|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
When you think about it, any reduction to the tax rate of lower income brackets also reduces the bill of higher income households. Sneaky, sneaky! gently caress means-testing.
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So Y'all have turned on a dime and now think handwringing about the deficit and attacks on the efficacy of government to implement complex policy are totally valid arguments agains expanding the welfare state? Truly the beating heart of leftism ITT. Context matters. Screaming about "THE DEFICIT" is not the same as bringing up that a minimum wage increase > EITC.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
loving worthless Democrats waiting until 2018 to pass $15 an hour:quote:House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday vowed to take up a $15 minimum wage in the first 100 hours of the next Congress if Democrats take back the chamber next year. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/25/democrats-2018-agenda-minimum-wage-increase-238828
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
I'm a little concerned that part of the recent Democratic support for stuff like $15/hr and (even moreso) single-payer/Medicare-for-All might be predicated on them not controlling either group in Congress and having zero chance of actually passing anything. I mean, it's still a good thing regardless (since merely expressing approval helps to normalize such ideas/policies), but I can't help but feel kind of cautious/cynical.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
it's predicated on the fact that dem fundraising is hitting 8 year lows and so the dems now have to come crawling back to their base cup in hand. as soon as they win and corporate dollars start flowing in again they'll ignore us again
Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's predicated on the fact that dem fundraising is hitting 30 year lows and so the dems now have to come crawling back to their base cup in hand. as soon as they win and corporate dollars start flowing in again they'll ignore us again Yeah, at this point, I think a lot of their base is going to need to see proof before dollars start rolling in.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also JC you're still a massive moron without an understanding of economics, who's pretending they're a loving professor. Even if minimum wage leads to price increases, that doesn't mean that people living on that wage will experience a decrease in living standards - in fact, it must increase. Why? Because total costs = total wages + dividends, and not everyone is on minimum wage. Only human beings actually earn money. Each product has some proportion of wage labor built into it, which has the different wage levels contributing to the cost, ie: 30% minimum wage, 40% median wage, 30% high wage. Even if the minimum wage increases, that only affects the proportion of the labor in a product that pays minimum wage. That price increase will be both proportional to the wage increase, but also to the proportion of labor that pays minium wage, which since it is less than 100%, must mean that the product of the two, which is the proportional increase in the cost of production, must be less than the proportional increase in the minimum wage. You are not considering people outside the labor force, and the unemployed. Yes, the people who get a wage increase will be better off, even if prices increase as well. But those who don't or can't work just get stuck with higher prices. Around 20% of households have no members employed. These households are, obviously, disproportionately poor and particularly vulnerable to price increases. Condiv posted:it's predicated on the fact that dem fundraising is hitting 8 year lows and so the dems now have to come crawling back to their base cup in hand. as soon as they win and corporate dollars start flowing in again they'll ignore us again You're confusing DNC fundraising and democratic fundraising. The latter is at historic highs--actblue processed over 100 million in donations in the first quarter of 2017.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
if you opposed the Democrats because of their ties to institutional donors, you should be cheering the low fundraising of the DNC, as it weakens the Democrats' ties to large donors
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
I absolutely am cheering for low DNC fundraising numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Of they want that "Bernie money," they need to adopt his platform.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Ah JC now pretends to like those on welfare.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You are not considering people outside the labor force, and the unemployed. Yes, the people who get a wage increase will be better off, even if prices increase as well. But those who don't or can't work just get stuck with higher prices. Around 20% of households have no members employed. These households are, obviously, disproportionately poor and particularly vulnerable to price increases. Strengthen the social safety net. This isn't that hard, dude.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You are not considering people outside the labor force, and the unemployed. Yes, the people who get a wage increase will be better off, even if prices increase as well. But those who don't or can't work just get stuck with higher prices. Around 20% of households have no members employed. These households are, obviously, disproportionately poor and particularly vulnerable to price increases. These discussions can get so acrimonious, I'm glad we can agree on the desperate need for a basic income and not just a minimum wage or tax credit.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You are not considering people outside the labor force, and the unemployed. Yes, the people who get a wage increase will be better off, even if prices increase as well. But those who don't or can't work just get stuck with higher prices. Around 20% of households have no members employed. These households are, obviously, disproportionately poor and particularly vulnerable to price increases. Yes, but the benefit still ultimately outweighs the harm, because the overwhelming majority of the benefit targets people who are relatively poor economically (or at least below median income) while the harm/costs are distributed more towards higher earners (when compared with the benefits, that is). Also, that's not considering the fact that significantly increased spending (resulting from increased wages) would likely result in increased hiring (because increased demand requires increased supply), though I'm not making that a core part of the argument because it's difficult to quantify how big this effect would be. But the point is that this isn't a zero sum situation; increasing minimum wage also improves the local economies in poorer areas in addition to its more direct effects.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Strengthen the social safety net. Yes, that would be more effective. But what about the deficit?  Ytlaya posted:Yes, but the benefit still ultimately outweighs the harm, because the overwhelming majority of the benefit targets people who are relatively poor economically (or at least below median income) while the harm/costs are distributed more towards higher earners (when compared with the benefits, that is). All of this is probably true, although increased hiring only addresses a piece of the problem because many households don't earn wages due to disability and age rather than a lack of suitable employment. It's important to remember that while the overall effect is to transfer wealth from the rich to minimum wage workers, there's also a transfer from poor households without wage-earners to minimum wage workers, which is undesirable. The EITC doesn't have that problem, and neither does welfare generally, assuming they're not financed by taxing the poor.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:But what about the deficit? I propose we shrink the deficit by requiring the rich to actually pay taxes. Radical, I know.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
on topic: https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/867892182765772802
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You are not considering people outside the labor force, and the unemployed. Yes, the people who get a wage increase will be better off, even if prices increase as well. But those who don't or can't work just get stuck with higher prices. Around 20% of households have no members employed. These households are, obviously, disproportionately poor and particularly vulnerable to price increases. For example, people on food stamps. Someone who gets $80 a month for food is likely to react with incandescent fury at the notion that they suddenly have to pay more for their groceries.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
JC, ignoring that deficit derail for a second, do you support a means test free payroll payment from the federal government to everyone, or do you just envision the current EITC being spread out across the year, with its current means test qualifications largely still in place? Because other than that, it seems you have not provided any meaningful ways to tackle these issues.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, that would be more effective. But what about the deficit? gently caress you, you disingenuous prick. Don't quote me out of context.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:For example, people on food stamps. Someone who gets $80 a month for food is likely to react with incandescent fury at the notion that they suddenly have to pay more for their groceries. SNAP benefits are automatically adjusted for inflation every year.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:SNAP benefits are automatically adjusted for inflation every year. the one weakness of the anime conservative, someone who knows anything about anything
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:SNAP benefits are automatically adjusted for inflation every year. Also we waste 40% of our food. There's plenty to ensure everyone can eat. There's 6 houses to every homeless person, most of them lovely McMansions. There's no reason to have hungry or homeless people in our country other than to make the wealthy even richer.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
I have to say given all the hot takes here about Quist being the progressive candidate and Ossoff being the devil-centrist one, it's pretty good to see Quist losing and Ossof likely winning. What happened to that great silent progressive majority that the thread was crowing about?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I have to say given all the hot takes here about Quist being the progressive candidate and Ossoff being the devil-centrist one, it's pretty good to see Quist losing and Ossof likely winning. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I have to say given all the hot takes here about Quist being the progressive candidate and Ossoff being the devil-centrist one, it's pretty good to see Quist losing and Ossof likely winning. I rate this troll post 3/10. Really need to put more effort into it. Quist ran with very little support from the party, and put up a good show. I hope he's there in 2018.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Idk silly hippy dumb-leftist candidate Quist is on track to outdo Pragmatic Serious-Person's Choice Hillary Clinton in Montana by double digits, and her opponent was a self-admitted pussygrabbing rapist 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Idk silly hippy dumb-leftist candidate Quist is on track to outdo Pragmatic Serious-Person's Choice Hillary Clinton in Montana by double digits, and her opponent was a self-admitted pussygrabbing rapist Hey, I hope to see more like him running in 2018. Guy really put up a good fight and didn't run a joke of a campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey, I hope to see more like him running in 2018. Guy really put up a good fight and didn't run a joke of a campaign. I always like candidates who aren't the typical credentialed lawyer/politician. Nothing more democratic than that. And Quist is probably the best kind of Democrat you could get out of Montana. I'd like to see more Democratic candidates in deep Republican areas that have positions that focus less on the wedge issues and more on what affects people's everyday lives (economic, healthcare, etc). Bernie's "big tent" approach is the way forward, seems like Perez agrees too. You can get a lot of diverse groups that differ on socials issues united with a solid economic program and real healthcare reform, since these issues go beyond the more divisive social identity politics. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 06:07 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay, do you have any specific problem with Universal Basic Income?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
it helps the poor
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I have to say given all the hot takes here about Quist being the progressive candidate and Ossoff being the devil-centrist one, it's pretty good to see Quist losing and Ossof likely winning. Let me show you.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Heath Mello had NARAL sink him and Quist had some retard from the Guardian getting 'body-slammed'...will some national story happen to Jon Ossoff that will rally local conservatives in the final moments of his campaign? I'm guessing no. https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/867831459427504128
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Heath Mello had NARAL sink him and Quist had some retard from the Guardian getting 'body-slammed'...will some national story happen to Jon Ossoff that will rally local conservatives in the final moments of his campaign? I'm guessing no. Lmao that's great. I love watching liberals getting slapped by reality time and time again because they keep expecting the other side to "grow up"/waiting for the "honorable" republicans to show up and vote against the big mean GOP.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:Lmao that's great. I love watching liberals getting slapped by reality time and time again because they keep expecting the other side to "grow up"/waiting for the "honorable" republicans to show up and vote against the big mean GOP.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
And of course the Trump thread just dogpiles anyone who expresses the slightest bit of negativity. When an electorate prefers literal criminals and fascists, what the gently caress do you do?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Verus posted:And of course the Trump thread just dogpiles anyone who expresses the slightest bit of negativity. When an electorate prefers literal criminals and fascists, what the gently caress do you do?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:if you opposed the Democrats because of their ties to institutional donors, you should be cheering the low fundraising of the DNC, as it weakens the Democrats' ties to large donors i am. didn't you see the part where i'm happy they're forced to crawl back to their base? doesn't mean i trust the slime though, they'll abandon us again once they think they can. gotta primary em all.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Verus posted:And of course the Trump thread just dogpiles anyone who expresses the slightest bit of negativity. When an electorate prefers literal criminals and fascists, what the gently caress do you do? The one-two strategy of 'Coax & Compromise,' especially when it isn't working.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Thin out the electorate of course. The problem is that we haven't been hunting these motherfuckers in a long time and their population has swelled and verging on collapse and dragging the entire ecosystem down with them. The humane thing to do is cull their numbers back to something reasonable. "We?" The only thing you and this thread are capable of hunting is the next box of Nutra-Grains. Speaking of which, the college professor in Berkeley who thought it'd be a good idea to cave in 3 Trump supporter's skulls with a bike lock is currently locked up on 200 grand bail. Preaching political violence may play well with the D&D crowd, but out in the real world, stable normal people don't particularly care for it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 13:35
|
|