Politics | 2014-15

By Forever Go To PostWhen the referendum was called I thought Tsipras might be a true believer, willing to go down with his country. Now that it's obvious how desperate he really was to stay in the Eurozone, I can only conclude that he was an utterly incompetent moron who was counting on a "Yes" vote. He wanted to give in to the demands, but he didn't want to take the blame, so he tried to pass the buck back to the people. Nice going dumbass.

Agreed 100%

By Fenderputty Go To PostAgreed 100%

Unfortunately not every world leader can be Obama.

CCL Colleagues

I went to a Town Hall meeting given by Congressman Jason Chaffetz this morning and after a brief description of CCL and the REMI study benefits asked him if he would be interested to learn more about this policy option or if he had any different ideas for addressing climate change.

His response was that “climate change is an Al Gore Hoax” and there was no further discussion!

Hello darkness, my old friend.

Disgusting, IWMTB.

Al Gore paid off 99% of climatologists.

The Daily Beast bringing you the real story about that woman who might have been murdered by police for a traffic violation:

Bland pleaded guilty to misdemeanor marijuana possession in 2010 and paid $373 in fines, according to court records. A 2009 drug paraphernalia charge was dismissed in Harris County, court records also show. Her driver’s license had been suspended three times prior to last year, and she was on court supervision in Illinois, according to the Chicago Tribune. On July 31, Bland’s license was set to be suspended again, the Tribune reported.

The media isn't hiding it anymore.

NONE OF THAT IS REASON TO HANG YOURSELF IN A JAIL CELL.
Fuck the media. Fuck the police. Sandra Bland was murdered.

By reilo Go To PostDisgusting, IWMTB.

We're regrouping tomorrow to come up with a plan on what to say at his town hall meeting on Monday, so hopefully this works better.

Iran's policy on US after nuclear agreement: 'Fuck you, arrogant clowns. You're still the enemy.'

LOL. These guys are morons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/john-kerry-react-ali-khamenei-remarks-120398.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3gYMFRbU2

Who honestly doesn't know like tons of people currently in possession of and smoking marijuana. Such a bogus charge. Talk about a waste of time and so racially biased to boot.

By AlphaSnacks Go To PostIran's policy on US after nuclear agreement: 'Fuck you, arrogant clowns. You're still the enemy.'

LOL. These guys are morons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/john-kerry-react-ali-khamenei-remarks-120398.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3gYMFRbU2

Khamenei is trying to butter up his own hardliners. It's like how Obama's surrogates are running all around Washington telling people that the deal doesn't take the military option off the table.

By Forever Go To PostKhamenei is trying to butter up his own hardliners. It's like how Obama's surrogates are running all around Washington telling people that the deal doesn't take the military option off the table.

While true it provides the loonies on the right with ammo.

Sooo, what is the general political idealogy makeup in terms of PoliticENT?

I can say for myself, I'm a centrist with a slight left lean.

By a zoojoo Go To PostI'm a centrist with a slight left lean.

I think that's about where the ideological makeup of the site is, maybe slightly more left.

By reilo Go To PostI think that's about where the ideological makeup of the site is, maybe slightly more left.

That's good to hear, I'll probably vote Democrat in the next election, but GAF's "hyper-lib or get out schtick" got old real quick for me.

Not a fan of extreme viewpoints ;)

You all seem like level-headed people. Carry On!

By a zoojoo Go To PostSooo, what is the general political idealogy makeup in terms of PoliticENT?

I can say for myself, I'm a centrist with a slight left lean.

I'd love to be a republican if they weren't fucking crazy top to bottom right now. They aren't even trying to sound reasonable or competent at any level.

By DY_nasty Go To PostI'd love to be a republican if they weren't fucking crazy top to bottom right now. They aren't even trying to sound reasonable or competent at any level.

That's exactly how I feel, none of them really appeal to me at all, except maybe Marco Rubio, but all the candidates are in reality, really shit.

By a zoojoo Go To PostSooo, what is the general political idealogy makeup in terms of PoliticENT?

I can say for myself, I'm a centrist with a slight left lean.

I'm a Jim Messina liberal. I vote Democrat in the US and I'd vote Tory in the UK.

I care about results over ideology.

By a zoojoo Go To PostThat's exactly how I feel, none of them really appeal to me at all, except maybe Marco Rubio, but all the candidates are in reality, really shit.

By Forever Go To PostI'm a Jim Messina liberal. I vote Democrat in the US and I'd vote Tory in the UK.

I care about results over ideology.

Basically... And its funny too because a lot of democrats in the US are really just more tolerable and sensible republicans.

I think of myself as center (and mostly am. I work for moderate environmental and economic organizations and support some neoliberal economic policies), but I'm super pro legalization of sex work and all drugs and I'm pro entirely open borders so that may push me to the extreme left by American standards.

I think this forum leans a lot more left than GAF in general though.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostI think this forum leans a lot more left than GAF in general though.

I disagree. I cannot read their SYRIZA threads without throwing up in my mouth.

By Forever Go To PostI disagree. I cannot read their SYRIZA threads without throwing up in my mouth.

Well, maybe it's just that this forum has far less "he was no angel" racism than GAF and I view that as more left-leaning. Economically, yes, empty vessel poisoned GAF and it's still a shithole in that political area.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostI think of myself as center (and mostly am. I work for moderate environmental and economic organizations and support some neoliberal economic policies), but I'm super pro legalization of sex work and all drugs and I'm pro entirely open borders so that may push me to the extreme left by American standards.

I think this forum leans a lot more left than GAF in general though.

I could bring up quotes but I won't... a lot of people here have, and are most importantly willing to admit, that they changed some of their fundamental beliefs over the past few years lol.

not gonna name names, but I've seen one guy go from staunch Bush supporter to damn near neoliberal lol

and myself... I used to be yelling FUCK DA POLICE way before it was trending on twitter. Militant as fuck, you can find pictures of me rocking Malcolm X shirts on campus all the time and discussing bean pie recipes. Now I'm more or less reserved when it comes to topics like militarization of the police force, etc. I like my guns too. And I'm REALLY meh on how both parties deal with the US/Mex border.

Hey, PoliENT!
How 'bout that Trumpmentum?

By Poodlestrike Go To PostHey, PoliENT!
How 'bout that Trumpmentum?

He is the One True God.

And he's actually a better candidate and better person than 70% of the Republican field. What the fuck is Scott Walker doing with "I will declare war on Iran." fucking hell.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostHe is the One True God.

And he's actually a better candidate and better person than 70% of the Republican field. What the fuck is Scott Walker doing with "I will declare war on Iran." fucking hell.

I'm trying to figure out if I'd have to register as Republican to back him in the primary (in OH).

And... yeah, it's kind of telling. He's a pretty terrible person, though. I mean, his positions on a lot of stuff (healthcare especially) are more moderate, but Trump the human being is pretty awful. I'd wager a solid chunk of the Republican field are nicer guys, on average, even if their positions are extraordinarily awful.

By Poodlestrike Go To PostHey, PoliENT!
How 'bout that Trumpmentum?

I pray that he demolishes primaries free. GOP needs it to happen in order to get their shit together.

By DY_nasty Go To PostI pray that he demolishes primaries free. GOP needs it to happen in order to get their shit together.

Nah. They're never gonna get it together. They're going to split into the Social and Fiscal conservative wings, the Social will last maybe 1 election as a contender, and eventually be buried.

EDIT: At least, that's my guess. I just don't think the Southern Strategy coalition is gonna be able to hold together much longer.

If anything, Trump's current popularity most likely tells a large field of wackos that being a terrible human being and shit-eater is a net-positive in the republican field.

SLC looking like we're going to elect a lesbian mayor this year, nice.

She's awesome on a bunch of policies too.

I'm probably the biggest lefty here?

About the only righty thing I support is the right to own a gun.

By a zoojoo Go To PostSooo, what is the general political idealogy makeup in terms of PoliticENT?

I can say for myself, I'm a centrist with a slight left lean.

Always been a centrist myself. Haven't really cared much for either party lately. I have a slight right lean because I'm a business owner and tax benefits are important to myself and the partners. It allows us to hire more people, incur less penalties, and moreover I'm hoping that somehow republicans can get the Affordable Health Care Act under control, because since its inception we've gone from paying $5400 to $9000 per employee's healthcare. And this is taken straight out of the company, and not their paycheck.

What's less/worse is that premiums, co-pays and such have gone up $20-30. While I understand that private care companies should be the ones to blame, it's also the current government's fault (well, current president + former majority) for allowing it to happen and not closing that loophole when it was glaringly obvious the whole time.

I also think this country needs to spend less time in foreign affairs, personally. Time spent outside of the US is a considerable amount of money spent outside of the US. Gun control needs to be seriously cracked down on. Seriously. Places like Wal-Mart shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons and ammo. I think it should be reserved for specialty stores, federally licensed (not state), with direct networks access for mandatory federal background checks, and the whole nine yards.

Minimum wage in larger cities should see an increase, but not nation wide. That will just create inflation across the country and devalue the dollar. Someone in bumble fuck Iowa doesn't need to make $15 an hour working at McDonalds. The cost of living doesn't necessitate it. But places such as NYC, SF, Miami, Orlando, LA, Seattle, and Dallas...definitely.

I should stop now, before I write a 30 page term paper in the dead of night. I was a politics major back in college, so I can probably rant on and on.

And I agree with whoever said that GAF's liberal mindset is downright extreme. I don't dare discuss politics there anymore.

Minimum wage increases don't cause inflation doe :P


Yeah ... I'm a minority opinion here lol

By Fenderputty Go To PostMinimum wage increases don't cause inflation doe :P


Yeah … I'm a minority opinion here lol

You're right, it doesn't in the traditional sense we all know of. But I've read some articles weeks ago about the consequences of a nationwide wage increase and how it would lead to major brands of all sorts of products increasing the cost of their goods. A ripple effect of sorts.

A simple example I can demonstrate goes like this:

McDonald's increases minimum wage for all to $15 > McDonald's profits plummet as a result > McDonald's seeks to offset wage increase by layoffs and price increases

Retailer XYZ increases minimum wage > sees lower profits > increases costs of their in-house brand and layoffs to offset losses.

It's likely to become a constant cycle. That's why it's best to be contained to major metro areas, and not the entire country.

Places like Starbucks, which have a standard new hire barista averaging $9-$10 an hour at start of employment, are quite a bit above other 'fast-food' places. But their product is very expensive considering the competition and considering how little it actually costs to make some coffee. Does your cup really have $5 of product in it? Absolutely not. But the brand has to offset the better pay with higher cost.

Apply this principle to every other brand.

Costco already has a MUCH higher minimum wage than the rest of the nation.

Like, a direct quote:

In his statement, Jelinek said Costco's starting pay is $11.50 an hour in the United States. “Instead of minimizing wages, we know it's a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty,” Jelinek's statement said.

But...

At Costco, hourly workers make an average of more than $20 an hour — well above the national average of $11.39 for a retail sales worker — according to a 2013 Businessweek story.

$20/hr! AND!

In addition, Businessweek reports that 88% of Costco's 185,000 employees have company-sponsored healthcare.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/costco-pays-retail-employees-20-an-hour-2014-10#ixzz3ggeoMODW

The Costco example was a base example purely for illustration. Might as well replace it with Retailer XYZ to avoid confusion.

I used Starbucks as a real life example of a company who has slightly higher wages for a 'fast food' chain and how it translates to the consumer end. Costco's higher wage already necessitates an annual membership payment with them on top of your purchases.

I can't really tell at all if raising the minimum wage would lead to anything meaningful inflation or if inflation <5% (which we're going to be at for a very long time regardless of our policies) matters at all. I do think minimum wage isn't as good at helping the poor as increasing EITC. Raising the minimum wage helps a good many low income workers but causes others to lose jobs so it can be a good, but not solely good policy for the poor. Raising EITC with tax money from land or inheritance taxes would be almost solely good for the poor.

Those arguments all seem to hinge on a drastic increase over a short time. I think most proposals all use stepped increases to allow for market adjustment. With increased diacretinary spending ability, the businesses should see increases in revenue. People still gotta compete too.

Labor is not. 1:1 with prices. See the value meal not changing across state lines, regardless of wage floors.

There's ways I would actually be for getting rid of wage floors, but they involve much less likey massive union representation or civilian wage.

Also: Starbucks labor is only one cause for their high prices. Massive branding and advertising also plays a roll. Which is why I said labor is not a 1:1 with price

Ideally the goal is to increase buying power with the increase in prices. Currently we need to massively increase buying power. Wages have stagnated not only compared to price, but also productivity

Not sure what you mean by the value meal not changing across states.

Different fast-food chains have different prices, since they're franchised. One place may have a Dollar Menu, the other down the street won't. Again, it goes back to the overhead and bottomlines. Some franchise owners don't participate in the promos shown on TV and all.

Edit: Scratch that. Only some Starbucks are franchised.

Well I havent been in each state, but the only place I've been where the menu prices have changed for a franchise on me is Hawaii. Which has nothing to do with labor and everything to do with its transportation costs. So it's anecdotal for sure.
Edit: I'm talking about the same franchise across state lines

Also while we politely bicker about about the scraps available to us

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18944097

Blaming the annual membership at Costco on their wages is silly. That's the kind of ideological attachment that doesn't make sense to me.

It's essentially:

"I don't like arguing for high wages, so I'm going to blame things on high wages"

Business owners/MBA's are typically more right leaning, but economists are overwhelmingly left leaning. There's a difference between self-interest and viewing things from your limited economic experience, and viewing things on a macroeconomic level.

For example. If marginal tax rates on corporations go up by 5%. You'd need to clear a profit of a 1,000,000 to lose the 50K you'd be unable to spend on a new employee, benefits and all. Any business clearing a million dollars in pre tax profit and blaming a 5% increase on why they can't hire a worker is full of it. Businesses hire workers when the economics make sense. And huge portions of tax cut savings to businesses are just left in their coffers, because again, businesses will hire employees when the employee's productivity creates increased revenue.


Paying an extra 10K in taxes isn't stopping you from hiring a 75K worker. And paying an extra 75K in taxes with slight marginal tax rate increases means you're earning millions. It's anmostly nonsense argument first made effective by Carnegie/Morgan/Rockafeller in the early 1900's.

Not to mention that TONS of retail small businesses just don't even report cash earnings in any kind of honest way. The first job I ever had was a tuxedo shop where the owner literally bragged about reporting a 1/10th of his income on his tax returns because he ran a primarily cash business. I legit stopped using cash at retail places when I realized businesses rarely gave me the receipt when I ran a cash transaction and only created a makeshift thing with faded purple numbers and no labels after I asked. Clear as day that those transactions aren't being reported.

Costco has a membership fee to offset their near zero margin on product. They pay their workers well because their labor force is unionized. For comparison Sam's Club is owned by the assholes at Walmart. They charge a membership fee and still pay their workers at close to half the rate that Costco does. Blaming low wage workers on price tends to be a red herring. There's a lot of costs that go along with labor and competition tends to hold prices down anyway else loose market share.

The major issues are job displacement or loss of labor due to lifted wage floors. San Francisco figured their raise in the wage floor would cost them about 2% of the labor force in the area. However they also figured the city is currently growing. So any loss would be offset by other future growth. In the end they traded slightly slower growth for the hope that Low Skilled labor would be able to survive in the City easier.

I do agree with Alpha that it's unfair that businesses are taking on the brunt of healthcare costs here in the states. Healthcare should be centrally run. I don't agree with his analysis on why the ACA ended up the way it did, but that's for another time I guess.

Not to mention, the notion that

"That guy working that full time job deserves to live below the poverty level so that my ___________ costs a quarter less" is kind of a crazy position to hold anyway.

I get people wanting to study the effects of minimum wage increases and do it in a way to minimize negative effects. But to flat out suggest that full time workers deserve a poverty level salary so that consumers can pay prices with savings baked in is crazy to me." You can take that logic down to infinity and justify slave labor, or a dollar a day salaries using that line of thinking.

I remember when the ACA was enacted and Papa John's complained that they had to raise the price of pizza to accommodate having to give everyone healthcare. The cost per pizza? Something stupid like $0.14, which is like less than inflation.

I don't know if you're the most left leaning Fender. There's a lot of shit I think should be straight up subsidized by the government to the benefit of everyone.

Yeah I would consider myself a social democrat I guess? I'm not a socialist in that I don't think a centrally run consumer market is at all good. A market is more efficient in figuring demand and allocating resources.

I'm for heavily regulated markets though. I'm also for heavily socialized programs. I would be for things like:

- A civilian wage
- Universal Healthcare (like duh)
- Free education to post graduate work if you're capable and willing
- Turning the internet into a utility. It's like water. Makes profit on it's sales illegal.
- Stop the war on Drugs and legalize them completely (There's lots of reasons if anyone wants to debate this :))

just to name a few ...

I'm also of the belief that in my lifetime a major social movement, a la Marx predictions, will have to happen or automation is going to crush us all.

By Fenderputty Go To PostI'm for heavily regulated markets though. I'm also for heavily socialized programs. I would be for things like:

- A civilian wage
- Universal Healthcare (like duh)
- Free education to post graduate work if you're capable and willing
- Turning the internet into a utility. It's like water. Makes profit on it's sales illegal.
- Stop the war on Drugs and legalize them completely (There's lots of reasons if anyone wants to debate this :))

I think all and any reproductive procedures and birth control should be subsidized.

By db Go To PostI think all and any reproductive procedures and birth control should be subsidized.

Universal healthcare breh! ;)

You'd have to expand some of the UHs out there but sure.