Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

All things the general public disagrees with. What a brilliant plan. Does she actually think people are buying that argument now?

Remove minimum wage. Fix unemployment.

Good luck explaining the concept of living wage to teabaggers.

 

[WickedAngel]

Remove minimum wage. Fix unemployment.

Good luck explaining the concept of living wage to teabaggers.

Want to live? Get 4 or 5 jobs at $2 an hour.

 

[Gaborn]

Remove minimum wage. Fix unemployment.

Good luck explaining the concept of living wage to teabaggers.

Increased wages typically mean fewer jobs. That's why you don't see many elevator operators, door men, or bell boys these days.

 

[ezekial45]

I sincerely hope she does get the GOP nomination now. Good lord, it sounds like she wants people to hate her.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Increased wages typically mean fewer jobs. That's why you don't see many elevator operators, door men, or bell boys these days.

So Libertarianism predicates itself on low-paying unskilled hospitality jobs? That's an engine of growth?

 

[RustyNails]

Want to live? Get 4 or 5 jobs at $2 an hour.

At what point does working for a business becomes exploitation? Hell, why not abolish child labor laws while we're at it.

Increased wages typically mean fewer jobs. That's why you don't see many elevator operators, door men, or bell boys these days.

I didn't know there was a shortage of low paying jobs. Increased wages should reflect economic growth. You can't have people working at $5/hr for two decades. You can't have stagnant wage while the food prices are rising, gas prices are rising and dollar is losing it's value.

 

[Gaborn]

So Libertarianism predicates itself on low-paying unskilled hospitality jobs? That's an engine of growth?

No, libertarianism is predicated on voluntary interactions between individuals. There is a rational reason to increase wages when there is an increased competition for labor, but forcing an increase in wages when it is not necessary will encourage those businesses to eliminate as many positions as practical to remain as profitable as possible.

RustyNails - Wages AREN'T stagnant, nor are they dependent on government forcing increases across the board. That's why in fact there are a decent number of low paying jobs now - because the pressure for those positions is greater than the tendency of businesses to want to eliminate them. Unemployment is already around 9% (and that's not even including people without jobs and not looking for work, it just includes unemployment claims) this would push that up even higher.

 

[Mortrialus]

I don't understand how so many people here can say with such certainty that Santorum and Bachman couldn't win the presidency. I know this is such a cliched thing to say, but this country elected Bush. Twice. I wouldn't put it past this country.

 

[Gaborn]

I don't understand how so many people here can say with such certainty that Santorum and Bachman couldn't win the presidency. I know this is such a cliched thing to say, but this country elected Bush. Twice. I wouldn't put it past this country.

Which is another point. I'm most likely not going to be happy with whoever the Republicans nominate just as I wasn't and won't be happy with Obama. But there seems to be a strong attitude of "I hope the Republicans nominate the WORST possible candidate so Obama can definitely win!" and personally I don't hope that. I hope they nominate the person that would make the best President, whoever that may be. I hope whoever is President after the 2012 election is the best person for the job and does their best at it. In any election either major party has a chance to win, so it seems somehow wrong to hope the worst candidate has a chance to be president regardless whether it fits your ideology.

 

[empty vessel]

No, libertarianism is predicated on voluntary interactions between individuals.

Which is a fiction, because most people are denied the means to create their own subsistence. They have no choice but to sell their labor, i.e., it isn't voluntary.

 

[Mortrialus]

Which is another point. I'm most likely not going to be happy with whoever the Republicans nominate just as I wasn't and won't be happy with Obama. But there seems to be a strong attitude of "I hope the Republicans nominate the WORST possible candidate so Obama can definitely win!" and personally I don't hope that. I hope they nominate the person that would make the best President, whoever that may be. I hope whoever is President after the 2012 election is the best person for the job and does their best at it. In any election either major party has a chance to win, so it seems somehow wrong to hope the worst candidate has a chance to be president regardless whether it fits your ideology.

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said at all.

 

[Cyan]

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said at all.

Sure it did. Some people are apparently rooting for Bachmann to win the primary because they think it'd give Obama the best chance to win.

This is predicated on "Bachmann could never ever win," which you touched on, and on the politics-as-team-sport thing, which Gaborn touched on.

 

[Gaborn]

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said at all.

Not directly, but I think it's a related point in that people are ROOTING for Bachmann or Palin because they believe they can't win - which may or may not be true. I think that regardless of our political affiliations we should hope the two best and strongest candidates are running in every election.

empty vessel - Where you start is not related to what I said.

Edit: cyan beat me to it.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Which is a fiction, because most people are denied the means to create their own subsistence. They have no choice but to sell their labor, i.e., it isn't voluntary.

What he said.

 

[empty vessel]

empty vessel - Where you start is not related to what I said.

Not sure what you're saying here; all I did was show that libertarianism as you understand it is predicated on a fiction.

 

[Sirpopopop]

If Bachmann wins, she can pose a challenge to Obama.

Once again, you guys misunderestimate how far right this country has gone. See: 2010.

For Example - Lots of people over in Jersey still approve of Christie, even though he's bringing that state farther right than it has been since the '60s.

Yes, I know a lot of people will bring up the most recent Quinnipiac poll results, but that's just a minor dip. He'll rise back up to the low 50s soon enough, and easily coast to re-election to higher margins than any governor in NJ has had for a while.

 

[Plinko]

Remove minimum wage. Fix unemployment.

Good luck explaining the concept of living wage to teabaggers.

Teabaggers, no, but they make up a small portion of the electorate. The rest of America is going to reject that message and reject it hard.

 

[FLEABttn]

Increased wages typically mean fewer jobs. That's why you don't see many elevator operators, door men, or bell boys these days.

To be fair, I think elevator operators were replaced by computerized elevators and buttons.

And hotel's still have bell boys. They're just no longer dedicated to that. They do other things on top of that.

 

[Plinko]

If Bachmann wins, she can pose a challenge to Obama.

Once again, you guys misunderestimate how far right this country has gone. See: 2010.

Lots of people over in Jersey still approve of Christie, even though he's bringing that state farther right than it has been since the '60s.

I disagree because of the economy. Any candidate, dem or rep, that goes out and actually campaigns on cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating minimum wage is going to get CRUSHED. Didn't somebody post a chart recently that showed even more people who identify themselves as GOP would cut taxes for millionaires?

It will be like Reagan/Mondale if it's Obama/Bachmann and she actually campaigns on that platform.

 

[Opiate]

Which is a fiction, because most people are denied the means to create their own subsistence. They have no choice but to sell their labor, i.e., it isn't voluntary.

Or rather, their other option is to be hungry and homeless, which isn't really what we'd call a viable "option."

It's sort of like saying someone who has a literal gun to their head has a "choice" between doing what the gunman says or dying. Realistically, we call that "no choice," as one of those choices is so terrible that it isn't realistically viable.

While "homeless and hungry" isn't as extreme as "dead," the example illustrates the concept.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I doubt that Plinko. I severely doubt that.

There is no sympathy for workers anymore. People are more sympathetic with the poor "millionaire" who needs to outsource his business because he simply cannot compete in the United States anymore. People are more sympathetic with foreign companies, "who won't bring jobs to the United States because the wages are too high," than they are with unions. People are more sympathetic with those who wish to remove "Burdensome taxes and Burdensome regulations from our OMG1111!!!!!!!!111111 most repressive regime in the world ever, government."

 

[WickedAngel]

If Bachmann wins, she can pose a challenge to Obama.

Once again, you guys misunderestimate how far right this country has gone. See: 2010.

Lots of people over in Jersey still approve of Christie, even though he's bringing that state farther right than it has been since the '60s.

Ugh. Stop referencing 2010 as if it actually meant anything; an off-year election in the middle of a recession will always end poorly for whomever is currently in power at the time. Everyone knew the Democrats were going to take a kick in the gut for it but to pretend it is indicative of any trend is mind numbing.

Bachmann is radical and radicals repel Moderates, which you need to win the Presidency. Bachmann isn't a silent radical, either; she could stay silent for a year and the Democrats would still have enough video feeds and quotes to eviscerate her in the GE.

 

[FLEABttn]

Or rather, their other option is to be hungry and homeless, which isn't really what we'd call a viable "option."

It's sort of like saying someone who has a literal gun to their head has a "choice" between doing what the gunman says or dying. Realistically, we call that "no choice," as one of those choices is so terrible that it isn't realistically viable.

While "homeless and hungry" isn't as extreme as "dead," the example illustrates the concept.

The libertarian equivalent of this is why they say that paying taxes is the government having their hand in your pocket and a gun in your back. Somehow paying taxes isn't a choice when you always have the option of going to prison.

 

[Gaborn]

Not sure what you're saying here; all I did was show that libertarianism as you understand it is predicated on a fiction.

it isn't though, unless you assume that libertarianism is based on the notion that life is or should be fair. Life is what it is, but a voluntary interaction does not suggest that all interactions are necessarily equally voluntary for both sides. Take a man that wants to start a business for example and needs say, $10,000 as a loan from the bank. That's a voluntary interaction because the sides can negotiate terms for the loan and each side can either accept or reject the offer.

Now take the same man only he's $10,000 in debt and he needs to pay it off immediately or he's going to be referred to a collections agency. He could find a different loan at a high interest rate, he could accept the consequences of defaulting, he could mortgage his home, etc. A lot of his decisions are motivated by an involuntary factor, a debt he has accrued but that doesn't mean his actions and his decisions are not voluntary.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I disagree because of the economy. Any candidate, dem or rep, that goes out and actually campaigns on cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating minimum wage is going to get CRUSHED. Didn't somebody post a chart recently that showed even more people who identify themselves as GOP would cut taxes for millionaires?

It will be like Reagan/Mondale if it's Obama/Bachmann and she actually campaigns on that platform.

The U.S. has fully bought into the debt shenanigans. It's a complete red herring that will do jack shit to actually solve the problems this country is facing - our education deficit, and lack of innovation. I'm sorry but shit like Facebook or Zynga isn't innovation.

 

[empty vessel]

Or rather, their other option is to be hungry and homeless, which isn't really what we'd call a viable "option."

It's sort of like saying someone who has a literal gun to their head has a "choice" between doing what the gunman says or dying. Realistically, we call that "no choice," as one of those choices is so terrible that it isn't realistically viable.

While "homeless and hungry" isn't as extreme as "dead," the example illustrates the concept.

Right. I like to say "meaningfully voluntary" or "meaningful option" to convey that. Anything--even breathing oxygen itself--can be described as "voluntary" if we take a broad enough view of what a voluntary act is, at which point it becomes pointless to talk about voluntariness at all.

 

[Gaborn]

The U.S. has fully bought into the debt shenanigans. It's a complete red herring that will do jack shit to actually solve the problems this country is facing - our education deficit, and lack of innovation. I'm sorry but shit like Facebook or Zynga isn't innovation.

What in your opinion will solve our "education deficit"? You are aware for example that we spend more per student than just about any country in the world, right?

edit: also, what the hell is Zynga?

Edit2: Ah, the company behind farmville and so forth. I see.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Ugh. Stop referencing 2010 as if it actually meant anything; an off-year election in the middle of a recession will always end poorly for whomever is currently in power at the time. Everyone knew the Democrats were going to take a kick in the gut for it but to pretend it is indicative of any trend is mind numbing.

People only knew the Dems were going to take a kick in the gut over the last few weeks, when it became readily apparent how things were trending.

PoliGaf, on the other hand, kept believing it wasn't going to be as bad as it turned out. Only major surprise victory was how badly Harry Reid beat Angle. That's the hope here, of course.

Bachmann is radical and radicals repel Moderates, which you need to win the Presidency. Bachmann isn't a silent radical, either; she could stay silent for a year and the Democrats would still have enough video feeds and quotes to eviscerate her in the GE.

I just don't see them sticking at all in this current climate. If anything you'll find enough people nodding their heads sagely to her comments over creationism & gay marriage, that she'll perform better than a Mondale, and people will think her comments are far better than, "OMG! SOCIALIST RADICAL."

 

[RustyNails]

People only knew the Dems were going to take a kick in the gut over the last few weeks, when it became readily apparent how things were trending.

PoliGaf, on the other hand, kept believing it wasn't going to be as bad as it turned out. Only major surprise victory was how badly Harry Reid beat Angle. That's the hope here, of course.

Please. The doom and gloomers were saying Democrats were gonna lose both the houses, both here and in the media.

 

[WickedAngel]

Please. The doom and gloomers were saying Democrats were gonna lose both the houses, both here and in the media.

No kidding. There are some very selective memories floating around here.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Please. The doom and gloomers were saying Democrats were gonna lose both the houses, both here and in the media.

people thought dino rossi was going to win. that honestly speaks for itself.

PoliGaf, on the other hand, kept believing it wasn't going to be as bad as it turned out.

sorry that was me.

it's still frustrating as all hell how close we came in IL and PA.

 

[zero_suit]

Please. The doom and gloomers were saying Democrats were gonna lose both the houses, both here and in the media.

Indeed, I remember it clearly.

 

[eznark]

Please. The doom and gloomers were saying Democrats were gonna lose both the houses, both here and in the media.

That ended when the crazy out east won. I'm sure you remember GAF laughing and laughing at the O'Donnell primary victory because it essentially cost the GOP the senate? That was the narrative from then on, until election night.

 

[fossil coast]

it isn't though, unless you assume that libertarianism is based on the notion that life is or should be fair. Life is what it is, but a voluntary interaction does not suggest that all interactions are necessarily equally voluntary for both sides. Take a man that wants to start a business for example and needs say, $10,000 as a loan from the bank. That's a voluntary interaction because the sides can negotiate terms for the loan and each side can either accept or reject the offer.

Now take the same man only he's $10,000 in debt and he needs to pay it off immediately or he's going to be referred to a collections agency. He could find a different loan at a high interest rate, he could accept the consequences of defaulting, he could mortgage his home, etc. A lot of his decisions are motivated by an involuntary factor, a debt he has accrued but that doesn't mean his actions and his decisions are not voluntary.

Poor people don't owe anybody anything. Unless they're, uh, in debt. Why bring up the notion of debt? People in debt have their options reduced, yes. But even they can declare bankruptcy. Unless you favour ... well, maybe you do.
Perhaps in the days before everything was owned and commodified it would be ethical to pay such pittances, as people could always quit civilisation and take their chances living on roots and berries in the wild. Now that isn't really possible, legally. So the law accomodates for this.

 

[Sirpopopop]

What in your opinion will solve our "education deficit"? You are aware for example that we spend more per student than just about any country in the world, right?

I would say prioritizing new expenditures on hiring teaching talent would be a good start. Getting both children and parents heavily invested in learning would also help. Stop throwing money at the charter school placebo. Tell Texas to fuck off with their shitty new standards. Re-align our educational priorities to better reflect the importance of math and science.

Finally - abandoning a "Teach to the Test," mentality in favor of, "Teach to Show Progress," mentality would also help. After all, not every student is starting out on equal footing.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Please. The doom and gloomers were saying Democrats were gonna lose both the houses, both here and in the media.

That wasn't the major headline once O'Donnell won the primary, as eznark pointed out.

Re: Aaron Strife - I believe the major cheerleader was PantherLotus. I'm not going to go back and look at the threads to "collect" heads, as that's a ridiculous waste of time, on my part and yours.

 

[Gaborn]

Poor people don't owe anybody anything. Unless they're, uh, in debt. Why bring up the notion of debt? People in debt have their options reduced, yes. But even they can declare bankruptcy. Unless you favour ... well, maybe you do.
Perhaps in the days before everything was owned and commodified it would be ethical to pay such pittances, as people could always quit civilisation and take their chances living on roots and berries in the wild. Now that isn't really possible, legally. So the law accomodates for this.

Yes but we can hardly start with a world where everyone is equal economically, everyone is living in the same box with 4 walls, everyone has the same family and the same experiences growing up, and the same educational opportunity, can we? Libertarianism in part is an ideal but has to deal with the real world. Bringing up a "perfect world" scenario as some bizarre critique is meaningless. It's like saying communism would work - if only people weren't people.

 

[ChoklitReign]

Speaking of Bachmann:




:|

My dad insists the minimum wage is destructive. It's the only topic on my left-leaning blog that he got upset about.

 

[fossil coast]

Libertarianism in part is an ideal but has to deal with the real world. Bringing up a "perfect world" scenario as some bizarre critique is meaningless. It's like saying communism would work - if only people weren't people.

Agreed. We have the minimum wage. Don't like it? Deal with it.

 

[XMonkey]

Bachmann is radical and radicals repel Moderates, which you need to win the Presidency. Bachmann isn't a silent radical, either; she could stay silent for a year and the Democrats would still have enough video feeds and quotes to eviscerate her in the GE.

Precisely. A hard right Republican has no shot in the General; there aren't enough staunch Republicans to elect her all by themselves so they need moderate voters. That simply won't happen if Bachmann is the nominee. The fact that she thinks eliminating minimum wage is great for this country is enough to turn them away, honestly. Nevermind her climate change denial crusade and views on gay marriage.

GOP primary in the past has been home to some crazy candidates, but in the end the GOP tends to wise up and go with the more moderate candidate. I concede that the far right has a larger voice in the nominations this cycle, but there just aren't enough of them.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Don't Democrats outnumber Republicans by quite a bit in the general populace?

 

[jamesinclair]

That's why you don't see many door men, or bell boys these days.

Um, what?

What tiny hamlet do you live in Gaborn? You should visit a city sometime.

 

[leroidys]

Increased wages typically mean fewer jobs. That's why you don't see many elevator operators, door men, or bell boys these days.

No, only in Libertarian fantasy world. This has been studied and discussed ad nauseum. The general, non blindly idealogical interpretation of employment data says that minimum wages have no negative effect on emlpoyment.

 

[Incognito]

can't believe people seriously think bachmann poses a challenge to obama. she's a huge threat in the primary, to be sure, but to obama? let's get real. even all the polls show her getting utterly annihilated.

 

[Jackson50]

I'm expecting her to have a Mike Huckabee type run, including an Iowa win - and then not much thereafter. She'll appeal to the same religious zealots, but beyond that much of the GOP primary voters in other states are more sane.

Similar, sure. I think Huckabee had more appeal than Bachmann. He was a popular governor in the party's strongest region. Otherwise, I concur. She will perform well in Iowa. It has a history of supporting marginal candidates.

The difference between this and when O'Donnell lost was she was in a general election, not the Republican primary. She did great and won the Republican primary, which is currently where Bachmann is doing great.

And as absolutely horrible as she was, and as incapable of appearing sane as she was (something Bachmann can actually do), she still won 40 percent of the vote in the general.

In a country that reelected Bush, a shitty economy + great marketing + tons of money could get Bachmann elected in the general. It's not likely, but it's possible.

Another significant difference is that winning a primary in a single state is inherently different than winning the presidential primaries. Essentially, Bachmann is performing well months before the actual caucus in a state with a peculiar system that occasionally favors marginal candidates. She appeals to the staunchest ideologues. And the Iowa Caucus is dominated by them. Unlike O'Donnell, she has to appeal broader, more diverse interests. That is one of the primary reasons her prospects for winning the nomination are anemic. And if by a miracle she secures the nomination, she would perform decidedly worse in a general election.

 

[Incognito]

People only knew the Dems were going to take a kick in the gut over the last few weeks, when it became readily apparent how things were trending.

PoliGaf, on the other hand, kept believing it wasn't going to be as bad as it turned out. Only major surprise victory was how badly Harry Reid beat Angle. That's the hope here, of course.

huh? it was apparent in early 2010 that the dems were going to get reamed. look at the prediction thread, for one. sans a few posters (most prominently, i can think of two...who were roundly mocked), most were astute (read: able to decipher polls) enough to know that the House was a goner.

 

[elrechazado]

can't believe people seriously think bachmann poses a challenge to obama. she's a huge threat in the primary, to be sure, but to obama? let's get real. even all the polls show her getting utterly annihilated.

Anything can happen when unemployment is over 9%.

 

[Jeels]

No, only in Libertarian fantasy world. This has been studied and discussed ad nauseum. The general, non blindly idealogical interpretation of employment data says that minimum wages have no negative effect on emlpoyment.

Any links? Because even my economics textbook says otherwise.

 

[Sirpopopop]

huh? it was apparent in early 2010 that the dems were going to get reamed. look at the prediction thread, for one. sans a few posters (most prominently, i can think of two...who were roundly mocked), most were astute (read: able to decipher polls) enough to know that the House was a goner.

Difference between knowing the House was a goner, to the sharp turn that actually *DID* occur.

I don't think many people pegged the 63 House Seat Bloodbath. At this point - I might as well go back and see if anyone pegged it to be around those numbers.

 

[Sirpopopop]

can't believe people seriously think bachmann poses a challenge to obama. she's a huge threat in the primary, to be sure, but to obama? let's get real. even all the polls show her getting utterly annihilated.

I'll stand by it.

If Bachmann, gets through the primary, I think she can pose a threat to Obama. I have less faith in Americans in this present climate being able to successfully discern crazy and not crazy. See: Deciding that the best way to fix the economy is to umm... engage in actions that aren't related to it at all, or in fact, may actually be harder to the concept of developing jobs. (See: Massive Spending Cuts.)

I'll bet on it. Now, we need to define the terms.