Random Political News

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:51 pm

Loving Gorsuch already

Here he is giving the other traditionally conservative judges a hard time


This dude might be the best one yet

https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/15/just ... sh-over-ce
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Buc2 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:03 pm

At the moment, I sorta side with Gorsuch on this. It would be interesting to see how this ultimately shakes out.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 728 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:33 pm

That would be like calling your Dad a loser at the dinner table when you're 12.

In front of his mother in law

On Christmas eve

Edit: Talking about NK and China.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Kress » Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:36 am

deltbucs wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:It's a thing.
http://time.com/money/collection-post/3573216/veterans-college-for-profit/

John Oliver went after them in 2014.

11:11 for the part about targeting Veterans.


This is such a good show. I've been watching a bunch of episodes on the youtube app on my firestick in the evenings lately. People would be so much better off learning about how the world really works from this show than just about any internet "news" source.



I just caught up on this thread, and am now addicted to Oliver. That is such good stuff.

By the way, how do you like your Firestick? I've heard mixed reviews.
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3737
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby mdb1958 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:36 am

Student debt and virus protection are kind of the same.

Dont go into debt - were going to make your life not run right.
Dont buy virus protection - were going to make your PC not run right.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 7502
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:36 pm

3 charts

What people thought was ideal wealth distribution
What people thought was the actual wealth distribution
Actual wealth distribution

Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:47 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:3 charts

What people thought was ideal wealth distribution
What people thought was the actual wealth distribution
Actual wealth distribution



I'm guessing you think the government needs to redistribute the wealth?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2785
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:55 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:3 charts

What people thought was ideal wealth distribution
What people thought was the actual wealth distribution
Actual wealth distribution



I'm guessing you think the government needs to redistribute the wealth?


I'd like the government to stop redistributing the wealth the way it currently is for starters.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Brazen331 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:02 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
I'm guessing you think the government needs to redistribute the wealth?


I'd like the government to stop redistributing the wealth the way it currently is for starters.


5 of the top 10 richest counties in the nation are suburbs of Washington DC. I thought you would be down with that. Looks like the Feds are redistributing and concentrating the wealth quite well and keeping it at home.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:28 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:
I'd like the government to stop redistributing the wealth the way it currently is for starters.


5 of the top 10 richest counties in the nation are suburbs of Washington DC. I thought you would be down with that. Looks like the Feds are redistributing and concentrating the wealth quite well and keeping it at home.

My point stands.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:30 pm

I think if the government took its anti-competitive responsibilities seriously, the wealth would redistribute itself

Not to mention if we used our powers better as consumers


Do those 2 things and we make a great start
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:36 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I think if the government took its anti-competitive responsibilities seriously, the wealth would redistribute itself

Not to mention if we used our powers better as consumers


Do those 2 things and we make a great start


Redistribution should be organic. Absolutely.

70% of the GDP is consumer spending. Consumers need more money to spend. Increasing the wage floor puts upward pressure on all wages.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:38 pm

Well I’m not sure how you reconcile wage floors and organic. I don’t

I have no problem with our federal minimum wage as is, not with cities that impose higher standards
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:48 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Well I’m not sure how you reconcile wage floors and organic. I don’t

I have no problem with our federal minimum wage as is, not with cities that impose higher standards


Organic in how the distribution takes place. The wage floor is merely adjusting the settings.

30% of the workforce is paid either exactly the minimum wage ($7.25)or within 150% of the federal minimum wage ($10.88). These people spend at or in excess of 100% of their annual income.

So it's quite simple. Give them more money to spend and they'll spend it. Economy and business grow.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby RedLeader » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:19 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:Well I’m not sure how you reconcile wage floors and organic. I don’t

I have no problem with our federal minimum wage as is, not with cities that impose higher standards


Organic in how the distribution takes place. The wage floor is merely adjusting the settings.

30% of the workforce is paid either exactly the minimum wage ($7.25)or within 150% of the federal minimum wage ($10.88). These people spend at or in excess of 100% of their annual income.

So it's quite simple. Give them more money to spend and they'll spend it. Economy and business grow.


Where’s all this ‘more money’ coming from?
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:21 pm

RedLeader wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Organic in how the distribution takes place. The wage floor is merely adjusting the settings.

30% of the workforce is paid either exactly the minimum wage ($7.25)or within 150% of the federal minimum wage ($10.88). These people spend at or in excess of 100% of their annual income.

So it's quite simple. Give them more money to spend and they'll spend it. Economy and business grow.


Where’s all this ‘more money’ coming from?

Image
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2785
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Buc2 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:22 pm

Image
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 728 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:28 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:
I'd like the government to stop redistributing the wealth the way it currently is for starters.


5 of the top 10 richest counties in the nation are suburbs of Washington DC. I thought you would be down with that. Looks like the Feds are redistributing and concentrating the wealth quite well and keeping it at home.


Brazen, those politicians who are getting paid to go along with certain legislation.... who do you think pays them...?

You focusing on the money made by politicians (and not the folks paying them, or the rules that allow them to be bought) is like pointing the finger at a security guard or a limo driver or a house maid. You're confusing a paid worker with those that actually own the mansion or the stretch bentley.

In MB's video, D.C. politicians aren't even close to the top 1%. The ones that are actually in the 1% (Kerry, Romney, Gore, Kennedys) did not get RICH RICH off of being a politicians - they got to be a politicians BECAUSE they were ALREADY rich rich. I think Hillary and Bill might be only ones to get RICH RICH off of being politicians.


The problem is, without a doubt, the HOARDING of money - the locking away of money, and the loopholes that have been created to avoid paying taxes on acquiring astronomical amounts of cash. Hell, I don't even really care if the Koch Brothers make a **** ton of money - I just want them to a) pay full taxes on their income, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, b) to ****ing reinvest the money and put it back into the economy. If the dude makes 5 billion a year - GREAT! I don't give a **** - he's probably worked hard and taken some risks, and probably earned that 5 billion - good for him!! The problem is, he's going to take 200 million of that, invest it in some philanthropic ****, make a commercial that says "look! David Koch, the absolute SAINT just invested 200 million into trying to cure cancer". Then he's going to slice off another 100 million of that big fat 5 billion pie, and put it in his "Manipulate US politicians and laws" fund - and then he's going to take the other 4.7 billion, wash it through some offshore account, not pay taxes on it, and sit on it.


I see this a lot. Classic conservatives are focused on the "ebil politicians in DC" and not the people that pay the puppets to dance. Why would you go after the little puppet instead of the hand or the puppeteer himself? Why are none of you classic conservatives even remotely interested in 1) curtailing the ability of people to control politicians like puppets (by eliminating their ability to buy them via campaign finance reform / elimination of super PAC's), and 2) curtailing the ability of people to become such hoarders of astronomical wealth (by eliminating tax loopholes and going after offshore tax havens), which has a categorically negative affect on the nation, essentially spitting in the face of all americans, and allows them to act as puppeteers when given the chance??

It's like ya'll are almost there... you're at the 10,000 foot view... you see the corruption... you know its bad.... you just need to zoom out to the 20,000 foot view and see the bigger bigger picture - who's behind all that
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 116 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:32 pm

RedLeader wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Organic in how the distribution takes place. The wage floor is merely adjusting the settings.

30% of the workforce is paid either exactly the minimum wage ($7.25)or within 150% of the federal minimum wage ($10.88). These people spend at or in excess of 100% of their annual income.

So it's quite simple. Give them more money to spend and they'll spend it. Economy and business grow.


Where’s all this ‘more money’ coming from?

Uhh, working.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:35 pm

BMD — thats a good post. I think people are talking about the velocity of money and the multiplier effect more now then they have the last 30+ years.

I’m certainly open to discussing the merits of different ways of increasing it
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby RedLeader » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:39 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
RedLeader wrote:
Where’s all this ‘more money’ coming from?

Uhh, working.


Oh. So you mean by working more? Got it. That seems fair.

Who’s against that?
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:40 pm

RedLeader wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Uhh, working.


Oh. So you mean by working more? Got it. That seems fair. Who’s against that?

You wanna troll or do you want to have a serious discussion?

If you wanna troll, Babe is in the Russia thread.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:44 pm

MB, I think the underlying point is a good one. Where will the money come from if the wage floor is increased?

An empirical review will definitely show it doesn’t come from decreased corporate profitability. (Look at any study of wage hikes at any level — federal or local). Same with hoping it comes from lower executive compensation...that has never happened either

So then it must come from:

1. Increased prices to consumers
2. Companies cutting the # of people they employ
3. Magical increases in worker productivity
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:53 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:BMD — thats a good post. I think people are talking about the velocity of money and the multiplier effect more now then they have the last 30+ years.

I’m certainly open to discussing the merits of different ways of increasing it


absolutely. and as well people should be.

Image

wasn't until the boomers and their "me first" business approach, and them turning their backs on their fellow american - coupled with Bill Clinton's pro-globalism push in the 90's, did things get so shitty.

it's why I have become a staunch civic nationalist in recent years - because it has become strikingly obvious to me what damage certain ideals and the decline in reverence for one's country and fellow countrymen have done to this nation over the past 40-50 years

and sort of therein lies a major aspect of any possible solution, in my opinion at least, - a return to nationalism

... given the direction of the world these days... I'm doubtful. We'll see what shakes out after the next catalyst event though...
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 116 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:59 pm

Thanks BMD — I’ve argued many times on here that that ratio is out of whack. Particularly for companies that aren’t global leaders and their CEOs are just average.

I’m all for trying to get that number down to 80:1 or whatever the ODEC average is. I have yet to hear a plan I’m comfortable with


For the record, I have nearly as much disdain for the Boomers as you do in terms of their economic competence
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:11 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:MB, I think the underlying point is a good one. Where will the money come from if the wage floor is increased?

An empirical review will definitely show it doesn’t come from decreased corporate profitability. (Look at any study of wage hikes at any level — federal or local). Same with hoping it comes from lower executive compensation...that has never happened either

So then it must come from:

1. Increased prices to consumers
2. Companies cutting the # of people they employ
3. Magical increases in worker productivity


I don't think wage increases will result in decreased corporate profitability at all. As a matter of fact, just the opposite. I expect corporate sales volume to increase.

1. You know as well as I do that cost does not determine price.
2. Companies do that all the time, sometimes for reasons having nothing to do with payroll.
3. Interesting you bring up productivity since the disparity between wages and productivity is been skewing for some time now.

Zarni I think your premise is built on the assumption that the only way the whole thing can work is for the rich to have all the money. I see this all the time whenever I talk to conservatives about this topic and I keep seeing circular logic that goes from It won't do them any good -----> It'll do more harm than good------>There's no money for this------>They don't deserve it anyway------->repeat

That being said, I'm not advocating this as a moral imperative (though I do think such an argument exists) My interest is economic. I do find it interesting that much of my opposition on the topic makes moral arguments. But I digress.




When asked what I think is the best way to grow the economy that can be done right now my answer is raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. Consumer spending drives economic growth and workers are consumers.

That's it. That's my case.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:28 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
I don't think wage increases will result in decreased corporate profitability at all. As a matter of fact, just the opposite. I expect corporate sales volume to increase.

1. You know as well as I do that cost does not determine price.
2. Companies do that all the time, sometimes for reasons having nothing to do with payroll.




I'm sorry MB -- but cost does play a role in market pricing. ECON 101. If the cost of inputs increases then the supply curve shifts left. If the supply curve shifts left, the equilibrium price goes up ... and the equilibrium quantity goes down. Now I fully understand and respect the notion that for the workers who retain their jobs, their wages increase, which means their wealth increases...which means the overall demand curve for the market would shift right offsetting some of the negative impacts of the shift in supply. However, that assumes that firms will keep their employment levels constant. I do not believe this will happen. I think the workers who remain employed will be better off, but I think more workers lose their jobs. (But please do notice that after both shifts, only the volume goes back towards its pre-shift equilibrium, the price remains higher)

Now again I realize this isn't settled science. For every article that I post about how workers in cities like Seattle and NYC (with high minimum wages) are actually worse off there will undoubtedly be other studies that control different variables and lead to the opposite conclusion -- that's social science for you!!!.


Mountaineer Buc wrote:3. Interesting you bring up productivity since the disparity between wages and productivity is been skewing for some time now.


The two of us have had this discussion many times...and we both agree that this trend is an awful one. And like always we both propose different "solutions". :D



Mountaineer Buc wrote:Zarni I think your premise is built on the assumption that the only way the whole thing can work is for the rich to have all the money. I see this all the time whenever I talk to conservatives about this topic and I keep seeing circular logic that goes from It won't do them any good -----> It'll do more harm than good------>There's no money for this------>They don't deserve it anyway------->repeat



I have never made this argument once, nor has any real conservative. Each and every conservative thinks people deserve exactly what they can get on the open market.


Mountaineer Buc wrote:That being said, I'm not advocating this as a moral imperative (though I do think such an argument exists) My interest is economic. I do find it interesting that much of my opposition on the topic makes moral arguments. But I digress.


That's funny, because most of my fiscally conservative arguments are also founded in the moral imperative of liberty.



Mountaineer Buc wrote:When asked what I think is the best way to grow the economy that can be done right now my answer is raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. Consumer spending drives economic growth and workers are consumers.

That's it. That's my case.


I'm glad you did, I enjoyed reading it.

I'm off now to BW3 to watch my Zips get destroyed! have a good one bud.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:48 pm

I'll tackle this one before I head out because we aren't that far apart.



I'm sorry MB -- but cost does play a role in market pricing. ECON 101. If the cost of inputs increases then the supply curve shifts left. If the supply curve shifts left, the equilibrium price goes up ... and the equilibrium quantity goes down. Now I fully understand and respect the notion that for the workers who retain their jobs, their wages increase, which means their wealth increases...which means the overall demand curve for the market would shift right offsetting some of the negative impacts of the shift in supply. However, that assumes that firms will keep their employment levels constant. I do not believe this will happen. I think the workers who remain employed will be better off, but I think more workers lose their jobs.

Now again I realize this isn't settled science. For every article that I post about how workers in cities like Seattle and NYC (with high minimum wages) there will undoubtedly be other studies that control different variables and lead to the opposite effect.


Yes. Cost has a role in determining price but it does not dictate it. While cost is measurable and price is more or less known in the market, the arbitrary variable in the equation that everyone forgets is margin.

To put it in reality, here's what I do every Monday:

My cost for aviation fuel comes from my wholesaler. They send me a report every Monday with the spot price that comes from all the way back in the commodities market. When I buy fuel, this is what I pay. It's also what my competitors pay. The first thing I do with that information is calculate what my retail price for the week will be based on the completely arbitrary minimum margins the owner of my business has dictated. Then I go to the market and see what my competitors are charging for the exact same fuel and inflate or shrink the margin on my fuel accordingly to get or stay competitive. Price is ultimately dictated by the market.

Nowhere in that contemplation do I ever consider the amount of fuel I may or may not sell, because unless the price becomes so inflated as to inhibit my customers from flying or I am completely out of tune with the market will there be any real impact to my sales volume. Nowhere in that contemplation do I ever consider the cost of payroll because the cost of my payroll is immaterial to the cost of my fuel given our volume.

Sure, this is anecdotal, but it's what I do. My staffing levels are dictated by demand. And this takes me back to why I advocate for min. wage hikes. I want it done to increase demand because how much money I (my company) make now does not determine how many people I hire or lay off, how much demand I have from the market does.

Higher demand = job creation.

Raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby RedLeader » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:01 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
RedLeader wrote:
Oh. So you mean by working more? Got it. That seems fair. Who’s against that?

You wanna troll or do you want to have a serious discussion?

If you wanna troll, Babe is in the Russia thread.


Lol. Really, dude? It's a simple question. The fact that you dont think it needs to be a part of the conversation is very telling..


So, 'give' people more money, and they will spend more? Ok... Where is the more money coming from?

"Ummmmm, working! derp.. derp..!"

Oh... ok... haha.


And I'm the one trolling....
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:09 pm

RedLeader wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:You wanna troll or do you want to have a serious discussion?

If you wanna troll, Babe is in the Russia thread.


Lol. Really, dude? It's a simple question. The fact that you dont think it needs to be a part of the conversation is very telling..


So, 'give' people more money, and they will spend more? Ok... Where is the more money coming from?

"Ummmmm, working! derp.. derp..!"

Oh... ok... haha.


And I'm the one trolling....

I think I've articulated my position thoroughly.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mountaineer Buc and 10 guests