US Politics: midterm elections are nigh: do you know where your voting rights are?

[Suttree]

Hey alt, stop deflecting and cite the examples you were referring to. Would appreciate it if you do so before your next ban so we can keep track. Cheers.

I have no clue. .

Don't feel bad, neither does the prince. Ask him to detail specifically what policies and how they've impacted the economy though. Trust us, it's fun.

[Seli]

... How much would you say unprecedented government spend and tax policies effect the economy?

Immensely, without the tax cuts and wars of the Bush years (at the latest) you might have been able to invest more in infrastructure, education, people and be in an even better place.

[Shryke]

Re: Tracker

Nit-pick - mid term elections are generally bad for the party who is in control. That's why 2006 the Democrats swept the elections. Historically, the oppositional party picks up seats during mid term elections and looks like the GOP is on track to do so. The question is how bad the damage will be.

I would also like to point out that the economy is doing better than it had been by all indicators and the PPACA is a success for the most part. The Democrats have a solid platform to run on if only they'd properly capitalize on it. There are races that the democrats shouldn't even be worrying, like in Iowa or for the governorship of MA, and yet they have to. Only blessing is that te GOP also has a good slate of surprising competitive races.

Bad for the Democrats in general too actually. Turn-out almost always favours the democrats in general and midterms are low-turnout elections.

Though, obviously, there are other factors at work as well.

[MerenthaClone]

No, I wouldn't take a position against it.

Because starvation does not have agency--people do.

Well, you heard it here first. Athias is pro-union. Good to know.

As to the second point, I fail to understand your rebuttal. On one hand, we have a person who has a choice between accepting a sub-living wage from a company or refusing to work for the wages provided. There is no coercion here, according to Athias. On the other, we have a company who has a choice between incorporating within the United States and abiding by the laws of said society (thereby providing a minimum wage) and not. According to Athias, there is coercion here. What is the difference? Both actors have a choice: to refuse to operate under the terms provided or to participate, but at reduced benefits (via inadequate wages or reduced profits from having to pay higher wages, respectively) than they would like. And yet, according to Athias, the company is not coercing the individual (or participating in a coercive environment) yet the company is simultaneously being coerced by the government via the exact same mechanism. All this because "starvation does not have agency." I fail to see the connection.

[Shryke]

You've tacitly admitted through your wikipedia snippet that the minimum-wage--"excessive" minimum wage--creates unemployment despite your previous attempts to argue that the "data doesn't back it up." Now you're just continuing your campaign of tautological arguments. I'm not going to indulge this particular argument anymore. I'm just going to leave this compilation of my statements because this argument has become extremely redundant:

Uh, no my dear. My Wikipedia snippet is from the section on the neoclassical model. The one that evidence has shown to not be accurate. The point was, rather, to mock your silly statements about how "The necessities of each party entering the contract is irrelevant" cause even the model you are using, as stated by most economists, acknowledges the issues of labour market negotiation.

The stuff you link is, I agree, redundant. Because it's you saying the same contradictory bullshit where you state that the studies show A, but that the model shows ~A, so obviously ~A is true because "distortions".

Athias, your argument is full of shit and you know it. Stop trying to pretend like you can use "distortions" as a fig leaf to hide the fact that you are arguing "Yes, the studies show that raises in the minimum-wage don't increase unemployment but that doesn't mean raises in the minimum-wage don't create distortions (ie - unemployment)". Your own quotes show you doing this over and over again and it's no less bullshit the 4th time. Nor do I need to read your pathetic defence that you "don't need data" to back up your points. You do and you know you do, but since the data doesn't back up your point, you've descended to sophistry in your feeble attempts to continue arguing this point.

If you doubt that, let me quote you quoting yourself:

The studies to which I was referring (the ones Suttree provided) do not state that the minimum-wage DOES NOT create a distortion (unemployment.) It suggests that incremental increases in the minimum-wage has not worsen or affected the unemployment rate negatively--and in some cases there were positive correlations.

These two sentences contradict one another. You either know this and are thus arguing in bad faith or you don't and are simply not capable enough to argue on the internet (a rather low bar to clear).

[Shryke]

Because starvation does not have agency--people do.

This is a meaningless statement that does not address the point.

How are their positions to bargain unequal? And why should that inform a coercive intervention by an outside party?

You don't understand how an unequal bargaining position is a problem for a well functioning market?

Also, they are obviously unequal because people need jobs (ie - money) more then companies need employs and especially that specific employee.

This is even easier to see these days because, as of at least a year or two ago anyway, there were more people looking for jobs then companies looking to fill positions. By alot.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Immensely, without the tax cuts and wars of the Bush years (at the latest) you might have been able to invest more in infrastructure, education, people and be in an even better place.

Your short term memory must be shot. Nothing about the past six years, huh? That's exactly my point. If there were any gains you would have mentioned those.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Hey alt, stop deflecting and cite the examples you were referring to. Would appreciate it if you do so before your next ban so we can keep track. Cheers.

Don't feel bad, neither does the prince. Ask him to detail specifically what policies and how they've impacted the economy though. Trust us, it's fun.

You referring to the time I educated you about the policies that have wrecked Chicago and Detroit, and you had no argument to dispute the facts I cited. That time?

[Summah]

Facts:

11% unemployment rate for black males 20 and over

9.6% unemployment rate for black female 20 and over

30% unemployment rate for both sexes between the ages 16-19http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

<snip racist stereotypes>

The black unemployment rate has been twice that of whites for at least 50 years, nothing has changed. Obama didn't work miracles and fix racism overnight like you seem to think we expected him to (hint: we didn't, it's too widespread and systemic to be fixed so quickly). This unemployment rate isn't new, it's pretty constantly hovering around 10% even when the economy is good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/

[Suttree]

@tptwp

I remember you copy and pasting mass wall of text from various op-eds as you clearly couldn't begin to construct a substantive argument in your own words. I also recall how baffling it was that you thought an op-ed =. FACTS!

Regardless the first part of that was aimed at alt_creepo.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I remember you copy and pasting mass wall of text from various op-eds. I also recall how baffling it was that you thought an op-ed =. FACTS!

Regardless the first part of that was aimed at alt_creepo.

Then you were asked to prove that anything I said or linked was not a fact, and you disappeared for a few days. Would you like to try again now?

[Suttree]

We don't need your absurdly skewed version of events. Go back and read how it played out. I guess "context" really isn't a strength eh? Take your time.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

The black unemployment rate has been twice that of whites for at least 50 years, nothing has changed. Obama didn't work miracles and fix racism overnight like you seem to think we expected him to (hint: we didn't, it's too widespread and systemic to be fixed so quickly). This unemployment rate isn't new, it's pretty constantly hovering around 10% even when the economy is good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/

So this is your answer for how this could happen during the six years of the first black presidents two terms. Basically, Bush was better for black Americans than Obama.

[Athias]

Well, you heard it here first. Athias is pro-union. Good to know.

As to the second point, I fail to understand your rebuttal. On one hand, we have a person who has a choice between accepting a sub-living wage from a company or refusing to work for the wages provided. There is no coercion here, according to Athias. On the other, we have a company who has a choice between incorporating within the United States and abiding by the laws of said society (thereby providing a minimum wage) and not. According to Athias, there is coercion here. What is the difference? Both actors have a choice: to refuse to operate under the terms provided or to participate, but at reduced benefits (via inadequate wages or reduced profits from having to pay higher wages, respectively) than they would like. And yet, according to Athias, the company is not coercing the individual (or participating in a coercive environment) yet the company is simultaneously being coerced by the government via the exact same mechanism. All this because "starvation does not have agency." I fail to see the connection.

When a person seeks to work in order to avoid starvation, said starvation is not "acting upon" him/her. Starvation is a circumstance/condition. When the State--or members thereof--threaten penalties to compel behavior among the involved parties, it is "acting." It has "agency." Therefore, the State can be held accountable for coercion. Since starvation does not bear this agency, who is liable for the "coercion" that it causes? The employer?

And the conclusion that I'm pro-union is a non-sequitur. I stated that I wouldn't take position against it.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Go back and read how it played out. Take your time.

Would you like to dispute those facts you were questioning? It's a simple question really.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Don't forget the sources, you are after all the source police

[awesome possum]

Facts:

11% unemployment rate for black males 20 and over

9.6% unemployment rate for black female 20 and over

30% unemployment rate for both sexes between the ages 16-19

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

This is the same section of the base that believed they wouldn't have to pay for their house or vehicle after Obama was elected. Turns out they wouldn't be paying, only because they became unemployed. How does this happen on the watch of the first black president?

Let's put aside the casual racism in your last paragraph; let's also put aside how it's become routine for you to just pretend your assertions haven't just been debunked. Let's focus on this:

How exactly does your statistics above back up your assertion that "dems are in a tough spot because they have done nothing to help their constituents and large segments of their base."?

[Suttree]

Would you like to dispute those facts you were questioning? It's a simple question really.

Look we get that all you do is parrot opinions in a Rush-lite manner but you're asking me to find op-eds that take a different angle than the ones you copied and pasted despite the fact that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the policies(all of them!) you were asked to detail? Yeah...sorry guy.

[MerenthaClone]

When a person seeks to work in order to avoid starvation, said starvation is not "acting upon" him/her. Starvation is a circumstance/condition. When the State--or members thereof--threaten penalties to compel behavior among the involved parties, it is "acting." It has "agency." Therefore, the State can be held accountable for coercion. Since starvation does not bear this agency, who is liable for the "coercion" that it causes? The employer?

Yes, the employer is coercing the employee through threats of starvation. The choice is "starve or accept our offer." There is fear involved, and therefore, coercion. The employer does not have to be responsible for the cause of the fear to be coercive. If I have food, and you are dying of hunger, am I coercing you if I say I will give you some food if your sell ___ to me? Potentially, yes. This depends on the nature of my demand. I can coerce without having been the cause of your initial starvation and lack of food. Similarly, employers can coerce despite being not responsible for the employee's starvation. Eh, lets be even simpler, to ensure the point is made. You are hanging off a cliff, through no fault of my own. I offer to pull you up, of my own volition, on the condition you give me all your money. Am I coercing you? I say yes. If you disagree, all further discussion is rather moot, in my opinion.

The answer, naturally, is that both the employer and state are coercive. I will not contest that a minimum wage is coercive, any more than I contest that a prohibition against murder is coercive. Both are, as an entity is threatened with expulsion from society of they break those prohibitions. It is a part of the social construct that every member agrees to if they chose to participate in society.

Countdown to libertarian discussion of the NAP in 5, 4, 3...

[Fez]

It seems like the late polls are trending Republican, and I'm starting to think there's a better chance of a wave after all. Dems better hope they've figured some stuff out with early voting and ground game. I cannot believe Joni Ernst might be a US Senator.

Of the last few polls since I made my final predictions, the only one that I might reconsider (and I won't, I'm sticking with what I said) is Iowa. I've thought Kentucky was out of reach for a while now, and there's not much difference between Grimes losing by a little or a lot. As for Georgia, if that one goes to runoff, its a loss probably, Dems do very badly historically in Georiga runoffs. But the thing, I really think the Georgia polls are underestimating black turnout this year.

And if I'm wrong about Iowa but right about the rest, that still gives the Dems the majority thanks to Biden. I'd take that. Although it'd be a real shame for a purple state like Iowa to end up with two far-right senators (Grassley may have been a moderate once upon a time; not anymore he isn't).