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

[TrackerNeil]

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.

I'll nitpick the nitpick and say that Democratic constituencies don't turn out in off-year elections the same way they do in presidential elections. Although I admit it's true these elections are never great for the party in power, 2006 was a bit of an outlier, I think. Things in Iraq had gone so badly that a Democratic sweep was much more plausible than anyone would have predicted back in 2000.

That sounds good and I'm sure it's what you tell yourself to feel better. But the truth is, dems are in a tough spot because they have done nothing to help their constituents and large segments of their base. Unemployment rates for AA and Latinos are still high. No balls to do anything about immigration. And the economy still stinks. The usual effects of liberalism

Wait...Democrats are holding up immigration? You mean by passing a Senate bill that is STILL sitting in the House? Uh-huh, sure.

[Wee baby Shamus]

Don't forget Prince that most of the Democrats running for Congress right now do NOT want President Obama to campaign for them.

I wonder why that is???

[Seli]

That sounds good and I'm sure it's what you tell yourself to feel better. But the truth is, dems are in a tough spot because they have done nothing to help their constituents and large segments of their base. Unemployment rates for AA and Latinos are still high. No balls to do anything about immigration. And the economy still stinks. The usual effects of liberalism

So what is the use of voting in another liberal party? One that is probably worse because it has segments that are reactionary and actively against parts of your population?

[Athias]

A long roundabout way of saying nothing. You literally did not answer a single one of my points but instead just whinged about me poking holes in your bullshit. So now you've retreated to claims of ... ad hominem? That word, I do not thinking it means what you think it means.

I'm not backtracking, I'm making the same point I have been all along. You are claiming via the neoclassical supply-demand model (whether you understand that you are or not) that the minimum wage is a price floor and thus will cause a mismatch between demand and supply. And then, when it was pointed out that, in fact, the evidence all suggests that the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment, you have retreated to saying it causes "distortions". Which is both pulled out of your ass (cause what are distortions in the supply-demand model of the labour market if not unemployment) and an attempt to side-step the evidence by claiming there's some other problem that you refuse to define. It's nothing but you dodging the issue that your own argument is contradicted by the evidence by inventing a new problem ("distortions") that you are unable or unwilling to define.

Define what your "distortions" are. You've mentioned unemployment (which is in fact the only one under the model you are using) but we've already shown and you have already accepted that this is a distortion that does not occur. So what do you mean otherwise?

Cause until you can give an actual concrete measurable, your continued harping on "distortions" is nothing but hot air. What are these distortions?

PS - the fact that your link is a website set up deliberately to push a libertarian economics agenda is incredibly relevant. It's why you'll note (or I guess, not notice in your case) that the site sticks only to the neoclassical model and does not mention recent work that I saw.

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:

The studies that you've provided do not state that the minimum-wage doesn't "kill jobs." (I'm not putting forth that you used the words "kill jobs." I'm only acknowledging the response to daskool.) It states that incremental increases in the minimum-wage does not negatively affect unemployment. Anyone who has studied economics knows that price-controls (minimum wage) create distortions--i.e. unemployment--the labor market not excluded. How extensive these distortions are can be debated depending on the extent of the increases and the rigidity of the controls.

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. However, that's all rather trivial. I don't need data to back up the fact that when a minimum wage of--let's say--eight dollars is imposed, it means that those who have a marginal productivity of $7.99 or less are now legally unemployable. This may in practice create spillovers into informal or "black" labor markets--that I don't deny. However, the studies to which I was referring only captures data from legal employment--ergo, my assumption is that these studies are cautious in their interpretations. That is, these do not state that the minimum wage does not create unemployment, only incrimental increases has not worsened it.

Your "evidence" Shryke doesn't suggest otherwise. The evidence you proffer suggests that increasing the minimum wage hasn't worsened unemployment. I'm not making my argument against that statement.

I provided a link in my first post on this thread. Did you read it?

No. You are misrepresenting my argument. My argument isn't against what the data you proffer suggests because the data you proffer does not countermand my point. Have you read those studies? I did--and in those studies, it is suggested, once again, incremental increases in the minimum-wage has not worsened or negatively impacted unemployment. I don't need to dodge this because it does not disprove that the minimum-wage creates distortions. So before you go on and accuse me of "pulling shit out my ass" why don't read the studies you proffer. And if you've already have, please cite "the facts" that would suggest that the minimum-wage does not create distortions.

What I can "imagine" is not an argument. That is your impression. You continue to argue that I'm arguing in spite of "all evidence." Please point out to me, which evidence I'm arguing against.

If you have anything to contribute that advances this discussion, I'll re-enter it.

So, if people voluntarily get together and agree that they'll all refuse to work for less than a certain value, and elect spokespersons to negotiate with the company that wishes to hire them, you'd have no problem with it?

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

Why is that suddenly "force" while the worker is not "forced" to accept a pittance when the alternative is starvation?

Because starvation does not have agency--people do.

Because you are ignoring that both parties are not in an equal position to bargain here.

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

[TerraPrime]

Wait...Democrats are holding up immigration? You mean by passing a Senate bill that is STILL sitting in the House? Uh-huh, sure.

Facts rarely matter in these cases when the soundbites had sunked in and taken hold. It has been the gameplan from the GOP all along, after all, to obstruct Congress so that the Democrats couldn't run on records. It has worked, on some issues better than in others.

[Mr Fixit]

It's not imposing a price. It's setting a floor. So as to avoid exploitation. I assume you're against exploitation.

People can, and do, still negotiate agreements upon a wage for which they will submit their labor. Usually, the people privileged enough to actually negotiate are doing so for sums that wouldn't be affected by a minimum wage, as those sums are usually a lot higher than a hypothetical $15 per hour minimum wage.

And the $100 or $1,000 per hour minimum wage example is just silly. There are limits to everything. $15 an hour is clearly nowhere near that limit. The real dissension is not due to market interruptions or the such. It's due to greed. Don't bother asking for studies or research. This is my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, wouldn't it better to try it and find out? Just like with the disastrous trickle-down economics theory, which only managed to shift over 90% of the gains from economic growth to the top 10% of the population? Although I'm sure that to the proponents of trickle-down economics, it accomplished exactly what they wanted.

Talking about simple economics. Wouldn't people having more money to go out and spend do more for the economy - yes even creating jobs - than giving the wealthy more money to hide or horde?

As for businesses creating jobs, isn't the motivation of a businessman to make as much money as possible with as little cost as possible? The perfect scenario for a businessman would be to have as few workers as possible producing as much product as possible so they could keep as much money as possible. So it's in their interests to exploit the workforce as much as possible. Should we leave it to the businessman to decide those parameters? It would be like having the wolf decide security for the sheep.

You'll find this one interesting, I think. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

It's not imposing a price. It's setting a floor. So as to avoid exploitation. I assume you're against exploitation.

People can, and do, still negotiate agreements upon a wage for which they will submit their labor. Usually, the people privileged enough to actually negotiate are doing so for sums that wouldn't be affected by a minimum wage, as those sums are usually a lot higher than a hypothetical $15 per hour minimum wage.

And the $100 or $1,000 per hour minimum wage example is just silly. There are limits to everything. $15 an hour is clearly nowhere near that limit. The real dissension is not due to market interruptions or the such. It's due to greed. Don't bother asking for studies or research. This is my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, wouldn't it better to try it and find out? Just like with the disastrous trickle-down economics theory, which only managed to shift over 90% of the gains from economic growth to the top 10% of the population? Although I'm sure that to the proponents of trickle-down economics, it accomplished exactly what they wanted.

Talking about simple economics. Wouldn't people having more money to go out and spend do more for the economy - yes even creating jobs - than giving the wealthy more money to hide or horde?

As for businesses creating jobs, isn't the motivation of a businessman to make as much money as possible with as little cost as possible? The perfect scenario for a businessman would be to have as few workers as possible producing as much product as possible so they could keep as much money as possible. So it's in their interests to exploit the workforce as much as possible. Should we leave it to the businessman to decide those parameters? It would be like having the wolf decide security for the sheep.

Simple economics. Lowering taxes on both workers and companies would achieve the same objective. How is that not understood.

What's been proven is that when the government gets in bed with the private sector, the economy and especially the poor suffer.

Trickle down works, it's called capitalism

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Don't forget Prince that most of the Democrats running for Congress right now do NOT want President Obama to campaign for them.

I wonder why that is???

That's a good question. Especially when they've been peddling the same bs for the past six years. Well eight really

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I'll nitpick the nitpick and say that Democratic constituencies don't turn out in off-year elections the same way they do in presidential elections. Although I admit it's true these elections are never great for the party in power, 2006 was a bit of an outlier, I think. Things in Iraq had gone so badly that a Democratic sweep was much more plausible than anyone would have predicted back in 2000.

Wait...Democrats are holding up immigration? You mean by passing a Senate bill that is STILL sitting in the House? Uh-huh, sure.

Yeah, amnesty is not a plan

[Mr Fixit]

Simple economics. Lowering taxes on both workers and companies would achieve the same objective. How is that not understood.

What's been proven is that when the government gets in bed with the private sector, the economy and especially the poor suffer.

Trickle down works, it's called capitalism

Works for whom, though?

I'm not American, and I'm not really qualified to discuss this stuff. But, for example, I find it very interesting that US real gross domestic product increased by 35% in the last 20 years--I admit, that's some impressive growth--and yet medium household income increased by barely 5%.

I'll leave the analysis to someone better qualified than me.

[awesome possum]

That sounds good and I'm sure it's what you tell yourself to feel better.

And so you follow up a comment accusing you of your FoxNews showing by showing more of your FoxNews?

But the truth is, dems are in a tough spot because they have done nothing to help their constituents and large segments of their base.

Care to back that up with, you know, facts?

Unemployment rates for AA and Latinos are still high.

I know, it's almost as if the GOP have filibustered jobs bill after jobs bill

No balls to do anything about immigration.

Yep, sure thing chief. The Senate surely didn't pass an immigration bill 68-32 that the House has refused to even look at. We know you're fact-deficient but this has quickly passed the amusing mark.

And the economy still stinks.

And yet the economy is on track for its best growth in 9 years. This despite Republicans having filibustered and obstructed every single step of the way. The economy would be much better today if your party hadn't been such colossal sore losers and bitter losers about, well, losing.

The usual effects of liberalism

Yep, that's why this study concluded that the economy is often better under Democratic presidents.

Again, we all know you're fact-deficient, but holy shit man, these are very basic facts we're talking about. Just as how the Republicans have refused to run on anything of substance this cycle. You don't hear any policies from them or what they'd plan on doing, just that the Democrats are bad and you shouldn't vote for them. Looks like you've eaten that shit pie and asked for seconds.

[Wee baby Shamus]

And so you follow up a comment accusing you of your FoxNews showing by showing more of your FoxNews?

Care to back that up with, you know, facts?

I know, it's almost as if the GOP have filibustered jobs bill after jobs bill

Yep, sure thing chief. The Senate surely didn't pass an immigration bill 68-32 that the House has refused to even look at. We know you're fact-deficient but this has quickly passed the amusing mark.

And yet the economy is on track for its best growth in 9 years. This despite Republicans having filibustered and obstructed every single step of the way. The economy would be much better today if your party hadn't been such colossal sore losers and bitter losers about, well, losing.

Yep, that's why this study concluded that the economy is often better under Democratic presidents.

Again, we all know you're fact-deficient, but holy shit man, these are very basic facts we're talking about. Just as how the Republicans have refused to run on anything of substance this cycle. You don't hear any policies from them or what they'd plan on doing, just that the Democrats are bad and you shouldn't vote for them. Looks like you've eaten that shit pie and asked for seconds.

That's cute. All the adds I have seen this political season from the Democrats is that Republicans are bad and you shouldn't vote for them.

[The Fallen]

At this point I have to assume that our dear prince is just fucking with us. If no one responded to his silly posts, would they still exist?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Works for whom, though?

I'm not an American, and I'm not really qualified to discuss this stuff. But, for example, I find it very interesting that US real gross domestic product increased by 35% in the last 20 years--I admit, that's some impressive growth--and yet medium household income increased by barely 5%.

I'll leave the analysis to someone better qualified than me.

In the last 20 years, how many policies have been put into place to restrict capitalism? How much has the government tried to control the economy, only to harm it instead? How much would you say unprecedented government spend and tax policies effect the economy?

[Suttree]

county/irving/1003-w.-sixth-st./dmv-office-

I also love how the voter fraud crowd says that incidence after incidence of proving voter fraud is deemed insignificant.

Proven? On the contrary the results of investigations and studies showing it doesn't exist have been linked. So instead of a bs soundbite what specific examples are you referring to?

That's cute. All the adds I have seen this political season from the Democrats is that Republicans are bad and you shouldn't vote for them.

So campaign ads you've personally seen this cycle represent the whole of your understanding of the topic. That actually makes quite a bit of sense.

[TrackerNeil]

Yeah, amnesty is not a plan

Well, now we have Rush Limbaugh's point of view.

[TrackerNeil]

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.

If Rick Santorum can be a senator, I guess anyone can.

[Mr Fixit]

In the last 20 years, how many policies have been put into place to restrict capitalism? How much has the government tried to control the economy, only to harm it instead? How much would you say unprecedented government spend and tax policies effect the economy?

I have no clue. But your economy has grown by 35%, hasn't it? And almost all of that wealth seems to have gotten concentrated in a smallish number of hands.

[Wee baby Shamus]

Proven? On the contrary the results of investigations and studies showing it doesn't exist have been linked. So instead of a bs soundbite what specific examples are you referring to?

So campaign ads you've personally seen this cycle represent the whole of your understanding of the topic. That actually makes quite a bit of sense.

Wow!

Suttree responded to one of my posts and didn't claim that I am an alt account.

I need to bookmark that post.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

And so you follow up a comment accusing you of your FoxNews showing by showing more of your FoxNews?

Care to back that up with, you know, facts?

I know, it's almost as if the GOP have filibustered jobs bill after jobs bill

Yep, sure thing chief. The Senate surely didn't pass an immigration bill 68-32 that the House has refused to even look at. We know you're fact-deficient but this has quickly passed the amusing mark.

And yet the economy is on track for its best growth in 9 years. This despite Republicans having filibustered and obstructed every single step of the way. The economy would be much better today if your party hadn't been such colossal sore losers and bitter losers about, well, losing.

Yep, that's why this study concluded that the economy is often better under Democratic presidents.

Again, we all know you're fact-deficient, but holy shit man, these are very basic facts we're talking about. Just as how the Republicans have refused to run on anything of substance this cycle. You don't hear any policies from them or what they'd plan on doing, just that the Democrats are bad and you shouldn't vote for them. Looks like you've eaten that shit pie and asked for seconds.

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?