US Politics: The Roll Call Heard Across America

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Peter Navarro accuses the Dems and the Chinese Communist Party of entering into a "common cause" to defeat Trump:

Heh.  You know what?  Fine.  Trumpists, you guys take the Russians, and we'll take the Chinese.  Let's see who wins.

Hey, I mentioned this in the last thread last week. Navarro came on CNBC before the markets opened and went on and on in this vein. Maybe you remember, he also said that 'what you will hear every day all day at the Democratic convention next week is how President Trump is responsible for the virus, when the only president responsible for the virus is the unelected president of China'.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Trump's unpredictability is overblown by domestic US analysts who are not in the bag for Trump, and they project that perspective on the thinking of trading partners and economic rivals. In our trade negotiations divisions Trump's unpredictability doesn't get a mention. It really is not relevant.

No, you're right, I'm sure the Chinese are just thrilled with Trump about this that he just did, and want four more years of it:

Quote

President Donald Trump said he called off last weekend’s trade talks with China, raising questions about the future of a deal that is now the most stable point in an increasingly tense relationship.

“I canceled talks with China,” Trump said Tuesday in Yuma, Arizona. “I don’t want to talk to China right now.”

The phase-one trade deal, which came into force in February, had called for discussions on implementation of the agreement every six months. Chinese Vice Premier Liu He was supposed to hold a video conference call with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, but it was postponed indefinitely.

On Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian deferred comment to the “competent department” when asked about Trump’s remarks on the trade talks.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hey, I mentioned this in the last thread last week.

Yeah it was Navarro's linkage of the Democratic Party to the Chinese Communist Party that was...newly provocative this afternoon.

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yeah it was Navarro's linkage of the Democratic Party to the Chinese Communist Party that was...newly provocative this afternoon.

No, no, that's exactly what he was spinning, on Friday or Thursday. He said the Democrats and the Chinese had joined forces.

[DMC]

Again, it's the party to (communist) party language I'm referring to that new.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah it's real tough living off of $100k a year.  And they don't make good yachts anymore.  You sound ridiculous.

$100k goes a long way in some places and not so much in others. That's why I used SF as an example. And you're just assuming one person was living off of that. Now make it a single parent with two kids who also has to take care of an aging parent while representing (and thus living in) a wealthier district with a high cost of living. 

Quote

What's the argument for why it "should" be that way?  To attract the greediest motherfuckers among us to elected office?  Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Why is asking for better pay the equivalent of attracting greedy bastards? Play that out to its logical conclusion. And again, the greed comes on the back end, not while someone is in office unless they are openly corrupt. 

Quote

Hybrid and especially part-time legislators are paid less because generally they are rarely in session nearly as much as a full-time legislature would be.  They have plenty of time and opportunities to pursue alternative means of income, and if you don't they do you really don't know much about state legislatures.

Lol, I only worked in one, and yes, there are people who do find it hard to get work if they have to be absent for half the year (using my state as an example). And that's before you even start to think about their staff. A lot of businesses wouldn't want to deal with that, and the ones that do are actually creating a situation that could increase the chances of corruption, which is what you want to avoid, right?

[The Anti-Targ]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, you're right, I'm sure the Chinese are just thrilled with Trump about this that he just did, and want four more years of it:

 

Sarcasm aside, honestly, some in the Chinese hierarchy will be thrilled because it makes China look like a reliable diplomatic partner and the US look unreliable. And if you think in 4-d chess then one should be almost anticipating the postponement of trade talks in the midst of the COVID crisis and Trump's grip on securing a 2nd term slipping. indefinite here means we'll have to get a second term before we can commit to anything and there will be no meeting before the election.

These were only trade agreement implementing talks, not negotiating new trade agreements. So there is no big win with a piece of paper with Trumps signature on it to be able to wave around if the talks go ahead, but there is a political tough guy veneer to be displayed by appearing to dismiss China.

@Tywin et al. China also wants a politically fragmented West. It has competing priorities, yes, but ultimately China would be happy to be the king of a smaller hill than always gazing up at the USA, a perpetual pretender to the king of a much bigger hill. China is far more worried about the long term effects of COVID globally than what a future Trump administration will do. And on COVID, assuming China has a high degree of confidence in the vaccine that will come on stream next year, they will already be calculating how to get through. You can make the case that the Trump administration has made the economic hit from COVID worse, but there was never any possibility of avoiding a big economic hit. China has a global strategy which includes managing its economic relationship with the USA, and while it is an important part of its strategy it is not the be all and end all.

[Mindwalker]

Probably a stupid question: Why did Delaware "pass"?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm not sure if this was linked yet, and while it's still just talk, ugh:

Quote

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday would not say whether President Trump would accept the results of the November election if he is not declared the winner, adding to comments from the president in recent days sowing doubt about the outcome of the vote.

McEnany was asked twice about Trump's comments earlier this week in which he claimed that the only way he would lose in November is if the election is "rigged." She did not answer directly either time.

"The president believes he's done a great job for the American people, and that will show in November," she told one reporter, adding that Trump "believes that voter fraud is real," particularly with mail ballots. Experts have said there is scant evidence of meaningful fraud associated with mail-in voting.

“He wants a fair election, and he wants confidence in the results of the election," McEnany added.

"Is the president saying if he doesn't win this election — that he will not accept the results unless he wins?" another reporter asked.

"The president has always said he'll see what happens and make a determination in the aftermath. It's the same thing he said last election,"

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/512742-mcenany-wont-say-if-trump-would-accept-election-result-if-he-loses

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Probably a stupid question: Why did Delaware "pass"?

Quote

CNN reported that Delaware passed because the state wants to be the final vote for Biden. This actually isn’t unusual for the DNC roll call vote.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/08/why-did-delaware-pass-during-dnc-convention-roll-call-vote/

It's the state he represented. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Now make it a single parent with two kids who also has to take care of an aging parent while representing (and thus living in) a wealthier district with a high cost of living. 

Then move somewhere that doesn't have such a high cost of living, or don't run for elected office until you're financially secure.  I have hard time garnering sympathy for the single mother with two kids and dependent parent that can't run for a state legislator seat because she lives in Manhattan or Beverly Hills.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Play that out to its logical conclusion. And again, the greed comes on the back end, not while someone is in office unless they are openly corrupt.

I am playing it out to its logical conclusion.  The closer salaries get to the market rate for public officials' skills, the more susceptible such officials will be to regulatory capture.  That's basic organizational theory.  And the corruption isn't just on the backend, they don't call it a revolving door for nothing.  Even it it just come out the backend, that's supposed to make it acceptable?  What the hell are you arguing here?

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, I only worked in one, and yes, there are people who do find it hard to get work if they have to be absent for half the year (using my state as an example).

Lol, I've known many state legislators, a handful of them even still friends, in four different states.  You're not the only one with anecdotal knowledge.  I don't know why you're talking about their staff.  Legislators can't get jobs in the private sector for their staff.  Pretty sure that's illegal.  And if they're in a part-time or even hybrid legislature, they barely have any personal staff anyway.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Then move somewhere that doesn't have such a high cost of living, or don't run for elected office until you're financially secure.  I have hard time garnering sympathy for the single mother with two kids and dependent parent that can't run for a state legislator seat because she lives in Manhattan or Beverly Hills.

And that's the point for making the positions pay better. You're actively excluding a lot of talented people from running if they can't afford to live off of the salary offered. Trump should have taught everyone that having money does not mean you're an intelligent, capable and moral person. 

Quote

I am playing it out to its logical conclusion.  The closer salaries get to the market rate for public officials' skills, the more susceptible such officials will be to regulatory capture.  That's basic organizational theory.  

I never said they should get close to what they can make in the private sector, just that legislators can be compensated better than they currently are. 
 

Quote

And the corruption isn't just on the backend, they don't call it a revolving door for nothing.  Even it it just come out the backend, that's supposed to make it acceptable?  What the hell are you arguing here?

Huh? I've argued for years here and elsewhere that we need strict, enforceable laws to stop the revolving door. That's literally what I'm talking about with corruption on the back end. Politicians make so much more money after they leave office and that's what needs to be stopped. 

Quote

Lol, I've known many state legislators, a handful of them even still friends, in four different states.  You're not the only one with anecdotal knowledge.  

I never said you didn't. You were the one questioning my experience.

Quote

I don't know why you're talking about their staff.  Legislators can't get jobs in the private sector for their staff.  Pretty sure that's illegal.  And if they're in a part-time or even hybrid legislature, they barely have any personal staff anyway.

Because the staff get paid even less, and it's even harder for them to find work when the legislature is out of session, and both they and the EO still have to do a ton of work on a daily basis absent trying to do another job. 

And I never said they were getting them work. I'm not sure if that's legal or not. I'm guessing it depends on the state.

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

You're actively excluding a lot of talented people from running if they can't afford to live off of the salary offered.

And you're actively ignoring the fact such people can move to places with a lower cost of living.

You said they needed to be "paid a lot more."  I assume that means very sizable raise.

So, you said twice the only problem with raising salaries a lot is greed and/or corruption on the backend, and now you're saying the backend needs to be stopped?  Let me know when you decide on a position.

I prefer aggregate data to one person's anecdotal experience, yes.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

the EO still have to do a ton of work on a daily basis absent trying to do another job. 

No, they don't!  Not in part-time systems when the legislature isn't in session for more than a quarter of the year.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

And you're actively ignoring the fact such people can move to places with a lower cost of living.

This isn't always practical, and it's getting really expensive to live in less than ideal parts of large cities. The example I used before with my friend isn't some fancy ass place, it's a studio with a small loft to use as a makeshift bedroom.

Quote

You said they needed to be "paid a lot more."  I assume that means very sizable raise.

So, you said twice the only problem with raising salaries a lot is greed and/or corruption on the backend, and now you're saying the backend needs to be stopped?  Let me know when you decide on a position.

That's because you keep using Cali as the example you're working off of. Some states pay their legislators very poorly. The Gov. of NM is speaking, and their state legislators don't even get paid a base salary or an hourly wage. They just get per diem, albeit a more generous one than what a lot of states offer. And no, what I said, or was trying to say, is that raising their salaries pales in comparison to the corruption that occurs once they leave office and take jobs that pay way, way more because they're selling their access. Fuck that noise. That's way worse than asking for a 10-25% raise in pay to do a shitty, often times thankless job. 

Quote

No, they don't!  Not in part-time systems when the legislature isn't in session for more than a quarter of the year.

You seem to just be limiting this to their in session legislative work. When the legislature is not in session, they're still doing a ton of events, helping their constituents and raising money, among other things. The job doesn't end when the session is over unless you're a really shitty legislator. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

@Tywin et al. China also wants a politically fragmented West. It has competing priorities, yes, but ultimately China would be happy to be the king of a smaller hill than always gazing up at the USA, a perpetual pretender to the king of a much bigger hill. 

I can't say I know a ton about China's modern foreign policy, but I don't doubt they'd be fine with a fractured West, assuming it doesn't hurt their economy in any meaningful way. That said, I'm not sure about the second part of this. I figured China sees itself as close to, if not already, an equal to the U.S.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This isn't always practical, and it's getting really expensive to live in less than ideal parts of large cities.

Yes if someone want to be single, have kids, and run for state legislator you might be required to hunker down with us heathen plebeians.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Some states pay their legislators very poorly. The Gov. of NM is speaking, and their state legislators don't even get paid a base salary or an hourly wage.

That's because the NM legislature is only in session from January 15th to March 16th!  If you don't get the differences by now I don't know what to tell you.  As far as your backend point, the more you raise salaries for elected officials the more likely you're going to attract people that will interact between those industries and the legislature that's supposed to write the laws that regulate them.  And that will exacerbate regulatory capture, otherwise known as corruption.  Again, this is basic organizational theory.

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

When the legislature is not in session, they're still doing a ton of events, helping their constituents and raising money, among other things.

They're doing constituency service and campaigning.  Combined, that's hardly an arduous job for a state legislator.

[karaddin]

If someone with several factors (being a single parent and a caregiver to their own elderly parent) can't get by on an above median salary provided by being a member of the state legislature then maybe it's a problem that could be solved by increasing support for single parents & caregivers rather than the politicians salary. Those same time pressures are going to be true for anyone else under those circumstances, it doesn't seem like the politician is uniquely worthy of assistance. You'd also be giving that same raise to politicians that are single and live in cheaper areas and really don't need it. 

This is of course purely hypothetical because we all know this approach won't get anywhere in the US.

[Mindwalker]

Hilary's speech is actually not bad. "We can still lose, take it from me!"

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes if someone want to be single, have kids, and run for state legislator you might be required to hunker down with us heathen plebeians.

. What's rent like in your area, because it's not uncommon here to find a studio in a crappy part of the outskirts on Minneapolis for close to $1,000? The same rates a decade ago could get you a pretty nice two bedroom apartment in a decent to nice part of the cities. LA's spiraling cost of living issues make that look like nothing. 

Quote

That's because the NM legislature is only in session from January 15th to March 16th!  If you don't get the differences by now I don't know what to tell you.  

I get the difference, but that doesn't mean it's not shit pay to do an important and hard job, and like you said below, it's still a year round job, but they only get paid for a few months work and even then it's not guaranteed they'll even get that money.

Quote

As far as your backend point, the more you raise salaries for elected officials the more likely you're going to attract people that will interact between those industries and the legislature that's supposed to write the laws that regulate them.  And that will exacerbate regulatory capture, otherwise known as corruption.  Again, this is basic organizational theory.

I'd argue this cuts both ways. Underpaid people in need of money could very well be more likely to do exactly what you're discussing. Corporations aren't hiring these people because they're the most talented. They just want that access. 

Like, did you not see Jurassic Park? 

Quote

They're doing constituency service and campaigning.  Combined, that's hardly an arduous job for a state legislator.

Since you like to nitpick, no, it's not arduous per se, but it can be time consuming, which can interfere with one's ability to work assuming they take a more normal job when the session ends. Some people don't need to work, others may own their own business so it doesn't matter or they have a job that is flexible, but you can't just assume that's the case.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What's rent like in your area

I pay $1200 for an 1150 square foot two-bed, two-bath with washer and dryer.  I live 4 miles away from campus, and yes, right next to the ghetto, but the apartment complex is on a steep hill so I like our natural defenses.  And hell, even though it's 4 miles away, still have a great view of this.  Which, admittedly hasn't been the greatest the past couple years, because every time I went out to have a cig I felt guilty about not finishing my diss.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'd argue this cuts both ways. Underpaid people in need of money could very well be more likely to do exactly what you're discussing. Corporations aren't hiring these people because they're the most talented. They just want that access.

"Underpaid" people are less likely to engage in regulatory capture precisely because they are doing the job not because of the financial incentive.  This has been empirically demonstrated, when it comes to the bureaucracy there's an entire subfield that demonstrates satisfaction in one's work decreases the likelihood of corruption. 

Your argument boils down to they should be paid more so we can attract people that are more interested in money than doing public service.  Normatively, that's based on a very warped view of what public service means.  I don't want those people.  You know why New Hampshire only pays their legislators $100 a year?  Because many of the founder/framers didn't think public officials should be paid at all.  It's their duty.  Now, I think that's horseshit because all that does on the other extreme is attract rich people that don't have to work for a living, but this ethos seems unfortunately foreign to you.

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Some people don't need to work, others may own their own business so it doesn't matter or they have a job that is flexible, but you can't just assume that's the case.

You mentioned lawyers earlier.  And you're right, of course, a lot of legislators are lawyers.  You don't think a state legislator can find a job as an associate at a firm with a flexible schedule?  Or, say, higher education would not be interested in hiring a state legislator and being flexible with their schedule?  You're ignoring the bevy of job opportunities a state legislator can be exposed to without ever getting into business.  Are they the highest paying one's?  Nope.  But they'll definitely get by.