Support NeoGAF

[Ignatz Mouse]

When did Syria become the fuse to lead us into WWIII?

When online basement-dwellers needed to amp up the hyperbole level past where they'd already set it.

 

[Black Mamba]

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 was a typo. I meant "employees," not employers. Perhaps that unfortunate typo framed your response to me in a different way than it should have had I not fucked that up.

As for the rest of the post you're focused on the wrong part of the argument. The levels they argue are irrelevant. The point is that solely using the EITC or the Minimum wage presents worse results for the lower classes than combining the two in some fashion. You're arguing they could do more (which I agree with), and that's fine, but that isn't relevant to the discussion.

Then you go on to say things like this:

"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:"

When have I argued that's all we should do? In fact, I argued the opposite. I argued for multiple policies.

Your position seems to be "direct money transfer for all, it will work out," despite that virtually no labor economist I know of actually thinks this will work better (or at all) than a combination of policies.

And again, my typo screwed up your response as I'm arguing that combo (along with other policies) is better for lower classes than your proposal. I'm saying while your heart is in the right place, good intentions don't make good policy and your policy choice is worse than a combo of policies.

 

[Scousefury]

Why the hell are the panel just warmongering, you came to us how we would stop and slow Assad down start talking about that!

 

[Black Mamba]

Did anyone really believe Congress wouldn't authorize the use of force, here?

Come on...

Goddammit men: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol...mars046707.php

Men were also more supportive regarding Libya according to Pew. We were right then, so eat it!

 

[B-Dubs]

Did anyone really believe Congress wouldn't authorize the use of force, here?

Come on...



Men were also more supportive regarding Libya according to Pew. We were right then, so eat it!

I'm honestly a tiny bit surprised they didn't block Obama, I never actually considered that they might actually pay attention to what they were voting on. I figured the GOP just had a standard vote for everything.

That said it was inevitable.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm honestly a tiny bit surprised they didn't block Obama, I never actually considered that they might actually pay attention to what they were voting on. I figured the GOP just had a standard vote for everything.

That said it was inevitable.

If the GOP voted no there were two possible very bad outcomes:

A. They look weak as fuck in foreign military policy in the Middle East to their base. As more people die and more people get killed via chemical weapons, the blame would rest solely on them.

B. Obama attacks anyway and it's a success ala Libya. Now the GOP looks both weak on foreign policy and stupid.

The latter would be devastating, the former if it came out that way would be bad. Of course, Obama could attack anyway and it is a failure which the GOP would win but I don't think even they are willing to risk the other outcomes for that one. You're asking the GOP to bet against the military and if there's one thing they're definitely delusional about is our ability to easily win a military conflict.

 

[B-Dubs]

If the GOP voted no there were two possible very bad outcomes:

A. They look weak as fuck in foreign military policy in the Middle East to their base. As more people die and more people get killed via chemical weapons, the blame would rest solely on them.

B. Obama attacks anyway and it's a success ala Libya. Now the GOP looks both weak on foreign policy and stupid.

The latter would be devastating, the former if it came out that way would be bad. Of course, Obama could attack anyway and it is a failure which the GOP would win but I don't think even they are willing to risk the other outcomes for that one. You're asking the GOP to bet against the military and if there's one thing they're definitely delusional about is our ability to easily win a military conflict.

That makes sense, I suppose I didn't give them enough credit. I just figured they'd reject it outright because Obama came up with it. I guess they can do the political math from time to time.

EDIT: I'm watching these proceedings the Senate is going through. It's a nice change of pace.

 

[Black Mamba]

That makes sense, I suppose I didn't give them enough credit. I just figured they'd reject it outright because Obama came up with it. I guess they can do the political math from time to time.

EDIT: I'm watching these proceedings the Senate is going through. It's a nice change of pace.

Blowing shit up always takes precedence for the GOP.

 

[B-Dubs]

Blowing shit up always takes precedence for the GOP.

:lol

I suppose I forgot that.

It's really nice to see this debated in Congress beforehand though. Like really really nice.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Great article in the WSJ today that raises more questions about US policy in Syria:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324202304579051280341316034

In June, the White House authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to help arm moderate fighters battling the Assad regime, a signal to Syrian rebels that the cavalry was coming. Three months later, they are still waiting.

The delay, in part, reflects a broader U.S. approach rarely discussed publicly but that underpins its decision-making, according to former and current U.S. officials: The Obama administration doesn't want to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear the outcome may be even worse for U.S. interests than the current stalemate.

U.S. officials attribute the delay in providing small arms and munitions from the CIA weapons program to the difficulty of establishing secure delivery "pipelines" to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands, in particular Jihadi militants also battling the Assad regime.

Allied rebel commanders in Syria and congressional proponents of a more aggressive military response instead blame a White House that wants to be seen as responsive to allies' needs but fundamentally doesn't want to get pulled any deeper into the country's grinding conflict.

The administration's view can also be seen in White House planning for limited airstrikes—now awaiting congressional review—to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons.

Pentagon planners were instructed not to offer strike options that could help drive Mr. Assad from power: "The big concern is the wrong groups in the opposition would be able to take advantage of it," a senior military officer said. The CIA declined to comment.

The White House wants to strengthen the opposition but doesn't want it to prevail, according to people who attended closed-door briefings by top administration officials over the past week. The administration doesn't want U.S. airstrikes, for example, tipping the balance of the conflict because it fears Islamists will fill the void if the Assad regime falls, according to briefing participants, which included lawmakers and their aides.

Squaring those positions will be one focus of congressional hearings on the proposed strikes starting Tuesday, administration and congressional officials said. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry are among those slated to testify.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said it was "shameful" that promised U.S. arms haven't materialized, given recent shipments of advanced weapons from Russia and Iran in support of Mr. Assad.

After meeting with President Barack Obama on Monday, Sens. McCain and Lindsey Graham, another leading Republican critic of the administration's approach to the conflict, said they believed the administration was formulating a plan to "upgrade" the capabilities of moderate rebels, but they offered no details.

Sen. McCain also held out the prospect that Mr. Obama would consider widening the targets for strikes to degrade Mr. Assad's ability to carry out chemical weapon and conventional attacks.

Growing frustration with the slow pace of the CIA arming and training program has prompted calls from lawmakers and some Arab leaders to shift the effort to the Pentagon, said congressional officials who favor the move. White House and Pentagon officials had no immediate comment.

Putting the Pentagon in charge would allow the U.S. to do "industrial strength" arming and training, Sen. Bob Corker, the top ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview Monday.

Some lawmakers accused the White House of failing to deliver on its promises because of concerns it would get blamed if the effort went wrong and for fear of getting trapped in a proxy fight that pits Mr. Assad and his backers—Iran, Russia and Hezbollah—against an array of opposition groups, some linked to al Qaeda and others supported by the U.S. and some Arab allies.

"There's been a major disconnect between what the administration has said it's doing relative to the rebels and what is actually happening," said Sen. Corker, who recently visited rebel leaders in Turkey. "The (CIA) pipeline has been incredibly slow. It's really hurt morale among the Syrian rebels."

Many rebel commanders say the aim of U.S. policy in Syria appears to be a prolonged stalemate that would buy the U.S. and its allies more time to empower moderates and choose whom to support.

"The game is clear to all," said Qassem Saededdine, a spokesman for the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army's Supreme Military Council. "When it comes to the interests of superpowers…the average Syrian comes last."

Some congressional officials said they were concerned the administration was edging closer to an approach privately advocated by Israel. Israeli officials have told their American counterparts they would be happy to see its enemies Iran, the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and al Qaeda militants fight until they are weakened, giving moderate rebel forces a chance to play a bigger role in Syria's future.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been particularly outspoken with lawmakers about his concerns that weakening Mr. Assad too much could tip the scales in favor of al Qaeda-linked fighters.

When the CIA arms program was revealed in June, it was described by U.S. officials as a change in Mr. Obama's approach to the conflict and the beginning of a process to build up the armed opposition against Mr. Assad.

It took nearly a year for the idea to gain traction in a skeptical White House, which last summer authorized the CIA to join Saudi Arabia and other allies to train handpicked rebels at a secret base in Jordan. At the time, Mr. Obama balked at providing arms. Nonlethal U.S. military support, such as medical kits and night-vision goggles, started arriving in small quantities this spring.

Congressional committees that oversee the CIA and its budget initially raised questions about the covert arms program, officials said, delaying startup funding.

The CIA also appeared conflicted about the effort's utility. Congressional officials said CIA leaders in briefings indicated they believed that U.S. arms would only have a limited impact on the fight in a country awash in weapons. They also told Congress the U.S. was investing little compared with Iran and Hezbollah, which the U.S. believes will do whatever it takes in Syria to prevail.

But CIA officials told lawmakers providing arms would help the agency build relationships with rebel forces and give it greater leverage with such allies as Saudi Arabia, which provide the bulk of arms and money.

"When we have more skin in the game, it just puts us in a position to have deeper relationships with the opposition but also work more effectively with other countries who are doing a lot in terms of support," a senior administration official said.

A former senior administration official involved in the effort was more dismissive, describing the CIA program as "designed to buy time without getting the U.S. deeply involved in the civil war."

"bubububu there's a transitional government ready to take over"

And again, this has less to do with chemical weapons when compared to further tipping the scales in SA and Israel's favor against Iran.

Kerry refuses to rule out boots on the ground:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/kerry-wont-rule-out-ground-troops-in-syria

We discussed this yesterday with respect to ensuring the weapons don't get in the wrong hands if Assad is toppled. If Assad responds to the attack and sparks further escalation, we'll almost certainly have to send special forces.

 

[Wilsongt]

Scott Walker fudging numbers? Scott Walker fudging numbers.

Insurance rates released by Wis. gov questioned

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Health care advocates called into question information released Tuesday by Wis. Gov. Scott Walker's administration showing dramatic rate increases for insurance plans to be sold through the new marketplace created under the federal health care law.

The marketplaces, or exchanges, will be open for enrollment starting Oct. 1 with coverage beginning Jan. 1. They will offer small businesses, individuals and families a choice of private health plans, similar to what workers at major companies get, with subsidies for low-income consumers.

About 500,000 people in Wisconsin are expected to be shopping for coverage through the exchange, including about 92,000 currently on Medicaid who will be losing their coverage starting in January and 400,000 who have no insurance.

A month ago Walker's Office of the Commissioner of Insurance announced that 13 insurance companies would be offering plans to individuals through the exchange, but did not provide any details about rates or coverage areas.

On Tuesday, the insurance commissioner released an analysis showing what it said was the difference between what individual coverage will cost for a plan with a $2,000 deductible and prescription drug coverage currently and through the exchange. It did not examine costs in the group market.

The analysis looked at rates for individuals aged 21, 40 and 63 in nine Wisconsin cities. Rates would increase in all 24 of its scenarios, ranging from 9.7 percent for a 63-year-old in Kenosha to nearly 125 percent for a 21-year-old in Madison.

However, the analysis didn't take into account federal subsidies, which are expected to lower costs as much as 77 percent, or show the difference in benefits or co-pays.

"I think they've done nothing but confuse and mislead the public rather than give them serious information," said Robert Kraig, director of the health care advocacy group Citizen Action Wisconsin. "These look cooked and they're even hard to analyze because of the way they were released."

Jon Peacock, research director of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, said not enough information was released to be of use to people who may be shopping for coverage through the exchange.

"Given how sketchy this information is, I can't help but wonder if they were even striving to make even-handed comparisons," Peacock said. "I'm not going to accuse them of stacking the deck because I don't know enough."

J.P. Wieske, a spokesman for the insurance commissioner's office, was in a meeting and did not immediately return a message.

However, Insurance Commissioner Ted Nickel cautioned in the press release that comparisons are difficult to make given that rates will vary based on a person's age and where they live. Nickel also acknowledged that the federal subsidy "will offset the actual premium being charged for low-income consumers."

Ohio also did not take into account federal subsidies when it released an analysis showing that premium for individuals would go up an average of 41 percent in that state. Like in Ohio, insurance regulators who released the data in Wisconsin are a part of a Republican administration that opposes the federal law. Walker has repeatedly called for the health care law to be overturned. He also declined to have the state set up the exchanges, deferring instead to the federal government.

Information about the coverage area of plans being offered through the exchanges in Wisconsin won't be released until later this month. Citizen Action did its own analysis, which the insurance commissioner's office refuted, showing that every part of the state will be covered by at least two insurance companies.

Nickel, the insurance commissioner, and those critical of the analysis his office released did agree on one point: the best way to know what plans will cost is to review what is offered once the exchanges go live in October.

Mmhmm. Slimeball.

 

[Black Mamba]

Intervention in Syria was a foregone conclusion. Not for the reasons you think, let me explain.

So I've realized every time my good friend (I was his Best Man at his wedding and he'd be mine when time comes) go on vacation or outside of Los Angeles together, something in the world happens within a few days of that event. Note, numerous times other people were involved too, but the common thread is the two of us.

When we went to university together in San Diego, 9/11 happened that week (and subsequently Afghan War).

When we went to Rosarito, Mexico, Bush launched the Iraq War while we were there.

When we went to to Cancun, Mexico, the Madrid Bombing happened while we were there.

When we went to Europe, the London train bombings happened (I was in London before it happened, then returned after).

When we went off for his bachelor's party in Vancouver, we struck Libya the week we were there.

In fact, the only time I can recall us travelling together somewhere and something not happening was when we went to the middle east (odd coincidence, eh?)



Well, this weekend we're going to Vegas for another friend's bachelor party (plus up north for the wedding in 2 more week) and lo and behold, we're going to attack Syria. So, I had no doubt.

So, sorry guys. I'm partially to blame for this (him being the other half of the blame). I think we should be banned from traveling anywhere together. On the plus side, taking a 5 day weekend and I'm going to spend it drunk, playing poker, and watching football hungover on Sunday while kicking my friend's ass in fantasy football. So there's that.

 

[RustyNails]

Great article in the WSJ today that raises more questions about US policy in Syria:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324202304579051280341316034



"bubububu there's a transitional government ready to take over"

And again, this has less to do with chemical weapons when compared to further tipping the scales in SA and Israel's favor against Iran.

Kerry refuses to rule out boots on the ground:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/kerry-wont-rule-out-ground-troops-in-syria

We discussed this yesterday with respect to ensuring the weapons don't get in the wrong hands if Assad is toppled. If Assad responds to the attack and sparks further escalation, we'll almost certainly have to send special forces.

Lol. There is a transitional government. WSJ not being up to date on matters? Shocking.

 

[FyreWulff]

Nebraska talks about raising it's minimum wage to 9$

http://www.kmtv.com/news/State-Senator-Talks-Minimum-Wage-On-Labor-Day-222109961.html

"I worked for $3.25 an hour when I was sixteen years old," said state Senator Charlie Janssen who is also running for Governor. "It's going to cost a lot more money for someone to buy a hamburger and you've got to realize that it's truly a training wage and we need to teach people how to work."

8|

muh burgers

 

[Wilsongt]

Texas gonna Texas.

Texas Guard refuses to process same-sex benefits

AUSTIN, Texas The Texas National Guard refused to process requests from same-sex couples for benefits on Tuesday, citing the state constitution's ban on gay marriage, despite a Pentagon directive to do so.

Pentagon officials said Texas appeared to be the only state that planned to turn gay and lesbian couples away on Tuesday, the first working day that gays in the military may apply for benefits. The Department of Defense had announced it would recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal following the U.S. Supreme Court decision throwing out the Defense of Marriage Act. Passed by Congress in 1996, the act prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages and said no state could be forced to recognize such marriages that might become legal in another state.

Maj. Gen. John Nichols, the commanding general of Texas Military Forces, wrote in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that because the Texas Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman, his state agency couldn't process applications from gay and lesbian couples. But he said the Texas National Guard, Texas Air Guard and Texas State Guard would not deny anyone benefits.

"However, the (Texas Military Forces) remains committed to ensuring its military personnel and their families receive the benefits to which they are entitled. As such, we encourage anyone affected by this issue to enroll for benefits at a federal installation," he advised service members. He then listed 22 bases operated by the Department of Defense in Texas where service members could enroll their families.

Governments in 19 states offer benefits for the same-sex partners of state employees, whether marriage is allowed or not.

National guard officials in Florida, Michigan and Oklahoma - all states that ban gay marriage - said they will follow federal law.

"It's truly outrageous that the State of Texas has decided to play politics with our military families," said Stephen Peters, president of American Military Partner Association, which advocates for lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender people in the armed forces. "Our military families are already dealing with enough problems and the last thing they need is more discrimination from the state of Texas."

The association gave the AP a copy of Nichols' letter.

State officials said they supported same-sex families but couldn't process the paperwork.

"Despite the legal conflict, the (Texas Military Forces) remains committed to ensuring military personnel and their families receive the benefits to which they are entitled," said Laura Lopez, a spokeswoman for Texas Military Forces, which oversees the state's National Guard units.

Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a spokesman at the Pentagon, said federal officials will process all applications from same-sex couples with a marriage certificate from a state where it is legal. According to U.S. officials, the Defense Department is aware of the Texas National Guard's interpretation of the policy, but the department has not made any legal determination on it.

Last week, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki said Congress or the courts still has more work to do before the VA can provide federal benefits to married, same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that a law denying federal tax, health and pension benefits to married-same-sex couples was unconstitutional. However, the law governing veteran's benefits contained similar provisions. It specifically defines spouse and surviving spouse as someone of the opposite sex.

So... "can't process" or "won't process"?

 

[User 406]

That was a typo. I meant "employees," not employers. Perhaps that unfortunate typo framed your response to me in a different way than it should have had I not fucked that up.

Understood, but believe me when I say that I didn't just fixate on that and make my critique of the study purely from it. In fact, I only really picked up on your misstatement after I had read the study. When you posted the link, my reaction was, "Huh, maybe he knows something I don't.", and decided to read it in full. You're not the only one who tries to take in new information and adapt your views if they are challenged. But my impression of the study remains.

As for the rest of the post you're focused on the wrong part of the argument. The levels they argue are irrelevant. The point is that solely using the EITC or the Minimum wage presents worse results for the lower classes than combining the two in some fashion. You're arguing they could do more (which I agree with), and that's fine, but that isn't relevant to the discussion.

The levels are relevant, primarily because they fail to fully achieve the purpose they set out to achieve, and the authors fail to give a convincing reason why they can't go higher. They won't challenge the assumption that businesses will just start axing people left and right in an employment bloodbath if we go anywhere near to scratching their precious profits with a minimum wage hike. They won't even step outside the budget deficit hysteria and have to lowball their EITC benefit to the point they can't even make the numbers they're aiming for. That kind of cowed self-constraint is not how I want to approach progressive policy.

And while I do agree they could do more, and that even what they have here is much better than what we've got, I don't agree that it's intrinsically better than a basic income policy.

Your position seems to be "direct money transfer for all, it will work out," despite that virtually no labor economist I know of actually thinks this will work better (or at all) than a combination of policies.

Honestly, economists seem to be pretty decent at consensus on what we should have done (mmmyep, shoulda had more stimulus,) but they're kind of crap on what we should do. And again, many economists have difficulty stepping much outside the boundaries of the system they support. That's really my issue. I'm tired of every solution to a problem being framed only in terms of what business or markets will put up with. I want to start framing the solutions in terms of what we the people will put up with.

When it comes down to it, there are economists who do support the basic income concept. Their arguments make more sense to me, which is why I prefer it. In a similar fashion I've chewed over MMT for a while now and I really can't find a good argument against it.

Look at it this way, right now we effectively have two basic income guarantees. One is welfare, the other is the EITC. They're completely inadequate, and make for a bad choice between outright poverty and grinding employment that barely provides more. I just want to simplify that guarantee, and shift what it covers upwards. Just because I want a basic income for people doesn't mean I'm saying to throw Oprah levels of cash at them so they get everything they want, just what they need. You may think that's too high and our market system can't handle it, I think it can. We both have economists to support our preferred policies. Not sure if there's anywhere we can go from here.

Besides, Europe and the other developed nations have been clowning us in social support for a while now, we need to leapfrog 'em and show we can still do the innovative political/economic thing. \m/ >_< \m/

 

[Arrowgigantic]

It's such a huge blind spot and I really can not comprehend it.

Hint: gay people can be classist & racist too.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Hint: gay people can be classist & racist too.

They can also be conservative on economic issues. There's nothing wrong with being a gay republican; however, being a gay tea party member...yeah.

I think the republican party will eventually resemble what the democratic (and republican) party was in the 60s on civil rights: the bigotry will be regulated to regions of the country, specially southern and heartland republicans. Many of the rest will likely adopt the democrats' previous stance: pro civil unions.

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a

As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing.”

We eagerly await the photographic proof, but generally trust Melina’s sharp eye.

Update 5:55 p.m.: And here’s the proof:

Boy, that's a good look.

 

[Oblivion]

Hint: gay people can be classist & racist too.

Of course, but even then it's hard to ignore that the party you support really HATES you.

Republicans love black conservatives and anti-muslim muslim conservatives, but even they can't stomach gay conservatives.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a

Boy, that's a good look.

John McCain has a smartphone?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

APKmetsfan: I have never stated I am against all wars, so let's get that out the way; I am against dumb wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country or our allies. And given your pro-Israel posting history, I don't think it's surprising that you support this nonsense. Your point about propping up dictators in relation to Assad makes no fucking sense, as EV noted.

I never said you were. I was saying that's not a bad position nor whatever your position is. Just that you're reasons for holding it were weak or at least you're articulation of them were.And I've never stated I support strikes. I really don't know where I stand. I'm ambivalent about this proposal, I'm sympathetic to the arguments for the strikes but I'm not sure if that's the best way and tend to think that they might not actually solve the problem they're hyped to solve. I think he needs to be punished. How? I'm not really sure. I think this whole thing has been mismanaged beyond belief. Obama seemingly has no coherent foreign policy doctrine and every thing that's popped up in his for years has seemingly overwhelmed him. I do think this is bigger than Obama and also a consequence of decisions over the past 30 years

You keep posting about my pro-Israel posting history, I have no idea what that means or how its relevant. I'm an American. While I support Israel's defense I have been very critical of many of its actions. I don't support its settlements on the West Bank, strongly support a Palestinian state and think many of its actions are racist, hurtful and counter to US and Israeli Interests. I don't really understand what this even has to do with syria besides being an ad hominum.

My point about Assad was your "best solution" of him staying in power and crushing the rebels (the deaths of hundreds of thousands BTW) and stopping Al Qaeda is the same exact type of reasoning that the US's has used in its foreign policy to justify horrible things. It wasn't to say anything beyond the fact that you've adopted the type of thinking that has been cited as a reason why we have problems with the middle east in the first place. That and its horrible wrong.

I do think there were a lot of good questions today in the Senate hearing and look forward to the House tomorrow

Many of the rest will likely adopt the democrats' previous stance: pro civil unions.

Civil Unions are dead. The court will make them marriages soon enough. Its marriage vs. no recognition

 

[Black Mamba]

Understood, but believe me when I say that I didn't just fixate on that and make my critique of the study purely from it. In fact, I only really picked up on your misstatement after I had read the study. When you posted the link, my reaction was, "Huh, maybe he knows something I don't.", and decided to read it in full. You're not the only one who tries to take in new information and adapt your views if they are challenged. But my impression of the study remains.

Well, you referred to it a few times and framed your argument about how I was thinking about employers. And again, that was 100% my fault and can't blame you for that since it was my mistake. Only that it seemed to change how you'd respond.

The levels are relevant, primarily because they fail to fully achieve the purpose they set out to achieve, and the authors fail to give a convincing reason why they can't go higher. They won't challenge the assumption that businesses will just start axing people left and right in an employment bloodbath if we go anywhere near to scratching their precious profits with a minimum wage hike. They won't even step outside the budget deficit hysteria and have to lowball their EITC benefit to the point they can't even make the numbers they're aiming for. That kind of cowed self-constraint is not how I want to approach progressive policy

I agree with you on the budget deficits and the levels, but the point is that I don't see any evidence or even theoretical argument that actually favors a money transfer over a combo of policies. I don't care about the levels given in the study regarding our actual discussion. It has a separate topic.

And while I do agree they could do more, and that even what they have here is much better than what we've got, I don't agree that it's intrinsically better than a basic income policy.

Do you have any evidence or something to refer to as to why you think a pure basic income policy would work better? And I don't mean compared to a low min wage and low EITC we're stuck with right now.

Honestly, economists seem to be pretty decent at consensus on what we should have done (mmmyep, shoulda had more stimulus,) but they're kind of crap on what we should do. And again, many economists have difficulty stepping much outside the boundaries of the system they support. That's really my issue. I'm tired of every solution to a problem being framed only in terms of what business or markets will put up with. I want to start framing the solutions in terms of what we the people will put up with.

Sounds like you want to change the fundamental structure, which is fine, but it's completely different from changing things within the current structure.

When it comes down to it, there are economists who do support the basic income concept. Their arguments make more sense to me, which is why I prefer it. In a similar fashion I've chewed over MMT for a while now and I really can't find a good argument against it.

Look at it this way, right now we effectively have two basic income guarantees. One is welfare, the other is the EITC. They're completely inadequate, and make for a bad choice between outright poverty and grinding employment that barely provides more. I just want to simplify that guarantee, and shift what it covers upwards. Just because I want a basic income for people doesn't mean I'm saying to throw Oprah levels of cash at them so they get everything they want, just what they need. You may think that's too high and our market system can't handle it, I think it can. We both have economists to support our preferred policies. Not sure if there's anywhere we can go from here.

Most still support combining it with other policies, though. I know there are some out there in support of just a BIG, but I believe they are few and far between. Doesn't make them wrong, but I never buy their arguments, that's for sure.

I believe high minimum wages would help along with a basic income guarantee. I believe if there is unemployment, the gov't should step in and try to hire these people. Our min wage is too low, our EITC is too low, and our gov't has been needlessly cutting jobs. We also don't tax at the top high enough. We're failing, there is no doubt.

And honestly, I can't figure out why you're against raising minimum wages? Why are you against this policy?

Besides, Europe and the other developed nations have been clowning us in social support for a while now, we need to leapfrog 'em and show we can still do the innovative political/economic thing. \m/ >_< \m/

Europe has much better min wage policies. Then again, Europe has done a lot more austerity but at least they have better social safety nets, unlike us.

 

[Ondore]

John McCain has a smartphone?

When Tim Cook testified before the Senate recently, McCain tore a strip off him over the iOS app updates.

 

[zero shift]

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.

Its one of the few issues that I'm further right about.

Pensions are a ridiculous idea with the exception of few select jobs. Want retirement? Social Security and/or save your money.

 

[tanooki141]

I've finally made a twitter.

Who / what should I follow?

I already have AP, my two senators and my representative.

Any insightful journalists on foreign events especially.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I never said you were. I was saying that's not a bad position nor whatever your position is. Just that you're reasons for holding it were weak or at least you're articulation of them were.And I've never stated I support strikes. I really don't know where I stand. I'm ambivalent about this proposal, I'm sympathetic to the arguments for the strikes but I'm not sure if that's the best way and tend to think that they might not actually solve the problem they're hyped to solve. I think he needs to be punished. How? I'm not really sure. I think this whole thing has been mismanaged beyond belief. Obama seemingly has no coherent foreign policy doctrine and every thing that's popped up in his for years has seemingly overwhelmed him. I do think this is bigger than Obama and also a consequence of decisions over the past 30 years

You keep posting about my pro-Israel posting history, I have no idea what that means or how its relevant. I'm an American. While I support Israel's defense I have been very critical of many of its actions. I don't support its settlements on the West Bank, strongly support a Palestinian state and think many of its actions are racist, hurtful and counter to US and Israeli Interests. I don't really understand what this even has to do with syria besides being an ad hominum.

My point about Assad was your "best solution" of him staying in power and crushing the rebels (the deaths of hundreds of thousands BTW) and stopping Al Qaeda is the same exact type of reasoning that the US's has used in its foreign policy to justify horrible things. It wasn't to say anything beyond the fact that you've adopted the type of thinking that has been cited as a reason why we have problems with the middle east in the first place. That and its horrible wrong.

I do think there were a lot of good questions today in the Senate hearing and look forward to the House tomorrow

Unless I'm grossly mistaken you've made various arguments centered around the US' foreign policy as it pertains to Israel's alleged security. Maybe I'm mistaking you for another poster here.

There is no perfect solution in Syria, people are going to die no matter what. My point is that I think Assad staying in power/defeating the rebels is better than the alternative of it becoming a full blown sectarian bloodbath w/AQ gaining access to the military's weapons. As I (and others) have stated, our involvement is only going to make things worse and almost guarantee we have to send forces at some point to secure said weapons.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Its one of the few issues that I'm further right about.

Pensions are a ridiculous idea with the exception of few select jobs. Want retirement? Social Security and/or save your money.

Um, pensions were a way you were saving money. Except you didn't have to deal with Wall Street assholes to do so, your company did it for you and used the leverage of thousands of employees retirements to get good deals. It's not like this money came out of nowhere.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Unless I'm grossly mistaken you've made various arguments centered around the US' foreign policy as it pertains to Israel's alleged security. Maybe I'm mistaking you for another poster here.

There is no perfect solution in Syria, people are going to die no matter what. My point is that I think Assad staying in power/defeating the rebels is better than the alternative of it becoming a full blown sectarian bloodbath w/AQ gaining access to the military's weapons. As I (and others) have stated, our involvement is only going to make things worse and almost guarantee we have to send forces at some point to secure said weapons.

I've probably said some ignorant things on the middle east and Israel in the past I still consider myself pro-israel by and large in the sense I do think the US has an interest in the country but I've expanded my knowledge of the Palestinian experience recently and feel that issue is often ignored to our peril. That conflict is full of self-isolating information bubbles (a good article on this= http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/sep/26/american-jewish-cocoon/?pagination=false). I consciously try to stay out of that issue on GAF. I do think Iran is a threat but not just because it might threaten Israel.

Syria is already a sectarian bloodbath, that's what frustrates me about this conversation it seems ignorant to the fact syria is already so messed up. I don't want AQ winning but they're not the only force in syria, there seems to be a false narrative that all rebels are terrorists, that's just not true. My preferred outcome would no be a zero-sum win. A negotiated agreement between the powers is the best solution and what I think Obama wants.

An assad win will lead to reprisals and resentment, much of that is going to happen anyway, but without all side playing a role in building a new syria this will just boil over 10-15 years from now.

 

[Oblivion]

Has this been posted?

In the last week of August, Perry aired radio ads and made an appearance in Missouri, apparently to capitalize on Nixon’s decision to veto a bill halving the state’s corporate tax rate lowering its income tax.

“Vetoing a tax cut is the same thing as raising your taxes. But there is a state where businesses flourish and jobs are created: Texas,” Perry said in one of the ads.

Idjit.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Has this been posted?



Idjit.

So the only way to not raise taxes is lower taxes.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hint: gay people can be classist & racist too.

I'm well aware. They can also be selfish too, which confounds me that they wouldn't put their own well-being above that of others.

 

[Link]

401Ks are replacing pensions, driving up inequality.

My new job offers both a 401k and a pension! I feel all ritzy.

 

[thefit]

My new job offers both a 401k and a pension! I feel all ritzy.

Same.

 

[gutter_trash]

How would President Hillary Clinton have dealt with this?

Hillary is slightly to the right of Obama and more pro-Israel than Obama.

Either she would have done the same or acted sooner

 

[GaimeGuy]

Texas gonna Texas.

Texas Guard refuses to process same-sex benefits



So... "can't process" or "won't process"?

Won't process.

 

[zero shift]

This may sound embarrassing but what are the main differences between pensions and 401ks?

 

[GhaleonEB]

My new job offers both a 401k and a pension! I feel all ritzy.

I have a 401k and a separate retirement fund from my employer, but they do the latter instead of a 401k match. It works out pretty well. And yeah, I feel pretty damn lucky.

This may sound embarrassing but what are the main differences between pensions and 401ks?

Pensions are retirement income, which used to be fully funded by an employer. Work for them for 30 years, retire with a lower (promised) income after.

401k's are tax deferred investment accounts set up by businesses. They can be funded by the employer, employee, or both.

 

[thepotatoman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a

Boy, that's a good look.

Ugh. As if we needed any more proof that McCain does not give a fuck what anyone else has to say about this very serious situation in Syria.

Speaking of what other people have to say, here's a pretty decent interview with a representative who's against the idea. It really all comes down to whether you think America should be the world's police. Personally I'd feel better about that if we didn't only seem to play policeman when it's the middle east.

 

[Tamanon]

Yglesias is good if you ever just want pure unadulterated snark about any political event. He focuses it all on Twitter to keep it out of his columns.

 

[User 406]

I agree with you on the budget deficits and the levels, but the point is that I don't see any evidence or even theoretical argument that actually favors a money transfer over a combo of policies. I don't care about the levels given in the study regarding our actual discussion. It has a separate topic.

To reiterate, the levels are not important, what's important is what the levels and the chosen methodology reveal about the thought process behind the policy. I want to be very clear here, I want us to stop crafting our policies with business in mind first.

When I read the section of the study that talked about the various ways businesses can adjust, and they said they weren't going to consider any wage level above which businesses would start changing employment policies, I immediately wondered, "Why not?" Then they choose an EITC level that's inadequate to cover the gap, give no reason whatsoever why it should be that low, and then proceed to jump through hoops trying to sell the fact it won't cost too much to do.

The study outlined a policy that drew a line in the sand regarding how it affects businesses. It drew a line in the sand regarding how it affects the federal budget. It did NOT draw a line in the sand regarding the minimum living wage that is supposedly the entire purpose of the policy. It put businesses and costs FIRST.

That is the wrong way to think. We should decide outright what our citizens should have at a minimum, and THAT should be our line in the sand. Everything else should be adjusted to conform to that.

I'm not sure how to make this any plainer.

Do you have any evidence or something to refer to as to why you think a pure basic income policy would work better? And I don't mean compared to a low min wage and low EITC we're stuck with right now.

Because it decouples survival from employment completely, and it does so in a way that's harder to chip away at. It's easy to get people who are employed to vote against welfare. Not so easy to get them to vote to reduce their own benefit. The welfare stigma is basically eliminated. The stress of being poor is completely eliminated. The need to scrimp and save for retirement is eliminated. It frees people to make choices about how they raise their children, and reduces the stress involved in doing so. It allows people to pursue the courses of study they're interested in or the things they want to build and create instead of settling for something that will make them more money. It frees people to change what they do when their choices pall, without stress or guilt. It turns what do I have to do today to what do I want to do today.

And it's simpler to calculate and to disburse. BUDGETZ!

You'll note that none of these reasons touch on how it's going to affect various markets and businesses, because I. Don't. Care. Capitalism isn't so delicate that it's going to collapse as soon as we no longer have to work to survive. It's a weed. It will take root in whatever cracks it can, under any circumstances it can. It's survived in incredibly toxic environments. And I have no problem with it working out how to make a profit after our people have what they need. After all, it'll still be able to work with everything we want, and that is a powerful enough motivation to engage in competition and trade in and of itself.

I believe high minimum wages would help along with a basic income guarantee. I believe if there is unemployment, the gov't should step in and try to hire these people. Our min wage is too low, our EITC is too low, and our gov't has been needlessly cutting jobs. We also don't tax at the top high enough. We're failing, there is no doubt.

And honestly, I can't figure out why you're against raising minimum wages? Why are you against this policy?

Dude, I said before, I'm not. I'd dance a jig if that got enacted. I'd like to see the minimum wage go straight to $15 right now. Hell, make it $17 just to make the assholes who talk shit in the minimum wage threads about how it's "undeserved" cry more.

But we're not discussing whether these policies are pass/fail, but which is better. I prefer a basic income, but I'll certainly take what I can get. What's that phrase that's been thrown around a lot of late? Something about negotiation?

 

[Incognito]

Add my name to the poligafers who tweet:

@inconspicuous

 

[The Librarian]

Add my name to the poligafers who tweet:

@inconspicuous

Done! I'll add a list to the OP.

 

[Cloudy]

Why is the Sweden PM even at this presser?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114589/senate-hearing-syrian-war-hints-obamas-true-intentions

I think this is a good reading of the administrations thinking.

 

[tanooki141]

Thanks for the recommendations Dax

 

[ridethepiggy]

Sorry if old

Was just told by a K Streeter w/ ties to Boehner that Boehner views war approval as giving GOP leverage in CR/debt limit negotiations.

 

[Tamanon]

Sorry if old

Wait...he thinks the fact that the "war" would be unpopular gives him leverage to do something just as unpopular?

Boy, I can't wait to see that argument!

 

[GhaleonEB]

Wait...he thinks the fact that the "war" would be unpopular gives him leverage to do something just as unpopular?

Boy, I can't wait to see that argument!

I read it as, "Want that war resolution passed, Obama? Spending. Cuts."

APKmetsfan, thanks for the link, good read.

 

[Wilsongt]

Sorry if old

Of course. Not the least bit surprising.