Jump to content

U.S. Politics-Getting a Handel On Why the DNC Is Pissing Ossof


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

CBO: Senate GOP healthcare bill would increase number of uninsured by 22 million
15 million more people would be uninsured by next year.

This is probably going to be quite a hurdle for McConnell to overcome in the near future. (EDIT: Okay, somehow I managed to overlook that that's exactly what the brief 'article' from the link says. But it's true. Very little room for error and quite a few senators on the fence, even excluding the ones that have already come out against it.)

TREMENDOUS SAVINGS! YUGE! #MAGA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

CBO: Senate GOP healthcare bill would increase number of uninsured by 22 million
15 million more people would be uninsured by next year.

This is probably going to be quite a hurdle for McConnell to overcome in the near future. (EDIT: Okay, somehow I managed to overlook that that's exactly what the brief 'article' from the link says. But it's true. Very little room for error and quite a few senators on the fence, even excluding the ones that have already come out against it.)

The plus side for McConnell is that the CBO says the bill will have a net savings of $202 billion even with the tax cuts because of how massive the Medicaid cuts (and subsidy cuts) are. That gives him a lot of money to throw into provisions to win over the moderates.

On the downside, 4 million of those 15 million would be people losing employer-sponsored coverage and its when you start mucking around with employer-sponsored coverage that you really are sticking your hand in the hornet's nest; politically speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think maybe that was the problem with restaurant work, in that they could get away with hiring servers for even less than minimum wage, due to tips and whatnot.

I agree with you that this is probably still an overall net positive, at least for those who are employed. I'd rather work less hours for more per hour, as I could make that up as that time is mine. I guess the key point will be how many jobs this costs ultimately. 

Yeah, it's depressing comparing how we work here in the U.S. versus how people work in other first world nations. That said, fewer hours will eventual occur once most of the work force gets automated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Second Minimum Wage Increase in a year Seems to have backfired a bit for Seattle...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-gone-too-far/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/Low wage workers receiving less hours and unemployment is up 

I have found a copy of the NBER working paper, which I'm going to read tonight.

A couple of things:

1. To be honest I've always thought a $12 minimum wage was more reasonable and would not have adverse effects.

2. That said, from what I read, the study says that the overall level of employment didn't drop. That's a bit of a red flag.

3. It's important to keep in mind that the minimum wage is only one policy tool among many, like universal coverage and the EITC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Fez said:

The plus side for McConnell is that the CBO says the bill will have a net savings of $202 billion even with the tax cuts because of how massive the Medicaid cuts (and subsidy cuts) are. That gives him a lot of money to throw into provisions to win over the moderates.

On the downside, 4 million of those 15 million would be people losing employer-sponsored coverage and its when you start mucking around with employer-sponsored coverage that you really are sticking your hand in the hornet's nest; politically speaking.

I haven't gotten to dig into the details yet, but it seems odd that they'd draft a plan the causes so many people to lose their insurance so quickly. I thought one of their major goals was to make sure the pain wasn't really going to be felt until after the 2020 election. This seems like a risky strategy, especially considering that Trump voters are more at risk under these two plans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I haven't gotten to dig into the details yet, but it seems odd that they'd draft a plan the causes so many people to lose their insurance so quickly. I thought one of their major goals was to make sure the pain wasn't really going to be felt until after the 2020 election. This seems like a risky strategy, especially considering that Trump voters are more at risk under these two plans. 

I bet they'll spin it simply as 'these are people who are CHOOSING to not have insurance, which is good!'

Bet you a shiny nickel they are already either already saying it or about to. 

I mean, come on, these are the people who have said repeatedly that this involves no cuts to Medicaid over and over despite it being almost a trillion dollar cut to medicaid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Not screwing over your best friend is probably about the closest thing to a sacred trust that I would cite as such. That and raising your children in a conscientious  manner. I know it shouldn't really factor into politics, but those are pretty much instant deal breakers for me.

Why shouldn't personal integrity and character enter into politics, specifically your voting choices? I'd say it's more important to consider the character of the person for whom you are voting than their specific policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why shouldn't personal integrity and character enter into politics, specifically your voting choices? I'd say it's more important to consider the character of the person for whom you are voting than their specific policies.

I would largely argue the opposite, provided that their character does not have absurdly large flaws that would affect their policies. 
EG, I object strongly to Teddy Roosevelt's habit of hunting, and hate it with a passion, and would support him for POTUS in an instant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why shouldn't personal integrity and character enter into politics, specifically your voting choices? I'd say it's more important to consider the character of the person for whom you are voting than their specific policies.

It gets problematic in that how do you really know anything substantive about these folks at the end of the day. That Newsom story was really big locally, so it obviously caught my attention. 

That said, i agree in principle. How am I supposed to trust this guy when his own best friend obviously can't?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I would largely argue the opposite, provided that their character does not have absurdly large flaws that would affect their policies. 
EG, I object strongly to Teddy Roosevelt's habit of hunting, and hate it with a passion, and would support him for POTUS in an instant. 

I agree with that as well, just so long as the obvious positives far outweigh the obvious negatives. Not sure that Newsom qualifies, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I would largely argue the opposite, provided that their character does not have absurdly large flaws that would affect their policies. 
EG, I object strongly to Teddy Roosevelt's habit of hunting, and hate it with a passion, and would support him for POTUS in an instant. 

What's hunting got to do with one's personal integrity? I'd vote for an honest and transparent conservative over a dishonest, shady liberal. It's the whole problem with democracy these days, people ignore the thing that matters in a person, and favour things that matter less and are more subject to change and modification through reasoned discussion and negotiation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It gets problematic in that how do you really know anything substantive about these folks at the end of the day. That Newsom story was really big locally, so it obviously caught my attention. 

That said, i agree in principle. How am I supposed to trust this guy when his own best friend obviously can't?  

Another problem with the current construct of democracy. The expectation that we vote for people we do not know at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

What's hunting got to do with one's personal integrity? I'd vote for an honest and transparent conservative over a dishonest, shady liberal. It's the whole problem with democracy these days, people ignore the thing that matters in a person, and favour things that matter less and are more subject to change and modification through reasoned discussion and negotiation..

Ultimately what had been one of the best gauges on what a politician would do was their promised goals when campaigning. (this may be changing with Trump, but prior to him it was pretty reliable). I don't know what a person will do based on their integrity or lack thereof, but I can at least vote for someone who promises to attempt to get changes I care about. 

In this respect, I don't care about whether they align with conservative or liberal views as much as I care about specific policies. 

Because ultimately how a person behaves is not as important in an elected official to me as what the person will actually do.

Now, where this gets tricky is if you can believe that the person will actually attempt to do the things they said they would. Again, prior to Trump this had been a pretty easy way to figure out things, but that may be changing significantly. Though even Trump is trying to do some of his horrible things; the AHCA is a good example of him doing a complete 180 on all his campaign promises, but the travel ban and the EPA and the regulation removals are good examples of him keeping promises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

I have found a copy of the NBER working paper, which I'm going to read tonight.

A couple of things:

1. To be honest I've always thought a $12 minimum wage was more reasonable and not have adverse effects.

2. That said, from what I read, the study says that the overall level of employment didn't drop. That's a bit of a red flag.

3. It's important to keep in mind that the minimum wage is only one policy tool among many, like universal coverage and the EITC.


 

The “high road” Seattle labor market and the effects of the minimum wage increase
Data limitations and methodological problems bias new analysis of Seattle’s minimum wage increase

http://www.epi.org/publication/the-high-road-seattle-labor-market-and-the-effects-of-the-minimum-wage-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks increasingly unlikely that the senate is passing their bill this week. So far tonight, I've seen Heller, Paul, Lee, and Collins all say they won't even vote for the motion to proceed to debate on the bill; much less voting on its approval. Johnson has strongly hinted he'll also vote against the motion to proceed; and has been clear he's a no vote on approving the bill.

No word yet from Cassidy, Capito, Murkowski, etc. Cruz is still a no on approval, but hasn't said where he stands on the motion to proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Huh, was hoping for more of a Carrie addresses the kill-the-poor faction of Congress after the prom vibe...

I like it! How about Annie Wilkes from Misery torturing a bed bound Mitch McConnell.

"I'll take real good care of ya, Mitchy. YOU DIRTY_BIRDY! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the live press conference with Trump and the Prime Minister of India, and the bizarre nature of his speeches never ceases to amaze me. He made this great build-up about the things he and Modi have in common, and the punch line? They both use social media well.

I mean, wtf?

But then again when the president of Panama was in town last week, Trump, at their press conference, said "we really built that canal well, didn't we?" Geez, what a wtf moment! The president of Panama, in case you missed it, responded by saying "A hundred years ago?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...