2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

Just thought I would chime in that this conservative environmental scientist, who has lived on UC, is happy and hopeful with Ohio election results. I'm not a huge fan of Kasich or Jean Schmidt (both won), so I wrote in my brother for Governor and Senate. I like Boehner. I thank the FSM Pelosi will be out.

FWIW, I like seeing both parties represented in Congress and in the Executive office. Idealist, yes, but it forces all sides to negotiate and compromise if they want to get anything done.

You sound like my husband. He thinks Clinton got the most done when he didn't have the Congress behind him.

As for EW, who cares what happens with unions in South Africa, that's like comparing apples and bananas. If you want to criticize the unions, use examples from the good old USA. We have plenty of unions here...I'm sure you can find examples if you try hard enough. By the way, for all the bad you can find about unions, they have done a lot of good for workers including improving the safety of workplaces, bringing wages to liveable standards and provided a voice for workers in negotiations when their employers have all the power. You know that employees do have grievances that are valid, right? With that, I will conceded that there are abuses, and that unions don't work for everyone.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

You sound like my husband. He thinks Clinton got the most done when he didn't have the Congress behind him.

As for EW, who cares what happens with unions in South Africa, that's like comparing apples and bananas. If you want to criticize the unions, use examples from the good old USA. We have plenty of unions here...I'm sure you can find examples if you try hard enough. By the way, for all the bad you can find about unions, they have done a lot of good for workers including improving the safety of workplaces, bringing wages to liveable standards and provided a voice for workers in negotiations when their employers have all the power. You know that employees do have grievances that are valid, right? With that, I will conceded that there are abuses, and that unions don't work for everyone.

He wants to abolish the minimum wage and thinks that prohibiting workers from being abused is a violation of the workers' rights. I doubt you're going to make much inroads.

Personally I say bring back the real filibuster. No more of this just refusing to vote on it thing, make them stand up and keep talking. Stop being scared the filibuster and push things through.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

He wants to abolish the minimum wage and thinks that prohibiting workers from being abused is a violation of the workers' rights. I doubt you're going to make much inroads.

Personally I say bring back the real filibuster. No more of this just refusing to vote on it thing, make them stand up and keep talking. Stop being scared the filibuster and push things through.

I know, it just needed to be said. The insane thoughts of the reactionary right that used to hide in the shadows feel awfully free to fly openly these days. "Lets get rid of Social Security; lets repeal the Civil Rights Amendment; lets give the corporations control of the entire country and make American citizens their slaves for $0.02 an hour." Great ideas, folks!

I agree about the filibuster. If they really want to do it, read the phone book out loud for ten hours straight. Make it painful.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I know, it just needed to be said. The insane thoughts of the reactionary right that used to hide in the shadows feel awfully free to fly openly these days.

Hide in the shadows?

How are these even remotely bad things? What is bad? A morally hazardous economic environment consistently controlled by the rich at the expense of the poor. That is what the economic statists have consistently (but unintentionally) promoted and compounded. They have truly proved that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

"Lets get rid of Social Security;

Yes, we should promote Ponzi schemes. Love those things. I'm sure you're a big fan of Madoff too, right?

lets give the corporations control of the entire country

The economic statists have already done this. The classically liberal removes them from power.

and make American citizens their slaves for $0.02 an hour." Great ideas, folks!

Question:
How would the corporations be able to sell their goods if American citizens made .02 cents an hour (or some other absurdly low wage)?

Furthermore, it doesn't make alot of sense for corporations to offer absurdly low wages due to new intelligence and data gathering. In order to retain people, they usually pay alot more.

For example, I'm currently a human resource manager in a production plant for a fairly large company. I would say that our hourly workers average at least nine dollars an hour (probably more if we could do better at retention). It's non-union. Most of the workers do not have a high school degree. Why don't we pay anywhere close to minimum (I believe our starting salary is around 8.30 an hour or so)? Retention. We could probably pay less, especially in this economic climate. But it doesn't really make economic sense. Under your theory, we should definitely be paying minimum, right?

I know you haven't actually thought about any of this, which doesn't surprise me. If you ever have the chance, read some Classically Liberal literature...such as F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Hide in the shadows?

How are these even remotely bad things? What is bad? A morally hazardous economic environment consistently controlled by the rich at the expense of the poor. That is what the economic statists have consistently (but unintentionally) promoted and compounded. They have truly proved that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


Yes, we should promote Ponzi schemes. Love those things. I'm sure you're a big fan of Madoff too, right?


The economic statists have already done this. The classically liberal removes them from power.


Question:
How would the corporations be able to sell their goods if American citizens made .02 cents an hour (or some other absurdly low wage)?

Furthermore, it doesn't make alot of sense for corporations to offer absurdly low wages due to new intelligence and data gathering. In order to retain people, they usually pay alot more.

For example, I'm currently a human resource manager in a production plant for a fairly large company. I would say that our hourly workers average at least nine dollars an hour (probably more if we could do better at retention). It's non-union. Most of the workers do not have a high school degree. Why don't we pay anywhere close to minimum (I believe our starting salary is around 8.30 an hour or so)? Retention. We could probably pay less, especially in this economic climate. But it doesn't really make economic sense. Under your theory, we should definitely be paying minimum, right?

I know you haven't actually thought about any of this, which doesn't surprise me. If you ever have the chance, read some Classically Liberal literature...such as F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

You do realize that $9 an hour is poverty level for most families, don't you? You do realize that a person cannot live on $9/hr?

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

You do realize that $9 an hour is poverty level for most families, don't you?

A family does not make 9$ an hour.

A person does.

You do realize that a person cannot live on $9/hr?

On the contrary,
9$ is 360 dollars a week. 18, 720 a year. The per capita income in my town is 15,000, the median income for males is 28k, and the median income for women is 21 k. So I guess roughly 40% of females "can't live".

Plenty do live on that amount of cash. Now if the government would remove themselves from our wallet, 18,720 would be a fairly easy existence. Unfortunately it does not do this.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

18,720 would be a fairly easy existence.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

A family does not make 9$ an hour.

A person does.

On the contrary,
9$ is 360 dollars a week. 18, 720 a year. The per capita income in my town is 15,000, the median income for males is 28k, and the median income for women is 21 k. So I guess roughly 40% of females "can't live".

Plenty do live on that amount of cash. Now if the government would remove themselves from our wallet, 18,720 would be a fairly easy existence. Unfortunately it does not do this.

If the per capita income is $15K and the medians for males and females are higher than that then it stands to reason that you're including kids in there somewhere. And yes, I'd wager a guess that 40% of the females are the second income in two income families and would have a hard time making it without the other income.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, the problem is that adding a party requires a ridiculous number of loopholes. I voted Whitney last time around with getting Greens on the ballot as part of my reasoning. People didn't not vote for him because they thought loony or environment (although the typo in Chicago probably didn't help) but because he was neither D nor R.

I see the most likely party being added would be the Libertarians.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

You sound like my husband. He thinks Clinton got the most done when he didn't have the Congress behind him.

.

He did, but he was also willing to compromise. He proposed A when the Republicans wanted Z and both sides moved toward M. I would like to see more of this. The joke is, when he did that, people accused him of waffling. Compromise is what it should all be about. We are more polarized right now than I've seen in the few decades that I've been paying attention and honestly, I think that's what is hurting us. Everybody is so worried about not letting the other side win that nothing constructive gets done.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I see the most likely party being added would be the Libertarians.

Unfortunately, neither of the two parties wants a third one unless it's one that draws voters off from the 'other guy' but not themselves.