Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I have no issue with the Mac, but... Safari? Yuck.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
I have no issue with the Mac, but... Safari? Yuck.
The Librarian
Banned
It's not Safari?
ClassyPenguin
Banned
No, this is not satire. The far right is literally outraged for Obama putting his FOOT on his desk.
Original Image:
OMG
Also, is Civil Rights not taught in school anymore(OT Christian bakery thread)?
ridethepiggy
Banned
No, this is not satire. The far right is literally outraged for Obama putting his FOOT on his desk.
Original Image:
I can see their point. It's like Obama is imagening the American flag spread out underneath him and is mentally urinating all over it. That and his leg squashing the wood of the freedom desk? Throw in his gang sign and you get a shameful act by a shameful man. Even Biden can't bear to look.
AnotherNils
Member
I looked up the Ronald Reagan jacket thing. Holy shit that is real and it is absurd.
(Also, every prez picks his own desk, right? So its not like Obama put his foot on some scared desk. Geez)
(Also, every prez picks his own desk, right? So its not like Obama put his foot on some scared desk. Geez)
Sathsquatch
Member
It's his office. He should be able to do what he wants. If Republicans want to get all in arms about how people act in the Oval Office, they might actually trying winning the Presidency.
RustyNails
Member
Boehner and Cantor support the use of military strikes in Syria.
RustyNails
Member
Iirc its a special desk made of special wood that has historic significance. But whogivesashit.gif hes the gofdamn leader of free world he can shit on it as far as im concerned.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Whups my bad. I have my Chrome skinned, so when I saw grey I thought it was Safari.
ridethepiggy
Banned
I wonder if Michelle was there while Barry and Hilldawg consumated their new relationship after she accepted the position.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Also, Obama is not the first president to put his foot/feet on the desk.
Why would the Tea Party ask whether the pic makes your "blood boil." I wonder why.
Of course they do. I expect to see Cantor going off about defunding Obama care to pay for it next.
No, this is not satire. The far right is literally outraged for Obama putting his FOOT on his desk.
Original Image:
Someone please retweet these fuckers these images. Especially the Reagen one.
Of course they do. God dammit this country...
The Librarian
Banned
Learn your browsers, boy!
Anyway, two awesome articles from Wonkblog:
1. 401Ks are replacing pensions, driving up inequality.
2. Female doctors earn $50,000 less than their male counterparts.
That would be horrible politics. You are basically conflating foreign policy with domestic policy. Even people who don't want to go to war in syria would be outraged if republicans try this imo.
AnotherNils
Member
Eh, if it's a piece of national significance I can kind of see the problem.
That said, I'm sure presidents have put up their feet the regular way. Obama is just doin' some gangsta pose!
Edit: On cue, I am vindicated
They've already put the well being of American citizens in jeopardy by playing the "wah wah wah give us our way" card with the debt ceiling. This wouldn't surprise me in the least if people like Ted Cruz and Rubio start calling for it.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
I've always felt that the 401K push was for the benefit of investment bakers/wall street instead of everyone else.
Also, dat gender equality amiriteguys?
Cruz and Rubio I'm sure, everyone knows their schtick already but I don't expect the traditional republican to even think of going down that road.
401(k)s also have the dastardly side effect of giving you another avenue to plunder your retirement in cases where you need the money, such as large medical bills, or foreclosure, which again disproportionately affect the less wealthy.
R10Neymarfan
Member
OMG
Also, is Civil Rights not taught in school anymore(OT Christian bakery thread)?
Nope because according to some Gaffers and to an extent some white people(Although the likelihood of these said Gaffers being white are high), Racism doesn't exist anymore. We are all equal.
ugh....
I'm not a big fan of pensions being given out by anyone other than the federal government, though. It's really easy to over-promise, and company executives and local politicians have a lot of reason to not worry about the long-term. Universal federal programs are going to get much more scrutiny and be much more secure.
Sorry for the late reply^H^H^H^H^Hwall of text, I had a busy Labor Day weekend with the family and so I was unable to read through the study quickly.
That's just it, I don't care what the best way is to make sure that the most employers benefit. I care about what the best ways to make sure that the most people benefit. I do not hold that only what is good for business is good for the people. Business should serve the people, not the other way around.
Let me say first that I would be happy if this policy managed to materialize, but only in the same pragmatic way I was happy that the ACA was passed, in that it's definitely an improvement over the status quo, but still falls quite short of the policy I actually want, which in the ACA's case would be full single payer.
But fundamentally, I consider this policy and this particular presentation of it to be emblematic of the prioritization of capitalism over workers that you express above.
The bolded is significant because the authors are doing a bit of misdirection here. Continuing:
Here they acknowledge that their calculations are conservative, and that they won't propose any minimum wage level that would come close to making businesses alter their profit or employment models. Now, the implication made previously was that the tipping point they refer to will lead to a significant decline in employment, when in fact what they go on to calculate is the maximum minimum wage before which businesses would not need to change any employment practices at all. These are not the same things. That they imply that going over this tipping point would result not in marginal job/upper wage losses while improving the living wage they're aiming for, but significant job losses feels like a rehash of the going Galt histrionics we always hear from the right. If their numbers are correct, there is room to be explored past that tipping point that can have a balance of marginal job losses against greater gains in the living wage they seek, but they refuse to even explore that idea, leaving only the unfounded implication that there's a cliff where job creators will just take their ball and go home.
To me, this seems to be pretty clearly prioritizing business first, living wage second. If they would explore an even higher minimum wage, they might find some more margin that would help close the gap they try to fill with the EITC and fail:
I have to admit, after reading through the study once and while outlining this post, I intended to go back and find the quote in the study that explains the authors' reasons for choosing this level of EITC expansion, and why it must therefore fall short of filling the gap left by their inadequately raised minimum wage. After rereading the EITC section over and over, I can't find one. The authors seem to have just outright chosen 80% as their EITC benefit expansion, with no justifications or caveats about why it couldn't be higher. So they end up concluding that they can get 60% of people to a living wage instead of 100%. Why? Because can't squeeze businesses slightly more on the minimum wage or they'll mad and can't further raise EITC because dunno lol?
I suspect the unstated reason is due to the large section afterwards about How To Pay For It. As if the federal government is even revenue constrained. :evsignal:
Overall, it really reads like a "this is the best we can get from them". That is not how we should be approaching the problem.
But besides the basic prioritization of business over labor while ostensibly in the pursuit of a policy more favorable to labor, I have other fundamental philosophical issues with this direction of policymaking. One of the effects of the policy actually runs directly counter to what I want to see happen, and that is more single parents in the workforce.
This is backwards. It's been well established that full time child rearing by parents is superior to day care for the mental development and well-being of children, especially in the early years. The societal goal of raising the next generation of healthy, happy citizens should not come second to providing more workers. You may raise wages and benefits to the point where a single parent can make enough to make ends meet with a full time job, but they're still going to be away from their children for half the day, and they're still going to be tired from work, and will have a harder time keeping up with their kids' demands for attention.
With a basic income, parents will have more freedom to prioritize. They can stay with their children without worry if they want to during the preschool years, and work as little or as much as they want to balance supplemental income with stress for a home life that works best for them.
Furthermore, the basic income would effectively move the economic burden of child rearing away from the parents, removing one of the biggest strains on relationships. With parents who are less likely to split up due to money problems, have more time and energy for them, and are effectively smarter, low income children will overall have a much better developmental and educational life, which will make them more happy, motivated, and productive as adults.
Finally, the minimum wage/EITC policy also falls short in that it does not at all address the needs of the unemployed, and doesn't reach its goals for the underemployed, although the study at least acknowledges that:
The rather glaring flaw here is that the authors take pains to mathematically justify a minimum wage point that will fall short of making businesses start to alter their employment practices, when they are already engaging in abusive underemployment to cut costs. This only serves to underscore my view that this policy, while an improvement, is primarily focused on how to avoid making waves within the status quo of business.
And the problem here is that the minimum wage/EITC combo simply doesn't reduce income inequality as effectively as a basic income. It doesn't cover as many people, and doesn't fully cover as many people as it could if the authors of the study weren't so scared of the minimum wage "tipping point", effectively prioritizing business needs over human needs. We know that if people at the low end have money, it will be spent, and the basic income gives them more.
I know I'm probably going to get another "lol blaming capitalism" snark here, but yes, I do blame capitalism for our current problems, specifically how we've completely abased ourselves before what should be nothing more than a useful economic tool. We should be prioritizing our desires for what society should do for people over what we can do to make sure business is happy, and the presentation of this minimum wage/EITC policy is clearly focused on making sure the status quo of Wall Street capitalism is jostled as little as possible, and hey look, we almost get everyone to a living wage with it, if they can actually find full time work!
Fuck that. It's time we brought this motherfucker to heel. The right wing trope that business "won't put up with" the changes needed to get everyone to the minimal standard of living they should have is, and always has been, a paper tiger. Business will deal with what it needs to to do business. Capital is worthless without investment, and just because you can get a better return off of a struggling, suffering populace doesn't mean you're not going to take the returns you can get when they aren't. And what we should absolutely NOT do, and what we've been allowing to happen for decades, is continue to let capitalism continue to erode those standards so they can get that higher percentage. We need to stop being enablers and start making demands. We've been through economic sea changes before that have brought on sweeping labor protections and quality of life improvements without ruining our economy, and we can, we should, do it again. As far as I'm concerned, we take care of our people, and business can work within our rules or begone. And you know they'll end up working within our rules.
So no, I don't agree that the minimum wage/EITC policy is superior to a basic income, because I don't subscribe to the same premises and priorities. I want the policy that gives people what they need first, not the one that prevents some companies hurting at the margins first.
But look on the bright side, we're gonna get neither.
That's just it, I don't care what the best way is to make sure that the most employers benefit. I care about what the best ways to make sure that the most people benefit. I do not hold that only what is good for business is good for the people. Business should serve the people, not the other way around.
Let me say first that I would be happy if this policy managed to materialize, but only in the same pragmatic way I was happy that the ACA was passed, in that it's definitely an improvement over the status quo, but still falls quite short of the policy I actually want, which in the ACA's case would be full single payer.
But fundamentally, I consider this policy and this particular presentation of it to be emblematic of the prioritization of capitalism over workers that you express above.
PERI Study said:
The bolded is significant because the authors are doing a bit of misdirection here. Continuing:
Here they acknowledge that their calculations are conservative, and that they won't propose any minimum wage level that would come close to making businesses alter their profit or employment models. Now, the implication made previously was that the tipping point they refer to will lead to a significant decline in employment, when in fact what they go on to calculate is the maximum minimum wage before which businesses would not need to change any employment practices at all. These are not the same things. That they imply that going over this tipping point would result not in marginal job/upper wage losses while improving the living wage they're aiming for, but significant job losses feels like a rehash of the going Galt histrionics we always hear from the right. If their numbers are correct, there is room to be explored past that tipping point that can have a balance of marginal job losses against greater gains in the living wage they seek, but they refuse to even explore that idea, leaving only the unfounded implication that there's a cliff where job creators will just take their ball and go home.
To me, this seems to be pretty clearly prioritizing business first, living wage second. If they would explore an even higher minimum wage, they might find some more margin that would help close the gap they try to fill with the EITC and fail:
I have to admit, after reading through the study once and while outlining this post, I intended to go back and find the quote in the study that explains the authors' reasons for choosing this level of EITC expansion, and why it must therefore fall short of filling the gap left by their inadequately raised minimum wage. After rereading the EITC section over and over, I can't find one. The authors seem to have just outright chosen 80% as their EITC benefit expansion, with no justifications or caveats about why it couldn't be higher. So they end up concluding that they can get 60% of people to a living wage instead of 100%. Why? Because can't squeeze businesses slightly more on the minimum wage or they'll mad and can't further raise EITC because dunno lol?
I suspect the unstated reason is due to the large section afterwards about How To Pay For It. As if the federal government is even revenue constrained. :evsignal:
Overall, it really reads like a "this is the best we can get from them". That is not how we should be approaching the problem.
But besides the basic prioritization of business over labor while ostensibly in the pursuit of a policy more favorable to labor, I have other fundamental philosophical issues with this direction of policymaking. One of the effects of the policy actually runs directly counter to what I want to see happen, and that is more single parents in the workforce.
This is backwards. It's been well established that full time child rearing by parents is superior to day care for the mental development and well-being of children, especially in the early years. The societal goal of raising the next generation of healthy, happy citizens should not come second to providing more workers. You may raise wages and benefits to the point where a single parent can make enough to make ends meet with a full time job, but they're still going to be away from their children for half the day, and they're still going to be tired from work, and will have a harder time keeping up with their kids' demands for attention.
With a basic income, parents will have more freedom to prioritize. They can stay with their children without worry if they want to during the preschool years, and work as little or as much as they want to balance supplemental income with stress for a home life that works best for them.
Furthermore, the basic income would effectively move the economic burden of child rearing away from the parents, removing one of the biggest strains on relationships. With parents who are less likely to split up due to money problems, have more time and energy for them, and are effectively smarter, low income children will overall have a much better developmental and educational life, which will make them more happy, motivated, and productive as adults.
Finally, the minimum wage/EITC policy also falls short in that it does not at all address the needs of the unemployed, and doesn't reach its goals for the underemployed, although the study at least acknowledges that:
The rather glaring flaw here is that the authors take pains to mathematically justify a minimum wage point that will fall short of making businesses start to alter their employment practices, when they are already engaging in abusive underemployment to cut costs. This only serves to underscore my view that this policy, while an improvement, is primarily focused on how to avoid making waves within the status quo of business.
And the problem here is that the minimum wage/EITC combo simply doesn't reduce income inequality as effectively as a basic income. It doesn't cover as many people, and doesn't fully cover as many people as it could if the authors of the study weren't so scared of the minimum wage "tipping point", effectively prioritizing business needs over human needs. We know that if people at the low end have money, it will be spent, and the basic income gives them more.
I know I'm probably going to get another "lol blaming capitalism" snark here, but yes, I do blame capitalism for our current problems, specifically how we've completely abased ourselves before what should be nothing more than a useful economic tool. We should be prioritizing our desires for what society should do for people over what we can do to make sure business is happy, and the presentation of this minimum wage/EITC policy is clearly focused on making sure the status quo of Wall Street capitalism is jostled as little as possible, and hey look, we almost get everyone to a living wage with it, if they can actually find full time work!
Fuck that. It's time we brought this motherfucker to heel. The right wing trope that business "won't put up with" the changes needed to get everyone to the minimal standard of living they should have is, and always has been, a paper tiger. Business will deal with what it needs to to do business. Capital is worthless without investment, and just because you can get a better return off of a struggling, suffering populace doesn't mean you're not going to take the returns you can get when they aren't. And what we should absolutely NOT do, and what we've been allowing to happen for decades, is continue to let capitalism continue to erode those standards so they can get that higher percentage. We need to stop being enablers and start making demands. We've been through economic sea changes before that have brought on sweeping labor protections and quality of life improvements without ruining our economy, and we can, we should, do it again. As far as I'm concerned, we take care of our people, and business can work within our rules or begone. And you know they'll end up working within our rules.
So no, I don't agree that the minimum wage/EITC policy is superior to a basic income, because I don't subscribe to the same premises and priorities. I want the policy that gives people what they need first, not the one that prevents some companies hurting at the margins first.
But look on the bright side, we're gonna get neither.
Businesses benefit but cutting employee costs (no pension, low if any matching funds). But yeah, the investment industry is undoubtedly the primary beneficiary, they're making a killing with fees on all the new dollars. Workers are getting killed by bad management, fund options, and fees. They were thrown to the wolves.
Also, PD this is what you get for putting your faith in Boehner, RE: Syria freedom bombs.
Facebook is unbearable with this Syria situation. Just saw a picture of Bush with a caption along the lines of "Bush was right, he said chemical weapons were shipped into Syria! The liberal media lied to you!"
Couple that with the "these are the people Obama wants to help in Syria" Glenn Beck link.. Ugh
Couple that with the "these are the people Obama wants to help in Syria" Glenn Beck link.. Ugh
PhoenixDark
Banned
Rand Paul is going to be meeting with House republicans. Seems like the last ditch shot. I doubt it'll work.
I thought the vague resolution language, upcoming midterms, and blatant save face move by Obama would be enough to justify a congressional revolt on this.
I thought the vague resolution language, upcoming midterms, and blatant save face move by Obama would be enough to justify a congressional revolt on this.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Yeah, well if we weren't bombarded by the message that social security failed because it's a government program instead of the way its financed as a tax, we'd be in a better position.
Dammit, I also saw that I misspelled bankers as bakers in a previous post.
This is the worst I've seen
Thank god I haven't seen that... Yet. What kills me is that these people really think they are in on the "true" story and everyone else is brain washed by the liberal media. "Glenn beck and Rush Limbaugh have the real story, I have to share this because everyone is ignorant to the truth! I do research (which consists of visits to drudge report, watching a little Fox News, and listening to talk radio) so I know what I'm talking about!"
This may have been addressed somewhere else, but I recall reading a tweet yesterday that said something to the effect that the Syria resolution also contains language allowing the president to attack anyone, anywhere, any time for all time. Was this true or not? I think the tweet referenced a Bush counsel/lawyer.
I assume it would be a reference to the War Powers act.
Ah yes, the "upcoming midterms"
We are, after all, a whole 8 months into this session of congress. That means midterms are only 14 months away!
Black Republican
Member
Breaking: Reid confident he has votes to pass Syria resolution in Senate. http://on.wsj.com/NhHE9K
Well, that's disappointing..
Well, Obama has his out.
The headlines are gonna read "CONGRESS APPROVES SYRIAN STRIKES"
What about the House?
PhoenixDark
Banned
The resolution is very vague, similar to the one that was used to attack Iraq.
Dominican Power
Member
America can't get out of this Middle Eastern vortex. *sigh*
The Librarian
Banned
Looks like de Blasio has got this thing wrapped up: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/bill-de-blasio-takes-commanding-lead-in-new
Original Image:
is nothing sacred anymore? the resolute desk is being tarnished by loafers undoubtedly the cost of a probably a month's salary of millions of americans. smh.
This really does seem terribly broad.
Hmm, youre right that does not seem that broad. I figured it wasnt exactly what the tweet said, since it was twitter and all, but was just curious to see if the idea had popped up anywhere else.
I'm saying it does sound broad. I could totally see the president justifying a unilateral strike on Iran with the language in the bill.
Oh whoops, I misread your comment, sorry.
Prolly my hopeful naivete that is making me think its not going to be used that broadly. I can see where you are coming from, I guess I am hoping it is applied in a similar manner to Libya. And as I have been told by several facebook people, if we are going to attack a nation for connections to Syria's chemicals, we have to start with Britain. I guess its technically not too late too celebrate the 200 year anniversary of the War of 1812.
- Status