your source for that number also doesn't say how it came up with that number and it's not exactly a non-partisan, third party source.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Fortunately one thing that poor people would seem to know more about than you rich folks is how to get a money order.
Us broke people know that they are available at such difficult to find places as 7-11 and post offices.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You mean these red state legislatures passing voter ID laws aren't making any serious effort to make getting a photo ID easy and intuitive?
The month after Wisconsin originally passed its voter ID law, the Republican legislature closed 20% of the Department of Motor Vehicles offices around the state.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: As I've said, I don't think it's possible to know how many cases of voter fraud there have been.
There are clear and comprehensive ways of measuring this fairly accurately, and every credible study I've found shows that voter fraud in a non-issue in modern elections. This is something I have never seen seriously contested. Your inability to grasp this basic fact doesn't mean that it's indeed unknowable or somehow a great mystery. It isn't. Nor should ignorance or fear be used as an excuse to deprive others of their civil liberties.
quote:Maybe it's not a problem at all like these articles claim. But we'll never really know.
No, we do know. And it's not a problem.
quote:The simple solution seems to be require photo ID to vote and start a government program to ensure those 23 million citizens can have an easy way to obtain photo ID
Your "simple solution" is a multi-billion dollar problem and a logistical nightmare. That being said, it probably is a good idea to help these 23 million people obtain photo IDs and have better access to their own records, and then require voter ID laws after it becomes a non-issue. Instead, voter ID laws are being passed, no serious effort is being made to ensure every citizen has easy access to a photo ID.
Requiring voter ID laws while understanding the huge bureaucratic quagmire that these 23 million people represent, and knowing that most of them lack the time (like, it can be a months long process) or resources to obtain a valid ID, is nothing short of a deliberate effort to disenfranchise them politically. Especially when there is *no* credible reason to do so other than your refusal to accept basic facts.
quote:as it is a helpful document to have even if you don't vote.
Which is of course the main concern of the Republican party in this issue.
quote:And by the way, your source for that number also doesn't say how it came up with that number and it's not exactly a non-partisan, third party source.
I find it curious that you're willing to make some pretty strong claims in this argument, but can't be bothered to check a citation or do even cursory research on the subject matter. Frankly, your willful ignorance and "gosh shucks I just don't know" naivete on this issue is grating and bordering on disingenuous. Like, it's hard for me to believe that after several posters explaining this issue to you indepth you still seriously think voter ID laws are a "simple solution" to a non-existent problem.
I mean, long term, there will hopefully be a movement started and a lot of NPOs springing up to help disadvantaged people reconcile their paperwork and apply for photo IDs, and 10 years down the road it's possible that, say, 99% of eligible voters will have one. But that's going to take billions of dollars and a huge amount number of man hours and detract from other political efforts. So not only does the Republican Party destroy a fairly large part of the Democratic voter base for the next 10 years, they also force them to redirect a huge amount of their resources towards voter education and helping aging and poor voters track down paperwork, which only sets them back further. It's a pretty brilliant tactic, actually, and shares a lot in common with the Jim Crow era "literacy tests" for voting.
Do you really, truly not see what a huge issue this is?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: [qb] As I've said, I don't think it's possible to know how many cases of voter fraud there have been.
There are clear and comprehensive ways of measuring this fairly accurately, and every credible study I've found shows that voter fraud in a non-issue in modern elections. This is something I have never seen seriously contested. Your inability to grasp this basic fact doesn't mean that it's indeed unknowable or somehow a great mystery. It isn't. Nor should ignorance or fear be used as an excuse to deprive others of their civil liberties.
My "inability to grasp this basic fact" was because your support for this fact was a report based on a smartphone app and my cursory google search wasn't answering my question on how we can know the full extent of something that may not always be caught. I am not advocating depriving others of their civil liberties. I am advocating we should make every effort to ensure the accuracy of our voting system AND ensure every citizen has the opportunity to vote. I absolutely agree with your statement that we should first ensure the ability to get photo ID is a non-issue before requiring it. I never said I agree with the Republicans' MO on this issue.
quote: I find it curious that you're willing to make some pretty strong claims in this argument, but can't be bothered to check a citation or do even cursory research on the subject matter. Frankly, your willful ignorance and "gosh shucks I just don't know" naivete on this issue is grating and bordering on disingenuous. Like, it's hard for me to believe that after several posters explaining this issue to you indepth you still seriously think voter ID laws are a "simple solution" to a non-existent problem.
The link you originally posted did not contain a citation on where the 11% 23 million figure was drawn from. I did not see one in the downloadable report either.
Where have several posters answered my question in depth on how we can know if voter fraud is a problem? There were several in depth posts on the difficulties of obtaining photo ID, and I did not continue to question that after reading them.
Also, is the name-calling and condescending attitude really necessary? In my first post on the issue I openly said I don't fully understand the issue and my questions are just my way of wrapping my head around it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The basic problem, Gaal, is that for a voter ID law to be ethical the sorts of assistance to get ID would need to be fully in place and *before* the ID laws go into effect. It shouldn't somehow be simulateneos or something, because that just wouldn't work without restricting the access to vote of most disadvantaged who *already* have much less a voice in our government than they should.
As for the idea 'we don't really know if there's a problem or not', aside from the very high likelihood that we do understand how big a problem there is (which is: there isn't), shouldn't there be more than 'it might be happening, but we don't know?' before a new law is made?
And isn't it peculiar that the party least inclined to seek out the poor and minority voters, the party least likely to support programs to aid them, is the party most behind an effort to require these 'helpful documents' for those who don't already have them?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I said I agree the assistance should be there first and don't agree with the GOP's methods.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Also, is the name-calling and condescending attitude really necessary?
Name calling? Where?
As far as condescending, I actually had two options. I could insult your intelligence by assuming you simply didn't understand the evidence you were being shown, or I could assume you were affecting obstinance with the hopes of accomplishing with attrition what you can't with logic. I went with the latter because it seemed to be the *least* condescending I could be while still calling you out on your behavior in an polite-yet-firm manner.
quote:In my first post on the issue I openly said I don't fully understand the issue and my questions are just my way of wrapping my head around it.
And I feel like it's been adequately explained to you. If you're still not convinced that voter fraud isn't a threat, and you find all the articles posted here to be somehow suspect, then I invite you to research it yourself. There is a massive amount of research that has been done on the subject and hundreds of articles written. At this point, I can either just sit here and continue to copy-paste articles for you to act befuddled at, or you can just read them yourself.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To sort of repeat a question, what is your methodology used to determine there *is* a problem that needs to be fixed? Which should be central to determining whether a new law is needed.
Which is, incidentally, supposed to be rather central to Republican politics-not making new laws unnecessarily.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't know that it is a problem. I agree that it likely isn't. It just seems like a standard verification for an important process. When I pay my utility bill at my local city office with my credit card, I'm required to show my ID matches the name on the credit card despite the fact that the name on the credit card matches the name on the account. Is it likely that I stole someone's credit card and am paying their utility bill for them with it? Probably not. It's just standard verification.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not, though. My power, utilities, cable, and car insurance I can all pay over the phone with nothing but an account number. From an unassociated phone no less. I believe but can't be sure that on one of those I could even make a payment drawn on my bank account over the phone without a card number, for auto payments.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to vote? Should people be able to just walk in to a polling location and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
You are approaching this issue from the wrong angle. It is not a question of what burden of proof we should place on voters, but what burden of proof we should place on those who would seek to challenge voters. Voting is a constitutionally protected right. In order to limit that right, any limitation must pass a test of basic utility. That is: if you can't prove that voter ID law stops voter fraud, and you can't prove that voter fraud is a problem, then you have no business treating it as a problem that bears the limitation of basic rights.
Just consider other examples for some perspective. For example, you have the right to buy sheet metal in a hardware store. Sheet metal can be used to construct bomb casings. Now, this is not a widespread problem, and the utility of sheet metal is far reaching and various. But because it *can* be used to make a bomb casing, should we require ID in order to buy it? There are numerous substances deemed dangerous enough to do just that: charcoal for example, lighter fluid, phosphorous, gun powder, and other things that can be used to make a bomb. But we have a reasonable suspicion that people buying those items may be using them for nefarious purposes. So we infringe slightly on people's rights in order to limit a real danger.
Voter fraud, in person voter fraud, is not such a danger. This is a proven fact. It is not a mystery. And a remedy to a problem that does not exist, which is inherently impinging upon individual rights, is, QED, a violation of those rights.
The question is not: "is this such a burden," but rather, is this such a problem as to justify *any* additional burden? In the case of on person voter fraud, the answer is no.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to vote? Should people be able to just walk in to a polling location and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
Yes. If they are registered.
Voter fraud is a very serious crime. If, for example, a voter were to be recognized by a poll worker or neighbor voting fraudulently, and reported, they could be in serious trouble. This is, in itself, a sufficient deterrent to massive in person voter fraud. We know this, because reliable data shows that in person voter fraud is vanishingly rare. It is rare partly because it carries serious penalties, and is of little criminal utility.
Conspiracy to commit voter fraud is an even worse crime, and carries an even greater risk that the perpetrators will be caught, and it too is of little relative utility. Thus, it does not happen. You see?
In the same way that the IRS doesn't require you to prove all your deductions on your tax returns, because if you lie and are audited, the penalties are so much worse than the small gains you stand to make, so too with in person voter fraud. And the IRS still recognizes tax cheating as common enough to warrant audits. But audits of polling places essentially never discover in person voter fraud.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
You now want to armchair the methodology of a broad base of research, none of which is disputed in the literature (because others have already analyzed it, and didn't find fault)? You think this is a reasonable request?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
You now want to armchair the methodology of a broad base of research, none of which is disputed in the literature (because others have already analyzed it, and didn't find fault)? You think this is a reasonable request?
I can't raise a question regarding the methodology because other people haven't had the same question? That's unreasonable?
Let's settle this. I agree that voter fraud is most likely not a problem. I agree with all the reasons you outlined above.
My only question regarding the methodology is this: from what I read, the number of instances of voter fraud that the study lists as being insignificant to warrant a correction in the voting process is the number of instances of voter fraud that were caught. I don't understand how a study can know how many times it happened and wasn't caught and factor that into their analysis. Can you explain this to me?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
A federal ID program, while probably very difficult to achieve at first due to the issues that already exist with vulnerable populations today, would nevertheless probably solve any voter ID issues within a generation. There are countries where you don't even register, but whenever you move your records are automatically moved to your new precinct and put on a list. Doesn't that sound like the perfect solution to everything?
Cue government overreach rant in 3...2...1...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the purpose of these voter id laws has never ever ever been to prevent voter fraud, and i am sincerely impressed when people can't figure that out and make arguments predicated on essentially ignoring that the point of these laws is to try to prevent as many poor and minority populations from voting because they would vote against the people who institute these laws in order to keep election turnouts favorable to them
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to buy a gun? Should people be able to just walk in to a gun store and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
Do you think I'm actually a research analyst? When you read that, say, Shark Tank had 7.45 million viewers on it's premiere this season, how exactly do you think they know that? Do you actually research the exact methodology and run simulations to test it's effectiveness? Because there are people who do this, who are far smarter and make far more money than me. Yet strangely none of them have been able to find conclusive evidence of voter fraud, even the ones who set out to try and prove it exists.
What it breaks down to is you do a sample study where, say, you monitor 10,000 voters in several distinct areas that represent every major sociopolitical and cultural group in the U.S. proportionally. Then you multiply the number of voters attempting to vote fraudulently to the total number of registered voters in the country. If you do this experiment several dozen times and still find absolutely no one voting fraudulently, then it's a pretty good indication that in person voter fraud doesn't exist, or if it does, it's an anomaly small enough that it's irrelevant.
It's actually a lot more complex than that, and I haven't the expertise, the incentive or the time to defend the methodology to you. As has been pointed out (and you've chosen to ignore), there are people who do this for a living ho *have* examined this and found no issue with it, and more importantly, no one has been able to successfully challenge it.
More to the point, voter fraud is a felony and will get a you a year in a jail, conspiracy to commit voter fraud 5 years. You would need a pretty powerful incentive to vote fraudulently considering the risk - i.e, someone would have to pay you. And anyone going around paying people to commit voter fraud would get caught pretty quickly - it'd be an extremely difficult conspiracy to pull off.
But the main point is that the onus is on you to prove that is this is actually happening. Like, any evidence at all that voter fraud is actually a problem. I can't prove to you there's not an invisible flying giraffe living in my backyard at this moment, but I have no evidence to believe there is. (None of the leaves on my trees have been eaten, the grass isn't depressed, and I haven't walked over any invisible droppings, etc.)
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
i'm not sure what you're trying to imply by that but I absolutely think that purchasing a gun should require photo ID.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to buy a gun? Should people be able to just walk in to a gun store and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
Do you any reason to think Gaal is against proving your ID to buy a guy or...?
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: i'm not sure what you're trying to imply by that but I absolutely think that purchasing a gun should require photo ID.
Ok, so definitely not. What's your point here Elison?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
Do you think I'm actually a research analyst? When you read that, say, Shark Tank had 7.45 million viewers on it's premiere this season, how exactly do you think they know that? Do you actually research the exact methodology and run simulations to test it's effectiveness? Because there are people who do this, who are far smarter and make far more money than me. Yet strangely none of them have been able to find conclusive evidence of voter fraud, even the ones who set out to try and prove it exists.
What it breaks down to is you do a sample study where, say, you monitor 10,000 voters in several distinct areas that represent every major sociopolitical and cultural group in the U.S. proportionally. Then you multiply the number of voters attempting to vote fraudulently to the total number of registered voters in the country. If you do this experiment several dozen times and still find absolutely no one voting fraudulently, then it's a pretty good indication that in person voter fraud doesn't exist, or if it does, it's an anomaly small enough that it's irrelevant.
It's actually a lot more complex than that, and I haven't the expertise, the incentive or the time to defend the methodology to you. As has been pointed out (and you've chosen to ignore), there are people who do this for a living ho *have* examined this and found no issue with it, and more importantly, no one has been able to successfully challenge it.
More to the point, voter fraud is a felony and will get a you a year in a jail, conspiracy to commit voter fraud 5 years. You would need a pretty powerful incentive to vote fraudulently considering the risk - i.e, someone would have to pay you. And anyone going around paying people to commit voter fraud would get caught pretty quickly - it'd be an extremely difficult conspiracy to pull off.
But the main point is that the onus is on you to prove that is this is actually happening. Like, any evidence at all that voter fraud is actually a problem. I can't prove to you there's not an invisible flying giraffe living in my backyard at this moment, but I have no evidence to believe there is. (None of the leaves on my trees have been eaten, the grass isn't depressed, and I haven't walked over any invisible droppings, etc.)
Dogbreath, I appreciate your posts and patience in thread. I've said I agree that we should make sure voter disenfranchisement is a non-issue before creating any laws.
That said (and at this point, this is basically irrelevant to the photo ID issue), I think with your comparison to tv ratings you're not understanding my question about the numbers.
Nielsen ratings come from knowable data. Certain TVs are equipped with meters to determine how many people in the sample are watching Shark Tank, which is then projected to the entire population, based on research techniques that I have no understanding of. However, unless people are tricking their meter into thinking they're watching something else when they're really watching Shark Tank, it's fair to say the data in the sample is accurate. My question about the data in voter fraud is how can you know the data in the sample is accurate? Like I said before, if I know my neighbor isn't voting and I go and cast a ballot in his name, that would never count in the sample because no one would ever no I did it. If my polling location were being used as a sample for voter fraud, it might show no cases of it when really there was one.
I'm going to drop the topic now. Again, I agree with your conclusion regarding the costs of losing voters vs. the benfit of reducing what is likely an insignificant number of instances of voter fraud. And I agree that the only reason Republicans want to legislate laws like this is for their own benefit.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: i'm not sure what you're trying to imply by that but I absolutely think that purchasing a gun should require photo ID.
There are ironically a lot of republicans who would disagree with you, because of the constitution, but that's just too vomit enducingly ironic.
Buying a gun, in the opinion of many but not all courts in the US, is a right that is not substantially infringed by the need of ID. Certainly the Supreme Court has consistently seen things that way for quite a long time. On the contrary, voting is a right that *is* substantially infringed by the same requirement.
And it isn't hard to see why that is: voting is not inherently dangerous, it is not involved with the purchase or sale of goods which can be trafficked illegally (a big part of why gun control advocates want ID laws), and there is very small potential for voting rights to be abused (voting libertarian not withstanding )
The only "danger," to voting without ID is that someone will criminally vote when they are not supposed to, an act which carries significant risk, and offers an extremely small benefit to the would-be criminal. This would involve someone registering fraudulently, an act that can be easily found out and prosecuted, and going in to vote in person, or mail in a ballot, also both acts that carry significant risk.
By all means, hunt down and prosecute people who do this. Since there isn't anyone doing it, it should be easy (or hard, depending on how you look at it). The answer is not a serious impingement of the rights of a broad set of people who have the right to vote.
quote: My question about the data in voter fraud is how can you know the data in the sample is accurate
I suggest Khan Academy. I think he has some videos on statistics and survey/polling data. Or sign up for a JC course on the subject. I took one in college, which is part of why I understand what's wrong with this question.
In short: a survey or study, of which there have been many, samples a specifically defined cross section of the population, representative of the whole, and applies certain assumptions to the data it collects. The more assumptions you have to make, the larger your margin of error tends to be.
So, for example, a study might randomly select 10,000 people from the population, representing in many ways, the larger population. This is accomplished by spreading the survey geographically, by age, by sex, and by race. It then finds out more about those people through a questionnaire. It then attempts to determine, by several means, if the participants have voted, and if they are eligible to vote. If it finds that a number of people have voted when they weren't supposed to, then it can be extrapolated that this trend is also true (within some margin) for the greater population.
Studies of the subject have found that in person voter fraud is about 0%. It is unlikely to be 0%, but it is *extremely* unlikely to be more than 0.0001%, which covers the margin of all national, and most state and local elections.
If what concerns you is the idea that people being surveyed might lie*, then yes, rest assured, that is also accounted for in the data. The thing is, a study where you assume that perhaps 25% of those guilty of a crime might confess, if told there will be no recourse for confessing, and *nobody* confesses, then you are still multiplying 0 by 4. It's still 0. In person voter fraud does not appear to happen at a statistically significant rate.
[ November 09, 2014, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If what concerns you is the idea that people being surveyed might lie*, then yes, rest assured, that is also accounted for in the data. The thing is, a study where you assume that perhaps 25% of those guilty of a crime might confess, if told there will be no recourse for confessing, and *nobody* confesses, then you are still multiplying 0 by 4. It's still 0. In person voter fraud does not appear to happen at a statistically significant rate.
I guess I would add that on similar surveys with guarantees of anonymity, people admit to cheating on their spouse, doing hard drugs, having sexual fantasies about children, theft, rape, and just about anything else. There's a fairly constant percentage of people who lie/tell the truth about various offenses, and it's fairly easy to take that into account.
Surveys and statistical analysis is a highly sophisticated, effective science - if they didn't work, our economy wouldn't work either. I'm an uneducated schlub and only have a rudimentary grasp on how it works, Orincoro seems to have a better understanding. It can't tell you whether or not any given person will commit voter fraud (though it might indicate who is more likely to do so), but it can tell you at least within a order of magnitude how many Americans do commit voter fraud.
So Gaal, when you say "how can you know the data in the sample is accurate?", and then simply refuse to accept any evidence or explanation - no matter how conclusive - that proves that is is accurate with "well, we can't really know that", it becomes extremely frustrating. It reminds me of YE Creationists who use that as their go to line - "there are stars more than 6000 light years away", "well, we can't really know that for sure." No, we actually can know it, refusing to accept logic or evidence that proves it doesn't make it any less true. (I don't mean to insult you here, and FWIW I don't think you're in any way comparable to a YEC. You've simply employed a similar rhetorical tactic)
That being said, I'm glad you seem to have changed your mind on this issue somewhat, and are aware of the extremely disingenuous way red state legislatures are enacting these laws.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to buy a gun? Should people be able to just walk in to a gun store and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
Do you any reason to think Gaal is against proving your ID to buy a guy or...?
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: i'm not sure what you're trying to imply by that but I absolutely think that purchasing a gun should require photo ID.
Ok, so definitely not. What's your point here Elison?
Just checking; there have been those on this forum who think the restrictions on voting should be higher than on purchasing firearms, because background checks and the like are an onerous burden on ones constitutional right.
In reality there should be a national id paid for with perhaps a 5 cent tax.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
- Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
That and the other R politicians who quite brazenly had said "This law isn't to stop black people from voting, its to stop Democrats from voting."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I admit I'm curious as to who opposed background checks for firearms purchases, here on Hatrack.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Get them up against the wall! Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I admit I'm curious as to who opposed background checks for firearms purchases, here on Hatrack.
I'm sure if I saw the moniker I'd remember but it was one of the more brazen non-Lisa libertarians.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Get them up against the wall!
Yes, but for an execution by archers, afr. Archers. I'm not some sort of savage!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Get them up against the wall!
Yes, but for an execution by archers, afr. Archers. I'm not some sort of savage!
That does have a measure of chivalric elegance to it. Points for style!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I admit I'm curious as to who opposed background checks for firearms purchases, here on Hatrack.
I'm sure if I saw the moniker I'd remember but it was one of the more brazen non-Lisa libertarians.
here ya go. (XOXO, you're welcome, etc. )
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
(Try the first link)
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its capaxinfiniti.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's amazing the sort of things you can find out with 15 seconds and a Google search.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
I'm sure if I saw the moniker I'd remember but it was one of the more brazen non-Lisa libertarians.
quote: Its capaxinfiniti.
According to you, I'm a brazen, non-Lisa libertarian? More likely you have your definitions/people muddled.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Muddled definitions and identities seem to be fairly common problem here, unfortunately. We should consult the Samprany of Orincolo, he might be able to help us make sense of this.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It's amazing the sort of things you can find out with 15 seconds and a Google search.
"There are people who hold this crazy view" seems like probabilistically one of those sure things; if I held a poll "Which is bigger, 5 or 15?" I'm fairly certain that if I said "There's at least 1 person who will vote 5." I feel confident that probability would be 100%.
So why would I need to google it? I know it happened, my statement was more "If you provide me a list of names I can probably point out who if you really want to know." Which you did!
The system works.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:"There are people who hold this crazy view" seems like probabilistically one of those sure things; if I held a poll "Which is bigger, 5 or 15?" I'm fairly certain that if I said "There's at least 1 person who will vote 5." I feel confident that probability would be 100%.
So why would I need to google it? I know it happened, my statement was more "If you provide me a list of names I can probably point out who if you really want to know." Which you did!
The system works.
So what you're saying is you made a definitive statement based on a hunch, fabricated some details in order to make your lie sound plausible, then used capaxinfiniti to support your "memory" after the fact. Classy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think we should have mail in ballots for anyone who wants one. Skip the entire need to go to the poll and dramatically increase turnout.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think we should have mail in ballots for anyone who wants one. Skip the entire need to go to the poll and dramatically increase turnout.
Heck, given a reliable and comprehensive PKI infrastructure, we could conceivably move to voting online. In the military, we've already moved towards digital signatures for the bulk of our paperwork. (this has actually been something my Battalion has been transitioning towards in the past 6 months, with the goal of going paper free by the end of 2015) They're actually more secure than regular signatures, as they hold a lot more information about the person signing, and encrypt the document in a way that it can only be unsigned or edited by the person signing. It may be theoretically breakable, but it's a heck of a lot more secure than, say, whiteout, or the old trick of putting a blank cut out piece of paper over the parts of the document you want to edit, making a copy and filling it in.
Of course, this is only feasible because everyone in the military has a Controlled Access Card (CAC) with their PKI certificates stored on them. (a signature certificate, a DoD systems certificate, and an e-mail certificate) These CACs are password secured, and we've moved to using biometrics as well to a limited extent. (Read: we got a bunch of laptops for a certain networked system with fingerprint scanners and I was bored, soooooo)
Which leads me to point: I could see, in maybe 20 years once the internet "grows up" and digital identity becomes a fixed and regulated concept, online voting becoming the primary means of voting for the majority of the population. It would probably increase direct participation in the legislative process to a certain extent, and in the long term might change how we conceptualize democracy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: We should consult the Samprany of Orincolo, he might be able to help us make sense of this.
Greetings, Child of the Universal Light.
To what query may my ebullient sagacity be directed? Ask, and the Samprany shall let it be known.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Greetings! And let me say what any honor it is to be in your presence, and also to compliment you on your terrific hat. It really is splendid.
Before I trouble you with main inquiry, I was wondering if I could beseech you to solve a small riddle that has baffled me and my colleagues: how much can't could a white girl can't if a white girl literally couldn't even?
[ November 11, 2014, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The scourge of white girls being figuratively or sometimes even literally unable to even is certainly one that requires a significant amount of attention worldwide. In some parts of America, it is bad enough to force girls to congregate only in groups of 3, 5, or 7. Some have said that it is impossible to expect recovery for girls who can't even, and the condition can only be managed. For those unlucky souls who literally can't even, it is the best we can do to ensure that they can be made comfortable for what semblance of a life they may have. However, we have come to adopt a more hopeful belief that inspires them to break their curse. To answer the question, though, one (1) white girl can't 72 uggs, 42 yoga pants, 122 han solo jackets, 72 iphones, and a whopping 3,714 pumpkin spice lattes. This record was set by Heather Carly of Portland, Oregon over the course of a Gilmore Girls seasons 1 through 5 binge-watching.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:"There are people who hold this crazy view" seems like probabilistically one of those sure things; if I held a poll "Which is bigger, 5 or 15?" I'm fairly certain that if I said "There's at least 1 person who will vote 5." I feel confident that probability would be 100%.
So why would I need to google it? I know it happened, my statement was more "If you provide me a list of names I can probably point out who if you really want to know." Which you did!
The system works.
So what you're saying is you made a definitive statement based on a hunch, fabricated some details in order to make your lie sound plausible, then used capaxinfiniti to support your "memory" after the fact. Classy.
What. Are you serious or is this some sort of satire?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
How else would I possibly interpret what you wrote? Yes, I'm serious.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
"I know it happened" means "I remember that this happened because I was there and I read those statements." I didn't remember who said it exactly at the time, thus since I know it happened the chance was 100% for a libertarian to have said it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I took your entire first paragraph there as a justification for how you "knew" it happened, which, upon a second read through, still looks exactly like that.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: And to Samprimary in particular: I grew up in Kansas and most of my family lives there. Your comment "Hahahaha oh my god how dumb is Kansas" is offensive.... You act as if you are smarter or more enlightened than all of those dumb hick Kansans.
How arrogant. How sad.
I grew up in Kansas, and most of my family lives there. I didn't find Sam's comment offensive. It's a slam on those Kansans who voted for Brownback. Those people voted for an ideologue who has done incalculable damage to the state. They have made a horrible choice, and one which the vast majority of them will be actively harmed by. I don't find Sam's response to that unreasonable.
I despair for the state at this point. I'm glad I'm not living there anymore, which is something I've never felt, and I wish that my friends and relatives weren't either.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I took your entire first paragraph there as a justification for how you "knew" it happened, which, upon a second read through, still looks exactly like that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I admit I'm curious as to who opposed background checks for firearms purchases, here on Hatrack.
I oppose background checks for firearms purchase.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So what if any solution do you have for the problem-if it is a problem to you-of people with a history of violent crime purchasing guns? People with restraining orders for domestic violence? History of violent mental illness? Or are you just trolling?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
None of those problems are solved by background checks.
You don't stop violent crime with background checks. You stop violent crime by abolishing poverty, ending the criminalization of minorities, ending the new slave economy in the private prison sector.
You stop domestic violence by creating a community focused alternatives to our militarized police force. (Have you ever called the police for a domesric dispute? I have, the first thing they did was point three guns at my brothers head and body) You give people the actual resources and the ability to deal with domestic violence.
You help those with violent mental illness by providing people with the resources needed to treat that mental illness. You provide a real healthcare system as well as opportunities for that person to live a productive and fulfilling life in society at large.
None of the problems you listed are solved by background checks, I hope I have also made it cleat I do not believe the problems lies in the access to firearms but the material conditions of life that cause the misuse of firearms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*solved*? Of course not. And in the meanwhile enroute to your utopian goals (you offered not one solution, by the way) which would be the works of many generations to begin to achieve...what's your solution, if any, to any of those situations?
It's not often there is such a bogus, evasive, smug answer that isn't really an answer at all to the question asked.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
T:man, granted that background checks doesn't solve any of the problems, don't you think keeping firearms out of the hands of all of those people listed above is a good idea while we try to work on those goals? What do you think the cons of background checks when purchasing firearms are and do they outweight the benefit of potentially keeping firearms out of the hands of violent criminals in our current society where violent people do exist?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *solved*? Of course not. And in the meanwhile enroute to your utopian goals (you offered not one solution, by the way) which would be the works of many generations to begin to achieve...what's your solution, if any, to any of those situations?
It's not often there is such a bogus, evasive, smug answer that isn't really an answer at all to the question asked.
What utopian goals? My goals in that post were to offer solutions to the problems you presented.
I will bullet point the solutions I listed in my post if you are having trouble pinpointing them.
Solution to Violent Crime
Abolish Poverty
End the Criminalization of Minorities (I should have also mentioned ending the criminalization of the poor)
Abolish Privatized Prisons
Two out of three of these could end tomorrow. They are not the work of generations. Abolishing poverty worldwide might take more than a day.
Solution to Domestic Violence
Community Domestic Dispute Unit
State Funded Victims Shelter and Resource Center
Both of these things could be set up within the month.
Solution to those with Violent Mental Illness
State Provided Universal Mental Healthcare
State Provided Jobs Program
It's not often there is such a bogus, evasive, smug response that isn't really a response at all to the answer provided.
If you have a problem with my post could you describe it in terms greater than "bogus"?
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: T:man, granted that background checks doesn't solve any of the problems, don't you think keeping firearms out of the hands of all of those people listed above is a good idea while we try to work on those goals? What do you think the cons of background checks when purchasing firearms are and do they outweight the benefit of potentially keeping firearms out of the hands of violent criminals in our current society where violent people do exist?
I believe that background checks can in many cases be too broad. I don't think it is correct for the state to decide who and who not to arm. Especially a state as undemocratic as ours. If a prisoner has already payed the state mandated punishment for their crime, why should we then restrict their rights for the rest of their life?
Laws that restrict the eligibility to own a firearm by mental health status are both wrong and counter intuitive. This personally affects me, and that the fact that seeking treatment can in many states ban me from ever owning a gun, seriously made me reconsider getting treatment.
ETA: I assume most of us, aside from blayne/elison, are Americans. I apologize if I made a mistake.
[ February 06, 2015, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: T:man ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, just checking: 'abolish poverty' is in your mind a solution?
(I can't be sure if I'm remembering this correctly, so if this question makes no sense to you, please disregard it. What is your stance on bicycle helmets?)
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ok, just checking: 'abolish poverty' is in your mind a solution?
(I can't be sure if I'm remembering this correctly, so if this question makes no sense to you, please disregard it. What is your stance on bicycle helmets?)
It was a solution for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. fifty years ago. It is still a solution.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Rakeesh, you're a smart guy and you can probably easily explain all the issues you see with his solutions and why background checks on firearms are important; instead, you're choosing to be condescending. His answer wasn't intentionally evasive, he was explaining his thoughts in a way that he believed he was answering your questions. His answer wasn't smug, yours was.
[ February 06, 2015, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: GaalDornick ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
T:man - if we can manage all that, why on earth would anyone need a gun in the first place?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It was a *goal* for Dr King, and if you're going to reference him we can talk about all of the things that are generally glossed over in the mainstream MLK narrative these days. Steps to the goals of abolishing poverty and racism, for example.
-----
Gaal, it's possible someone might reply 'abolish poverty' with 'what's your solution to the problem, if it is one in your eyes, of guns and domestic violence?' and mean the answer seriously.
Now, are you actually suggesting that 'end criminalization of minorities' just as an example is a solution? I may as well tell a doctor, "Listen, this trouble you're having with cancer, why don't you just cure it? Wait, is that too open ended? My solution is to design a drug or treatment that kills everything but all types of cancer, that is easily and cheaply produced."
Gimme a break.
But alright, I'll take this nonsense a bit more seriously. Without some form of background check, how will a citizen out of prison for three months on parole for aggravated assault be barred from purchasing a gun? Wait, never mind, the answer is simpe: abolish poverty and reform the prison system. It'll take a day or two, tops.
Maybe three.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I didn't say I agreed that those were solutions. I said that you could explain why you think they aren't solutions with a similar amount of effort as you took (and are still taking) to disparage him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: T:man - if we can manage all that, why on earth would anyone need a gun in the first place?
Wild animals.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: I believe that background checks can in many cases be too broad. I don't think it is correct for the state to decide who and who not to arm. Especially a state as undemocratic as ours. If a prisoner has already payed the state mandated punishment for their crime, why should we then restrict their rights for the rest of their life?
Laws that restrict the eligibility to own a firearm by mental health status are both wrong and counter intuitive. This personally affects me, and that the fact that seeking treatment can in many states ban me from ever owning a gun, seriously made me reconsider getting treatment.
If you believe that background checks are too broad, then clarify what instances you think they are not allowing people to purchase firearms unjustly. But that's a far cry off from opposing all background checks and allowing anyone to buy a gun. If the state shouldn't be allowed to decide who can purchase a firearm, then who should do it?
The idea that restricting eligibility to own a firearm based on mental health status is wrong is absurd. Yes, we should make sure mental healthcare is available, and in certain cases mandated, to those who need it. We should also restrict people who are determined by mental health professionals to have a violent mental illness from buying weapons for obvious public (and personal) safety reasons. If the treatment you sought for a mental health issue could potentially cause you to lose control and become violent, perhaps you should consider it's best for you not to own a firearm. If this issue isn't one that puts you or anyone with this issue at risk for a violent act, then perhaps it's not one that should be a restricted diagnosis. But that's still a long way off from allowing any mental health patient to purchase a firearm.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: T:man - if we can manage all that, why on earth would anyone need a gun in the first place?
How else you gonna make someone put their head in a guillotine?
@Rakeesh
quote:Now, are you actually suggesting that 'end criminalization of minorities' just as an example is a solution?
Yes. You want to stop gun violence? You want to stop violent crime? End the massive incarceration of our ethnic minorities. End the process of trying kids as adults if their melanin count is too high. When systems of law and order only protect some the rest have to look elsewhere. They look to violence as a defense against a world that has made them a criminal from the moment they stepped into the world.
How?
Decriminalize non-violent offenses that only seem to find black men. (bye bye drug war)
End zero-tolerance policies in schools.
End life without parole for anyone under the age of twenty one.
End the ability of the police to arrest you for "resisting arrest".
The federal government could do it in a week if there was enough political will. I never said that it could be accomplished immediately in the current completely ****ed political climate.
quote:Without some form of background check, how will a citizen out of prison for three months on parole for aggravated assault be barred from purchasing a gun?
Maybe make his parole officer actually do his job? This is already the ****ing law, we pay people plenty of tax dollars to stop this from happening.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, so the parole officer is supposed to...what, create dozens of clones of their self, and put the clones of trio eight hour shifts to follow their violent parolees to make sure they never purchase a gun?
Or something?
Anyway, I guess we're not talking about Dr King anymore? Was that just a name-drop for ethical credibility?
Non-violent drug offenses don't just find black men, not by a long shot, though to an alarming disproportionate rate they do. Though in fact they tend to find the poorest Americans across the board, not just racial minoeities.
Ending just about all zero tolerance policies in schools sounds like a great idea to me. (It took awhile to actually get to an idea, Gaal, which was my point). Criminal sentencing needs a major overhaul, but the best bet is on the front end of things, particularly with juveniles and non-violent offenders. Ending the ability of cops on the ground to quell resistance to arrest is problematic. A much better solution would be to require community oversight panels for police departments across the nation and require film and audio coverage for officers as well-for their safety and ours.
If you acknowledge that your 'solution' of 'end poverty' was totally unworkable in the actual world, then perhaps you can see the source of my exasperation when you offered it as a solution.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I don't agree that it is unworkable.
I can see how it doesn't answer your question though.
I'm done posting here, I can see why everyone else has left.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There are still good conversations here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They grow up so fast
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not to wade too far into a three day dead conversation, but, I think you might have been a bit rough there Rakeesh.
Personally, I think T:Man was more right than wrong, and his solutions less opaque than you might think.
Ending poverty IS actually pretty easy. Give everyone enough money to lift them out of poverty. Done.
Now, if you want to end poverty via the rising tide, you're talking about the work of generations, because you have to find much more complex levers to pull on to try to raise the economy in such a fashion to carry the millions of people with it in a way that effectively ends poverty. This will never happen. Never. Because our style of economics basically guarantees that a low paid underclass MUST exist.
Now, if you told all those people they could still work their relatively crappy jobs but also get an extra $10-$15K a year to put them into the lower middle class? Poverty is over. You just need to engineer a pretty big wealth transfer from the rich to the poor.
Or not.
50 million people in America currently live below the poverty line (which is roughly $12,000 for an individual and $16,000 for a family of two, which is ridiculously low, by the way). We currently spend, between federal, state and local money, around $1 trillion a year on poverty.
To give every poor person in America $15,000 would cost $750 billion.
Boom. Now no one is in poverty, and I just saved the US $250 billion. Plus you've just injected a massive amount of money into the demographic of the economy most likely to spend it. It would pay for itself and thensome. It wouldn't actually solve structural problems overnight, but it would eventually.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And sales of guns, grills, tats & lowriders would sky rocket!
I still like the idea!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Depends.
The real effects would be varied.
A lot of people would look at $15,000 and say "wow! I'm not working at all!" So you'd see a drop out from the labor force of lots of people who think living just above the poverty line is just fine and dandy.
Plenty others would choose to be much more discerning in where they worked. As a result, wages would go up. But not to the crazy degree right-wing economists will tell you, in part because, while free money is nice, and keeps us off the streets, $15,000 is still not enough to buy a house, a nice car, and in general do nice things, especially if you have a family. Most people really would like to do more than just get by. So it would be combined with income from jobs. In many ways it'd also serve as a crutch to minimum wage jobs. Now a person can work 40 hours at McDonalds and still enjoy a middle class living when combined with their base income from the government.
You'd see a lot more stay at home parents as parents are no longer forced to rely on two incomes. As a result, lots of child care workers probably lose their jobs, but in general I think we see happier families.
A lot of that money would get dumped into what seems like mudnane stuff for the middle class. Eating out. Going to the movies. Consumer goods. Upgrading housing or vehicles. Taking vacations.
It'd empower workers in general and take a lot of the stranglehold owners have away from them. No longer forced to simply work for a roof over their heads and bread in their mouths, workers really could decide what their labor was worth, to some degree.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I would think a $1,250 a month would work out better than a check for $15,000.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Aren't you a Libertarian?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well I never said it'd be a lump sum.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Me? Yes...I guess...in that I believe in liberty. But I got to admit I'm a bit fed up with the 2%...not armed insurgency fed up...but I do own the tools.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Me? Yes...I guess...in that I believe in liberty. But I got to admit I'm a bit fed up with the 2%...not armed insurgency fed up...but I do own the tools.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As a registered libertarian I agree with the concept of legalizing prostitution.
And a registered one at that! This is actually a political stance you've taken numerous times here. I find it interesting you're advocating an outright socialist policy as a Libertarian.
Anyway, the "top 1%" or top 2% for that matter is a fairly arbitrary number, whereas I think it's somewhat more important to draw the line of *how* someone acquired that much wealth. this article goes into some of that as well as delineating between the lower top 1% (doctors, attorneys, small business owners) and the upper 1%, and the enormous difference in wealth that represents. It's not an even gradient, and becomes progressively less even as you go up.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How oddly confrontational about that. I don't think I registered to vote this year, so I'm not a registered anything.
And anyway I know almost about the actual real life Libertarian party.
I will read the article, however when it does come time for torches & pitchforks I doubt that the people who are pulling folks from their mansions are going to stop for a quick chat about *how* you made your money.
And anyway I'm perty sore about how my wife single handedly ran her MD's office and while he got a new BMW yearly my wife almost never got a raise or was paid even appropriately considering how much work she put in and how much money that place pulled in.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How oddly confrontational about that. I don't think I registered to vote this year, so I'm not a registered anything.
Not meant to be confrontational, just a rather dramatic change in political philosophy.
quote:I will read the article, however when it does come time for torches & pitchforks I doubt that the people who are pulling folks from their mansions are going to stop for a quick chat about *how* you made your money.
I think if you did some reading you would be surprised by what a small fraction of people in the top 2% by wealth live in mansions. Or for that matter, how many people who aren't in that top 2% do live in mansions. Generally, egregious displays of luxury are for the extremely wealthy (top 0.1%) or the near-bankrupt. And more of the latter than the former, by the simple fact of percentages; most people who drive luxury cars and live in mansions are high income/low wealth individuals who blow most of their money on status symbols. They might fall into the top 50%, if indeed they even have positive wealth.
quote:And anyway I'm perty sore about how my wife single handedly ran her MD's office and while he got a new BMW yearly my wife almost never got a raise or was paid even appropriately considering how much work she put in and how much money that place pulled in.
If he's buying a new BMW yearly, then either he's making a lot more money than most doctors, or he almost assuredly isn't in the top 2%.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I will read the article, however when it does come time for torches & pitchforks I doubt that the people who are pulling folks from their mansions are going to stop for a quick chat about *how* you made your money.
To go a little more in depth here, for a good understanding of our current economic situation (where you've seen a very rapid increase in wealth amoung investment bankers and people in the financial service industry and a comparative drop in the middle class) it's absolutely crucial to understand how these people made their money. Mostly because how they made that money will greatly inform their lifestlye - i.e, whether you'll actually find them in said mansion or a suburban 3 bedroom house.
A vague sense of anger at the "top 2%" is misinformed because A: it's not a smooth delineation, as you break down the top 2% into smaller fragments wealth grows exponentially, B: almost all of the people who have worked to greatly change the balance of wealth towards the top 1 or 2% over the past 20 years are actually part of roughly the top 0.1-0.5%, and C: the majority of people living in mansions, driving luxury vehicles are not actually part of the top 2%, they merely spend most of their (large) salary on frivolous status symbols rather than saving or investing. Which is why they so frequently go bankrupt and lose their houses upon losing their job.
So let's get back to that top 2% and why it's important to know how they got there. You've got two people, both with a net worth of 1.5 million dollars. One, "Bob", is in his mid 60s and is a small business owner, doctor, lawyer, or some other skilled laborer, or just a middle class worker who's lived below his means and made smart investments. The other, "Joe", is in his early 30s and is an investment banker.
Most of Bob's wealth is in his retirement account that he has built for the past 40 years, and which at a 3-5% return will make him $45,000-$75,000 to live off of annually. Bob probably lives in a suburban house, drives a decent car, and vacations a few times a year.
Most of Joe's wealth, OTOH, was acquired over the past few years from capital gains and exploitative lending and investment practices.
So when you lump "the top 2%" into one group without looking at *how* the people in that group made their money, over how many years they made it, and where it's actually kept, you're basically lumping retirees and hedge fund managers into the same group.
We know, for example, that over the past 15 years the "Bobs" of the world have actually lost quite a bit of their wealth, both in actual dollar amounts and relative to the top 0.1%. Yet they remain in the top 2% (i.e, the top 6 million wealthiest Americans) simply because that's where they fall relative to the rest of the U.S, which is hurting just as much. (or worse) For example, in a world where increasingly large amounts of money are held by decreasingly fewer and fewer people, the "top 2%" might come to mean "the middle class." Right now the majority of the people in the top 2% are older upper middle class and retirees, and the majority of the wealth in the top 2% is held by a tiny fraction of that 2%.
So you see it becomes rather pointless to talk about the "top 2%" as if that represents any sort of cohesive group in terms of lifestyle, relative wealth, occupation, or the means by which they aquired that wealth. It's a statistical figure that's easy to quote but doesn't actually mean very much when you break it down. The questions that actually matter in this instance are "how?", "how much?", and "in what period of time?"
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I also believe it'd be cheaper I imagine, particularly in terms of cost cutting to the bureaucracy, if instead of the various tax breaks and social assistance programs, if instead there was a minimum guaranteed income.
Lyrhawn has the right idea.
The main reason it won't happen though is because a large segment of America would gladly live in a cardboard box under an overpass eating gruel if it guaranteed blacks and hispanics had it worse.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
RBG recently said "There will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine of them."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The main reason it won't happen though is because a large segment of America would gladly live in a cardboard box under an overpass eating gruel if it guaranteed blacks and hispanics had it worse
Oh, God, what nonsense man. Even setting aside the question of whether a 'large segment' of America is so actively, vindictively racist this also insists that these same people will ignore their own comfort for the satisfaction racism brings them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I believe such people do exist...however I doubt they are prevalent enough to be considered a major stumbling block let alone "the main reason".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
K9 Halitosis...interesting deliniation...betwwen the 2% and the .5%.
How much of the 90% of owned is infrastructure vs wealth?
Can't be mad at the owner of a multinational having billions in real easate and office equipment.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How much of the 90% of owned is infrastructure vs wealth?
What exactly do you think the difference is between the two? And also, what do you mean by 90%?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: The main reason it won't happen though is because a large segment of America would gladly live in a cardboard box under an overpass eating gruel if it guaranteed blacks and hispanics had it worse
Oh, God, what nonsense man. Even setting aside the question of whether a 'large segment' of America is so actively, vindictively racist this also insists that these same people will ignore their own comfort for the satisfaction racism brings them.
The Southern Strategy.
quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
Lee Atwater.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, I'm familiar with it. It doesn't match up with the statement I objected to if you'll note. And before you try to alter your original point further, I'm not talking about-nor were you-code words or indirect racism or so on and so forth. I'm talking about the notion that a 'large segment' of Americans *today* will endorse bad conditions for themselves in exchange for worse conditions for minoeities.
Racism isn't that cut and dried anymore and even when it was, I question how often materialism will lose out specifically in the name of racism.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
"Before you alter your original point further"
Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Don't give a shit about that, either. Baiting a bear doesn't work if the bear wears spectacles and is generally unflappable. Be a British bear, Blayne.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: "Before you alter your original point further"
Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
What I wanted to do was point out that you were moving the goalposts, which I did. You started off not even by saying that a 'large segment' of Americans would tolerate terrible standards of living so long as minorities had it worse, but that this same segment would do so 'gladly'. Which is plainly nonsense and hyperbole, which you could have simply admitted to. Even the most virulent racist isn't gladly going to live like a hobo just to be a racist. Then you shifted to the Southern strategy, which even that isn't what you started off with-'we're glad for bad, just make sure it's worse for them!'
I could've done the dance making sure not to upset you by pointing out you were saying something silly, but frankly after the cop stuff I wasn't feeling it. I don't want to fight with you, but if pointing out you were being ridiculous and shifty means you fight with me (and conveniently abandon the question about race politics), then go ahead and have a fight with me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dude, that's just part of the cost of dealing with Rakeesh. Either ignore the inflammatory shit & STAY ON TARGET or just answer other people who more skilled at the art of disagreeing with class (certainly not myself, Samp or DB either).
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: just answer other people who more skilled at the art of disagreeing with class (certainly not myself, Samp or DB either).
I'm definitely interested in hearing why you think I'm unskilled at disagreeing with class.
Anyway, this present distraction aside, I really am interested in hearing your response to my earlier question.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i am very skilled at disagreeing with class. i also elect to not make it my universal modality. i also don't care about Chasing the Katharina, wherein someone's expectations to be responded to with 'class' are never worth even bothering to fulfill
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: "Before you alter your original point further"
Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
What I wanted to do was point out that you were moving the goalposts, which I did. You started off not even by saying that a 'large segment' of Americans would tolerate terrible standards of living so long as minorities had it worse, but that this same segment would do so 'gladly'. Which is plainly nonsense and hyperbole, which you could have simply admitted to. Even the most virulent racist isn't gladly going to live like a hobo just to be a racist. Then you shifted to the Southern strategy, which even that isn't what you started off with-'we're glad for bad, just make sure it's worse for them!'
I could've done the dance making sure not to upset you by pointing out you were saying something silly, but frankly after the cop stuff I wasn't feeling it. I don't want to fight with you, but if pointing out you were being ridiculous and shifty means you fight with me (and conveniently abandon the question about race politics), then go ahead and have a fight with me.
First, it seems like I overreacting, but, you don't at all realize that saying "Before you alter your original point further" would sound like to another person in the context of our recent conversation?
You accused me of changing the goal posts then, I apologized for not admitting I was wrong there, but now it seemed like you were just bringing it up again to be snide.
I'm sorry for overreacting but I want to make sure you understand that that is what it seems like.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're taking it entirely too personally, man. It was a shot, yes, I'm not asking that you accept it as though it wasn't, but it was only a shot because I felt you said something ridiculous (please note that since you've backed off from it, I'm not still trying to bludgeon you with it-I only mention it now because it's relecwnt to the current discussion).
But you replied as though I had said 'moved the goalposts and by the way, f*#k your mother!' I think we skipped a couple of levels is all I'm saying.
---- SW, you can pick a fight with me better than that! Elison made a much better attempt at it, and he didn't have your gift for passive aggression.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i am very skilled at disagreeing with class.
For the majority of my time as a Sergeant (read, all of last year) my job was to tell officers why they're wrong (and also stupid) while avoiding court martial. I'm like a disagreement ninja. A smooth blend of courtesy, tact, and professionalism with just a slight, indefinite aftertaste of condescension. It was glorious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You had to do a lot of that in...Intel, right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You had to do a lot of that in...Intel, right?
literal lol
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
still lollin
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You had to do a lot of that in...Intel, right?
Between that, avoiding combat, and being a total bespectacled wussy-nerd, my days were pretty packed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm thinking back to the way you reacted to that remark. You know, when you responded to the assertion that you were misusing the authority often granted to military and police in questions of firearms (on the basis of their experience and training in their use in dangerous situations) because you didn't actually *have* that experience even though you had exactly that experience...
Anyway, many or perhaps most people would probably use that sort of insult as an excuse to jump right down the throat of someone they supposedly disliked with some really sharp personal attacks about the accuser's military service and experience with firearms, about their memory, about their presumption, about insulting someone before finding out if they had their facts straight, so on and so forth...
Well, I just wanted to take the time to remark that your response of 'couch potato' was one of the finest examples of unclassy disagreement I've ever seen. 'Fair enough' though, right? Eh, right?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Skilled was the wrong word.
Change to "can be depended on" to disagree with class.
It would shorter to list the people who -do- belong on the list of those who fit that criteria on this site than who don't. And most of those don't post regularly anymore anyway.
Rakeesh...awww, that's sweet of you to think of me, but I just don't like you that way. It's okay Buddy! There are plenty of other people here you can poke into a frenzy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
FWIW, I was a communicator. I worked with satellite antennas, radios, encryption devices, routers, switches, servers, collection gear, networking lots of stuff together, and generally Making Stuff Work. I did a lot of boring and nerdy stuff as well as occasionally doing cool and manly stuff. Most of the time I was bored, and usually very hot and uncomfortable when deployed. I worked with Intel guys and can't really say doing what, but less sitting in an air conditioned office writing reports and more sleeping on the ground and working in blistering hot conditions and hoping you don't get blown up than you might expect. Which isn't something I like talking about, for personal as well as OPSEC reasons, but apparently I can't make conditional statements about weaponry while in no way referencing my military service whatsoever without having my experience ridiculed out of the blue for apparently no reason.
But my response (not meant as a personal attack mind you, but a reference to "armchair general") continues to haunt me as an example of what a hateful and discourteous person I am.
In all seriousness, God knows I'm far from perfect, but I honestly can't remember having ever personally attacked (or even mentioned in anything but a positive manner) someone here about anything they've revealed about their personal lives, nor have I challenged (like Aros talking about how he would punch me if he met me in person), cursed, or berated them. I think that implies a certain level of class.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh...awww, that's sweet of you to think of me, but I just don't like you that way. It's okay Buddy! There are plenty of other people here you can poke into a frenzy.
Not really.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Anyway, can we get back to the topic we were discussing? I actually really do want to answer your question because I think we were going somewhere good, but I need you to define the terms you mentioned first.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How much of the 90% of owned is infrastructure vs wealth?
What exactly do you think the difference is between the two? And also, what do you mean by 90%?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry that my opinion that you are not the one I would count on to gently coax someone into changing their minds. I have seen you loose your shit more than twice. I was on the receiving end of some of that (not evev referring to couch potato comment).
Also I'm very suprised to still be hearing about the now infamous "intel" comment (not from Rakeesh) considering I sent you two emails of apology & exlanation and did not hear back, and made a public blanket apology. Perhaps you did not recive my emails?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm sorry that my opinion that you are not the one I would count on to gently coax someone into changing their minds. I have seen you loose your shit more than twice. I was on the receiving end of some of that (not evev referring to couch potato comment).
I am sorry I don't live up to your illustrious standards.
quote:Also I'm very suprised to still be hearing about the now infamous "intel" comment
Do you think that has anything to do with you randomly choosing to insult me earlier in this thread with apparently no provocation whatsoever? You basically popped into an argument between Elison and Rakeesh (in which I had no part) and said "oh yeah, btw, Dogbreath has no class."
What's mind boggling about this is the fact that you've developed a habit now of jumping into threads and making personal attacks against me, and then acting as if my defending myself, or even daring to disagree with what you say about me is somehow evidence of me being rude and attacking you.
Seriously, and I'm being completely earnest here, what did I ever do to you? I've tried very hard to be polite and kind and gracious to you, and yet you continue to take shots at me seemingly out of the blue. Why?
quote:(not from Rakeesh) considering I sent you two emails of apology & exlanation and did not hear back, and made a public blanket apology. Perhaps you did not recive my emails?
AFAIK I never gave you my e-mail address?
Also:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Anyway, can we get back to the topic we were discussing? I actually really do want to answer your question because I think we were going somewhere good, but I need you to define the terms you mentioned first.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How much of the 90% of owned is infrastructure vs wealth?
What exactly do you think the difference is between the two? And also, what do you mean by 90%?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You have a public email in your hatrack profile...the little mail symbol in each post...I sent to jcopley@sbcglobal...
I'm waiting at the bus stop w a dying cell phone so please allow me to elaborate later on....
Please view our last major interaction before my prolonged absance where you make unfounded personal accusations.
Reguardless as to why I include you on my list (on which I included myself), my advice to Elison was to simply ignore back chatter OR avoid those who mouth off.
It wasn't a personal attack.
Geeze.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Please view our last major interaction before my prolonged absance where you make unfounded personal accusations.
What are you talking about?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry I don't have time to dig up past scuffles to justify my opinion (not snarky...just busy) If my opinion of you matters enough that you care to search you can...and if not it won't hurt my feelings.
Our past does not control our future & I do not count you as unreasonable nor unworthy of discussion nor an enemy.
As to your questions...90% was a rough estimate...I e $$$$...wealth...land...resources...whichever.
The difference between wealth & infrastructure in my mind...infrastructure is integral to continued progress, whereas wealth I associate with more liquid assets, art, excessivness & such.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh...awww, that's sweet of you to think of me, but I just don't like you that way. It's okay Buddy! There are plenty of other people here you can poke into a frenzy.
Not really.
If you have a critique perhaps you elaborate beyond "nu uh".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This thread has taken a very weird turn on this page.
Dislike.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm sorry I don't have time to dig up past scuffles to justify my opinion (not snarky...just busy) If my opinion of you matters enough that you care to search you can...and if not it won't hurt my feelings.
Our past does not control our future & I do not count you as unreasonable nor unworthy of discussion nor an enemy.
So wait, you have the time to hold a grudge for several years and to launch personal attacks against me with absolutely no justification, and to treat me like absolute crap even after I tried to be kind to you, but now you can't be bothered to even tell me what this "unfounded personal accusation" I made that justifies your behavior towards me even is? I ask because I did search earlier (I was genuinely curious) and found nothing. This isn't me trying to win a fight or prove a point, either. I'm actually, legitimately concerned about this and why you feel I've wronged you.
But if you're not willing to tell me, then my request of you is that if it now suddenly means so little to you that you please stop holding whatever it was against me and stop being a jerk towards me every chance you get.
quote:As to your questions...90% was a rough estimate...I e $$$$...wealth...land...resources...whichever.
Do you mean percentage owned by the top 2% or...?
Right now the top 20% own about 85% of the wealth, so your estimate is off by about a factor of 10. That being said, those numbers are somewhat skewed in both directions: a large number of American households (especially those with members in their 20s and early 30s) have negative wealth. So if you and your wife have no debt and one dollar to your name, you're wealthier than 15 million American households. My wife and I have a net worth of around $30,000 (mostly my TSP retirement account) and are already in the top 60% of Americans by wealth - so getting into that top 20% isn't as difficult as it may appear.
OTOH, the dispersion of wealth becomes exponentially skewed to the right end of the graph starting around the 95th percentile, and advancing from the top 99% to top 99.5% for example requires multiplying your wealth many times over. But until then it's a fairly even curve.
quote:The difference between wealth & infrastructure in my mind...infrastructure is integral to continued progress, whereas wealth I associate with more liquid assets, art, excessivness & such.
That's a pretty unique definition. Wealth is defined regularly as "the abundance of valuable resources or valuable material possessions", which really encapsulates everything you mentioned and more. But it basically means any property or holding that has a monetary value. I think specifically what you're describing could better be called "luxury", not wealth. Items of luxury (BMWs, art, etc.) are a small fraction of wealth, and for good reason: they usually either depreciate and lose value, or require a lot of money to maintain and drain wealth rather than creating it. Even cash sitting in a bank account or under your bed depreciates and loses value due to inflation. Which is why I said your doctor friend is almost certainly not in the top 2%: like a lot of high income earners, he blows a ton of money on status symbols without actually increasing his wealth much. (since BMWs depreciate so quickly they're a huge drain) In fact, most people with a lot of luxury items are not particularly wealthy, and quite a few even have negative net worth that they finance with large incomes. It's not impossible that your wife might be wealthier than said doctor, depending on how jacked up his finances are. Then again, a peasant farmer in China is wealthier than millions of Americans in debt, so "wealth" isn't necessarily a good indication of quality of life.
Almost all of the wealth that's being discussed when you quote those figures *is* infrastructure as you call it: real estate, mines, power companies, farms, other natural resources, stocks and equity in companies, bonds, mutual funds (which buy shares in a lot of these things), retirement accounts, etc. While some of these things are owned outright, what usually happens is people buy shares of these resources (and these shares are given a certain monetary valuation, making them "wealth"), and then are theoretically paid that portion of the profits those resources generate. (dividends)
When we say Bill Gates is worth $80 billion dollars, we mean that he owns $80 billion dollars worth of stock in Microsoft. (or possibly other companies, I really don't know ) Presumably he could sell all of those shares and have $80 billion in cash... to do what with, exactly? Probably buy other assets or luxury items maybe. But anyway if you go by Bill Gates' actual liquid assets and luxury items, even if you include his giant house, he only has a tiny fraction of that. Because what's he going to do with $80 billion worth of BMWs, or paintings, or yachts, or even money in the bank? Might as well keep in invested where it continues to increase in value and make him more money every year.
Clear as mud?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So what percentage of human wealth do the .5% own? You are saying these are the real bastards who crippling the economy, like one finger having a third of the body's blood?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So what percentage of human wealth do the .5% own? You are saying these are the real bastards who crippling the economy, like one finger having a third of the body's blood?
Actually, I think my point is that it doesn't really matter where they fall in the lineup or how much money they have. It has everything to do with how they make their money. There are billionaires who made their money ethically and run great companies that treat their employees very well. (like Amazon, for example) And there are millionaires and people making 6 figures who make their money by more or less screwing everyone else over, or even destabilizing the US economy to make a buck.
The point of that article is that it's now very difficult to get into the top .5% without being involved in investment banking and financial services and operating unethically, and that many of those people run business deals at that level like a good ol' boys club. People like movie stars, athletes, and entrepreneurs certainly do make it into that .5% as well, but they're a vanishingly small percentage of it.
But being part of that top .5% or top 1% or top 2% doesn't necessarily mean you're evil or unethical that you're crippling the economy. How you get there and how you use and grow your wealth once you're there is the deciding factor.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Interesting.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Does this impact your frustration with the top 2%?
Actually, do you mind if I ask what the initial cause of that frustration was that has you fed up with them?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
With regards to Lyrhawn's idea:
I think a minimum guaranteed income could work if it was phased gradually rather than being an all-or-nothing deal like foodstamps is.
I have a relative who until recently received about $350 worth of foodstamps monthly for her family of 5. She recently finished her associates degree and started a new job that pays $16/hour, and while she's excited about her new career they're actually somewhat worse for wear financially since they're now just above the income level that would qualify them for foodstamps and also, I think, free childcare for her youngest son. (her other two kids are in school) They actually have less money comparatively due to the extra expenses they have to budget for, and have been having trouble making ends meet. She'll make most of it back with EITC, but she won't see that money until next year.
An interesting idea I saw proposed recently is to modify the EITC to essentially turn it into a guaranteed living wage. It would pay out monthly rather than yearly, and basically "cover" the gap between what you make and whatever the living wage is. I.e, if you're making the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour) and working full time, and the "living" wage is $25,000/year single (or $50,000/year for married without children. Each child would raise that number), then you'll receive a check for $833 every month to cover the $10,000 wage gap.
Another requirement would be that you work at least 30 hours a week, and I think the same age and tax stipulations that apply to insurance should also apply here: you have to be 26 or older or married and you can't be filed as a dependent on someone else's tax return. The disability system would remain in place for disabled persons, and the welfare program/unemployment would remain for those unemployed. I think there should also be some additional provisions for parents: if you're the primary care giver for children 5 and under, that should count as your full time job. If they're between 6 and 12, you should only have to work part time. (20 hours/week)
Not that I think this idea would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in the current congress (despite, I think, being proposed by a Republican congressman), but I think it would do a decent job of helping families smoothly transition off of state assistance as their incomes grow and careers advance. The transitory gap in wages between being poor enough for government assistance and rich enough to comfortably provide for your family is a very real thing, and since it can last for years it's extremely stressful for those families who experience it. I think a smooth transition could help bring a lot of people out of poverty.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I have a relative who until recently received about $350 worth of foodstamps monthly for her family of 5. She recently finished her associates degree and started a new job that pays $16/hour, and while she's excited about her new career they're actually somewhat worse for wear financially since they're now just above the income level that would qualify them for foodstamps and also, I think, free childcare for her youngest son. (her other two kids are in school) They actually have less money comparatively due to the extra expenses they have to budget for, and have been having trouble making ends meet. She'll make most of it back with EITC, but she won't see that money until next year.
I would love it if people talked more about the EITC and food stamps/family assistance being transformed into the guaranteed minimum income (GMI). They are talking about it in Britain, for example, and some analysis shows that just the savings on administrative costs for these programs would justify the extra payouts.
Essentially, you just turn all federal assistance programs into cash. And the EITC is replaced by a scale that gradually diminishes as earned income rises. Anyone not employed and not receiving unemployment receives the GMI, and it increases as they earn money, and decreases as they pass a certain threshold.
quote: Another requirement would be that you work at least 30 hours a week, and I think the same age and tax stipulations that apply to insurance should also apply here: you have to be 26 or older or married and you can't be filed as a dependent on someone else's tax return. The disability system would remain in place for disabled persons, and the welfare program/unemployment would remain for those unemployed. I think there should also be some additional provisions for parents: if you're the primary care giver for children 5 and under, that should count as your full time job. If they're between 6 and 12, you should only have to work part time. (20 hours/week)
That is one possibility. Another approach would be to also use the GMI to replace social security as well. The administrative burdens would be much lower if everyone received a guaranteed minimum, rather than a scaled income according to contributions.
quote: Not that I think this idea would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in the current congress (despite, I think, being proposed by a Republican congressman), but I think it would do a decent job of helping families smoothly transition off of state assistance as their incomes grow and careers advance. The transitory gap in wages between being poor enough for government assistance and rich enough to comfortably provide for your family is a very real thing, and since it can last for years it's extremely stressful for those families who experience it. I think a smooth transition could help bring a lot of people out of poverty.
It was tested in Canada in the 1970s. The really interesting stuff is the effects it would have on entrepreneurism, public health, and child welfare. Some theorize that it would drastically improve public health and lower the suicide and alcoholism rates as well. Would be fascinating to try.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I wonder if in 10 years or so after the political fallout from the ACA implementation blows over if this might be the next major domestic issue being debated. With inequality levels rising at a steady rate since the end of the 90s, effectively ending abject poverty via a GMI might be necessary (or at least prudent and beneficial) to maintain social and economic stability.
Other than the effects you mention I'd be curious about the effects it would have on drug use, theft, and murder rates as well as incarceration rates. These seem to be tied to desperate and impoverished people.
I'm actually worrried more about the bureaucratic overhead. As you mentioned, it's entirely possible to merge social security and disability payments into a GMI and reduce paperwork and accounting to a point where it might actually save us money. In practice, though, getting the government to cut bureaucracy (even when it's logical, expedient, and easy to do) is like pulling teeth, while they're frighteningly good at creating new bureaucracy. I've met and worked with a good deal of GS's, and there's been more than one occassion where I've noticed someone held a job that was completely redundant, but stayed in it because terminating the position was more trouble than it's worth.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're taking it entirely too personally, man. It was a shot, yes, I'm not asking that you accept it as though it wasn't, but it was only a shot because I felt you said something ridiculous (please note that since you've backed off from it, I'm not still trying to bludgeon you with it-I only mention it now because it's relecwnt to the current discussion).
But you replied as though I had said 'moved the goalposts and by the way, f*#k your mother!' I think we skipped a couple of levels is all I'm saying.
---- SW, you can pick a fight with me better than that! Elison made a much better attempt at it, and he didn't have your gift for passive aggression.
I don't believe in half-measures, and I accept the compliment.
I also had some time to sleep on it while focusing on my work and I'll concede out of the argument this time as I definately don't like the way I entered into it or reacted to you, once again sorry.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I wonder if in 10 years or so after the political fallout from the ACA implementation blows over if this might be the next major domestic issue being debated. With inequality levels rising at a steady rate since the end of the 90s, effectively ending abject poverty via a GMI might be necessary (or at least prudent and beneficial) to maintain social and economic stability.
Other than the effects you mention I'd be curious about the effects it would have on drug use, theft, and murder rates as well as incarceration rates. These seem to be tied to desperate and impoverished people.
I'm actually worrried more about the bureaucratic overhead. As you mentioned, it's entirely possible to merge social security and disability payments into a GMI and reduce paperwork and accounting to a point where it might actually save us money. In practice, though, getting the government to cut bureaucracy (even when it's logical, expedient, and easy to do) is like pulling teeth, while they're frighteningly good at creating new bureaucracy. I've met and worked with a good deal of GS's, and there's been more than one occassion where I've noticed someone held a job that was completely redundant, but stayed in it because terminating the position was more trouble than it's worth.
One thing I'd like to mention is that the Republicans have already succeeded in taking some whacks at the ACA, so in "ten years" we might very well see it "discredited" because it was successfully sabotaged.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
...I don't believe in half-measures,...
Is this humor or is it possibly a topic worthy of further discussion?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dogbreath -
quote:An interesting idea I saw proposed recently is to modify the EITC to essentially turn it into a guaranteed living wage. It would pay out monthly rather than yearly, and basically "cover" the gap between what you make and whatever the living wage is. I.e, if you're making the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour) and working full time, and the "living" wage is $25,000/year single (or $50,000/year for married without children. Each child would raise that number), then you'll receive a check for $833 every month to cover the $10,000 wage gap.
Another requirement would be that you work at least 30 hours a week, and I think the same age and tax stipulations that apply to insurance should also apply here: you have to be 26 or older or married and you can't be filed as a dependent on someone else's tax return. The disability system would remain in place for disabled persons, and the welfare program/unemployment would remain for those unemployed. I think there should also be some additional provisions for parents: if you're the primary care giver for children 5 and under, that should count as your full time job. If they're between 6 and 12, you should only have to work part time. (20 hours/week)
I'm not a fan of the work requirements. I love your exception for stay at home parents. That's one of the biggest problems with our current welfare system as far as cash payments go. Daycare is just too expensive.
Now, previously a person might say "well, working at McDonalds for minimum wage just isn't worth it." With the boost of a guaranteed minimum income, working ANY job is worth it because you get a huge extra payout.
But, simply put, there aren't enough jobs out there. If we announced this tomorrow, I guarantee every job in America that COULD be filled, would be filled, by which I mean, if a job goes unfilled, it's not for lack of applicants. If you demand that people work essentially fully time to get their benefits, you'll still have millions who can't find a job. Maybe the numbers would shift someone as millions of parents drop out of the workfore to stay home with their kids, but I suspect many would still be left out in the cold.
quote:Not that I think this idea would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in the current congress (despite, I think, being proposed by a Republican congressman
Marco Rubio has a plan that's somewhat similar to this. I don't remember all the details, but it's a plan that, on the face of it, no one would be able to guess comes from an avowed conservative Republican.
quote:I wonder if in 10 years or so after the political fallout from the ACA implementation blows over if this might be the next major domestic issue being debated. With inequality levels rising at a steady rate since the end of the 90s, effectively ending abject poverty via a GMI might be necessary (or at least prudent and beneficial) to maintain social and economic stability.
Other than the effects you mention I'd be curious about the effects it would have on drug use, theft, and murder rates as well as incarceration rates. These seem to be tied to desperate and impoverished people.
Without some sort of catalyst, I don't think 10 years is enough. 2016 might shape up to be a year we have a serious talk about poverty, the type of conversation no one has really even tried to have since 2004 when John Edwards' "Two Americas" campaign. When he torpedoed his political career, he torpedoed poverty as a campaign issue for a decade. We're talking about it more now, and even Republicans have had to fold it into their discussions. But the sort of wholesale change that would be required to really, REALLY tackle poverty would require a shift in American priorities and politics like we haven't seen in a generation.
The last time we made that sort of national effort to SOLVE rather than PATCH poverty was Johnson's "Great Society." Most people remember it as a failure, but the truth is that it actually worked while the funding was there. When Nixon killed Great Society funding for urban relief programs, school performance dropped, poverty went back up, housing collapsed, etc. Where would we be now if we had 50 years of Great Society work fully funded? Probably in a much better place.
I suspect that if we did something like a GMI, drug use, theft, murder rates, and lots of other crime statistics would go into free fall over a decade. We'd still need to change a few other key laws, since most of America's prison population is for drug offenses, and of those drug offenses, most are for weed. But I think we're headed in that direction generally anyway.
quote:I'm actually worrried more about the bureaucratic overhead. As you mentioned, it's entirely possible to merge social security and disability payments into a GMI and reduce paperwork and accounting to a point where it might actually save us money. In practice, though, getting the government to cut bureaucracy (even when it's logical, expedient, and easy to do) is like pulling teeth, while they're frighteningly good at creating new bureaucracy. I've met and worked with a good deal of GS's, and there's been more than one occassion where I've noticed someone held a job that was completely redundant, but stayed in it because terminating the position was more trouble than it's worth.
I don't see why you couldn't just eliminate the bureaucracy for most of those programs. Food stamps, disability, etc all require a lot of man hours because applicants have to navigate a large set of requirements. How much do you make, what are your bills, let me see your medical records, let me get a consult, etc etc. If, by and large, that was simply reduced to "I don't need you to submit anything, I'll just have the IRS send us records of every AGI below X for Y dependents and we'll send them the right amount of money" then the system could almost be entirely automated.
Right now the amount of paperwork poor people have to do to get aid is very, very high. Ideally with a GMI system, most of that would be eliminated. I feel like that's one of the problems Republicans would have with it. They spend an awful lot of time worrying over whether or not aid recipients are "worthy" of aid. You have to fit a certain moral profile to be considered worthy, you have to be destitute enough, etc. Anything that smacks of a handout without all those hoops, even if it helps more, even if it costs less, will rub them the wrong way.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Now, previously a person might say "well, working at McDonalds for minimum wage just isn't worth it." With the boost of a guaranteed minimum income, working ANY job is worth it because you get a huge extra payout.
But, simply put, there aren't enough jobs out there. If we announced this tomorrow, I guarantee every job in America that COULD be filled, would be filled, by which I mean, if a job goes unfilled, it's not for lack of applicants. If you demand that people work essentially fully time to get their benefits, you'll still have millions who can't find a job. Maybe the numbers would shift someone as millions of parents drop out of the workforce to stay home with their kids, but I suspect many would still be left out in the cold.
You know, I wonder if this is something that has been studied in depth? Contrasting number of open job positions vs. the number of unemployed? Like I was about to disagree with you because I believe there are in fact enough jobs for everyone, and then realized I have absolutely no solid evidence that that is true.
It did make me contemplate for a while why there are so many job openings that go unfilled while there are also so many desperately poor unemployed people. Besides the obvious factors (education or experience don't satisfy the employers expectations, etc.) I think location, transportation and social stratification may play a significant part.
Many years ago I worked a brief stint as a manager at a coffee shop that paid it's employees $8.50/hr. We were constantly understaffed and rather desperate for employees, but the most of the applicants I ever got were high school kids, who are notoriously unreliable. They would work a few months and get bored and quit, or stop showing up, so life at said coffee shop really sucked because we just couldn't seem to keep anyone.
For a while I thought "wow! how is it possible that there are so many unemployed adults in this city, yet I can't get any of them to come work here?" Then I realized something:
The coffee shop was in a very affluent suburb - I myself drove 25 minutes every day to get to work. There were no bus stops near by, and the city I lived in had absolutely atrocious public transportation. If you were to try and get there from the "ghetto" it would take at least 2 hours of busses and walking if you didn't have a car. Which meant the only unemployed people willing to take the job who could *get* to the job were local high school kids... who didn't really need the job or the money in the first place, and mostly worked for the novelty or because their parents made them.
Which made me realize something else: the reason why quite a few (though to be fair certainly not all) Republicans hold this view that minimum wage jobs are for high school kids, or that there's plenty of jobs out there for people just willing to work, live in places where this is actually true. I certainly know a lot of business owners in the service industry in that area of town would constantly complain about how hard it was to hire enough staff, so I can see how growing up in that culture could warp your understanding of reality when it comes to these sorts of jobs.
Meanwhile, in the "ghetto", there were comparatively very few service industry jobs within a reasonable distance because nobody with the money to frequent those sorts of establishments went anywhere near it. Most of those neighborhoods (I lived in one for a while) would have a gas station, a CVS, and maybe a fast food restaurant - as opposed to areas in the suburb with similar population levels with whole strip malls full of various restaurants, coffee shops, boutiques, clothing stores, computer stores, etc. etc. etc.
The best solution to this problem would be a mix of better public transportation, as well as a reversing the trend and dismantling of the stratification in place - i.e, having wealthy neighborhoods next to poor ones, and communities full of people of vastly different levels of prosperity. Of course the main thing keeping this from happening is I think concerns about security and violence, which would be greatly lessened by the drop in crime caused by implementing a GMI... and it turns into a catch-22 type situation. I'm not sure if there's any remotely simple solution, though yours may be the *best* one so far.
quote:Marco Rubio has a plan that's somewhat similar to this. I don't remember all the details, but it's a plan that, on the face of it, no one would be able to guess comes from an avowed conservative Republican.
As someone who has been friends with a Republican politician for a very long time and is nominally a Republican (in the same way OSC is a Democrat, which is to say, barely at all), I can tell you the Republican Party is far more diverse and in some cases intelligent about subjects like this than you may think, especially when you get into the state level. Of course, I think the GOP party line is currently so schizophrenically, disingenuously absurd that I couldn't in good conscience bring myself to *vote* for them, mind you, but I think it used to be a great political party and hope it dies a quick death before making things even worse.
quote:I don't see why you couldn't just eliminate the bureaucracy for most of those programs. Food stamps, disability, etc all require a lot of man hours because applicants have to navigate a large set of requirements. How much do you make, what are your bills, let me see your medical records, let me get a consult, etc etc. If, by and large, that was simply reduced to "I don't need you to submit anything, I'll just have the IRS send us records of every AGI below X for Y dependents and we'll send them the right amount of money" then the system could almost be entirely automated.
Right now the amount of paperwork poor people have to do to get aid is very, very high. Ideally with a GMI system, most of that would be eliminated. I feel like that's one of the problems Republicans would have with it. They spend an awful lot of time worrying over whether or not aid recipients are "worthy" of aid. You have to fit a certain moral profile to be considered worthy, you have to be destitute enough, etc. Anything that smacks of a handout without all those hoops, even if it helps more, even if it costs less, will rub them the wrong way.
Yes, this is the crux of the problem which is why I think reducing the bureaucracy might be incredibly difficult here. The Republican Party (and perhaps some Dems too) has decided that moral policing is paramount in these matters, so you'll see absurd amounts of time and resources being spent finding out if someone *deserves* a handout when, as you said, it would cost a lot less to simply *give* the handout and let the IRS determine how much. (Thus the EITC idea) The fact these grave moral concerns about money are coming from a party that simultaneously bills itself as the party of practical, pragmatic and amoral economics, the party of "it's not our place to say whether a corporate CEO deserves $50 million a year while the majority of his employees are below the poverty line, if he can demand that sort of salary he should have it", is incredibly frustrating to me.
And yet I somehow feel that an overhaul of our incredibly broken and bloated social welfare programs into a simplified consolidated system as discussed - despite being the more practical, cost effective, and pragmatic approach to the issue - would realistically never happen, for reasons listed above, as well as because these bureaucracies are powerful forces in their own right and there are a lot of people working within them that would fight to delay the change tooth and nail for as long as possible. Perhaps I'm simply being too pessimistic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A guaranteed minimum income would be just absolutely amazing and do wonders for the country but it's so completely implausible politically that you might as well write it off as a never gonna happen thing. You also couldn't trust the system to be managed very well for at least a decade, or possibly indefinitely, given our clowns in legislature.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Oh I don't know, people grow old and die eventually.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So...the newly rich jerks db was refering to that burn through their hefty income for the appearance of excessivness but are often heavily in debt...are pumping cash into the economy with their bone headed over spending?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So...the newly rich jerks db was refering to that burn through their hefty income for the appearance of excessivness but are often heavily in debt...are pumping cash into the economy with their bone headed over spending?
Oh, I'm not sure competitive acquisition, hyper-consumerism and the financing large amounts of debt with the ever-looming threats of default, bankruptcy and foreclosure are *good* for our economy or lead to a very stable and happy population, but yes, they pump cash into it at any rate.
In the "trickle up" economy we live in where increasingly large amounts of wealth end up in the pockets of fewer people, there's something to be said for being ethical with your consumption. And as annoying as they are, I think the fact that a growing trend amongst yuppies nowadays is competition based on which small mom-and-pop organic fair-trade conflict free vegan holistic homeopathic fix-geared privilege-aware shop they bought their acquisitions from (and how small and not corporate said shop is) is a positive trend, though possibly an irrelevant one in the grand scheme of things.
I'm curious as to why said people are "jerks".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In previous discussions we were referring to embezzling hedge fund managers & MDs who pulling in millions & pay their most valued employees peanuts.
I dived my wife's raises by her years at that job...four cents a month.
Three new BMWs in seven years.
Jerk is putting it lightly.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
How many employees do you think hedge fund managers have, SW? How much do you think a MD makes? I referred to CEOs and employees, but I don't think a CEO pays his most valued employees peanuts...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dogbreath -
quote:You know, I wonder if this is something that has been studied in depth? Contrasting number of open job positions vs. the number of unemployed? Like I was about to disagree with you because I believe there are in fact enough jobs for everyone, and then realized I have absolutely no solid evidence that that is true.
It did make me contemplate for a while why there are so many job openings that go unfilled while there are also so many desperately poor unemployed people. Besides the obvious factors (education or experience don't satisfy the employers expectations, etc.) I think location, transportation and social stratification may play a significant part.
Something else to consider is I don't think the US has EVER had 0% unemployment. Economists actually consider Full Employment to be somewhere between 3 and 5% unemployment. Think of not just the current unemployment rate but also the work force participation rate. We're currently at the lowest labor force participation rate in decades, and as people return to the work force by the tens of thousands, by the hundreds of thousands, the unemployment rate will either stay static or go up for a couple of years. Now, if the LFPR actually returns to something like a historical norm, we'll need millions of jobs. To get to 0% unemployment? Millions and millions more.
There simply aren't that many jobs that people - especially a massive number of undereducated people - can easily fill. You'd have to pair these work requirements with a massive worker training program (not a bad idea anyway), and you'd still have a lot who couldn't find a job of any sort.
quote:Many years ago I worked a brief stint as a manager at a coffee shop that paid it's employees $8.50/hr. We were constantly understaffed and rather desperate for employees, but the most of the applicants I ever got were high school kids, who are notoriously unreliable. They would work a few months and get bored and quit, or stop showing up, so life at said coffee shop really sucked because we just couldn't seem to keep anyone.
For a while I thought "wow! how is it possible that there are so many unemployed adults in this city, yet I can't get any of them to come work here?" Then I realized something:
The coffee shop was in a very affluent suburb - I myself drove 25 minutes every day to get to work. There were no bus stops near by, and the city I lived in had absolutely atrocious public transportation. If you were to try and get there from the "ghetto" it would take at least 2 hours of busses and walking if you didn't have a car. Which meant the only unemployed people willing to take the job who could *get* to the job were local high school kids... who didn't really need the job or the money in the first place, and mostly worked for the novelty or because their parents made them.
Yeah. There was a big story here recently about how a 54 year old man walked 21 miles EVERY DAY to get to work and back. He had to walk from downtown Detroit all the way up to Rochester Hills, which is crazy. He took the bus for a small chunk of it, but there were huge gaps where he'd walk for miles. He didn't get home until almost midnight every night, and had to leave at like 4am to get there. And he was never late for years. The problem was that most of the cities between his job and his house didn't have buses. So he had to walk for miles to get to the next bus system. It's a mess around here.
And it's still an improvement over how it used to be. There are some famous cases, especially in Northern suburbs, of how architects and city planners actually engineered neighborhoods to keep the poors and blacks out. There's a mall in New Jersey that actually engineered all the freeway overpasses nearby to make it impossible for buses to approach the mall, so black people couldn't get to it, even though all the workers at the mall were black. Luckily, now we just screw them via apathy rather than intentional racism. Nice!
quote:As someone who has been friends with a Republican politician for a very long time and is nominally a Republican (in the same way OSC is a Democrat, which is to say, barely at all), I can tell you the Republican Party is far more diverse and in some cases intelligent about subjects like this than you may think, especially when you get into the state level. Of course, I think the GOP party line is currently so schizophrenically, disingenuously absurd that I couldn't in good conscience bring myself to *vote* for them, mind you, but I think it used to be a great political party and hope it dies a quick death before making things even worse.
I believe it's possible. I know plenty of decent Republicans. But it's not my experience with state or local politics. Most everything that would really, quickly, help poor people in need is something that's opposed by the Republican zeitgeist, which is an incredibly powerful force of nature right now.
quote:Yes, this is the crux of the problem which is why I think reducing the bureaucracy might be incredibly difficult here. The Republican Party (and perhaps some Dems too) has decided that moral policing is paramount in these matters, so you'll see absurd amounts of time and resources being spent finding out if someone *deserves* a handout when, as you said, it would cost a lot less to simply *give* the handout and let the IRS determine how much. (Thus the EITC idea) The fact these grave moral concerns about money are coming from a party that simultaneously bills itself as the party of practical, pragmatic and amoral economics, the party of "it's not our place to say whether a corporate CEO deserves $50 million a year while the majority of his employees are below the poverty line, if he can demand that sort of salary he should have it", is incredibly frustrating to me
I feel like the Rand Paul types actually could move the narrative on this. If the fiscal pragmatist wing of the party can shout down the moralizing bloviators, there's an alliance to be had that might actually help people AND save money.
Maybe.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: In previous discussions we were referring to embezzling hedge fund managers & MDs who pulling in millions & pay their most valued employees peanuts.
I dived my wife's raises by her years at that job...four cents a month.
Three new BMWs in seven years.
Jerk is putting it lightly.
The previous question aside - along with the fact you seem unsure what a hedge fund is or that how a hedge fund manager makes his money and the vast difference between that and how a MD makes money, or the fact that you seem to overestimate how much money a MD makes by about a factor of ten - I want to get down to the jerk idea.
Do you think he was underpaying your wife relative to the salaries of other administrative assistants in the area? Or that he should have paid her a lot more out of the kindness of his heart? Do you know how much he gave to charity? (Doctors are known to be among the most generous donors (has to do with typically being more empathetic than most people) - this along with their tendency to spend excessively means that they usually have a lot less wealth than their income would suggest)
Or, to put it another way, you and I and everyone else posting in this thread live at a standard of living - with all the security, nutrition, luxury and leisure time, entertainment, education, clothing, etc. - that a large percentage of the world's population can only dream of. Does that make us jerks?
I could move my wife and I into a tent on the beach and live off of Ramen Noodles cooked in my Jetboil, and literally feed a small village in Africa with the exorbitant amount of money we currently use to rent our tiny house. We haven't, though. Does that make us jerks?
I don't think a sense of anger at everyone more prosperous than you is really productive or healthy - it could be applied towards you just as easily by the billions of people at a standard of living lower than yours. The goal shouldn't be to bring everyone else down to your standard of living (which is an arbitrary mark), but to bring people *up* to a certain standard of living. Does this require a flattening out of the top 5% or so - higher capital gains taxes, salary caps for CEOs, better trade regulation, illegalization of exploitative lending practices - to achieve? Absolutely. Does it require pitchforks and torches against the "jerks" lucky enough to make more money than you do? Nope.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Something else to consider is I don't think the US has EVER had 0% unemployment. Economists actually consider Full Employment to be somewhere between 3 and 5% unemployment. Think of not just the current unemployment rate but also the work force participation rate. We're currently at the lowest labor force participation rate in decades, and as people return to the work force by the tens of thousands, by the hundreds of thousands, the unemployment rate will either stay static or go up for a couple of years. Now, if the LFPR actually returns to something like a historical norm, we'll need millions of jobs. To get to 0% unemployment? Millions and millions more.
I should state upfront that this isn't a subject I'm at all an expert at (indeed, I have been educating myself as this conversation progresses), so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.
But I think the lowering LFPR is something of a statistical anomaly that can be explained by several factors. I.e, it's obvious that it's decreased across the board since the late 90s/early 2000s (when the economy was very strong), but people who bemoan how it's been dropping since the 70s aren't considering the larger picture.
If you look at the graph I linked, among people 25-54 it's actually about 15% higher than the 1950s, and was 20% higher at the peak around 85% in 2000. (which we will hopefully return to over the next few years) I also think that part of the drop over the past few years relates to the massive number of jobs cut by the military, and the number of veterans who are now back in college/trade school using their GI bill, preparing themselves for a different career.
On the other hand, even though the percentage of people 55 and older remaining in the workforce has started to rise again, I don't think it's keeping pace with the rate our population is aging in sheer numbers.
Which isn't to say you aren't right - a change from 80% participation amoung people 25-55 to 100% would be millions and millions of people - but once you carve out primary caregivers for children (of which there are millions), disabled (physically or mentally), incarcerated, etc. from that number I'm not sure if the remainder is actually that significant.
quote:There simply aren't that many jobs that people - especially a massive number of undereducated people - can easily fill. You'd have to pair these work requirements with a massive worker training program (not a bad idea anyway), and you'd still have a lot who couldn't find a job of any sort.
What do you think of the recent talk of free community college? I think we've reached a point where it's now unreasonable (though not unheard of) to expect to advance, or even start, in any career field without some level of technical education.
quote:I feel like the Rand Paul types actually could move the narrative on this. If the fiscal pragmatist wing of the party can shout down the moralizing bloviators, there's an alliance to be had that might actually help people AND save money.
Maybe.
Hopefully. A fiscally conservative party that actually targeted the cause of so much government overspending - our massively bloated, inefficient, often redundant pork barrel mess of a bureaucracy - rather than targeting "handouts" and "welfare queens" which are, in the grand scheme, a small portion of that spending... we would be a lot better off politically.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:If you look at the graph I linked, among people 25-54 it's actually about 15% higher than the 1950s
That's true, but, that's mostly because pre-1960s, the LFPR for women was 20-30%. It was considered socially unacceptable for a married woman to work in America until the 60s, and really until the 70s. They were considered selfish for taking up jobs that single women might need. Having a two-earner household was something you kept quiet in a lot of places.
When women started to really enter the labor force in large numbers, it spiked the overall LFPR starting in the early 60s before evening out in the 90s. Labor studies folks think that both the participation rate of men and women will probably be on a downward curve for decades, due to issues like old age and health problems, but also due to more men staying home with kids, or more men simply not being able to find jobs. But still, it's difficult to compare our LFPR to the 1950s and think we're in a good place just because it's better than that. I think the late 1970s is probably a better gauge.
I think you're largely right that when you carve out the exceptions, it's millions and millions of people. But still consider the unemployment rate. It has NEVER gotten to 0%, which means in America, there have, since we began counting, ALWAYS been people who want a job but don't have one.
There are also inflationary pressures to worry about when we reach 0% unemployment, but I don't pretend to understand what they are. I'm a labor historian, not an economist
quote:What do you think of the recent talk of free community college? I think we've reached a point where it's now unreasonable (though not unheard of) to expect to advance, or even start, in any career field without some level of technical education.
I think it's a good idea, but I think it's only HALF an idea. First off, free tuition is fantastic, and focusing on community colleges is a great idea. But for many people this will still be a luxury they can't afford. The very poor need to be able to pay all their living expenses and still GET to class, which can often by very very far away from where they actually live. So most will try to squeeze this in, somehow, between taking care of kids and working 40 hours a week. Free tuition suddenly doesn't sound like all that much to a lot of people.
The second problem I see is that it needs to take one more step, which is to foster apprenticeship programs between businesses and community colleges. Lots of companies are doing this. I know we do it at GM all over the country. Companies go to a school and say "we need X, Y, and Z but can't find anyone qualified." Then the school and company work together to agree on the training, the school trains them and they work at the company as a sort of ongoing internship with a guaranteed job when they graduate. Everyone wins.
Without that, you're going to get a lot of people who graduate with an Associate's Degree and no clue what to do with it. I graduated with two BAs and an almost MA and still found job hunting an exercise in futility for a year, because I never took the second step (well, in fairness to me, I DID take the second step, but then the economy shifted and my career path imploded while I was in school). So if we're going to focus on worker training and two-year degrees, awesome, but let's really dig in and make sure those degrees will lead to immediate jobs for people.
quote:Hopefully. A fiscally conservative party that actually targeted the cause of so much government overspending - our massively bloated, inefficient, often redundant pork barrel mess of a bureaucracy - rather than targeting "handouts" and "welfare queens" which are, in the grand scheme, a small portion of that spending... we would be a lot better off politically.
I don't have much hope. We're talking about the party who, at the state level, keeps passing drug testing requirements for welfare recipients, where they spend many times the amount they save just to out a tiny handful of people who test positive. This gets us back to that morality "deserving" issue we just talked about. The Right is going to have to stop demonizing poor people if they want to make headway on this issue. On the other hand, the Left could really do a better job at defending poor people. No one makes single white moms take a drug test before they can receive child tax credits on their returns or a gazillion other benefits people get from the government that never get politicized like food stamps.
My wife was a nurse, not a secretary. And she was being under paid for her job and the area. In seven years, she got two, one dollar raises. Meanwhile she had access to the practice finances and knew exactly how much net profit there was.
I am not correcting you because I wish to discuss this with you any further, but instead to mention to be careful of your assumptions, as if you make too many it tends to derail conversations and piss people off.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My wife was a nurse, not a secretary. And she was being under paid for her job and the area. In seven years, she got two, one dollar raises. Meanwhile she had access to the practice finances and knew exactly how much net profit there was.
And she told you this doctor was "pulling in millions" of dollars net income? From salary.com the median salary for a family practice physician is $183,175/year, with the 90th percentile (top 10%) making $234,608/year. Plastic Reconstructive Surgeons, who are on average the highest paid type of doctor, make $347,688/year, with the 90th percentile outliers being $512,027/year. Somehow this doctor was able to make many times the salary of even the highest paid physicians. What exactly did he do?
quote:I am not correcting you because I wish to discuss this with you any further, but instead to mention to be careful of your assumptions, as if you make too many it tends to derail conversations and piss people off.
They were questions actually, not assumptions. The asking of a question implies a lack of information on a subject and a desire to be informed, which is more or less the opposite of an assumption. I'm curious as to why you think answering my questions is "correcting" me.
Also, I don't think getting "pissed off" is a common or reasonable response to being asked simple factual questions about claims being made. Especially when you make sweeping statements with rather startling or unusual claims, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people not to ask you to clarify your position.
But more to the point, I want to know your answer to why doctors (or even this particular doctor, though you earlier were pissed off at the entire top 2%) are jerks. Or whether or not almost everybody else is a jerk.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I attempted a line by line rebuttal, however my phone lacks the capabilities. Apparently precision text editing is one of the things smart phones just can't do.
Anyway. Let me sum up...you make WAY more assumptions than questions and all that hedge fund malarkey you mention (again) just how clearly the -fact- that I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground just comes off as condisention & snobbery.
Whatever. I know this is not leading to anything useful.
I ask you to respect that I am tapping out & leave it alone.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's true, but, that's mostly because pre-1960s, the LFPR for women was 20-30%. It was considered socially unacceptable for a married woman to work in America until the 60s, and really until the 70s. They were considered selfish for taking up jobs that single women might need. Having a two-earner household was something you kept quiet in a lot of places.
When women started to really enter the labor force in large numbers, it spiked the overall LFPR starting in the early 60s before evening out in the 90s. Labor studies folks think that both the participation rate of men and women will probably be on a downward curve for decades, due to issues like old age and health problems, but also due to more men staying home with kids, or more men simply not being able to find jobs. But still, it's difficult to compare our LFPR to the 1950s and think we're in a good place just because it's better than that. I think the late 1970s is probably a better gauge.
I think you're largely right that when you carve out the exceptions, it's millions and millions of people. But still consider the unemployment rate. It has NEVER gotten to 0%, which means in America, there have, since we began counting, ALWAYS been people who want a job but don't have one.
There are also inflationary pressures to worry about when we reach 0% unemployment, but I don't pretend to understand what they are. I'm a labor historian, not an economist
The sudden increase of women in the workforce is indeed something I hadn't accounted for fully when interpreting the data. In any respect, I don't think we disagree too broadly on the means of implementation - I have no qualms with rolling unemployment (which conveniently is $2,000/month here) into this system and extending it more or less indefinitely, other than than the fact that unemployment is largely funded by state taxes and paid by employers and it might be tricky legally speaking.
On second thought though, a GMI would probably have to be partially funded by state taxes as well due to vastly different living expenses state-to-state. Which brings up a lot of interesting questions as far as how this money is to be raised - i.e, greatly increasing the "GMI tax" for employers who pay their employees under whatever the state GMI is would be an effective "soft" enforcement of a liveable minimum wage, as well as preventing employers from just dropping all their employees under the GMI level but above minimum wage down to minimum wage to take advantage of the GMI. (and a delightfully sneaky one too )
quote:I think it's a good idea, but I think it's only HALF an idea. First off, free tuition is fantastic, and focusing on community colleges is a great idea. But for many people this will still be a luxury they can't afford. The very poor need to be able to pay all their living expenses and still GET to class, which can often by very very far away from where they actually live. So most will try to squeeze this in, somehow, between taking care of kids and working 40 hours a week. Free tuition suddenly doesn't sound like all that much to a lot of people.
The second problem I see is that it needs to take one more step, which is to foster apprenticeship programs between businesses and community colleges. Lots of companies are doing this. I know we do it at GM all over the country. Companies go to a school and say "we need X, Y, and Z but can't find anyone qualified." Then the school and company work together to agree on the training, the school trains them and they work at the company as a sort of ongoing internship with a guaranteed job when they graduate. Everyone wins.
Actually, this is exactly how the relative I was talking about earlier got her job. The community college she attended had business partners for almost every associates program, and during her last semester hooked her up with an "externship" to a business. (which also counted as college credit) Both of them profited from this: the business got 5 months of free labor and got to screen a potential employee extremely thoroughly before making an offer, while she got job experience, college credit, something to throw on her resume and a job offer the day she graduated.
From my reading, this is actually an increasingly common trend among employers and community colleges (especially employers, who are saving buttloads on HR, advertisement, free labor, interviews, etc.), and seems to be the ideal way of transitioning people into those $15-$20/hr technical jobs with upward economic mobility.
Also, said relative was able to finish her degree mostly online, and only had to go into school one day a week (the day her husband wasn't working, conveniently enough) - I think they're doing a better job of helping low income people advance than you might imagine. (though I agree it's not *enough*)
quote:Without that, you're going to get a lot of people who graduate with an Associate's Degree and no clue what to do with it. I graduated with two BAs and an almost MA and still found job hunting an exercise in futility for a year, because I never took the second step (well, in fairness to me, I DID take the second step, but then the economy shifted and my career path imploded while I was in school). So if we're going to focus on worker training and two-year degrees, awesome, but let's really dig in and make sure those degrees will lead to immediate jobs for people.
Arguably (and this isn't meant to open a whole new can of worms, though it might) this is because traditional universities are somewhat behind the times, or simply aren't as interested in getting their alumni employed (I mean, they don't prioritize it), whereas a community college is all about employment and, IME any way, are much more effective at this and have a lot more in the way of employment services. I know that's probably confirmation bias, so don't take it too seriously. Also, the degree you got is more specialized and rarefied, which means it's probably somewhat harder to connect with a job right away. (and I also assume that once you finally got that job, the higher income you get makes up for the amount of time you were unemployed)
quote:HI don't have much hope. We're talking about the party who, at the state level, keeps passing drug testing requirements for welfare recipients, where they spend many times the amount they save just to out a tiny handful of people who test positive. This gets us back to that morality "deserving" issue we just talked about. The Right is going to have to stop demonizing poor people if they want to make headway on this issue. On the other hand, the Left could really do a better job at defending poor people. No one makes single white moms take a drug test before they can receive child tax credits on their returns or a gazillion other benefits people get from the government that never get politicized like food stamps.
It's more of a wistful hope than an expectation of reality. The older and wiser I get, the more dissatisfied with the American political system I become. Progress *is* being made though, and while we're seeing a lot of the ugly backlash and ignorance that follows in it's wake, I think we're going to continue forward. I don't know how interested my generation will be in maintaining the status quo once the majority of baby boomers die off. (20 or 30 years from now, or maybe more depending on how many of the diseases that seem to kill most people in their 80s are cured/mitigated in the next 20 years)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I attempted a line by line rebuttal, however my phone lacks the capabilities. Apparently precision text editing is one of the things smart phones just can't do.
Anyway. Let me sum up...you make WAY more assumptions than questions and all that hedge fund malarkey you mention (again) just how clearly the -fact- that I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground just comes off as condisention & snobbery.
Whatever. I know this is not leading to anything useful.
It's quite telling that your response to anyone questioning you after you making some rather preposterous statements is - rather than either clarifying/defending your position or admitting you were wrong - to accuse them of "condisention" and snobbery. I'm not convinced that that wouldn't be your go to response no matter how politely and inoffensively I worded my questions, so no, I don't buy it.
quote:I ask you to respect that I am tapping out & leave it alone.
*Shrugs* It's a public forum, you're welcome to post or not as you see fit. Again, though, it's not reasonable or polite to demand people not respond to your posts. It's not like I'm going to harass or berate you for choosing not to reply.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm very glad I no longer allow myself to throw a hissy fit, because I'd love to bitch slap you verbally. I used to spend a decent amount of time at it...line by line rebuttals, chalked full of little barbs. I was half way into writing one too.
Breathe. Calm.
Here goes...
I feel baited by you and the little snubs you have been pretty evenly distributed between whining about imaginary attacks and actal discussion.
So...I'm going to take a break from direct interactions with ya for a week or so and see if we can try again fresh. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm very glad I no longer allow myself to throw a hissy fit, because I'd love to bitch slap you verbally.
Classy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Exactly why I'm requesting a break.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
*mildly
If the conversation continues -- and it's fine by me either way -- I'll add to Dogbreath's note of MD salaries that typically 30-40% overhead comes out of that salary; i.e., is a percentage of "salary" never seen by the physician. I am in solo practice at a newly started up clinic, and my overhead is currently 60% of my salary.
In terms of what goes into my bank account, I make about the same per hour as my front desk staff person, and we each make about 1/2 per hour of what I pay my nurse.
Obviously, that will eventually change. (IhopeIhopeIhope ) But in assessing medical professional's income, it is vanishingly rare for overhead to be factored in. It should be, if you are interested in talking about income the physician actually sees show up in his or her bank account.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I was referring to the practice proffits. My wife worked for the largest cardiologist group in the county. She was the head MDs medical assistant. She gets very grumpy with me when I refer to her as a "nurse" as in her circles that conotates an RN or LVN, I.e. someone working under their own medical license. To be fair her MD is NOT a jerk. He always was encouraging to my wife's continued education as well as being very flexible as my wife had our children & then after had diminishing capacities as she became disabled. However. I am still upset that he allowed his evil, possibly embezzling office manager & the lazy good for nothing Supervisor MA make tuns of bucks while my wife, the apple of his eye mind you, single handedly supervised almost every aspect of the office for the same pay as the receptionist.
I might still be a bit emotional about it.
Anyway. I find it a jerky behavior to underpay employees. I find it deplorable in fact. It makes me quite angry.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: *mildly
If the conversation continues -- and it's fine by me either way -- I'll add to Dogbreath's note of MD salaries that typically 30-40% overhead comes out of that salary; i.e., is a percentage of "salary" never seen by the physician. I am in solo practice at a newly started up clinic, and my overhead is currently 60% of my salary.
In terms of what goes into my bank account, I make about the same per hour as my front desk staff person, and we each make about 1/2 per hour of what I pay my nurse.
Obviously, that will eventually change. (IhopeIhopeIhope ) But in assessing medical professional's income, it is vanishingly rare for overhead to be factored in. It should be, if you are interested in talking about income the physician actually sees show up in his or her bank account.
CT: In fact checking the stats I pulled from salary.com, I found some rather depressing information about family practices that I chose not to include for the sake of simplicity. (Not that it did me much good ) Apparently a 62% overhead is considered "typical", at least according to that article, which seems rather insane since that's coming from the doctor's supposed salary.
I have several friends who are doctors (two of whom are serving as missionaries atm) and had a medical student as a roommate for a while. (and am married to a woman who intends to pursue a doctorate in physical therapy, which isn't at all an MD but is somewhat related) After 10-12 years of poverty during school/residency and soul-numbingly difficult classes, one gets to look forward to working 60-80 hours a week while trying to pay down outrageous student loans and malpractice insurance. But if you manage to establish yourself and start a practice, pay off all your debt, and become somewhat affluent, (and these are all big ifs here) God forbid you reward yourself for all that hard work and dedication by buying yourself something nice. You jerk.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I was referring to the practice proffits.
quote:To be fair her MD is NOT a jerk.
Then:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: In previous discussions we were referring to embezzling hedge fund managers & MDs who pulling in millions & pay their most valued employees peanuts.
I dived my wife's raises by her years at that job...four cents a month.
Three new BMWs in seven years.
Jerk is putting it lightly.
So the practice itself was the jerk, and was buying itself new BMWs? Orrrr? Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
P.S. That very short list of people who I would count on to disagree with gentleness that I referred to previously...among a few others, your name CT came to mind. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh snap...I gotta refresh more often.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Believe me, I understand that this topic brings up a tinderbox of issues. Like you, Stone Wolf, I cannot stand to see worker exploitation. (And thank you for your kind comment!)
Dogbreath, yeah, it's brutal.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Anyway. I find it a jerky behavior to underpay employees. I find it deplorable in fact. It makes me quite angry.
If there's anything to take away from the majority of my posts in this thread (especially re: my discussion with Lyrhawn) it's that I too think this is a very bad, indeed deplorable situation, and it's one that really needs to be addressed by our society, and soon. I've outline a few of my (admittedly undereducated) ideas of how to do this as best as possible.
I think, however, it's extremely important to understand why things like this happen if you want to effect change in a meaningful and positive way. I don't think a generalized sense of rage towards the top 2% is helpful, nor do I think is anger directed at people who happen - by chance or diligence or thrift or timing - to have more material posessions than us is productive.
I have attempted for several days to explain to you, to the best of my own understanding, why this happens and why the torches and pitchforks as you put it may not be directed at the right people. I realize you just see this as me "baiting" you, and I find myself both frustrated and disappointed by this. Frustrated that you still assume hostility on my part (despite numerous attempts by several people and myself to tell you that it is simply not there), that you think I would seriously spend so much time writing all of this just to bait or provoke you (for some twisted mental game?), and that you feel the need to lash out violently and get so angry over having your beliefs questioned. Disappointed mostly in myself, for putting so much time into this and in the end failing to get through to you. I still don't understand this grudge of yours (which you reference to justify your dislike of me, yet accuse me of whining when I ask you what it is) but I would ask you to rethink your belief that I'm just trying to antagonise you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You do yourself a major disfavor to exaggerate & over simplify this situation, both my supposed "rage" to your supposed lack of antagonism.
The truth is far greyer.
For my part I find you annoying, especially your repeated claims of my attacking you or holding a grudge.
The truth I annoy you and if you were to have even a modicum of perspective you would see it almost every single post addressed to me.
Wake up and smell the bullschite man.
My supposed grudge was based on me saying you were a hot head (like myself and MOST of the board)...and you hot headedly getting mad and demanding why I could -possibly- think that of you.
Get over it. I'm trying.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The part that makes me a tad bonkers is you have the cojenes to still be claiming that you only motivation is educating poor violent StoneWolf, and your frustration at "not getting through to me".
When I said...you know...he isn't a jerk actually, I'm emotional about this.
And far from taking a personal sense of satisfaction from finally, with all your patience & kindness & guidance getting through to me, you snark at me about the practice buying cars.
I'm not saying I'm a saint, you are saying you are. The truth is you are just another dog in the pit growling over bones...and just can't seem to see it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Classic Samp :-D
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not saying I'm a saint, you are saying you are. The truth is you are just another dog in the pit growling over bones...and just can't seem to see it.
(The delicious irony of that post is that now, at this point you have finally reached the sort of snark and antagonism you've been accused of all this time, and even then I would be surprised if it had a fraction as much hostility as will certainly be read into it. Also, if attempts at dialogue were golf strokes it feels like you'd be in the triple digits by now.)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: It's just meant to be funny actually - if you had posted something absurd I would've used it as a reply to you. I debated whether or not to post it in my head, but decided if he was ok with sam's comment that he'd probably see the humor in it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm a bit confused...but happy that everyone seems cheerful! :-)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Classic Samp :-D
Classic samp is saying "you honestly are making very little sense right now"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
At least I'm making some than, that's a relief...I hate it when I make NO sense.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm a bit confused...but happy that everyone seems cheerful! :-)
It's an expression of confusion (similar to sam's) over the bizarre metaphor you used and your rather baffling last 2 posts in general. I thought about asking you what the heck you were talking about, but then, realizing questions only seem to anger you more, decided on a humorous expression of confusion. (from a great movie, too)
If I were to guess, based on the quoted metaphor alone, we approach internet conversations with vastly different levels of levity and emotional investment, and perhaps aggression. I'm not sure how else a dogfighting ring as an analogy for Hatrack makes sense.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It wasn't an analogy about the whole 'Rack...it was me saying your multiple decorations of a lack of hostility coupled with...hostility...are illogical. As are your characterizations of my "attacks". You are a rough rider. A tough ombre. As am I. We play too rough for outrage or indignation.
My point is you don't get to have it both ways. You don't see Lyr or CT mixing it up. Or BB and Bob S. getting angry.
I'm okay with a bit of rough handing, but not under the pretense that I alone am the sole source of hostility.
Does this make sense?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It wasn't an analogy about the whole 'Rack...it was me saying your multiple decorations of a lack of hostility coupled with...hostility...are illogical. As are your characterizations of my "attacks". You are a rough rider. A tough ombre. As am I. We play too rough for outrage or indignation.
My point is you don't get to have it both ways. You don't see Lyr or CT mixing it up. Or BB and Bob S. getting angry.
I'm okay with a bit of rough handing, but not under the pretense that I alone am the sole source of hostility.
Does this make sense?
Decorations?
Look, I've expressed to you that there is no intended hostility on my end, and I feel like you would have a hard time finding any evidence of such. (Especially since last time you were asked to you suddenly had phone problems and said you didn't have the time to tell me) Even if such evidence does exist, it's apparently 2 years in past. Not that I'm sure anything I say at all will convince you of that, since you apparently somehow interpret any gesture of good will or attempt at appeasement on my part as arrogance, or an attempt to claim moral superiority. But you can't say I haven't tried.
That's all sort of ancillary to the point here. I'm not making any claims of (or decorating myself for?) nobility or sainthood or kindness. I'm simply asking for you to converse with me in a reasonable manner. Getting angry and talking about "bitch slapping" me because I asked you to answer a few basic, factual questions is not normal or reasonable.
Being emotionally invested in a certain topic (like wealth) and making incorrect assumptions or sweeping generalizations is perfectly normal and something I think everyone here has done. But getting enraged at someone for attempting to point out some of the gaping logical flaws in your statement - or even engage you in a discussion to find out why you hold those views - is certainly not, nor is it reasonable.
And getting personal - mocking someone's military service or occupation, disparaging their personal character, publicly discussing whether or not they have personality disorders, making threats of violence - is definitely not ok.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Slipping in to madness if if even 20% of what you say is true.
I'll spend some time on the laptop and copy & paste so GD much that you will be incapable of spewing such half truths & out and out lies.
Because I'm -sure- all that evidence I'll present you will not fall on deaf ears and I won't be wasting my very precious & limited time to prove to you how dead ass wrong you are.
Give me a few days and all your whining & bull will be explained in such excruciating detail even someone with your lack of personal insight will be convinced.
Declarations dip nut, not decorations. Did you really not instantly know what I meant? Or is this another example of how just simple fact seeking questions enrage me. Pathetic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
SW, you're being a baby. Stop it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Um...no. He either can't see it and needs the donkey kick or is lying and should be called out
Either way I won't allow lies to stand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the distinction that DB is making is an important one. There is a big difference between those who works hard, have acquired a necessary set of skills, and who provide a needed products or services and those who, by dint of already having access to capital make billions by making other billionaires even richer. Often, they are concentrating wealth rather than producing it. They don't necessarily create anything of value or create jobs. Conflating the different types of wealth-holders feeds into the conservative narrative that concern about income disparity is really only envy and greed. It contributes to the idea that there is no systemic injustice, just a bunch of whiny, lazy have-nots.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the distinction that DB is making is an important one. There is a big difference between those who works hard, have acquired a necessary set of skills, and who provide a needed products or services and those who, by dint of already having access to capital make billions by making other billionaires even richer. Often, they are concentrating wealth rather than producing it. They don't necessarily create anything of value or create jobs. Conflating the different types of wealth-holders feeds into the conservative narrative that concern about income disparity is really only envy and greed. It contributes to the idea that there is no systemic injustice, just a bunch of whiny, lazy have-nots.
A large portion of my friends being conservatives, it gets pretty frustrating talking to them about concepts like systematic inequality, economic oppression/injustice, worker exploitation, and various means of rectifying this (usually a conversation whenever "obamacare" comes up) because they've bought that narrative hook, line, and sinker.
I know this is an issue you're fairly passionate about Kate. What's your impression of Lyrhawn and my (and SW, sam and orincoro's) discussion about a GMI and it's implementation? Of the different things causing or exacerbating poverty nowadays - the hoarding of vast amounts of capital by the very few, educational barriers, cultural barriers, transportation issues, the ghettoizing of certain racial and cultural groups and the lack of opportunities in said ghettos, and I'm sure plenty of things I'm not mentioning... - how much of a positive impact do you think a GMI would have? It certainly seems like the easiest solution to implement from a top-down perspective. (not that it would by any means be *easy*)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Part of my frustration is that I did take something away from this and I was never that mad at rich people to begin with. In my original reference to pitchforks & torches I -specifically- say I'm not there yet...NOT raging.
The term "jerk" in my book isn't a bid deal just some one who steps on others toes without foreknowledge. Assholes subscribe to their own jerkness...i e wilful ignorance.
However that being said I do have a fairly large anger to employers who underpay. Couple with that that my wife & I had several fights where she refused to ask for a raise for some crazy ass reason I've never understood to this day...
Anyway...no mater what else I end up taking away from this I kno I still have to work on my deep breathing exercises. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Give me a few days and all your whining & bull will be explained in such excruciating detail even someone with your lack of personal insight will be convinced.
Declarations dip nut, not decorations. Did you really not instantly know what I meant? Or is this another example of how just simple fact seeking questions enrage me. Pathetic.
will you stop
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
yes sir
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that is actually very relieving thank you
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Despite only limited success...I am trying.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the distinction that DB is making is an important one. There is a big difference between those who works hard, have acquired a necessary set of skills, and who provide a needed products or services and those who, by dint of already having access to capital make billions by making other billionaires even richer. Often, they are concentrating wealth rather than producing it. They don't necessarily create anything of value or create jobs. Conflating the different types of wealth-holders feeds into the conservative narrative that concern about income disparity is really only envy and greed. It contributes to the idea that there is no systemic injustice, just a bunch of whiny, lazy have-nots.
A large portion of my friends being conservatives, it gets pretty frustrating talking to them about concepts like systematic inequality, economic oppression/injustice, worker exploitation, and various means of rectifying this (usually a conversation whenever "obamacare" comes up) because they've bought that narrative hook, line, and sinker.
I know this is an issue you're fairly passionate about Kate. What's your impression of Lyrhawn and my (and SW, sam and orincoro's) discussion about a GMI and it's implementation? Of the different things causing or exacerbating poverty nowadays - the hoarding of vast amounts of capital by the very few, educational barriers, cultural barriers, transportation issues, the ghettoizing of certain racial and cultural groups and the lack of opportunities in said ghettos, and I'm sure plenty of things I'm not mentioning... - how much of a positive impact do you think a GMI would have? It certainly seems like the easiest solution to implement from a top-down perspective. (not that it would by any means be *easy*)
I think that it all needs to be addressed. GMI is a start, certainly. Getting people decent food and safe, clean, private places to live should be a bare minimum for a civilized country. But that shouldn't be the only fix. Another fairly easy fix would be the kinds of public works programs that we had during the Depression. Goodness knows, too much of our infrastructure hasn't been updated since then, but also things like the Federal Arts/Music/Writers/Theatre Programs. There was some really good work done in those and they are not terribly expensive considering. (If you think that good work will automatically be commercial and suffers from state-sponsorship, look at the BBC.) Increased investment in education and public transportation and scientific research. Healthcare of course. All these are eminently doable with upper level tax rates like we had during the 1950s and ridding ourselves of the pernicious notion that poverty was somehow a moral failure and helping people was encouraging sinfulness.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So, somewhat related to the topic on hand: Walmart is raising it's minimum wage to $9/hour, and there seems to be a general trend among retailers to increase their employee's pay after around a decade of stasis. Costco famously pays it's employees ~$20/hour and has been rewarded with loyal, well trained employees who don't steal from the company and are happy with their jobs, which has allowed them to survive competition that pays their average employee half of what they do. The market has been doing very well as of late, it would be nice to see average wages in retail creep towards ~$15/hour, so we could get a minimum wage increase without so much resistance. (This all depends on how the elections turn out in 2016, unfortunately)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
WASHINGTON—In response to the Republican senator from Texas announcing his presidential candidacy, Time magazine subscribers told reporters Monday that they are bracing for the inevitable issue featuring a close-up of Ted Cruz’s face. “I don’t know whether it will be next week or 10 months from now, but I know that sooner or later I’ll open the mailbox and find that face staring at me,” said Time subscriber Susan Bartlett, who was gearing up for a glossy cover photo of the Republican candidate bearing a stern expression while half hidden in shadow or an untouched smiling portrait accompanied by the words “The Game Changer” or “The Firebrand” in a large sans-serif font. “Right now, I’m steeling myself for when I open the magazine and come face-to-face with a full-page shot of Cruz standing in front of his desk with a wall of books in the background. And I might as well get used to the fact that there will be one casual picture of him wearing jeans.” The nation’s Time subscribers added that they had not yet prepared for the eventuality of an issue with a close-up of likely presidential candidate Scott Walker.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Largest Obstacles To Nomination: Scott Walker, Rand Paul, five seconds of scrutiny
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In that case they have a decent shot.
Most primary voters aren't exactly famed for their sharp skills in scrutiny.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
he is the most loathed person on capitol hill by a significant margin. he is dramatically emblematic of how i described that the tea party would become too much of a liability for even the GOP. His tax and financial policies are demented.
The republicans are going to throw him under the biggest bus they can find, then kick it into reverse to make sure he's absolutely dead.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Also, he wasn't born in the USA.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
My favorite thing was when he said, "We need to do away with the IRS. Then we'll take all those agents and send them to defend the Southern border! Now I know I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, but think about it..."
I stopped listening at that point because seriously, that's what he wanted me to imagine.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i want you to imagine that i am super the dumbest
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
“It’s a free country,” [Ted Cruz's dad] said. “If these people need to practice their holy rites of atheism, they can do so, as long as they are in clearly-marked encampments far away from the rest of us.” “While they’re in their Heathen Zones, they’re free to dance naked around the fire, brand the mark of the Devil on their flesh or whatever else they want to do,” he added. “Of course, if they step one foot outside the electrified fence we shoot them between the eyes. Two or three times, just to be sure.”
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
UGh. Newslo, the daily currant, they can all go to hell. Facebook is apparently working on de-ranking these sites so that they won't show up for casual readers. It's a fairly major bug in the social news platform.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i can at least make up for that by counting on a good ol' standby wellspring of crazy
I've never heard of James O' Keefe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Really?!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
haha really, he's the Andrew Breitbart protege, panty stealing rape barn sex-boat-dungeon-entrapment, fake pimp guy who helped destroy ACORN
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Basically, all those "acorn is engaging in voter fraud!!!" stories? Mr. O'Keefe is the selectively-edited video mastermind that started it all.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Out of all the potential candidates for 2016, who would you all like to see as the next president?
I really want to like Warren and I support her anti-Wall Street rhetoric, but it grinds my gears a bit the way she oversimplifies finance into platitudes. Like her quote "If banks can borrow at a .75% interest rate then so can students." I'm all for investing in education and we seriously need to work on our student loans system, but that statement is pretty lame.
And if it has to be a Republican, the only candidate I don't hate is Bush.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Of all the potential Democratic candidates, I'll admit to being quite taken by Warren at the moment. She's maybe the only one I'm actively excited about...assuming she even runs, which I think is doubtful.
On the Republican side, the only one I don't seriously want to punch in the face is Marco Rubio. He has an honest, likeable quality I can't quite describe, and actually has some surprisingly new and fresh ideas, for a right-wing Republican. I still don't want him to win, but I wouldn't check real estate prices in Toronto if he did.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Real estate prices in Toronto are high. Look at what the places in love it or list it are going row.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Huh for some reason I thought all the Acorn stuff was masterminded by Breitbart.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Urg Rubio is out for me. Anyone that signed the Tom Cotton letter should be legally ineligible.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Real estate prices in Toronto are high. Look at what the places in love it or list it are going row.
I'd probably end up in Windsor.
I could still keep my job, it'd just add 45 minutes to my commute.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Rubio is a shrill little whiny kid when you come right down to it if you've seen his questioning of Kerry on the Iran negotiations; and Jeb Bush has the problem that his "team" includes virtually 100% overlap with the previous Bush team and Reagan's; I think war with Iran is guaranteed if he is elected.
That and well, hello permanent conservative majority in the USSC since RBG is retiring soon. I'm not even sure I'd object to a Frank Underwood president so long as he was a democrat who'd appoint a democratic leaning judge.
I like Warren, she's great, though I'm hesitant to believe she can win when a majority of the country votes against their own interests when it comes to economic policies or believes that the economy works exactly like a household budget. Also while Trollbama has done a lot of good using executive orders recently there's still a limit to what she can do without a democratic Senate and Congress.
Afterall Obama was in policy, effectively a Third Way Clinton democrat and neoliberal in policy, he had a lot of corporate backers because they ultimately knew Obama wouldn't rock the boat too much; there's no such certainty with Warren.
In that respect, Warren can do more good in the Senate while Hilary is a more likely two-term win; giving Dems the chance to replace Scalia and insure a progressive replacement for RBG.
Warren *has* done a lot of good in the Senate so far, and seems to be gathering quite a bit of influence in revitalizing the progressive caucus, so there's that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
wow what a surprise hillary clinton the next president of the united states of america decides ... she is running for president what a totally unexpected move i am falling asleep midway through writing this senten
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
She could have announced she was opening up a chain of fried chicken restaurants instead.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that would have been awesome because the headline the very next day would be "Republican Party announces party-wide vegetarianism"
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
If you are *not* excited about election day, consider participating in another political question being discussed in a galaxy far far away.
I'm pulling for the New Republic personally.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
That trailer one was much better than the first one.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah. There was a big story here recently about how a 54 year old man walked 21 miles EVERY DAY to get to work and back. He had to walk from downtown Detroit all the way up to Rochester Hills, which is crazy. He took the bus for a small chunk of it, but there were huge gaps where he'd walk for miles. He didn't get home until almost midnight every night, and had to leave at like 4am to get there. And he was never late for years. The problem was that most of the cities between his job and his house didn't have buses. So he had to walk for miles to get to the next bus system. It's a mess around here.
I've been thinking about this story a lot this week.
My car's been in the shop all week - they had to order parts from the mainland halfway through fixing it - so I've been taking the bus to work every day.
It's about a mile from my house to the bus stop, and another 3/4 of a mile or so from the closest bus stop to my work, so I spend about an hour riding the bus and 3.5 miles of walking round trip, which isn't bad at all, other than the last mile walking home. (I live on the side of a mountain, the closest bus stop is at the base of the mountain, so the walk home is entirely uphill)
Anyway, the other day just after I got off the bus and starting walking home, it unexpectedly started raining cats and dogs and I so walked for 20 minutes or so completely soaked.
While I was walking, I remembered this thread and started thinking about this guy. I started wondering what it was like to walk for hours every day in rain, sleet, snow for decades. For me it's just a funny story I can tell my friends, and I know next week I'll have my car back and not have to walk in the rain. Heck, even when I was in boot camp and had to do hikes in the rain or sleep on the wet ground or whatever, I knew it was transitory and I would be done with it soon enough.
I'm trying to wrap my head around knowing that it's a permenant condition. Having to make that same miserable 21 mile walk every day for decades, knowing that you're not getting any richer or building towards some goal, knowing that your situation isn't going to change... I can't even imagine that sort of courage and tenacity. It's incredible.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think he as the exception really helps underscore how so many people can't escape their circumstances. He's exceptional, most people can't fathom doing that without losing hope and giving up.
Now imagine whole communities living like that. Talk of bootstraps seems condescending. I'm speaking generally not about you. I'm thinking about this in relation to Baltimore. Hopeless despair. Not everyone can walk for decades. Some people need hope.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He's exceptional...
You know, that story always makes me horribly uncomfortable. Because while his dedication to his routine was indeed exceptional, it was also exceptionally stupid. There was no genuine merit in his decision to spend hours each day walking to a job that didn't pay enough for him to buy a junker car or relocate. It only looks like a sensible choice if you don't actually evaluate it; in reality, it's a remarkable level of dedication to a bad decision.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
All things considered, I'm not convinced he had access to a better or equal job any closer.
But he's also representative of a larger problem. There aren't jobs in the City, and what jobs are there actually tend to be done by white people coming in for the burbs from 9-5 and then leaving. Most of the jobs black people do are service jobs in the suburbs, but the burbs put up a moat around the City to make it hard for black people to get in.
This isn't new. White people set it up in the 40s, or at least started it then. It was pretty well cemented by the 60s. Part of what helped the Montgomery Bus Boycotts were suburban white house wives who had to drive to pick up their cleaning ladies in the city because without the buses, the cleaning ladies couldn't make it to the wealthy suburbs.
The suburbs are exorbitantly expensive compared to Detroit. And the suburbs are where all the jobs are. Moving out of the City is hard, and finding a job that pays well IN the City is hard. So hundreds of thousands in Detroit (and millions around the country), take a long, long daily trip outside the City to work, made more difficult by the fact that people in the burbs don't see the value in supporting regional mass transit.
It's an unfortunate situation, but I'm not convinced it's because of a bad decision.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:He's exceptional...
You know, that story always makes me horribly uncomfortable. Because while his dedication to his routine was indeed exceptional, it was also exceptionally stupid. There was no genuine merit in his decision to spend hours each day walking to a job that didn't pay enough for him to buy a junker car or relocate. It only looks like a sensible choice if you don't actually evaluate it; in reality, it's a remarkable level of dedication to a bad decision.
I think one of the less obvious ways privilege rears it's head in these situations is when it comes to the ability to make well informed choices. Or even how to go about getting the information to make those informed choices.(And to be clear here, I'm talking about class privilege or perhaps social, if that's a Thing)
I think about the numerous areas of my life I struggled as a young adult when I first started living on my own at 18, and all of the stupid or idiotic choices I made, and often wish I could go back and relive them because I could frankly do a much better job of living my life then with what I know now.
The interesting thing, though, as I've done a lot of writing and introspection, is that of all of the huge steps forward I've made in almost every area of my life, relatively little of it can be credited to experience. (i.e, doing the wrong thing enough times that I realize it doesn't work and magically figuring out what the right thing is) In almost every case - ranging from personal finances to interpersonal skills to leadership training to professional education to romance, etc etc etc... - I've been fortunate enough to have a group of wise older women and men who have given me extremely valuable advice, and have invested an incredible amount of time and passion into mentoring me.
And this seems to hold mostly true of everyone who's life story I've seen. People obviously vary greatly in levels of intelligence and some people seem to have a better knack for making wise decisions, but when I converse with friends and family my age and background (socially and financially) who have been much more or less successful than I have been, the biggest factors seem to be:
1) Who they associate with and respect 2) How good they are at listening to wise advice 3) How good they are at applying that advice to to their life and acting on it
One of the most successful men my age I know came from a family where he had a lot of older brothers who regularly mentored him from a young age. When he applied for college, they helped him with his application and went over his class schedule with him. They helped him apply for scholarships and grants, helped set him up as an RA so he had free lodging. They've given him pretty outstanding legal and business advice throughout the past 2 years as he's launched his own business. Even though I guess he could claim to be a "self made man" since afaik they haven't actually given him a penny, the time and wisdom they invested in him will probably generate millions of dollars of additional income over his lifetime just financially speaking - and I think there are greater, less tangible returns too.
. . .
This is getting pretty long winded, but let's look at James. What Lyrhawn said as far as cost of living in the suburbs isn't entirely true - the very nice, much larger suburban apartment he lives in now actually costs him $80 less a month than the $880 he was paying to rent a relatively shitty place in the city.
But how would he know that? Like, if he has a distorted conception of just how expensive things are in the suburbs or how big of a wage gap there really is between him and the middle class (and a lot of people in his situation I've met do), then he may not have even considered looking because in his mind it's already impossible. He's got nobody in his life to tell him otherwise - from his exploitative landlady/ex-girlfriend who he's had to file a restraining order against now to the neighbors threatening him or hitting him up for money before he even got paid, it sounds like he didn't *have* anyone in his life to tell him any different.
The sad thing is he could probably maintain the lifestyle he has *right now* (I mean, after moving) off of his current income. He pays less in rent, transportation means he has access to better and much cheaper food so he's almost certainly paying less for food, he has a lot more free time to cook and plan... with careful management of his money and budgeting, he could probably maintain his (still very modest) lifestyle at the ~$21,000/year he makes as a single man - even easier if he had a roommate. (from running over a few numbers in my head, his single biggest expense after rent would be car insurance... how he's paying more in a month for insurance than I pay in a year, I don't know)
But when you're living paycheck to paycheck, are in a state of constant physical exhaustion, are convinced things aren't getting any better and have nobody in your life to tell you otherwise... maybe just doing everything you can to keep your job and keep from being homeless is the best and most reasonable choice you can make.
Any attempt on my part to put myself in his shoes is flawed, because I'd be coming in with the huge advantage of knowing quality of life can be much better even at that income level and knowing the steps I would need to take to get there, or at least how to find out. True empathy and understanding in this case is incredibly difficult, if not outright impossible, but I'm not going to make the assumption he's stupid.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Very good points, Dogbreath.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Jesus, he was paying $800 a month for that house? Either she was insanely, overwhelmingly, dramatically overcharging him, or there's a great hidden story in there about just how incredibly damaging Detroit City property taxes are.
I guess what I would say to that is that, generally, what I said IS true, especially when you consider other barriers to entry like paying security deposits and other start-up fees that often come with moving into a new apartment or rental home. That could be hundreds of extra dollars that most people in Detroit probably couldn't afford. My guess is that his windfall allowed him to move into a cheaper place where before he might not have had the money to contemplate that decision (assuming, as you said, he even knew the decision was available to him).
quote:how he's paying more in a month for insurance than I pay in a year, I don't know
Sad face. You pay less than $212 a YEAR? I think mine is something like $130 a month. Michigan has the most expensive auto insurance in the country. Detroit skews those numbers upward dramatically. Even if he had been able to afford a junker in Detroit, he never would have been able to afford to keep it insured, which would have probably cost him 2 to 2.5 times what it costs in Troy to insure even a much crappier car. I think the average yearly auto insurance bill in Detroit is between four and five thousand dollars. He also has a tremendously (from my perspective) expensive car, which makes it more expensive to insure.
In general, there are things that are much more expensive about living in the suburbs, and a few things that are cheaper. Auto insurance is one of the things that's cheaper. Groceries are probably another, since Detroit has only a handful of grocery stores.
Great post.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The larger point should probably be that it shouldn't matter anyway. I lean toward the "that's a stupid decision" camp, but also that it shouldn't matter in one of the world's richest countries.
"The measure of a nation is how it treats its dumbasses" or something like that. I put it in quotes because someone probably said that before.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jesus, he was paying $800 a month for that house? Either she was insanely, overwhelmingly, dramatically overcharging him, or there's a great hidden story in there about just how incredibly damaging Detroit City property taxes are.
I guess what I would say to that is that, generally, what I said IS true, especially when you consider other barriers to entry like paying security deposits and other start-up fees that often come with moving into a new apartment or rental home. That could be hundreds of extra dollars that most people in Detroit probably couldn't afford. My guess is that his windfall allowed him to move into a cheaper place where before he might not have had the money to contemplate that decision (assuming, as you said, he even knew the decision was available to him).
Oh, I mostly agree with you, but having lived in both "the ghetto" and rather nice suburbs, I can tell you that the difference isn't so much a matter of required income as it is required *financial stability*.
I think one of the main purposes for a lot of those hidden expenses - whether it's paying a security deposit for an apartment, or paying 6 months of insurance up front plus registration fees for a vehicle, or making a down payment on a house - is to weed out people who are financially unstable. If you're living paycheck to paycheck at a $10.38/hr job, a $800 security deposit on a place plus another $800 up front for the first month of rent just isn't feasible. So instead you pay $220 a week for a place that isn't going to do a credit check, isn't going to demand a security deposit, and that is fine with you paying every payday instead of demanding the money up front.
But if you already had, say, $20,000 in the bank, you could easily move and resettle yourself, start up a new routine still making that $10.38, and then recoup whatever you spent of that $20,000 in a year or two of careful budgeting.
In most cases, when you look at poverty, income isn't as much of a factor as lack of stability. Being poor and living paycheck to paycheck is often times actually *more* expensive, and this is a well documented trend. Between exploitative payday loans for unexpected expenses, obscenely high credit card rates, having to pay more for week-to-week rent, having to pay more for insurance and car loans, having to shop for groceries at crappy convenience stores that severely overcharge, having to pay fees for not having enough money in your bank account... being in poverty is actually a lot more expensive than *not* being in poverty, strangely enough.
quote:Sad face. You pay less than $212 a YEAR?
Well, not quite. I actually pay $216/year. ($18/month)
I drive a 16 year old car that I keep in good condition with a KBB value of about $1,400, and have a perfect driving record. I used to pay around $25/month until I turned 25 last year, then it dropped significantly.
quote:Great post.
Thanks! Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
When I was working in international development, one of the things we frequently talked about is that poverty is more than just being poor - it's also the lack of options and choice.
Basically as you've both pointed out, you don't have the money for a security deposit or for transportation or the likely even the time to go and find a new job or house or anything that would make your life even the slightest bit easier.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Hey Lyhawn:
Considering the earlier discussion on GMI in this thread, I was hoping you could weigh in with your expert opinion on a proposed $15 minimum wage.
It's a subject that we've been discussing a lot at work, and everyone so far has been decidedly against it for various reasons. I, too, think it's a bad idea mostly because it offers less flexibility and is harder on businesses than a GMI. I've created a list of pros and cons - both economically and socially - and I wonder what your take on the subject is.
Pros: 1) It would reduce or complete eliminate the necessity for Welfare programs like housing assistance, SNAP/foodstamps, the EBT system, etc. for employed people, reducing the burden on taxpayers by billions of dollars every year. (Albeit by transferring that burden to consumers/businesses) 2) It would give a pretty hefty amount of spending power to people in the lowest income brackets, providing a significant boost to the economy. 3) It’s easier to implement and requires less administrative overhead than a GMI.
Cons: 1) It destroys a lot of the incentive to get a better job/some jobs just aren’t worth $15/hour. …This one is probably the biggest one I’ve seen, and it’s a pretty good point. A lot of those entry-level, unskilled labor jobs simply aren’t worth paying someone $15/hour to do, especially considering the sort of jobs that *do* pay that much.
Take the relative I mentioned earlier. She spent 4 years going to college part time to earn a degree, spent half a year in an internship, got certified in her career field, and finally just started working a job as a medical assistant making $15/hour. She worked her ass off to get there, and likewise her husband, after 8 years, has managed to get a job a supervisor at a gas station, which also pays about $16/hour. The $15-$20/hour range right now seems to go to entry level skilled labor or supervisors for unskilled labor – or jobs you work in your mid-20s to early 30s. Suddenly paying a 16 year old fry cook or cashier as much (or more) than his supervisor makes will pretty seriously undermine a lot of the incentive that makes people work so hard to *get* those $15/hour jobs in the first place. Which leads in to the next point:
2) Unlike a GMI, a $15/hour minimum wage doesn’t differentiate between, say, a 16 year old suburban kid working his first part time job and a 35 year old single mother trying to support her family. The only way it really helps create economic equality is incidentally – i.e. because unfortunately a lot of poor people are trapped in those minimum wage jobs through their 30s and 40s, and $15/hour minimum wage helps them incidentally, but there are a lot better ways to help those people while also not absurdly overpaying everyone else.
3) The $15/hour minimum wage takes a lot of the burden off of taxpayers and puts it on consumers. With the majority of taxes in our country being paid by the wealthy, but the majority of consumption being done by the middle and working classes, this will actually hurt the middle class and drive up inflation. (This one seems somewhat dodgy to me, but I decided to include it)
4) The most popular argument, a $15/hour minimum wage will primarily hurt small businesses – who have to run on razor thin profit margins just to be competitive – a lot more than it will hurt big businesses, who generally post much higher profits and can afford to absorb some of the impact without raising prices.
From what I can see, a GMI would cover all of the pros (except #3, obviously) while avoiding all of the cons. For better analysis, I think a 15hmw vs no 15hmw+no GMI is probably needed as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A minimum wage increase would actually be pretty pointless for reducing poverty, it doesn't even really matter between jurisdictions.
quote:A year ago, I brought attention to a Canadian Public Policy article on poverty and the minimum wage in Ontario. A notable finding of the study was that the overlap between those who earn minimum wage and those who are in poverty was surprisingly small, small enough to conclude - as I did - that "increasing the minimum wage is only slightly more effective as an anti-poverty measure as would be distributing money at random across households." A few months later, I came across a study that found much the same results in the United States.
I knew that policy analysts in the Quebec government were working on a similar project and had heard that they had found similar results.
More dependent on jurisdiction, a low income family can actually face pretty punitive marginal tax rates due to how they lose certain benefits and tax credits that are normally offered to low income individuals. In some cases, the entire gain might be taxed away anyway
quote: It has long been known that single mothers on social assistance are particularly vulnerable to the welfare trap: not only are their payments clawed back as they earn wage income, they risk losing their non-monetary benefits. In many cases, these parents face marginal income tax rates of well over 100%.
Finally, a higher minimum wage would only accelerate trends toward automation and outsourcing what can be outsourced to other areas of the globe. To be clear, I think that this last one is mostly a good thing, but we have to be clear that these are the consequences.
Ultimately, a GMI is a much better idea. It can be much better targeted at low income individuals, it would clear up some of these issues with marginal tax rates for low income individuals, and it wouldn't leave people without jobs (or who lose jobs) in the same situation as they are now.
It's not entirely clear to me even on the "left" why there is so much focus on the fight for a higher minimum wage right now as opposed to a GMI except that it might be more politically expedient. There may be too many people right now who would hate the idea of giving people money even if they don't work, even if its more effective.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not entirely clear to me even on the "left" why there is so much focus on the fight for a higher minimum wage right now
On it's face it's a simpler, easier to understand concept, and works well if you have a poor understanding of economics and poverty? I'm not claiming *not* to have a poor understanding of either, mind you.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Because paying people per hour is more politically palatable than suggesting giving money to people who work fewer hours or maybe can't find/keep a job at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
because a basic minimum income is so impossible to expect in the current climate essentially
but healthcare? i am working to see that by the time i am fifty
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
insert long unproductive gif showing some kind of emotion here
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Here You Go Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dogbreath -
I missed your GMI vs Minimum wage post last month, apologies. I'm also probably not as expert on the subject as many other people here are.
But I generally agree with your analysis.
I don't think a GMI is an impossible sell if you based your political message on cost savings. Ultimately the biggest hurdle isn't the cost - frankly I think it'd be close to revenue neutral depending on what we set as our benchmark for a GMI - the biggest hurdle is getting people over the fact that some people might get paid (either through the government or their job) for work they aren't doing. I think as a society we'd generally support something that costs us more if it keeps people from gettnng money we feel they didn't earn.
And I'll admit I feel the pull. I worked hard in college and amassed no small amount of debt to get my degrees. It took me the better part of a decade to get through undergrad and grad school. Through all of that I worked fairly hard at a grueling part time job to support myself. And now, finally, after all that work I have a decent job that pays a few dollars an hour more than $15. If a kid at McDonald's is making $15, it just makes my head want to explode. He's essentially making more than I am when you include how much I have to pay to service my student loan debt. I just did the math, and almost $4 an hour of my weekly paycheck goes toward student loan debt. That basically puts me back at $15 an hour.
So what was the point? I know it's not that straight forward, there's more to it, but that's incredibly frustrating, and it makes it incredibly difficult to justify signing off on that.
I could absolutely get behind a higher minimum wage, but not $15 an hour.
In general, the GMI is a much better solution, and I don't even think it'd be terribly difficult to administer. We already have all your income information at the IRS. We just total up your W2's and other income information, and then refund you the difference to get to whatever our GMI baseline is. If you change jobs or something in the middle of the year and your income changes, your GMI payment next year will go up or down to make up for it so you don't get under or over paid. And for that, we can get rid of a huge amount of federal government support programs. It'll save billions in administrative costs.
I think once I had a chance to look at the numbers, assuming it works out the way I think it would, I could convince any halfway rational person that a GMI makes more sense than our current welfare system OR a higher minimum wage (which I think would actually cost much more and have more problems).
You have to look at the big picture to see all the political positives.
A GMI is a woman's rights issue. A guarantee that at least at some level, women and men get paid the same (at the bottom of the income tier, I know).
A GMI is a parents' rights issue. Now you can make decisions on who stays home and who goes to work when you have kids without worrying about losing an income. If we made it a monthly payment, you could take federally guaranteed but unpaid time off and get your GMI payment that month.
I'm sure we could think of many, many more of these types of arguments.
I'm not sure how business will feel about it. In some ways it creates new customers, and it will get people off their backs about increasing wages. We could even discuss lowering the minimim wage a bit as a carrot to shift some of the burden off them. (though I wonder if that might actually be an international trade violation for subsidizing cheaper trade goods). But a GMI would greatly empower a worker to more freely quit a job. If you don't feel like you NEED a job and you hate it, now you can quit without being afraid of your next rent payment.
Frankly, that's what a REAL free labor market would look like. Workers aren't truly free to decide where to work if they are compelled by biological necessity to take what's available or die.
Lots of good arguments. Just no one out there making them.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
The subsidy/trade question is an interesting one given that with a GMI wages will almost certainly drop. Why should a company currently paying $X if it can pay $X - GMI without changing the employee's take home pay? Well, more likely $X - Y% of GMI.
Especially since the value of a job will be based more on intangibles and non-monetary benefits. Since you don't need a job to live, it'll be more about having something useful to do or for status (whether innate to the job or to allow conspicuous consumption).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
a truly free market economy, were one to be created in any sort of sufficiently contiguous patch of territory, would be a truly frightening and grim thing indeed as it approached its inevitable and relatively rapid end-stage. but no society on earth has been dumb enough to actually attempt it.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: The subsidy/trade question is an interesting one given that with a GMI wages will almost certainly drop. Why should a company currently paying $X if it can pay $X - GMI without changing the employee's take home pay? Well, more likely $X - Y% of GMI.
Wouldn't that only work if the employee's salary is already their GM? If Bob's GMI is $30k and his salary is $50k, it's not like the company could just pay him $20k because then the government would only pay an extra $10k to bring him up to his minimum.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
NobleHunter: We discussed this to some degree earlier in the thread, but the GMI we're discussing would be a sort of extension of the EITC (the perk being that all the necessary data is already collected by the IRS right now) rather than a flat rate paid across the board.
There are a lot of factors that would go into determining it, and it would probably have to vary from region to region to account for cost of living, but let's imagine a hypothetical baseline here:
Who is eligible: going off of standards we already see with healthcare/the ACA and FAFSA along with some fairly logical ones. I.e, 26 or older or not claimable on parents' tax return, family units, head of household (single parent living on their own), married couples filing jointly, etc. The exception would probably be that you wouldn't be eligible even if married filing single - i.e, if you're making minimum wage and live with your spouse who makes $80 grand and decide to file separately, you're not getting a GMI. (separated would be eligible)
How much do you get paid: Again, it's pretty much an extension of the EITC, but paid monthly and taking supporting yourself (rather than your kids, disability, etc. )into account as well.
For our hypothetical baseline (in, say, a cheap cost of living mid-western state), let's say the GMI is set to $20,000 for a single, or $35,000 for a married/cohabiting couple, with another $10,000 for the first 2 children under 26 and $5,000 for every child after that.
-If you make $7.25 an hour full time (though it's actually somewhat rare to make exactly minimum wage), or $15,080 a year and you're single and over 25, the GMI will cover the $4,920, or $410/month.
-If you make $7.25 an hour and work 25 hours a week or $9,425 a year, and you're a single mother of two children, your GMI would be $40,000, and so the GMI will cover $30,575, or $2547.92 a month.
Now a lot of people will probably balk at that second number as it seems pretty high. Consider, however, the cost - not just in services rendered but administrative overhead (welfare office, employees, auditing, etc.) - required *right now* to keep that mother's family afloat. Such as:
-SNAP/EBT -Subsidized housing -Subsidized or free childcare -Subsidized meals in school -Welfare checks -Subsidized transportation -Paying people to administrate and audit those programs. -And less tangible costs (higher crime rates, poorer grades, increased chance of drug use, far less average lifetime economic productivity) for her children...
You might find it equals out to $2547.92 a month, or even costs more to do things the way we do now. If you can end a lot of suffering and heartache and still break even (or even save money) doing so, then why not?
A GMI would be built specifically to assist those in need of it, while being sort of a one stop shop replacement for all the welfare programs currently in place.
Can it be taken advantage of? I guess... If you're over 25 and not in college and just want to be a fry cook and play video games for the rest of your life, then I suppose you can collect your $410 a month and feel happy about "beating the system" in your crappy apartment. Good for you, I guess? I don't think this guy is your typical minimum wage earner, though. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, half of all minimum wage earners are under 25. With women twice as likely to be minimum wage earners as men (again, single motherhood almost certainly exacerbates this) and minorities highly overrepresented as well, I think our "30-something single potheads scamming the GMI" possibility would probably be a tiny fraction of the people benefiting from it - and they would benefit the least, too. (whereas, IMO, they would be the ones set to gain the *most* from a $15/hour minimum wage)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My biggest fear with GMI is that it would only be politically feasible if it replaces nearly all other social safety nets - and that leaves people, and particularly children of people, extremely vulnerable to the consequences of addiction and bad choices.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well.. does it? I mean GMI is meant to replace social security, food stamps, and pretty much every other bureaucracy that stands between people and the minimal viable needs for survival. It would always be there- no matter your choices.
But that doesn't mean that other non-financial programs would be cut in its wake. It isn't meant to replace outpatient clinics, public education, or any other public service.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: My biggest fear with GMI is that it would only be politically feasible if it replaces nearly all other social safety nets - and that leaves people, and particularly children of people, extremely vulnerable to the consequences of addiction and bad choices.
I'm not really seeing how. I mean, nobody is saying a GMI would eliminate the need for CPS or drug rehabilitation programs, or even in some cases court-ordered power of attorney. But I can't see how collecting a welfare check or having an EBT card is somehow more likely to make a person spend their money more wisely than just being giving the same money regardless.
It also plays into the bias that poor people are somehow worse parents than wealthy people, or that by and large they're poor because they mismanage their money, or are drug addicts, rather than other external factors, which is kind of ridiculous. I mean, you can be wealthy and abuse/starve the hell out of your kids too, or be a drug addict. Why should special scrutiny be placed on the poor rather than, you know, everybody?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because a (by now) peculiarly American form of Protestantism equates wealth with virtue. Or at least sees prosperity as a sign of God's favor.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Whoops, wrong method of guaranteeing income. Feh.
The thing about poor addicts is that it is easier from them to divert a much larger percentage of their families resources than a rich one. The family of a lawyer who's a functioning addict is more likely to still afford food than if the addict was a fry cook.
If the entirety of the family's support is cash, then it can all be spent in a single bad day. If they had non-cash supports at least a binge or similar episode wouldn't threaten all their supports at once.
I would expect a non-functioning addict to be either poor or the idle rich.
kmbboots, I guess the Europeans exported all their peculiar Protestants to the US. Is it any wonder they ended up with a peculiar institution?
[ June 04, 2015, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not all but a lot. More importantly, the US was founded mostly by the peculiar Protestants so, even if Europe kept most of them, they didn't send large numbers of anyone else till the 19th century. Well after the virtue=prosperity mythos had been well established.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well.. does it? I mean GMI is meant to replace social security, food stamps, and pretty much every other bureaucracy that stands between people and the minimal viable needs for survival. It would always be there- no matter your choices.
But that doesn't mean that other non-financial programs would be cut in its wake. It isn't meant to replace outpatient clinics, public education, or any other public service.
It's there on some kind of periodic basis, and an addict (or person with poor impulse control) can spend all their money on something other than food and shelter very quickly, leaving them with nothing until the next check comes. It's easier and quicker than trading an EBT card for drug money. So, IMO, we'd need to be careful how many social services we curtail in exchange for something like GMI. In some ways it's less risky to continue to subsidize specific things - food, child care for working parents, housing - with vouchers. Subject to misuse, sure, but less fungible and effupable than cash.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: My biggest fear with GMI is that it would only be politically feasible if it replaces nearly all other social safety nets - and that leaves people, and particularly children of people, extremely vulnerable to the consequences of addiction and bad choices.
I'm not really seeing how. I mean, nobody is saying a GMI would eliminate the need for CPS or drug rehabilitation programs, or even in some cases court-ordered power of attorney. But I can't see how collecting a welfare check or having an EBT card is somehow more likely to make a person spend their money more wisely than just being giving the same money regardless.
It also plays into the bias that poor people are somehow worse parents than wealthy people, or that by and large they're poor because they mismanage their money, or are drug addicts, rather than other external factors, which is kind of ridiculous. I mean, you can be wealthy and abuse/starve the hell out of your kids too, or be a drug addict. Why should special scrutiny be placed on the poor rather than, you know, everybody?
As I mentioned in response to Orincoro, I think EBT cards, for instance, are at least a bit less susceptible to misuse than cash.
WRT to your second point, yeah, it does play into that bias. But it's not what I'm claiming. Some people are poor because they have made bad life choices or are addicted, and those people (and particularly anyone they have custody of) may sometimes need extra layers of protection from themselves. I'm definitely in favor of more expansive and less miserly social programs to ameliorate poverty, because the cycles of poverty don't break themselves. But I think there are some people who would fall through the cracks of a cash based system in a way that we probably need to guard against. (Another way is a more vigorous CPS, but that has downsides as well.)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
(Uh, short answer, basically everything NH said.)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
To be sure, though, I homed in on impulse control issues and addiction, when there are other things that could go wrong: theft or accidental loss of money, for instance. I probably did this because of the bias you pointed out.
Also, I think if we set the floor for income high enough, such worst case scenarios will be less prevalent, and alternative safety nets can be a relatively small scale affair.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: If you're over 25 and not in college and just want to be a fry cook and play video games for the rest of your life, then I suppose you can collect your $410 a month and feel happy about "beating the system" in your crappy apartment.
I've at one point been very close to being this stereotype and trust me, you're absolutely correct. Extremely few individuals would want to live this way, it sucks, you can afford nice things. Just keeping your console, game collection, and PC up to date would necessitate having a decent job; but what's the point? It's better to go to school, use a GMI to wait out a slump until you're dream job opens up while you're practicing your skills.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: As I mentioned in response to Orincoro, I think EBT cards, for instance, are at least a bit less susceptible to misuse than cash.
WRT to your second point, yeah, it does play into that bias. But it's not what I'm claiming. Some people are poor because they have made bad life choices or are addicted, and those people (and particularly anyone they have custody of) may sometimes need extra layers of protection from themselves. I'm definitely in favor of more expansive and less miserly social programs to ameliorate poverty, because the cycles of poverty don't break themselves. But I think there are some people who would fall through the cracks of a cash based system in a way that we probably need to guard against. (Another way is a more vigorous CPS, but that has downsides as well.)
Quite honestly, I think using welfare and EBT as a soft control on addicts or wasteful spending is a really crappy long term solution to either of those problems - and an even worse argument to keep those programs in place for the poor.
First: because it assumes that if you make less than a certain arbitrary amount of money you instantly become less capable of controlling yourself or your spending wisely and need to be watched more closely to make sure you use your resources wisely - like one would a child. It's pretty patronizing, and I also can't imagine *you* would feel very happy with, say, the money you get back from EITC (assuming you have children) being very tightly regulated. (sorry, you can't spend your tax return on that vacation/TV/new video game system, you have to spend it on food, and only a certain *kind* of food)
It's just another way of treating the poor with less respect, dignity and agency than anyone else - doing it "for their own good" doesn't really make that any more palatable.
There should be - and already are - separate programs in place to handle abusive, addicted, and neglectful parents, and I definitely agree those should be expanded somewhat to help cover those situations you mention, while also not denigrating the 95%+ of poor who don't fall into those categories. (You can also argue about how many of those situations are caused by vs. the cause of generational poverty, but I think that's something you and I already agree on, so I'll leave it for now)
Second: I'm not sure if I agree that EBT/welfare is necessarily a better guarantee that those sorts of abuses won't happen. Welfare is actually fairly difficult and consuming to apply for and maintain, as is SNAP, and your scenario assumes that the deadbeat parents who would go out and waste their GMI on drugs would, in the current system, also fill out the paperwork, go to the grocery store and buy nutritious food for their children, and then take time to prepare it. I don't think that's realistic - i.e, I think if you're going to blow all your GMI money on drugs, you're probably not the sort of person who is utilizing welfare and food stamps properly anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think if you're going to blow all your GMI money on drugs, you're probably not the sort of person who is utilizing welfare and food stamps properly anyway.
for many of these guys we've found out that the most cost effective solution is actually just providing free housing
a program that utah is trailblazing. utah?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, I've heard of that. An interview went something like "How have you managed to end homelessness in SLC?" ... "by giving homeless people homes." ... "oh"
Those sneaky Utahns.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
DB, you're making some good points, and arguing with a degree of forcefulness that I think I gave you the wrong impression about how I think these things should work.
Where I'm coming from is simply that I don't want people to be in a situation where they are forced to beg for money/food or starve, or end up homeless without anywhere to go for help - so if we transition away from welfare and to a guaranteed income, I think we'll still need some supplementary programs to provide emergency food relief and shelter, etc.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: DB, you're making some good points, and arguing with a degree of forcefulness that I think I gave you the wrong impression about how I think these things should work.
Where I'm coming from is simply that I don't want people to be in a situation where they are forced to beg for money/food or starve, or end up homeless without anywhere to go for help - so if we transition away from welfare and to a guaranteed income, I think we'll still need some supplementary programs to provide emergency food relief and shelter, etc.
It would be nice if we actually had those programs now. I grew up in a family that was on the brink of poverty several times, and SNAP and even TANF take time to apply for and get approved - time you really don't have if you just lost your job and were already living paycheck to paycheck.
Whenever we needed that sort of emergency relief - when we needed it for a few weeks or a month while we stabilized - we got almost all of it from the Catholic Church. Which is pretty amusing since my parents were fundamentalist protestants at the time, but their church didn't really any sort of relief program. (or if it did, it was one they would probably be shamed for using or a separate and very public offering would be held "for the xxxes who are in need") AFAIK, the Catholics are the only large scale organization where you can reliably walk into their food banks with your kids, take a couple hundred dollars of food, and leave no questions asked.
I think a government program like that would be great, but AFAIK those sort of emergency food and clothing services are more or less exclusively the domain of charity right now.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:It would be nice if we actually had those programs now. I grew up in a family that was on the brink of poverty several times, and SNAP and even TANF take time to apply for and get approved - time you really don't have if you just lost your job and were already living paycheck to paycheck.
This kind of stress probably fuels addiction, especially if the loss of work tends result in idleness. Even if you can't get food or work, you can at least get high.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:It would be nice if we actually had those programs now. I grew up in a family that was on the brink of poverty several times, and SNAP and even TANF take time to apply for and get approved - time you really don't have if you just lost your job and were already living paycheck to paycheck.
This kind of stress probably fuels addiction, especially if the loss of work tends result in idleness. Even if you can't get food or work, you can at least get high.
Yeah, that's totally what happened with my family. We just all sat around and shot up heroin. It was a dark childhood.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yeah, I've heard of that. An interview went something like "How have you managed to end homelessness in SLC?" ... "by giving homeless people homes." ... "oh"
Those sneaky Utahns.
The cost of hospitalization, death and arrests that happen to a small handful of homeless people cost so much that giving everyone homes is cheaper.
Same with free health care.
But somehow, people have decided that people don't deserve and haven't earned those things, or will use them instead of working 60 hours a week making minimum wage, or might be an immigrant, and therefore, it would be money wasted. Even if it's cheaper.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)