Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/09 05:41:58
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Because it's a convenient narrative that allows the wealthy to justify hoarding wealth, corporations to justify corporate tax breaks, and politicians to pander to the rich while pretending they're helping the poor.
It's the trifecta!
Then how do you explain the poor people who are in love with the idea... guys like my next door neighbor are definitely NOT 1% card carrying members.
IDK.
How do you explain the urban poor in Ancient Rome constantly elected landed elites to represent the interests of landed elites? Or poor white southerns with no slaves fighting a war to protect slavery? Or Japanese Americans and African Americans becoming some of the most decorated soldiers in the US Army history during WWII? Poor white conservatives die hardly against the welfare and support programs that would directly make their lives better?
These things find ways to invest people into ideologies and political positions that are not necessarily going to benefit them. You cater to the things that are directly in their interests to draw them into positions that are not. For example, the Republicans use their religious rhetoric to appeal to non-wealthy whites, and then get those same people to support pro-rich politics at their own expense. Likewise, the Democrats use social justice and talk of equality to draw in urban minority groups and special interests, then do the exact same thing as the Republicans. It's just what happens in politics. Money is power, but in democracy you need the huddled masses to get anything done, so you find some way to play both sides.
So the idea is, the Americans, the consumers that we are, would spend more money on goods and services if there was more money in their pockets?
It's a basic truth that has been correlated by numerous studies: people with less money spend more money. Think about it for a second and it makes sense. Let's say a guy has a job where he wears work boots. Now, he could shell out 100 bucks for a pair that will last him 6 months, or he can pay 40 for a pair that will last 2. Depending on his wages, he probably only has the money for the 40 dollar pair, which means in 2 months, he will have to spend another 40 bucks, and another 40 in 2 months after that. So in the six months, based on cash in hand, he would have spent 120 bucks for footwear, when if he'd had more money to begin with, he could have spent 100, and pocketed that "remaining" 20 for another expense or even luxury item.
The money spending really comes into its own when you look at the middle class.... Think about it. It's the middle class typically who's trading vehicles on average ever 3 years. Middle class families are the ones buying boats, boat trailers, hunting and fishing licenses, hunting and fishing gear every year. Tents, sleeping bags rated for sleeping on the moon, Air Jordans, etc. etc. It's the middle class to buoys the business of most restaurants; the ones like Outback, Shenanigans, Longhorn, Red Lobster, etc.
In short, everyone earning a wage having more money is a net plus for the economy because it's the bottom end of the spectrum that drives a national economy (when it's not a war time economy of course)
2016/02/09 05:46:38
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The problem isn't the $15/hr wage, nor is it the higher taxes.... It's the tired old belief in "Trickle down" that has kept things in such a way as they are now. There are numerous economists and experts in the field of making ludicrous amounts of money who are saying that $15/hr would make EVERYONE more money.
In terms of respectable economists, then no, there really is no-one saying 'everyone would make more money'. The conclusion is not only extremely unorthodox, that level of confidence is nothing like what any reasonable economist should be showing on minimum wage right now.
Recent studies have found that minimum wage increases typically have no observable effect on employment. Now that's quite a significant finding in itself, because it's been long maintained that the question of minimum wage was how many jobs it would cost. Studies have found some instances where local employment increases, but that takes some pretty peculiar circumstances.
But the research so far is small, and pretty limited. And more importantly, it's based on the actual wage increases we've seen in the US, and no increase studied has been anywhere near $15.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I can't blame him, really. After all, look how far Trump went with his hundred foot wall that the Mexican government would pay for, and however many clowns one-upping each other on tough they would be on ISIL.
That is true. And it's interesting to note how Trump has moved the window, some of the stuff put out by the other candidates has been incredible, but with Trump out there talking about torturing and banning muslims, it somehow sounds so much more reasonable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 05:49:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/09 05:50:32
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
In terms of respectable economists, then no, there really is no-one saying 'everyone would make more money'.
So, Robert Reich isn't a respectable economist? Every video of his that I've seen him talking about the %15/hr wage, that's been one of his prime points; a higher minimum wage is a net gain for the economy as a whole.
As far as the rest of it, I'd say that Nick Hanauer knows what he's talking about, even though you are right in that it's pretty unorthodox compared to the status quo.
2016/02/09 06:00:36
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ensis Ferrae wrote: It's a basic truth that has been correlated by numerous studies: people with less money spend more money.
Sort of. It's true that the less you earn, the more you spend on consumption. But money that is saved doesn't disappear. Saved funds are put in banks, who in turn lend that money to investors, who then spend it on capital projects. Through the magic of interest rates, savings and investment will clear (long to medium term, more or less, in normal economic conditions).
So while the poor spend more of their money boots and everything else, the money saved by richer people is still spent in the economy, albeit by another party through an intermediary bank.
And yeah, I figure it's that 'normal economic' conditions thing you want to jump on. Because the economy is crappy right now, and savings are only just starting to clear, so interest rates are only just start to head north of zero. But crappy economies are a passing thing, so it would be a huge mistake to back a permanent change in economic policy based on what effect it will have in the current economy, because these are unusual economic circumstances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, Robert Reich isn't a respectable economist? Every video of his that I've seen him talking about the %15/hr wage, that's been one of his prime points; a higher minimum wage is a net gain for the economy as a whole.
I know Reich argues for $15, but I've never heard him or anyone else of reasonable standing say that a minimum wage of $15 will make everyone more money. It's the kind of open ended speculation that you really only see among pundits pretending to be economists.
As far as the rest of it, I'd say that Nick Hanauer knows what he's talking about, even though you are right in that it's pretty unorthodox compared to the status quo.
He's also not an economist. That doesn't mean he should be automatically dismissed because a lot of interesting economic ideas start outside of economics. And if he's the guy I'm thinking of from some TEDtalks he is actually pretty interesting. But it terms of actual quantitative work, making a formal prediction based on a policy change, it really does have to be left to actual, trained economists.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 06:16:24
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/09 06:33:35
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
He's also not an economist. That doesn't mean he should be automatically dismissed because a lot of interesting economic ideas start outside of economics. And if he's the guy I'm thinking of from some TEDtalks he is actually pretty interesting. But it terms of actual quantitative work, making a formal prediction based on a policy change, it really does have to be left to actual, trained economists.
Yes, Hanauer has done some TED talks. And while anecdotal evidence, he claims in one of them that in companies he has an interest in, in the Seattle area, including his restaurants, they raised wages and saw an increase in overall revenue. Of course correlation doesn't equal causation, however it does suggest that what I've been saying about people who make more money spend more.
The thing I have issue with, is how I've seen a number of articles flat out stating that Costco's business model is "guaranteed" to fail, and yet, after over 20 years, they are still going strong. While it's only one company, perhaps the "standard model" is flawed, and not the business? By that I mean, perhaps it is the notion that Costco's founders are somehow wrong. That the standard notion of paying people like crap to rake in as much money at the top as you can, isn't actually the best business model to have.
Remember even Home Depot (the US home improvement big box store) was founded on a similar "non-standard" principle, and it faced some rough years when the founding CEO left, and they brought in a profit-margins CEO who moved them to a more typical big box retail model. When Home Depot was founded, they had the idea that retired construction workers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. would come out of retirement to work there, provide sage advice to that Handy Home-wrecker who didn't want to pay for something he could "do himself" on whatever project they had in mind. New guy comes in, and gets rid of all the old workers for the more cost efficient retail worker, and the chain lost some of what made it what it was.
2016/02/09 08:07:29
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And while anecdotal evidence, he claims in one of them that in companies he has an interest in, in the Seattle area, including his restaurants, they raised wages and saw an increase in overall revenue. Of course correlation doesn't equal causation, however it does suggest that what I've been saying about people who make more money spend more.
The issue isn’t just that it’s anecdotal, the underlying model doesn’t really make any sense. The only way you’d see the effect he’s proposing is if the employees themselves spent a large amount of their own income in their own restaurant, and were a large part of the customer base. That's a bit like a population of sharks surviving by eating themselves.
A more reasonable explanation would be something like people hearing the restaurant was paying staff well, and so it gained some goodwill. Unfortunately that’s an effect that doesn’t scale to a whole economy. Either that or it was just one of those things, revenue went up for other, unknown reasons. But it wasn’t because employee staff were spending all their extra money in the restaurant they work in.
The thing I have issue with, is how I've seen a number of articles flat out stating that Costco's business model is "guaranteed" to fail, and yet, after over 20 years, they are still going strong. While it's only one company, perhaps the "standard model" is flawed, and not the business?
I think it isn’t so much that the standard model is flawed, the flaw is in the assumption that there can be only one kind of viable business model. There’s a lot of bad business advice, and most of it falls in to two kinds – dismissing things because they don’t suit their own ideology, or because they don’t suit the management flavours of the month. Costco falls foul of both of those for most investment gurus.
Really, the fact that everyone was saying retail had to compete on cost and have as low a cost model as possible, should have told everyone there was space for someone to do something totally different. Which is exactly what Costco did.
Remember even Home Depot (the US home improvement big box store) was founded on a similar "non-standard" principle, and it faced some rough years when the founding CEO left, and they brought in a profit-margins CEO who moved them to a more typical big box retail model. When Home Depot was founded, they had the idea that retired construction workers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. would come out of retirement to work there, provide sage advice to that Handy Home-wrecker who didn't want to pay for something he could "do himself" on whatever project they had in mind. New guy comes in, and gets rid of all the old workers for the more cost efficient retail worker, and the chain lost some of what made it what it was.
"If you're long-term oriented, customer interests and shareholder interests are aligned." Jeff Bezos, the amazon guy.
Saving wages can look great for short term figures, but if the knowledge base of that staff was how you differentiated from other stores, that can cost you so much more in the long term.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 08:08:14
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/09 11:34:41
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Yeah, no common definition of theocracy matches the hyperbole on display here.
This is funny, coming from someone who followed this statement up with this:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out
Pssst, the at the end shows that it was intended as a joke. Context is vitally important when you're lampooning someone claiming that a Presidential candidate is an undercover priest seeking to set up a theocracy.
Every candidate has a fringe element that spouts nonsense, to represent that fringe as mainstream is a dis-service to honest conversation. If you want to define a candidate's position based on an extreme minority of their supporters then you're going to draw a lot of heat and very little light. The heat you draw may even melt steel beams
2016/02/09 12:00:21
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Pssst, the at the end shows that it was intended as a joke. Context is vitally important when you're lampooning someone claiming that a Presidential candidate is an undercover priest seeking to set up a theocracy.
No one claimed Cruz was an undercover priest. What was claimed, and further backed up my the multitude of things Cruz says is that he wants this country legislated using his holy book. Of course we can just pretend he doesn't say those things, which clearly you and Whembly are more than happy to do.
Every candidate has a fringe element that spouts nonsense, to represent that fringe as mainstream is a dis-service to honest conversation. If you want to define a candidate's position based on an extreme minority of their supporters then you're going to draw a lot of heat and very little light. The heat you draw may even melt steel beams
What he wants isn't "fringe" and he certainly isn't alone in his views in this current crop of candidates. Marco Rubio isn't much different in this regard, and a handful of losers that have already dropped out were just as bad or worse (Jindal, Huckabee, etc.). The only thing that sets Cruz apart is his willingness and pride in courting looney toons while sending his old man out to stump for him.
But please, go ahead and continue to look foolish by equating this the 9/11 thrutherism.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/09 12:11:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Pssst, the at the end shows that it was intended as a joke. Context is vitally important when you're lampooning someone claiming that a Presidential candidate is an undercover priest seeking to set up a theocracy.
No one claimed Cruz was an undercover priest. What was claimed, and further backed up my the multitude of things Cruz says is that he wants this country legislated using his holy book. Of course we can just pretend he doesn't say those things, which clearly you and Whembly are more than happy to do.
I pretended he didn't say that? Really? I'm sure you can show when I did such a thing because I have no recollection of that
Every candidate has a fringe element that spouts nonsense, to represent that fringe as mainstream is a dis-service to honest conversation. If you want to define a candidate's position based on an extreme minority of their supporters then you're going to draw a lot of heat and very little light. The heat you draw may even melt steel beams
What he wants isn't "fringe" and he certainly isn't alone in his views in this current crop of candidates. Marco Rubio isn't much different in this regard, and a handful of losers that have already dropped out were just as bad or worse (Jindal, Huckabee, etc.). The only thing that sets Cruz apart is his willingness and pride in courting looney toons while sending his old man out to stump for him.
But please, go ahead and continue to look foolish by equating this the 9/11 thrutherism.
You're the one who posted the secret ordination videos. Instead of acknowledging that a theocracy is next to impossible to establish in America you continued the fear mongering and doubled down. You rightly got called out on it, and it was jokingly equated to Birthers and Truthers. Someone here is looking foolish, but it is not I.
2016/02/09 14:12:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Saving money does not help the economy...It's the exact opposite and why the economy seems to be getting worse. What helps is spending, Which raising the minimum wage would do.
If the money goes into the top tier...What do they do? Invest it by buying stocks. Unless this is an IPO, that isn't a real investment to help the company but rather just giving money to someone else who will invest the money in a different stock. It's almost a pyramid scheme. None of this money goes back into the economy to raise demand for consumption spending.
Someone on the lower end of the spectrum will spend the money, which leads to companies needing more employees to cover the demand, which leads to those employees having more money to spend , etc etc etc.
A higher minimum wage won't scare companies away to other countries any more than the current minimum wage does. The minimum wage is already a lot lower other places than here so if the companies were going to move, they will. Not to mention, the US economy is primarily service-oriented. That means that most people have jobs because they are needed to help people in the US. That sort of job won't go away.
Of course, instead of a minimum wage increase, they could always go with a cap on executive salaries in relation to the lowest paid employee of the company. Make it so that CEO's can't make more than 50 times the lowest wage paid to someone working for the company and suddenly the employees will get paid more. Either that, or have a guaranteed income and get rid of the minimum wage, welfare, and social security.
0015/04/11 00:23:35
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Piston Honda wrote: I like Bernie, I think he is a great guy who is passionate and only wants to help his fellow Americans. I don't think he has a great grasp on economics and how much global economics have impacted industry.
Yeah, I like Sanders as well, and agree his policies are way beyond what's practical. Thing is, though, I think Sanders knows that, and he's just saying it anyway. A look at his health policy is probably the biggest tell, there's no way anyone involved in that document honestly believed in his final costings.
I think his whole campaign started as a means to change the Overton window, and he never really expected to get this far. This left him with a choice of moderating his positions back to something that's sensible, and maybe even achievable, or just saying feth it and telling people as many incredible things as possible. Sanders chose the latter, and now we've got talk of a $15 minimum wage and a 77% top tax rate.
So you are saying Sanders needs to land on an aircraft carrier with a big banner that reads "Mission Accomplished"?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
0001/01/09 18:41:54
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
One of the problems I've always had with the idea of these kinds of laws is, how the bloody fething hell are they to be enforced? Are they gonna send a DHS "agent" to every house to monitor activity? Do residents need to install security cameras in all rooms of their housing where sexual activity may take place?
Maybe they will make us here in Michigan wear a monitor around our waist checking to make sure there is only outgoing traffic? I understand the government needs to keep working, but really? You needed to pass this of all things? Not fix our roads? Because before Flint, our roads were still in need of repair and I am sure Flint is no exception either. Anyway...
I'm back!
2016/02/09 19:20:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
1. Economics: In the end, it doesn't matter what anyone believes will help the economy, or what will work or what will not work. The corporations and special interests will continue to buy off the politicians in order to continue making money for themselves, and the politicians are too well insulated (they're rich already, they're on the political gravy train for life, etc.) from the consequences their actions will have on the economy that they don't care.
2. Ted Cruz/Theocracy: Yes, "theocracy" is largely misused, but it gets the point across. The man revels in it, he doesn't hide it. Rubio, however, at least does keep it quieter, and would tone it down in the general election. Ted Cruz, however, has proven to double down on anything every time, no matter what.
3. Michigan's sodomy law: You would think that, in 2016, they just might know better than to pull this kind of crap. Don't they get that, in the age of the Internet, this kind of things makes instant news everywhere? Now it gets to be fodder for the presidential candidates. I understand that they think they're being sneaky with it. Or maybe they intend to use it as an "extra" penalty on top of other crimes (example: rapist also forced victim to have oral/anal sex, so that's another crime to charge the rapist with), but that's still not the way to go about it.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/02/09 19:27:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: 1. Economics: In the end, it doesn't matter what anyone believes will help the economy, or what will work or what will not work. The corporations and special interests will continue to buy off the politicians in order to continue making money for themselves, and the politicians are too well insulated (they're rich already, they're on the political gravy train for life, etc.) from the consequences their actions will have on the economy that they don't care.
This isn't entirely true. The US being a democracy, politicians need the common (not rich) generally to get elected. The issue isn't that they're insulated from the rest of us, it's that the rest of us don't give a gak about profiteering and corruption for it to make a difference in elections. Part of that is that we pay almost no attention to local politics, where almost all national politicians get their start. local politics are rife with corruption, absolute idiocy that makes Congress seem almost intelligent, and business patronage. We complain about politicians sucking, but we don't really do anything to address how they end up sucking and that starts at local politics, and is furthered by the voting populations own indifference.
Business and special interests can only buy off politicians so long as the rest of the population (who massively outnumbers them in voting power), allows them to. Politicians have no reason to behave any differently if it has no effect on their chances to get elected.
LANSING, MI — Internet, please take note. Yes, it's technically illegal under state law to have anal or oral sex in Michigan, but that antiquated law is not enforced and is nullified by federal law to the contrary.
Nonetheless, the blogosphere rediscovered that archaic bit of status quo this week after old language in a new bill targeted at animal abusers prompted widespread social media outrage at the Michigan legislature for trying to ban certain kinds of nookie when they should be figuring out how to help the people of Flint get safe drinking water.
Senate Bill 219, sponsored by Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, is part of a bipartisan bill package called "Logan's Law," which is meant to keep animal abusers from being able to adopt pets by giving Michigan shelters access to a database called the Internet Criminal History Access Tool (ICHAT).
The legislature has been trying to pass "Logan's Law" — so named for a husky that was tortured and killed with acid — for several years. A proposed statewide abuser registry that was considered too unwieldy tripped up earlier versions.
Coupled with S.B. 220, the two-bill package passed the Senate on Jan. 28 by a vote of 37 to 1 and was referred to the House judiciary committee.
Unfortunately, because S.B. 219 amends the existing state penal code, it includes antiquated, non-enforced language that says any person committing "the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal" could be convicted of a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.
The bill passed the Senate with that language, which has been in the Logan's Law bill for several years now because Michigan is one of more than a dozen states with a sodomy ban still on the books, an archaic 85-year-old law that's part of the state penal code, Act 328 of 1931.
The Internet soon took notice. On Feb. 5, the New Civil Rights Movement blog wrote a piece headlined "Michigan Senate Passes Bill Saying Sodomy Is A Felony Punishable By 15 Years in Prison," which sparked a flurry of Facebook shares, tweets, aggregations and repackaged stories about lawmakers reaffirming an unconstitutional ban on anal sex.
"It's outrageous stuff," said Jones. "Totally false."
Although Michigan does technically outlaw sodomy, it's a meaningless restriction. Federal law trumps state law and in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed nationwide sodomy laws that criminalized consensual homosexual sex when deciding the case Lawrence v. Texas.
Just last year, the high court followed that up by ruling the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
"Many of these old laws are not removed, left on the books and are meaningless," said Jones. "Judges and attorneys know they are meaningless. The police know you can't enforce a ban on consensual adult sodomy."
So, why is the ban still on the books? Basically, because no lawmaker thus far has the courage to try and remove the word "with mankind" from the law.
"If you were to take the word 'mankind' out of Michigan sodomy laws, that would affect sodomy as a rape, sodomy on children," Jones said. "I'm certainly not about to legalize pedophilia."
Getting into the weeds on unenforceable sodomy language threatens a bill that lawmakers have been pushing for several years, said Jones. Striking arcane laws from the books is not the task at hand right now.
"If there's some legislator that wants to take a dozen unconstitutional Michigan laws and put up a bill to try and get them removed, that's fine. We'll debate it and see what happens," he said. "I'm not going to let them hijack a bill protecting animals because they are trying to score political points."
The House has not yet scheduled a hearing on S.B. 219. Jones said the last effort to enact the Logan's Law bills passed the House, but stalled in the Senate.
"I suspect the House will easily pass them again."
Sen. Steve Bieda, D-Macomb County, said the House could strip the sodomy language from the bill during the legislative process, which he'd like to see, although he acknowledged amending that section of penal code might be more complicated than it seems at first blush.
Bieda, who is sponsoring S.B. 220, said "we're trying to focus on this Logan's Law issue, but that doesn't mean we couldn't take care of the other issue as well."
Rep. Jon Hoadley, D-Kalamazoo, said the legislature could have avoided this distraction by cleaning up the outdated provision in penal code 13 years ago. He said there's support in the House for tackling animal abuse and the outdated sodomy language at the same time.
"I hope the judiciary committee sends the full House a good bill to vote on."
Garret Ellison covers business, environment & the Great Lakes for MLive Media Group. Email him at gellison@mlive.com or follow on Twitter & Instagram
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/09 21:51:48
I'm back!
2016/02/09 21:52:15
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Heck, my home state once had the Exterminatus Order on all Mormons up till 1976. That's still in living memory... not that it was used to justify hypothectical killings, but still.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/09 22:24:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So, tonight is the big one in NH Looking forwards to a Bernie win, and am hoping others as well, I prefer to see Wallstreet Clinton toppled.
But I wonder what the pro-Republican posters wish to see of their team? I mean there are still 8 to whittle down. Who will bow out after tonight?
Fiorina and Gilmore have the lowest numbers right now. who will remain standing in the red camp after tonight?
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
2016/02/10 01:04:27
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Every states has weird archaic laws on the books.
Heck, my home state once had the Exterminatus Order on all Mormons up till 1976. That's still in living memory... not that it was used to justify hypothectical killings, but still.
Yes states do. Although, Michigan just took an unconstitutional, archaic, law and recycled it under the notion of applying it to bestiality. They didn't bother to change the wording from it's older version but instead just copy and pasted into this new law.
This ends up leaving too much of a gray area and undefined borders.
This is the clause in question with highlights to the key points:
A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 15 years.
Crime against nature is an archaic reference to sodomy and oral sex.
They could just remove the with mankind and it keeps it as they intended, a law against bestiality. But no, they choose not to.
While this doesn't change that it is illegal to make anti-sodomy laws, it doesn't mean they won't try to find a way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/10 01:11:08
I'm back!
2016/02/10 01:32:48
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Now that this is over we can all go back to not giving a gak about New Hampshire.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/10 01:32:49
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The CNN Exit Polls in New Hampshire are pretty interesting to look at.
Sanders got 65% of the male vote, but also 53% of the female vote.
Sanders also got 59% of the white vote, whereas Hillary got 52% of the non-white vote.
Sanders won all age groups except 65+, which went to Hillary at 59%. But he got 85% of 18-29, 65% of 30-44, and 51% of 45-64.
Sanders won all income categories who make less than $200,000, with Hillary picking up 55% of the higher income group.
They split the democratic vote 50/50, but Independents who voted in the democratic primary went 72% for Sanders.
skyth wrote: Saving money does not help the economy...It's the exact opposite and why the economy seems to be getting worse. What helps is spending, Which raising the minimum wage would do.
No, that’s completely wrong. As I already said, savings don’t just disappear. They are placed in banks, who then use those funds to lend to investors. What is saved is then invested.
There’s a complicating wrinkle when savings are so large and investment demand so small that savings exceed demand, even when interest rates are zero, but that’s a thing that’s happened twice in more than 100 years.
If the money goes into the top tier...What do they do? Invest it by buying stocks. Unless this is an IPO, that isn't a real investment to help the company but rather just giving money to someone else who will invest the money in a different stock. It's almost a pyramid scheme. None of this money goes back into the economy to raise demand for consumption spending.
No, that doesn’t work. Just think about it. In order for there to be a buyer of a stock, there has to be a seller, yeah? And sure, maybe that seller is going to buy another stock, but then he’s going to have to be buying off another seller. Sooner or later, somewhere down the chain the money is going to end up with someone who is selling because they want to buy real goods.
As such, in terms of aggregate demand, stock trading has no impact.
A higher minimum wage won't scare companies away to other countries any more than the current minimum wage does. The minimum wage is already a lot lower other places than here so if the companies were going to move, they will.
Sort of. Minimum wage is a cost of production, but it isn’t the only cost of production. So a straight comparison of minimum wage is useful, but not a complete picture. For a given business, given labour costs, other input costs, and productivity rates, the US might be the best place to manufacture (or at least good enough), even with labour costs 10 times what they are in Vietnam. But if rates move to 15 times then they will move production. Another business might not move even at $20, while some other business could have found the move justified when the state minimum wage went to $10.
Not to mention, the US economy is primarily service-oriented. That means that most people have jobs because they are needed to help people in the US. That sort of job won't go away.
This is true.
Of course, instead of a minimum wage increase, they could always go with a cap on executive salaries in relation to the lowest paid employee of the company.
They’ve tried caps on executive salaries, it didn’t work. Between share options and bonus schemes it’s pretty much impossible to cap remuneration.
Probably the best answer is to properly tax higher incomes, especially incomes hidden through share programs and the like. Then take that money and expand the IITC in to a full blown living wage, payable to everyone as a base income.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/10 01:48:37
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: So Bernie has another what, month left in the election, more or less?
Sounds about right.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/10 02:11:55
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: So Bernie has another what, month left in the election, more or less?
As long as Trump is leading the Republican polls, then Sanders' unelectability is less of an issue. So this was big night for Sanders, not just because he delivered the result he needed to, but because Trump got the result he needed as well.
EDIT
To clarify – I’m talking just about how long Sanders can continue to hang around and be seen as viable. I still think something truly incredible would have to happen for him in lots of different states for him to come close to beating Clinton.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/10 02:22:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/10 02:16:13
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: So Bernie has another what, month left in the election, more or less?
Sounds about right.
If he sticks around another month I will at least get to vote for him.
I'm just happy that the Oklahoma Democrats opened up their primary to independents this year.
I expect to see him on the ballot on Virginia's primary, which is March 1. I was also happy to hear that the Virginia election officials rescinded the Republican Party's "loyalty statement."
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/10 02:56:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Isn't that what US, conservative ideology posits as the end goal for people?
No.
Really? Because I always thought that pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps, while simultaneously supporting policies which make it harder to do so was underwritten by the notion that, someday, a person would "make it". That is, become something more than a pleb.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/10 03:11:59
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
You would think that, in 2016, they just might know better than to pull this kind of crap. Don't they get that, in the age of the Internet, this kind of things makes instant news everywhere? Now it gets to be fodder for the presidential candidates. I understand that they think they're being sneaky with it. Or maybe they intend to use it as an "extra" penalty on top of other crimes (example: rapist also forced victim to have oral/anal sex, so that's another crime to charge the rapist with), but that's still not the way to go about it.
