Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

What if we sanctioned the Palestinians, gave aid to Iran, demanded Hezbollah build settlements and bombed Israel.

Nobody would see it coming! We'd seem totally crazy and everyone would freak out at what we might do next.

Madman theory!

 

[Metaphoreus]

Dan Metcalfe is a right wing nut job.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/16/1371415/-eGhazi-Don-Metcalfe-appears-to-be-an-incompetent-crackpot

He must be, if he's going to vote for Clinton.

EDIT: Serious response: I don't know much about the Federal Records Act or FOIA, so I have to rely on purported experts such as Dan Metcalfe, former director of DOJ's FOIA team, on the one hand, and Armando who blogs at Daily Kos or whatever, on the other.

Metcalfe's claim that Clinton's conduct violates the FRA may very well mean that Powell did, too. If so, Metcalfe might have to retract the claim that this part of Clinton's conduct was unprecedented, but that doesn't affect his claim that it was illegal. Either way, this is a topic about which I'd like more information.

Armando's (mis-)citation of 5 FAM 443.2 misses the point of Metcalfe's discussion of individual discretion over records retention. Metcalfe writes:

Years ago, I worked on a case in which a presidential appointee—who shall remain nameless though not blameless—after becoming caught up in an especially controversial matter, intransigently declared that all of the records on a credenza behind his desk were “personal” and thus were beyond the reach of the FOIA (and that of the agency FOIA officer, whom he physically prevented from going back there). This official was severely castigated by a federal judge after it was found that he was, in no small part, quite mistaken about both things; the judge’s opinion was so pointed that we used the case regularly in our FOIA training programs. So yes, Secretary Clinton’s suggestion that federal officials can unilaterally determine which of their records are “personal” and which are “official,” even in the face of a FOIA request, is laughable.

It is not at all uncommon for the average federal employee on a day-to-day basis to bear the responsibility of “separating the wheat from the chaff” under the Federal Records Act, as well as when that employee departs from federal service. Even relatively high-level employees such as myself (as an ES-5 in the Senior Executive Service) often are able, as a practical matter, to determine such things, just as I did when I retired from the Justice Department eight years ago. But I certainly could not have taken with me the sole copy of any agency-generated document, nor could I have properly stymied any pending FOIA request—not even for a record in my office that I was convinced was 100 percent “personal.” In fact, at Justice we created a formal process to govern things that departing officials sought to “remove.” The first official to which the policy was applied, at her own insistence, was Attorney General Janet Reno, at the end of the Clinton administration. (This stood in stark contrast with the sad case of Attorney General Edwin Meese, who was so overreaching upon his departure that we had to scour his garage in Virginia to retrieve about a dozen boxes of records that he wrongfully took with him in violation of the Federal Records Act, among other things.) One cannot help but wonder how Secretary Clinton’s departure process was handled.

Those two points are the entirety of Armando's rebuttal, though they do not address every point raised by Metcalfe. Most of the work done by Armando's blog post is actually to be found in his ad hominem attacks, which you paraphrase uncritically. This is what I mean when I say people are too quick to dismiss concerns over the emails--Metcalfe has raised a number of legal issues, but so long as somebody somewhere on the Internet is willing to call him a dummy, y'all are convinced there's nothing to his claims.

 

[benjipwns]

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/414017/libertarian-constitution

In January, Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) caused a minor stir on the right by speaking in favor of “judicial activism.” When legislatures do “bad things,” he suggested, an “activist court” should overturn them. “Maybe,” he mused, courts should begin not from a presumption of constitutionality but from a “presumption of liberty” when considering constitutional challenges to democratically enacted laws.

...

Senator Paul’s comments illustrate a third alternative now pressing for recognition; call it “libertarian constitutionalism.” Unlike judicial conservatism, this approach does not emphasize the presumption of constitutionality and admonish courts to show deference to the will of the majority. It calls instead for judicial activism in defense of individual rights, but it distinguishes itself from judicial liberalism by emphasizing not only personal rights — such as sexual liberty — but also economic rights.

...

The core of Root’s argument is his critique of conservative judicial deference and his advocacy of rights-based judicial activism. According to Root, contemporary judicial conservatism is, embarrassingly enough, grounded in the progressivism of a century ago. The godfather of judicial restraint is Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who defended progressive-style interventions in the economy on the grounds that judges generally have an obligation to give effect to the will of the majority. On this account, the modern heroes of judicial conservatism — men such as Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia — are, paradoxically, following in the footsteps of the arch-progressive Holmes.

Faced with this critique and the proffered alternative, conservatives must decide whether to buy what the libertarian legal movement is selling. They should decline, for at least two reasons. In the first place, judicial restraint is far older and more venerable than Root suggests.

...

In the second place, libertarian constitutionalism distorts not only the traditional understanding of the proper exercise of the judicial power, but also the Constitution itself. This problem appears in Root’s summary of the clash on the right over Lawrence v. Texas (2003), in which the Supreme Court invalidated a Texas law forbidding homosexual conduct. Says Root: “It was the libertarian-conservative debate in a nutshell. Does the majority have the right to rule in wide areas of life simply because it is the majority? Or does individual liberty come first, a fact that requires the government to provide the courts with a legitimate health or safety rationale in support of every contested regulation?”

According to Root’s libertarian alternative, the Constitution forbids morals legislation. This view, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his Lawrence dissent, would void state laws that are as old as, or rather older than, the country itself. It would treat prostitution and polygamy as constitutionally protected activities, since the laws prohibiting them rest not primarily on health or safety concerns but on the moral judgment of the majority.

...

Conservatism in general is an effort to preserve an inheritance. In the American context this must mean an effort to preserve intact the basic principles of the American founding. Libertarian constitutionalism, however, departs radically from those principles both in how it understands the role of judges and in how it understands the Constitution. The libertarian Constitution is not the American Constitution, and the allegiance of American conservatives must be to the latter and not the former.

Root's reply: http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/17/national-review-urges-conservatives-to-r

 

[Oblivion]

So...uh, this happened:

The [Ben] Carson exploratory team has been interviewing potential operatives in a wide range of states. One of the people on the effort, Jim Dornan, worked on the governmental affairs staff at the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries and has plethora of Capitol Hill and campaign experience.
Dornan once operated a pseudo-anonymous Twitter account — which has since been deleted after BuzzFeed News asked about his tweets.

One tweet from Dornan referred to McConnell shoving his fist up Obama’s butt. One tweet calls Ferguson protestors “thugs.” Another calls Obama a “dipshit.” One tweet calls Debbie Wasserman-Schultz a “pathetic excuse for a human being.” Two tweets call Chris Matthews and the Huffington Post “aholes.” Another tweet at Obama tells him to “bend over bitch.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/carson-operative-tweets?utm_term=4ldqpia&bftw=pol#.msxoxO6gd

The Cain train wouldn't have recruited people like this. Just sayin'.

Clearly the second part of his comment, concerning state minimum wage laws, clarifies (by way of correcting) the first. The first part is the same kind of rhetorical imprecision we always expect in unplanned oral communication.

stop defending things, dawg

 

[benjipwns]

Well, the one about DWS isn't wrong.

 

[Metaphoreus]

stop defending things, dawg

Stop making me. Do you seriously believe that Jeb Bush considers state governments to be part of the private sector?

EDIT:

Root's reply: http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/17/national-review-urges-conservatives-to-r

OMG REASON.COM? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Ahem. There's a debate scheduled next Monday in NYC between former Scalia clerk Ed Whelan of National Review and Root, if anyone's interested and in the vicinity.

 

[Chichikov]

Stop making me. Do you seriously believe that Jeb Bush considers state governments to be part of the private sector?

I think it's pretty clear from the video that he's against raising the minimum wage and a bit hostile to the idea in general.
I think he mentioned that states are fine because he don't think the federal government should intervene in this issue one way or another, I mean, he explain why he thinks minimum wage (and specifically raising it) is a bad idea, he doesn't touch on why it's a good on the state level and his explanation can be applied to state level just as easily.
I think you're stretching here.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think it's pretty clear from the video that he's against raising the minimum wage and a bit hostile to the idea in general.
I think he mentioned that states are fine because he don't think the federal government should intervene in this issue one way or another, I mean, he explain why he thinks minimum wage (and specifically raising it) is a bad idea, he doesn't touch on why it's a good on the state level and his explanation can be applied to state level just as easily.
I think you're stretching here.

I may have misinterpreted Oblivion's comment. If so, I apologize. If he was saying what you say here, that the rationale stated by Bush for opposing a federal minimum wage applies equally to state minimum wage laws, then I agree. That's a point that Bush can be asked to clarify. But I didn't interpret his comment in that way (obviously). Instead, I interpreted his comment as questioning an apparent conflation of the "private sector" and "state governments." If that's not what he meant, then, again, I apologize.

Spoiler

But I blame him.

 

[Wilsongt]

On the plus side, Jeb's decided to use the brilliant strategy of campaigning against the federal minimum wage:



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/03/17/3634877/jeb-bush-minimum-wage/

Not sure how you can be okay with states enacting minimum wage laws, while only supporting the idea of the "private sector" doing so on its own. Last I checked, state governments are part of government.

Leave minimum wage up to the states and you'd probably have some states paying $0.45/hr to fast food workers because only high school students do that job and they don't need any money.

 

[Chichikov]

I may have misinterpreted Oblivion's comment. If so, I apologize. If he was saying what you say here, that the rationale stated by Bush for opposing a federal minimum wage applies equally to state minimum wage laws, then I agree. That's a point that Bush can be asked to clarify. But I didn't interpret his comment in that way (obviously). Instead, I interpreted his comment as questioning an apparent conflation of the "private sector" and "state governments." If that's not what he meant, then, again, I apologize.

Spoiler

But I blame him.

Damn, you're pedantic.

Spoiler

I blame competitive debate teams. Never been to one, never went to a school that had one, Everything I know about it is pretty much from movies and TV, but I still blame it for a whole lot of things.

 

[benjipwns]

Regarding a 1920s bill to start public works projects during economic downturns:

Another critic, Senator Harry New, Republican of Indiana, demanded what business the federal government had in trying to override the biblical injunction that seven lean years would follow seven fat ones.

 

[benjipwns]

Adding independent voices to the debate

The battle over the 2016 presidential debates is already underway.

A new national campaign, Change the Rule, is pushing for the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) to include a third-party party or independent candidate in next year’s debates.

A bipartisan group of more than 40 current and former elected officials, Cabinet members, diplomats, high-ranking military officials, and business and academic leaders are backing the effort.

In January, Change the Rule sent private letters to CPD board members requesting a rule change to remove some of the barriers to qualification facing nonmajor party candidates.

“Because the current rule affords independent candidates no chance to get into the debates, it dissuades men and women with extraordinary records of service to this country from running for President,” the letter, which hasn’t been released publicly until now, reads in part. “As a director of the CPD, you could ignore this complaint and wait for the ensuing legal process to play out. We think that would be a missed opportunity and an unfortunate mistake.”

The group says the terse response it received back — a two-sentence letter expressing gratitude for the input — has provoked them to take the fight public and take aim at the CPD, which activists describe as a “secretive, quasi-official group” of 17 unelected members.

...

Currently, the CPD requires nonmajor party candidates to receive 15 percent support in five separate polls conducted shortly before the debates to qualify.

But Change the Rule argues the requirement allots undue influence to surveys biased against unaffiliated candidates.

The group also says the rule creates unreasonable fundraising requirements for outsiders, effectively limiting the pool of potential nonmajor candidates to wealthy billionaires like Ross Perot, who in 1992 was the last nonmajor party candidate to participate in a presidential debate.

Change the Rule estimates that to receive 15 percent popular support in a poll, a nonmajor party candidate would have to spend close to $300 million to reach parity with the major party candidates.

The group is pushing for an addendum to the current rule that would allow a candidate who gets on the ballot in states with a total of 270 electoral votes to qualify for the debate.

If more than one candidate meets that threshold, the one who amasses the most signatures as part of a ballot access process would become the third participant in the debates. They estimate the candidate would have to acquire 4 to 6 million signatures.
...

Among the signatories are Sen. Angus King (I-Maine); William Webster, the chairman of the Homeland Security Advisory Council and former FBI director Michael Hayden, a retired four-star general and former director of the National Security Agency; former Defense Secretary William Cohen; and David Bradley, the publisher of The Atlantic and National Journal.

The list also includes former Govs. Bruce Babbitt (D-Ariz.), Jon Huntsman (R-Utah), Thomas Keane (R-N.J.), and Christine Todd Whitman (R-N.J.), former Sens. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and former Reps. John Anderson (R-Ill.), Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), and Vin Weber (R-Minn.).

Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage

The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no.

The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

Some may say, “Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We’ve evolved since then.”

That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don’t have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have “evolved” on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently “evolve”—they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That’s the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!

...

Imagine if the people were to pass an amendment guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage. Would you consider the Supreme Court to be legitimate if it imposed its own position and overturned the amendment? No, the people decide what the laws are, not the Court.

Third, the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?

Since the people “evolved” on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn’t act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.

Fourth, despite all the talk about equal rights, everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights. The “born that way” justification doesn’t work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement “marriage,” which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court needs to acknowledge the fact that natural marriage, same sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently while giving every citizen the equal right to participate in marriage whatever its legal definition is.

Finally, the states make marriage law, not the feds. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia’s ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.

Do people hate me posting these interesting, amusing or silly (all to me) story round-ups? I don't want to spam the thread with unwanted garbage. More than I already do.

 

[BSsBrolly]

He must be, if he's going to vote for Clinton.

EDIT: Serious response: I don't know much about the Federal Records Act or FOIA, so I have to rely on purported experts such as Dan Metcalfe, former director of DOJ's FOIA team, on the one hand, and Armando who blogs at Daily Kos or whatever, on the other.

Metcalfe's claim that Clinton's conduct violates the FRA may very well mean that Powell did, too. If so, Metcalfe might have to retract the claim that this part of Clinton's conduct was unprecedented, but that doesn't affect his claim that it was illegal. Either way, this is a topic about which I'd like more information.

Armando's (mis-)citation of 5 FAM 443.2 misses the point of Metcalfe's discussion of individual discretion over records retention. Metcalfe writes:



Those two points are the entirety of Armando's rebuttal, though they do not address every point raised by Metcalfe. Most of the work done by Armando's blog post is actually to be found in his ad hominem attacks, which you paraphrase uncritically. This is what I mean when I say people are too quick to dismiss concerns over the emails--Metcalfe has raised a number of legal issues, but so long as somebody somewhere on the Internet is willing to call him a dummy, y'all are convinced there's nothing to his claims.

This is nothing more than meat for the base. Polls I've seen show people don't give a shit. It doesn't help that Dan Metcalfe is a shill for the Republican Party. I take what he says with a huge grain if salt. The great thing about this is that time will tell. If you're right, you're right and we'll find out. Its not a big deal yet (outside the republican base) and I just don't see it ever becoming one..

Edit: maybe it's not fair of me to say he's a right wing shill? I'm basing this off headlines of articles he has written. Makes no sense he says he'll vote for Clinton.

 

[Chichikov]

Regarding a 1920s bill to start public works projects during economic downturns:

Another critic, Senator Harry New, Republican of Indiana, demanded what business the federal government had in trying to override the biblical injunction that seven lean years would follow seven fat ones.

That's awesome.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Adding independent voices to the debate



Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage


Do people hate me posting these interesting, amusing or silly (all to me) story round-ups? I don't want to spam the thread with unwanted garbage. More than I already do.

I like them. So there's at least one person who appreciates it.

Also, Meta:

That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings.

Is that you?

 

[Diablos]

I just got some spam e-mail for "ObamaCareGuide.org". Too funny.

 

[Teggy]

Regarding a 1920s bill to start public works projects during economic downturns:

If you had replaced the name with James Inhofe's I might not have even questioned that it was real.

 

[Aaron Strife]

CNN poll has Hillary leading Bush and Walker 55-40

But it's early which means she'll probably lose by 5 actually

 

[PhoenixDark]

Ideally I'd be fine with leaving the minimum wage up to states. The problem is that it would be heavily abused, which makes the idea not feasible.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Damn, you're pedantic.

=/

This is the kind of charge that can't be rebutted, since it would be confirmed in the attempt.

So...

no u

 

[Trouble]

Ideally I'd be fine with leaving the minimum wage up to states. The problem is that it would be heavily abused, which makes the idea not feasible.

In a perfect world, I would. In our world where state legislatures are gerrymandered to hell and back, not so much.

 

[Frank the Great]

I hate the idea of states competing with each other for business, it only encourages a race to the bottom. The more national economic uniformity, the better imo. We need a high federal minimum wage.

 

[Ecotic]

I hate the idea of states competing with each other for business, it only encourages a race to the bottom. The more national economic uniformity, the better imo. We need a high federal minimum wage.

About the race to the bottom, not necessarily, for example Alabama offered a $158 million locational incentive package to Honda in 1999 to choose their State over their first choices, and North Carolina offered Dell a $248 million package in 2005. These incentive packages are common for bottom-tier States because they're lacking in so many key areas. Most corporations don't get to choose the lowest common denominator because of a poorly educated workforce, lack of a nearby deep sea port or some other key infrastructure, or because the culture is creatively bankrupt. In practice there's more of a race to the middle, and even a race to the top for some key industries. San Francisco and the Bay Area is super expensive, but if you're an ambitious tech startup with adequate funding you need its workforce and creative culture.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I hate the idea of states competing with each other for business, it only encourages a race to the bottom. The more national economic uniformity, the better imo. We need a high federal minimum wage.

I love the idea of states competing with each other for business and other residents. It helps ensure that governments don't become overbearing, since their residents can always leave. Regarding the federal minimum wage, I think that, if we're to have one, it should be at the lowest level considered conscionable anywhere in the nation. States (or localities) could set a higher one in recognition of local circumstances, but it makes little sense to have a high uniform floor when local economies are so vastly different from one another. $15 may make sense in Seattle, but it certainly doesn't make sense in Earth, Texas.

 

[bananas]

Ideally, in a perfect world, I'd be a libertarian.

Ideally.

 

[BertramCooper]

Not sure if anyone else listens to Diane Rehm, but there was a rather hilarious discussion over the House Republicans' budget on today's show.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-03-18/republican-lawmakers-outline-2016-budget-proposals

Romina Boccia from the Heritage Foundation blithely spouts dumb conservative economic platitudes and Jonathan Weisman and Jared Bernstein repeatedly tear her to shreds.

You can practically hear their eyes roll whenever she's talking.

 

[thezerofire]

I love the idea of states competing with each other for business and other residents. It helps ensure that governments don't become overbearing, since their residents can always leave. Regarding the federal minimum wage, I think that, if we're to have one, it should be at the lowest level considered conscionable anywhere in the nation. States (or localities) could set a higher one in recognition of local circumstances, but it makes little sense to have a high uniform floor when local economies are so vastly different from one another. $15 may make sense in Seattle, but it certainly doesn't make sense in Earth, Texas.

The idea that a state's residents can "always leave" never seems to have any real world support behind it. Moving is really hard to do, and for a lot of people is impossible

 

[Aaron Strife]

John Dingell (88 years old, former Congressman) on Aaron Schock:

Aaron who? I don't use Instagram.

 

[Black Mamba]

Ideally I'd be fine with leaving the minimum wage up to states. The problem is that it would be heavily abused, which makes the idea not feasible.

The minimum wage already is largely left up to the states. The current federal wage is a joke.

I love the idea of states competing with each other for business and other residents. It helps ensure that governments don't become overbearing, since their residents can always leave. Regarding the federal minimum wage, I think that, if we're to have one, it should be at the lowest level considered conscionable anywhere in the nation. States (or localities) could set a higher one in recognition of local circumstances, but it makes little sense to have a high uniform floor when local economies are so vastly different from one another. $15 may make sense in Seattle, but it certainly doesn't make sense in Earth, Texas.

Another one of those conservative/libertarian arguments that they believe work in economic theory but don't in theory (if they understood it) or practice.

Teenagers/students who earn minimum wage cannot just move. Neither can part-time married workers. Neither can most people who earn just above the minimum wage.

States, except maybe cities/towns right along the border within easy driving distance, cannot compete for low-skilled jobs.

I'd think it's fine to argue minimum wages should be different in different cities. You can come up for a formula that takes into account the city's cost of living. It doesn't need to be set by a specific city, the federal government can do it just fine. Leaving it up to the states and/or cities is bad because of dumb ideas people have about the minimum wage. You could also have industry specific minimum wages.

Just don't leave it to morons and asshats to handle it. A council of economists with input can handle this just fine.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I love the idea of states competing with each other for business and other residents. It helps ensure that governments don't become overbearing, since their residents can always leave. Regarding the federal minimum wage, I think that, if we're to have one, it should be at the lowest level considered conscionable anywhere in the nation. States (or localities) could set a higher one in recognition of local circumstances, but it makes little sense to have a high uniform floor when local economies are so vastly different from one another. $15 may make sense in Seattle, but it certainly doesn't make sense in Earth, Texas.

Actually, if all the gains we've made from productivity in the past 40 years had been evenly distributed instead of largely being distributed to the top 1%, the minimum wage would be $20 all around the country. Ya' know, like in the wasteland of economic crisis we call Australia.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The idea that a state's residents can "always leave" never seems to have any real world support behind it. Moving is really hard to do, and for a lot of people is impossible

but I can make a graph that says its true. screw real life for those that don't have my means!

 

[BertramCooper]

I love the idea of states competing with each other for business and other residents. It helps ensure that governments don't become overbearing, since their residents can always leave. Regarding the federal minimum wage, I think that, if we're to have one, it should be at the lowest level considered conscionable anywhere in the nation. States (or localities) could set a higher one in recognition of local circumstances, but it makes little sense to have a high uniform floor when local economies are so vastly different from one another. $15 may make sense in Seattle, but it certainly doesn't make sense in Earth, Texas.

I hope we can agree that $7.25 is not conscionable anywhere in the nation.

 

[Fenderputty]

Not sure if anyone else listens to Diane Rehm, but there was a rather hilarious discussion over the House Republicans' budget on today's show.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-03-18/republican-lawmakers-outline-2016-budget-proposals

Romina Boccia from the Heritage Foundation blithely spouts dumb conservative economic platitudes and Jonathan Weisman and Jared Bernstein repeatedly tear her to shreds.

You can practically hear their eyes roll whenever she's talking.

Was the first caller question Empty Vessel?

 

[PhoenixDark]

“Aaron is a little different,” Richard Schock said. “He wears stylish clothing and yet he’s not gay…and he’s not married and he’s not running around with women, so everybody is throwing up their arms. They can’t figure out Aaron, so he must be crooked. So attack him, bring him down, because he doesn’t fit into our picture.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/aaron-schock-father-interview-116184.html#ixzz3UliTkfht

u mad?

 

[HylianTom]

CNN poll has Hillary leading Bush and Walker 55-40

But it's early which means she'll probably lose by 5 actually

Just saw the poll. The first question that popped into my mind when I read the headline: what's the gender gap?

I've dwellled on it before, but >20% is amazing. It won't last, and the poll is of adults, but damn. And after all of this email coverage drama..

 

[Metaphoreus]

The idea that a state's residents can "always leave" never seems to have any real world support behind it. Moving is really hard to do, and for a lot of people is impossible

Another one of those conservative/libertarian arguments that they believe work in economic theory but don't in theory (if they understood it) or practice.

Teenagers/students who earn minimum wage cannot just move. Neither can part-time married workers. Neither can most people who earn just above the minimum wage.

Are you guys robots? It's like some algorithm parsed the phrase "can always leave" and then regurgitated some off-topic datum scoured from one of the Interweb's more progressive tubes. What's important for my point is not that every single resident of a state can move to another state, but that some not insubstantial portion of the residents of a state can do so. The threat of losing residents serves as a check on government power, and that threat is greatly reduced when "losing residents" means those residents must move to a foreign country, rather than merely move to a different state.

As for BM's idea of localized minimum wages dictated by federal bureaucrats, why not just let the local populations decide, instead? What advantage is there to your proposed federal program, other than wresting control over local decisions from those affected by them?

Finally, data compiled by the Census Bureau indicates that the poor are not especially immobile:

 

[BertramCooper]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/aaron-schock-father-interview-116184.html#ixzz3UliTkfht

u mad?

“He’s had a good run. He’s done a lot of good. He’s helped a lot of people,” he said.

A House Republican who has only been in Congress since 2009 has "done a lot of good" and "helped a lot of people" in his district.

Does not compute.

 

[benjipwns]

Actually, if all the gains we've made from productivity in the past 40 years had been evenly distributed

How would this even be possible?

As for BM's idea of localized minimum wages dictated by federal bureaucrats

No, he said economists. Not bureaucrats. Economists, with inputs.

 

[Metaphoreus]

but I can make a graph that says its true. screw real life for those that don't have my means!

Empirical data about real life vs. online commenter's claims about real life.

We report. You decide.

No, he said economists. Not bureaucrats. Economists, with inputs.

I'll only trust them if they're wearing those funny hats.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Empirical data about real life vs. online commenter's claims about real life.

We report. You decide.

I noticed how moving between states the rate went up as incomes did and poorer people moved within counties.

This also isn't against the point we're making not everybody can do it, and its difficult. Peoples ability to live shouldn't be determined by where they live.

How would this even be possible?

It be a lot easier if labor had half the power we give to corporations.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I noticed how moving between states the rate went up as incomes did and poorer people moved within counties.

This also isn't against the point we're making not everybody can do it, and its difficult. Peoples ability to live shouldn't be determined by where they live.

The impoverished have a higher rate of moving between states than any other group. And your point that not everybody can do it "isn't against the point" I made, which doesn't require that everybody can.

 

[Coriolanus]

"The solution to poor paying jobs is to make poor people pay for moving."

Hm.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I noticed how moving between states the rate went up as incomes did and poorer people moved within counties.

This also isn't against the point we're making not everybody can do it, and its difficult. Peoples ability to live shouldn't be determined by where they live.

Come on APK. A mother with three kids can totally afford the cost of a moving trucks, two months rent, a security desposit, and all the other costs that would come with moving, to move every 3-4 years to follow the next crappy job that will be outsourced!

And if not, well, she's just a lazy moocher who wants to sit around doing nothing all day.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The impoverished have a higher rate of moving between states than any other group. And your point that not everybody can do it "isn't against the point" I made, which doesn't require that everybody can.

5, 5.7, 5.3 > 6.7, 6.4?

 

[Black Mamba]

Are you guys robots? It's like some algorithm parsed the phrase "can always leave" and then regurgitated some off-topic datum scoured from one of the Interweb's more progressive tubes. What's important for my point is not that every single resident of a state can move to another state, but that some not insubstantial portion of the residents of a state can do so. The threat of losing residents serves as a check on government power, and that threat is greatly reduced when "losing residents" means those residents must move to a foreign country, rather than merely move to a different state.

What matters is the type of citizens given the context. I don't care if everyone making above the median wage can move. That doesn't have a bearing on the conversation.

As for BM's idea of localized minimum wages dictated by federal bureaucrats, why not just let the local populations decide, instead? What advantage is there to your proposed federal program, other than wresting control over local decisions from those affected by them?

Yes, why not let local populations, filled with morons, decide over trained professionals?

Finally, data compiled by the Census Bureau indicates that the poor are not especially immobile:

You should read your links before posting them. 61% of all movers stayed within the same county, 80% within the state, and 5% moved from abroad.

Less than 5.5% of people earning under $30k moved to a different state. A huge chunk of that total involves college students moving to college. Then there's the armed forces people of whom 36% moved to a different state cuz they also have to. There's also border states which is no different that switching county lines.

And then of course, what else happened in 2005-2010 that had a large displacement of poor people? Ever hear of Katrina?

The link you posted completely undermines your position, and even moreso when we add in context.

Nice try, though.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Well, to conservatives, all Katrina proves that if things are terrible enough for poor people, they'll eventually leave. Thus, we should remove all social welfare, so they'll be more liable to move.

Also, I find it hilarious that the "family values" party wants more people to move away from family structures that may help them, to chase a few dollars more across the country, instead of say, making it possible for people to live where they grew up and their social structure is.

 

[Coriolanus]

Yes, why not let local populations, filled with morons, decide over trained professionals?

In b4 "UNELECTED PROFESSIONALS. What about democracy, huh?"
Or something along those lines.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What matters is the type of citizens given the context. I don't care if everyone making above the median wage can move. That doesn't have a bearing on the conversation.



Yes, why not let local populations, filled with morons, decide over trained professionals?



You should read your links before posting them. 61% of all movers stayed within the same county, 80% within the state, and 5% moved from abroad.

Less than 5.5% of people earning under $30k moved to a different state. A huge chunk of that total involves college students moving to college. Then there's the armed forces people of whom 36% moved to a different state cuz they also have to. There's also border states which is no different that switching county lines.

And then of course, what else happened in 2005-2010 that had a large displacement of poor people? Ever hear of Katrina?

The link you posted completely undermines your position, and even moreso when we add in context.

Nice try, though.

I lived in new orleans how did I forget that. Thats a at least 100,000 right there.

 

[BertramCooper]

In b4 "UNELECTED PROFESSIONALS. What about democracy, huh?"
Or something along those lines.

Even if those unelected professionals are appointed by elected officials, look for a Metaphoreous rant about how that's totally undemocratic.

 

[Black Mamba]

I lived in new orleans how did I forget that. Thats a at least 100,000 right there.

The data also shows it. In 2005, 52% of all people moved within a county, about 25% 200+ miles.

In 2010 those numbers were around 61% and 18.5% respectively.

Kind of a big fucking disparity.