Politics

[chicago51]

In spite of all the scandal bipartisan immigration may still happen.

Panel in Senate Sends Immigration Bill to the Floor - NYTimes.com

 

[chicago51]

So after June 14th I am going to be one of those damn unemployed lazy liberals.

Seriously I was forced to resign my job because I need to do a full time physical therapy internship.

I got same savings in addittion to some investments my grandfather left me so I'm pretty fortunate. I'll make through my final year of PT school even if I don't get another job.

While I am off rightees I fully intended to look for all kinds ways/loopholes of getting government welfare and living off your tax payer dollars.

 

[irishpat183]

Sorry dude, but the website speaks for itself.

"Real Liberal Politics".

No Sh*t. LOL

 

[irishpat183]

From an AmCon blog post published today social inclusiveness v. economic inequality:





And this from a David Brooks article today on "how our language discloses the rise of individualist consciousness and the loss of the ability to think and talk in terms of moral judgment":

Wow. Great post.

That is all. No smartass comment or anything.

 

[chicago51]

With all of the recent controversies President Obama still holds a 53% approval rating.

 

[Bluto]

From an AmCon blog post published today social inclusiveness v. economic inequality:





And this from a David Brooks article today on "how our language discloses the rise of individualist consciousness and the loss of the ability to think and talk in terms of moral judgment":

Thomas Frank wrote about these same ideas in a few of his books. What's the Matter With Kansas and
The Conquest of Cool deal with how cultural issues relate to conomic ones. It will be interesting if and when we get back to having real discussions about class in this country.

 

[Black Irish]

So after June 14th I am going to be one of those damn unemployed lazy liberals.

Seriously I was forced to resign my job because I need to do a full time physical therapy internship.

I got same savings in addittion to some investments my grandfather left me so I'm pretty fortunate. I'll make through my final year of PT school even if I don't get another job.

While I am off rightees I fully intended to look for all kinds ways/loopholes of getting government welfare and living off your tax payer dollars.

I knew it!!! I'm going to quit my job just so I don't have a taxable income that'll support your shiftless, non-working, progressive lifestyle. Check and mate, sir.

 

[chicago51]

I knew it!!! I'm going to quit my job just so I don't have a taxable income that'll support your shiftless, non-working, progressive lifestyle. Check and mate, sir.

Actually I probably can't get anything from the government seeing as how I am leaving this job on my own free will and wasn't laid off/fired or anything.

 

[Black Irish]

Thomas Frank wrote about these same ideas in a few of his books. What's the Matter With Kansas and
The Conquest of Cool deal with how cultural issues relate to conomic ones. It will be interesting if and when we get back to having real discussions about class in this country.

A book I read raised a good point about class and race. The author's point was, will we feel better if the poor in this country match up to the national census percentages on race and ethnicity? Instead of focusing on poverty parity we should just focus on reducing poverty in general.

 

[potownhero]

Insurance companies are doing okay.

I can't speak for Astra Zeneca and I know they are a drug company not an insurance company. Big pharmacy companies in general are doing great. Over 43 billion in profits. Again that is profit so that is after there CEOs take multi multi millionion dollar salaries. Say we capped drug prices to 50% of current prices? So they make 21.5 billion in profits, not exactly the poor house. I don't that considering it is people's health and lives we are talking about we can't regulate that down to 10 billion. By the government is to blame for price gouging because they give 7 year patents instead say a 2 year patent.

FYI profits does not equal jobs. That is the most inherritted flaw in the conservative line of thinking. Now I have been trying be more open and look at harder at liberal views as well. However I can tell that just because profits are high it does not mean more jobs.

Jobs are created because there is a need for more work. A company make billions but if they find more efficent ways to do the work they will let people go in a heart beat. On the other and profits can be lower but if they need more workers to meet demand they are going to higher them.

So if a more efficient way to produce something is developed that's a good thing; competition will push prices down. The conservative way to reduce profits is to increase competition.

The most inheritted flaw with progressive ideology is that you can govern the level of profits without affecting service quality and innovation. We'd still be using our wall phones if we were stuck using the liberal "profit-governing" philosophy.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

AmCon's Noah Millman just published a compelling article on race, IQ and meritocracy:

I think our conviction that anyone’s success is entirely “earned” has had a widespread corrosive moral effect. Our panic about the possibility that it might be easier for some people – or some groups of people – to “earn” success is due to our knowledge that our social order is premised on bestowing moral authority on the successful. We don’t want to believe that our own success imposes moral obligations on us, and so instead we look for evil forces and individuals to blame for any inequalities we don’t feel comfortable calling just and deserved. And all the while, we get better and better at casually assuming that more and more inequalities are just, and deserved.

 

[Buster Bluth]

What this tells me is that of a country of 315,000,000 people, these companies profited a whopping ~$20/person. Of all the money you pay for health care costs, you personally gave them $20 for profit. ($40 for the year)

Seems outrageous... Where am I wrong?

As my professor from Stanford dropped on us day one: the difference between profit and non-profit is 7%. That's it.

 

[Rizzophil]

Imagine the liberal outrage if the IRS was targeting pro homosexual or planned parenthood groups.

The whole Tea Party mindset is to prevent the government from profiling against anyone. We would all be much better off without big brother in control. Personal rights and perso al responsibility is desperately needed.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Imagine the liberal outrage if the IRS was targeting pro homosexual or planned parenthood groups.

The whole Tea Party mindset is to prevent the government from profiling against anyone. We would all be much better off without big brother in control. Personal rights and perso al responsibility is desperately needed.

That's a big, big reach.

 

[yankeehater]

Maybe now we know why the media lacked coverage in the Benghazi story. If that was his real college major, that is f'n hysterical. He is putting his major to use I guess.



The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively. CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year...On Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack. That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012. ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

 

[yankeehater]

Wait there are more. Heard CNN President's wife works for Hilary Clinton as well.

'Presidents of ABC and CBS News Have Siblings Working at White House With Ties to Benghazi'

 

[chicago51]

What this tells me is that of a country of 315,000,000 people, these companies profited a whopping ~$20/person. Of all the money you pay for health care costs, you personally gave them $20 for profit. ($40 for the year)

Seems outrageous... Where am I wrong?

As my professor from Stanford dropped on us day one: the difference between profit and non-profit is 7%. That's it.

Those aren't the only health insurance companies. You got several more big private companies, you got everyone on Medicare, Medicaid, everyone without insurance.

I would agree though that profit margins aren't totally outrageous.

My whole point of these post was instead of just throwing even more tax payer, and employer money at the problem that we should what we did with the Hepburn Act during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency when the Hepburn Act in 1906 capped the railroad rates.

Maybe then we should be capping rates for services instead premiums so an overnight stay doesn't cost $2,500.

 

[Bluto]

A book I read raised a good point about class and race. The author's point was, will we feel better if the poor in this country match up to the national census percentages on race and ethnicity? Instead of focusing on poverty parity we should just focus on reducing poverty in general.

I agree completely. Unfortunately the only person to do so recently (Ralph Nader) was roundly poo pooed by both sides. The minority power brokers in the left hate the idea because it undermines their power as do Republican's whose national strategy has revolved around a divide and conquer approach using race baiting since the Nixon era.

 

[chicago51]

Imagine the liberal outrage if the IRS was targeting pro homosexual or planned parenthood groups.

The whole Tea Party mindset is to prevent the government from profiling against anyone. We would all be much better off without big brother in control. Personal rights and perso al responsibility is desperately needed.

What does a tea party group have to with social welfare?

What has Karl Rove's PAC done for the good of society?

None of these political 501c4s should be tax exempt. I can honestly say 2 liberals groups I have affiliations with have no business being a 501c4 tax exempt groups either. These groups are all about elections and none of them should be tax exempt.

 

[chicago51]

I know we have talk about the financial issues alot on here.

Here's a link to one of the better budget simulators I've seen. Budget Simulator | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

The goal on at least on the simulator is to get the debt as a whole down to 60% of GDP. It is not perfect, for example you can't raise Medicare Part B premiums and make Medicare a premium support system but this thing allows you to.

Ultimately the economic impacts of your dollars is not measured either. For example if I insituted a VAT to help our trade decifit and chose to cut the corporate tax rate to 30%, what is the impact going be?

Still I thought it was enternaing and I had to make what I felt were tough calls to get down to the debt down to 60% of GDP. FYI it was updated March 2012 so the fiscal cliff deal did not happen yet.

Would like to know what people chose to do if they are willing to share.

 

[yankeehater]

With all this talk about class, race, poverty, etc., I thought I would share an interesting article the LA Times ran about a year ago that ties this to football as well.

The story was about a USC football team from the 80's and basically where are they now based on class i.e. upper, middle, etc. These kids were all given the same opportunity because they all had a full scholarship to SC. They broke them down based on family class status arriving as Freshman and the then listed this status now. The amazing thing was they all almost to a man ended up in the same place as where they were when they came into SC. The upper were still upper, the middle still middle, and the lower still lower.

There was no reasoning why this the case. The article was full of regret though from the ones who did not take advantage of the education or alumni contacts. I vividly remember one of them quoted as saying I went to all of these functions with these wealthy alumni and never once did I ask what it is they do or take one of their business cards.

Not sure where this fits in other than maybe you can take a "Trojan horse" to water, but you cannot make him drink. On a serious note, it truly was sad to me how many let this opportunity slip.

 

[Black Irish]

With all this talk about class, race, poverty, etc., I thought I would share an interesting article the LA Times ran about a year ago that ties this to football as well.

The story was about a USC football team from the 80's and basically where are they now based on class i.e. upper, middle, etc. These kids were all given the same opportunity because they all had a full scholarship to SC. They broke them down based on family class status arriving as Freshman and the then listed this status now. The amazing thing was they all almost to a man ended up in the same place as where they were when they came into SC. The upper were still upper, the middle still middle, and the lower still lower.

There was no reasoning why this the case. The article was full of regret though from the ones who did not take advantage of the education or alumni contacts. I vividly remember one of them quoted as saying I went to all of these functions with these wealthy alumni and never once did I ask what it is they do or take one of their business cards.

Not sure where this fits in other than maybe you can take a "Trojan horse" to water, but you cannot make him drink. On a serious note, it truly was sad to me how many let this opportunity slip.

When this thread was revolving around the issue of Affirmative Action awhile back, I asked if anyone knew of any studies that measured what happened to the AA beneficiaries after college. What you posted isn't exactly about that, but there are some parallels. There is so much that these kids take in and become accustomed to before they get to college that'll help determine their fate. Too many people think "well, if you just send him to a good school it'll all work out, because education."

 

[Ndaccountant]

When this thread was revolving around the issue of Affirmative Action awhile back, I asked if anyone knew of any studies that measured what happened to the AA beneficiaries after college. What you posted isn't exactly about that, but there are some parallels. There is so much that these kids take in and become accustomed to before they get to college that'll help determine their fate. Too many people think "well, if you just send him to a good school it'll all work out, because education."

A counter to that would be the importance of where you are before college is much more important, so we need to do everything we can to level the playing field there. Arguments would be made for universal pre-school, more equal schools, etc.

I still stand by my notion that it isn't schools per se (though they do need improvement), it's how kids are raised regarding learning and education. IMO, we have 4 broad categories.

1. Parents that want to help their kids and have the time/energy/resources to do so.
2. Parents that want to help their kids but do not have the time/energy/resources to do so.
3. Parent that have the time/energy/resources, but do not place importance on education.
4. Parents that do not have the time/energy/resources and do not place importance on education.

I have no idea how America breaks down into these four categories, but spending money on leveling the playing field will not help kids that are in points 3 & 4.

Sure, some kids will thrive without parental support if given the opportunity, but those are rare cases. Until we fix the parent problem, I am afraid that the schooling problem will always persist.

 

[chicago51]

A counter to that would be the importance of where you are before college is much more important, so we need to do everything we can to level the playing field there. Arguments would be made for universal pre-school, more equal schools, etc.

I still stand by my notion that it isn't schools per se (though they do need improvement), it's how kids are raised regarding learning and education. IMO, we have 4 broad categories.

1. Parents that want to help their kids and have the time/energy/resources to do so.
2. Parents that want to help their kids but do not have the time/energy/resources to do so.
3. Parent that have the time/energy/resources, but do not place importance on education.
4. Parents that do not have the time/energy/resources and do not place importance on education.

I have no idea how America breaks down into these four categories, but spending money on leveling the playing field will not help kids that are in points 3 & 4.

Sure, some kids will thrive without parental support if given the opportunity, but those are rare cases. Until we fix the parent problem, I am afraid that the schooling problem will always persist.

I agree your entire post. I too have not idea how America breaks down.

I think you raise a valid issue, and I would like to offer some addittional thoughts on education.

I think there is two issues contributing to your 4 factors:

1 - Not placing ani polictical blame but the fact is the changing economic conditions (for whatever reason) in this country have forced the majority of households into duel working households. This has taken away time and resources from the child.

2 - Many older adults were able to get their jobs with a high school education and don't have a realistic concept in just how much a higher education but a quality education in particularly in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) areas has on jobs opportunities.

I believe in a well rounded education but I believe starting with maybe jr. high school but definetely high school a greater emphasis has to be but on STEM areas.

Most of the major areas of good middle class jobs require at least one of these areas, for example: Healthcare (science) business professional (math, and technology) advanced manufacturing (engineering, math, and technology). Furthermore beyond high school I think we need but emphasis on community colleges preparing for jobs in these areas. Perhaps even incorporating private business partnerships with high schools and community college is something to think about.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Sure, some kids will thrive without parental support if given the opportunity, but those are rare cases. Until we fix the parent problem, I am afraid that the schooling problem will always persist.

It's cultural. Radical individualism and consumerism have undermined all of the intermediate communities (family, neighborhood, church, etc.) between government and individuals. Thus, the tightly-woven social fabric that prevented most kids from falling through the cracks is no longer present.

There's virtually no focus on how to better support parents; all the focus is on the students as individuals, and how government can better serve them through the school system. It's an asinine and ineffective way to address the problem, as it doesn't even begin to address the root causes. There can be no political solution here without a cultural revolution.

 

[chicago51]

This relates to a lot of issues that have been discussed.

This idea has got some drawbacks but I think there may be long term benefits on unemployment and perhaps our culture and society. I think the idea of a shorter work week deserves debate. We could start my shortening the work week to 35 hours (7 hour work day), with a benchmark of getting down 32.5 (6 ½ work day) in 15 years and a 30 hour work week in 25 years.

I’ll start with the economic issues:

I've been trying to think of outside the box ideas for reducing unemployment besides the usual big stimulus, or big tax cut approach which there seems to no will for so maybe reducing hours would work.

1- There is an obvious draw back of full time wage earners getting hit with a 12.5% pay cut. So a federal mandate to boost all wage earners pay by a certain percentage maybe 6%-7% with extra with a full 12.5% bump to really low income workers making less than a certain amount (it would bring min wage from $7.25 to $8.12 far less than $9.00 Obama asked for). Plus we can do another payroll tax holiday to help offset some the wage earner pain from cut hours and some of them employer pain from mandated wage increases.

2- Instead of doing another stimulus we can create a need for hiring by creating the need for more production which will occurr as result of the workforce working less hours. Companies will need hire fill in the void of loss production. As automation and technology continue allow companies to do more with less I think the reduction of hours might be something that has to happen to maintain enough work available for the work force.

There are other benefits as well:

1 – More time for leisure, and possibly more time for parents to support their children’s education.

2- There is also more time for individuals to give to their respective communities. There is no way to force people away from TV set during their leisure time but for some though I think reduce hours will lead to more time put into their communities.

3- I think reducing hours would have a good impact on the environment and traffic congestion in big cities. I am no city planner, but I think would reduce hours would lead to more staggered start times, instead of masses coming and leaving in big blocks. So less traffic congestion leads to less wasted energy and pollution.

 

[Downinthebend]

This relates to a lot of issues that have been discussed.




1- There is an obvious draw back of full time wage earners getting hit with a 12.5% pay cut. So a federal mandate to boost all wage earners pay by a certain percentage maybe 6%-7% with extra with a full 12.5% bump to really low income workers making less than a certain amount (it would bring min wage from $7.25 to $8.12 far less than $9.00 Obama asked for). Plus we can do another payroll tax holiday to help offset some the wage earner pain from cut hours and some of them employer pain from mandated wage increases.

I'm not economist, but is this feasible? Could the government just simply wave their hand and make wages go up?

 

[chicago51]

I'm not economist, but is this feasible? Could the government just simply wave their hand and make wages go up?

I don't know. I'm sure they could. You raise the question though is it right?

The more I think about it would certainly be an example of government overreaching. After re-thinking I am not in favor of forcing an increase on all hourly wage earners. Maybe do a temporary tax credit that allows employers that raise wages to deduct part of the expense from their taxes to encourage employers to do it on their own.

I am still open to the idea of reducing hours. I think the Labor market would readjust. As technology gets better the worker gets more productive and in the future very high unemployments (higher than what we even see today) could be the new normal. On a 35 hour work week for every 8 workers it takes a new worker to accomplish the same amount of work that was being done before based on that pure math suggests. Now the real world isn't that perferct and we won't get a new worker for every 8 workers but we are not looking to do that. We basically need to get 7-8 new workers for every 100 workers currently in the workforce which gets the country back to full employment.

 

[DSully1995]

I'm not economist, but is this feasible? Could the government just simply wave their hand and make wages go up?

Yes, but not without disastrous consequences, for the poor and business. This means that if some 17 y/o can not display the skills necessary to be worth 9 dollars wtv, he wont get a job, chicago will you dont know it you are pulling a rug from under many poor people. They wont know its governments fault, but they wont be able to find work (since theyre skills cant yet meet a min threshold), Ive only done one year of Economics, but I know minimum wage laws are regarded as one of the main reasons that we have any unemployment.

 

[chicago51]

Yes, but not without disastrous consequences, for the poor and business. This means that if some 17 y/o can not display the skills necessary to be worth 9 dollars wtv, he wont get a job, chicago will you dont know it you are pulling a rug from under many poor people. They wont know its governments fault, but they wont be able to find work (since theyre skills cant yet meet a min threshold), Ive only done one year of Economics, but I know minimum wage laws are regarded as one of the main reasons that we have any unemployment.

I wasn't talking about just raising wages for the sake of raising wages.

My main point was cutting down to a 35 hour work week, then maybe a 32.5, and eventually to a 30 hour work week in 2-3 decades. I had 3 points with this:

1- For every 8 workers that lose 5 hours ideally you need a new currently unemployed worker to make up for the work that was lost from cutting hours. The math says we need to increase the workforce 12.5% to make up for the loss of hours. The reality wise is companies will continue to find ways to do more with less but don't need 12.5% we only 7.5% to get 100% employment, and even a 3-4% gain of workers would drop the unemployment to very low levels.
2- With new technology advancements workers are becoming more productive so it allowing companies do more with less. This is only going to get worse. My arguement instead of having less people do more, lets have more people do less.
3- There could potentially be numerous benefits for communities, traffic congestion, and other areas of society.

The BIG! downside is that 40 hour a week hourly earning workers are essentially getting a 12% pay cut. I thinking of raise to offset that until wages along with prices of goods and services in the economy adjust.