BillStime Posted April 25, 2023 Author Posted April 25, 2023 1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said: The Democrats are still excellent on civil rights issues, but they have largely abandoned unions and the working class since the early tenure of President Bill Clinton. Maybe Bill looked at three straight decisive presidential GOP victories preceding him (1980 + 1984 + 1988), along with the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, and simply decided that he needed corporate billionaire campaign money to survive. Or more likely, he was always motivated by power and not political economic philosophies. Either way, Obama and Biden have largely continued what Clinton started economically, even if they’re less transparent about their motives than the Republicans. It is both sad and amusing, though, to witness how differently the VOTERS at each side of the political spectrum view economics. Taking this example of child labor laws: right-wingers see it as a moral lesson on the virtues of the quintessential Protestant work ethic. “Here’s a golden opportunity to help those lazy kids not turn out like those super lazy Millennials!” exclaim liver-spotted Boomery right-wingers like Chris Farley*. Meanwhile, left-wingers CORRECTLY view these laws as obvious political scheming from businesses to suppress already pathetic labor wages via control of the labor supply. A quick perusal of the details in these laws shows that the intentions go well beyond innocent summertime jobs for a little extra fun cash. Another notable example: left-wingers CORRECTLY see our prolonged inflation as a legacy consequence of corporations running historically unprecedented profit margins well beyond the period of supply shock inflation. This is aptly called “greedflation,” and its best solution would be political pressure in the form of threats of windfall profit taxes or price controls. Right-wingers, meanwhile, dust off their Murray Rothbard books to desperately cite the problem of too much government spending put into the economy (even though we were trying to exit a f#*@%$g giant deflationary cycle during the early COVID era…ugh). And so how exactly do these valiant right-wing crusaders advise us to fight the corporate oligarchy?? “Um…let’s try cutting Social Security and Medicare,” nobly suggest doddering overripe right-wing economic “populists” like Chris Farley**. I guess it comes down to those who understand data-driven macroeconomics and those who intransigently choose to be Austrian school poopfaces. * - can’t wait for Chris Farley’s trademark eyeroll emoji reaction to my every post. I love it! It excites me… ** - actually, I’m not 100% familiar with the details of Chris Farley’s politics. All I know is that he is not nearly as jovial and uplifting as his late 20th century comedian namesake. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 25, 2023 Posted April 25, 2023 1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: Omfg its a block of processed word salad. But you are missing the simple fact. YOUR party represents the rich elites. Only a bit of old oil money goes the other way. Dems are the party of the wealthy elite Why do you think that is? Cuz the R party’s face is trump and MTG. And they are far from appealing to economic winners. They’re seen as the anarchists that they are : impetuous, moody and frankly, not very bright. Not an answer to our issues. I don’t feel I have a choice for which party I vote for on a personal or societal level. Populism is not pragmatic. It’s destructive and selfish. Simple answers to complex questions = fascism and history doesn’t predict success for anyone with that model. And Covid has taught us that regardless of economic status we are all susceptible to the whims of the stupid. 1 1
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 25, 2023 Posted April 25, 2023 8 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: Why do you think that is? Cuz the R party’s face is trump and MTG. And they are far from appealing to economic winners. They’re seen as the anarchists that they are : impetuous, moody and frankly, not very bright. Not an answer to our issues. I don’t feel I have a choice for which party I vote for on a personal or societal level. Populism is not pragmatic. It’s destructive and selfish. Simple answers to complex questions = fascism and history doesn’t predict success for anyone with that model. And Covid has taught us that regardless of economic status we are all susceptible to the whims of the stupid. every instance of fascism was preceded by a protracted socialist centralization of power. stupid is believing this time will be different Rs have problems… it’s a mess 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 25, 2023 Posted April 25, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: every instance of fascism was preceded by a protracted socialist centralization of power. stupid is believing this time will be different Rs have problems… it’s a mess I think the golden rule wins. He who has the gold makes the rules. There’s still some big money with the R’s. We’ll see. Not much either us can do but vote our conscience Edited April 25, 2023 by redtail hawk 1
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 25, 2023 Posted April 25, 2023 1 minute ago, redtail hawk said: I think the golden rule wind. He who has the gold makes the rules. There’s still some big money with the R’s. We’ll see. Not much either us can do but vote our conscience Ultra wealthy back dems now across the board with the exception of some ideological old money. Bezos gates Soros, Gilman, JP Morgan, etc. dems are no longer fighting the wealthy influence peddlers(if they ever did).. so sad 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 25, 2023 Posted April 25, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: Ultra wealthy back dems now across the board with the exception of some ideological old money. Bezos gates Soros, Gilman, JP Morgan, etc. dems are no longer fighting the wealthy influence peddlers(if they ever did).. so sad Sanders, Warren, Obama and a slew of D congressmen are for higher taxes on the very wealthy. Socialized medicine is a redistribution of wealth that would greatly benefit the majority of the “working class “ despite their failure to see it. The billionaires you named are in agreement for at least the tax part being the lesser of economic evils. can’t think of a prominent R with that platform… Edited April 25, 2023 by redtail hawk 1 1
LeviF Posted April 25, 2023 Posted April 25, 2023 Leftists: they’re trying to control wages by artificially increasing the labor supply at the bottom with unskilled and inexperienced teenagers! Also leftists: shut up racist we need more immigrants or else the economy will self destruct in five seconds! You can’t take these people seriously. 1
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 25, 2023 Posted April 25, 2023 (edited) 6 hours ago, redtail hawk said: Sanders, Warren, Obama and a slew of D congressmen are for higher taxes on the very wealthy. Socialized medicine is a redistribution of wealth that would greatly benefit the majority of the “working class “ despite their failure to see it. The billionaires you named are in agreement for at least the tax part being the lesser of economic evils. can’t think of a prominent R with that platform… They are lying to you. They talk tough about taxing the wealthy with a wink and a nod to their wealthy donors. Do you really not see this??? Look up the net worth of these “pay their fair share” multimillionaire politicians. then look at their voting record on repealing SALT caps and congressional insider trading for example. Hell bernie had to drop millionaire from his millionaire and billionaire schtick after someone reminded him of his own bank account do you think all those celebrities that took private jets to Nantucket to party with Obama in his waterfront estate were stopping by to mention their disdain for too low of a marginal tax rate? Edited April 25, 2023 by Over 29 years of fanhood 2 1
ComradeKayAdams Posted April 27, 2023 Posted April 27, 2023 On 4/24/2023 at 11:17 PM, redtail hawk said: Hmmmm…digesting like a great bourbon and similarly stimulating. Clinton tried to get national healthcare but failed. That defeat wasn’t for vain glory. He wanted things better imo. Don’t know much about his union politics but in his time the UMWA and other large unions were in his corner as I remember. He is a narcissistic as are they all but I think he valued his legacy. He was far from perfect. I think your argument can be distilled down to the failure of a bicycle economy. We need average folks to be able to afford and buy cars (and lots of other stuff). The growing wealth divide is rapidly threatening that. So we must find a balance that incentivizes investment of personal resources in time, talent and money while simultaneously economically raising the prospects for Everyman. Threading the needle for sure but possible especially since the game is so heavily weighted towards the “elites” as the Right likes to call them. Rich get richer will always be true but the pendulum has swung too far. Yes! That’s an excellent distillation of my argument! I’ll even whittle it down to a single sentence: “the American economy can be optimized by greatly increasing the size of the middle class and the economic agency of the working class.” This is essentially the “Tao” that undergirds any social democrat’s domestic economic philosophy. This one sentence, of course, invites plenty of vigorous and heated discussion from all political sides. While I don’t have the stomach this morning to type a full-blown “Kay-mmunist Manifesto,” I’ll offer you a small sample of how a productive discussion should play out… * Inquisitive Kay: Why is an optimal economy so important to you, Didactic Kay? * Didactic Kay: Good question, Inquisitive Kay. For one thing, it’s correlated with the best quality of life for the most people. It also implies ideal investment portfolio growth, which the professional/managerial class can appreciate. Furthermore, the greatest pool of financial capital possible can be redirected into technological projects that, in turn, can best help us solve the world’s most difficult problems (don’t ever confuse me for one of them Luddites, Inquisitive Kay!). * Inquisitive Kay: Very well. And why is a large middle class so important to an optimized economy? * Didactic Kay: Um…I guess basically because it’s the most economically dynamic class in terms of its capacity for economic goods/services consumption, its steady investment pool potential, and its reliable tax revenue (which gets directed into public expenditures)…all of which drive further economic growth. * Inquisitive Kay: All right, so how do we know when we’ve reached such a point of economic optimization? * Didactic Kay: We rely on historical and comparative international macroeconomic data. I can sure as sh!t promise you that it’s not anywhere near those laissez-faire capitalistic systems, sista! * Inquisitive Kay: Neat. So how would we go about getting to this optimal macroeconomic point? * Didactic Kay: Various forms of progressive taxation, i.e. the dreaded “redistribution of wealth.” * Inquisitive Kay: Wait a minute…what the f%#k gives you the right to steal my money, b!tch?? * Didactic Kay: Woah! Settle down, Inquisitive Kay. You can find a moral imperative in that ever-so-lovely “social contract.” You can also realize that not all goods and services are inherently on even ground in terms of their impact on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (namely: health care, education, housing). And while I’ll spare you a dry Marxian rant on the labor theory of value and labor-supply demand curves and the like, let’s think about that infamous example of the wealth of Jeff Bezos versus the wealth of a full-time Amazon warehouse employee. Can you honestly tell me that there’s no inherent labor exploitation occurring in this capitalist enterprise?? Simply put, the highly complex and caveat-laden process of government-mandated wealth redistribution is an attempted process of returning stolen wealth. * Inquisitive Kay: All well and good, Didactic Kay, but the road to hell is paved with… * Didactic Kay: Yeah, I know…good intentions. All governments, no matter how big or small, need carefully crafted metrics of accountability and carefully implemented safeguards from corruption and inefficiencies. No one wants their taxed money stolen or wasted. An educated and civically engaged electorate would help greatly in this regard. * Persnickety Kay: Hey, don’t forget to address the Bill Clinton content in Redtail Hawk’s post. * Didactic Kay: Yes, thank you. So bearing in mind that I wasn’t alive for much of the Clinton presidency, I’m opting to steer clear of any meaningful analysis of what was in Bill’s heart or brain during those years (though we do have a pretty good idea of what was going on in his loins…ba-dum-tss…). I have a reputation for being overly cynical of mainstream politicians. All I’ll say is that I remember reading articles discussing Clinton’s longstanding hostility toward unions, dating back to his ascendant days in Arkansas and reaching a crescendo at some point following the NAFTA signing. If unions backed him during his 1992 and 1996 election campaigns, maybe it was a “lesser of two evils” situation? But Bill Clinton was undoubtedly more progressive in his first presidential campaign and very early on in his presidential tenure. Obama followed a similar trajectory. Hmmm…something about progressivism that’s popular with the people?? And something about the American political system that intrinsically corrupts ($$)?? * Supercilious Kay: Wow! Another outstanding post, Didactic Kay! You’ve really raised the bar of enlightenment in this one. Gosh, you’re such an effective communicator. No doubt this will garner multiple positive emoji reactions, even from the usual right-wing a#&holes like Westsnide and Over_29_Years_Of_D!ckheadedness. * Didactic Kay: Thanks! * Persnickety Kay: Hey, can we wrap it up, ladies? We’ve got so many other threads to read this morning. It’s Draft Day!! Yay!! * Inquisitive Kay: Oh, that’s right. Say, do you think Redtail Hawk is creeped out by this split personality literary shtick? * Didactic Kay: Yeah, probably. I’m sure he blocked us already and isn’t even reading this sentence that I’m typing right now. * Supercilious Kay: Nah, we good. We’re the only far-leftist game in town. All of PPP needs our commentary. We’re super special. 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 27, 2023 Posted April 27, 2023 6 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: Yes! That’s an excellent distillation of my argument! I’ll even whittle it down to a single sentence: “the American economy can be optimized by greatly increasing the size of the middle class and the economic agency of the working class.” This is essentially the “Tao” that undergirds any social democrat’s domestic economic philosophy. This one sentence, of course, invites plenty of vigorous and heated discussion from all political sides. While I don’t have the stomach this morning to type a full-blown “Kay-mmunist Manifesto,” I’ll offer you a small sample of how a productive discussion should play out… * Inquisitive Kay: Why is an optimal economy so important to you, Didactic Kay? * Didactic Kay: Good question, Inquisitive Kay. For one thing, it’s correlated with the best quality of life for the most people. It also implies ideal investment portfolio growth, which the professional/managerial class can appreciate. Furthermore, the greatest pool of financial capital possible can be redirected into technological projects that, in turn, can best help us solve the world’s most difficult problems (don’t ever confuse me for one of them Luddites, Inquisitive Kay!). * Inquisitive Kay: Very well. And why is a large middle class so important to an optimized economy? * Didactic Kay: Um…I guess basically because it’s the most economically dynamic class in terms of its capacity for economic goods/services consumption, its steady investment pool potential, and its reliable tax revenue (which gets directed into public expenditures)…all of which drive further economic growth. * Inquisitive Kay: All right, so how do we know when we’ve reached such a point of economic optimization? * Didactic Kay: We rely on historical and comparative international macroeconomic data. I can sure as sh!t promise you that it’s not anywhere near those laissez-faire capitalistic systems, sista! * Inquisitive Kay: Neat. So how would we go about getting to this optimal macroeconomic point? * Didactic Kay: Various forms of progressive taxation, i.e. the dreaded “redistribution of wealth.” * Inquisitive Kay: Wait a minute…what the f%#k gives you the right to steal my money, b!tch?? * Didactic Kay: Woah! Settle down, Inquisitive Kay. You can find a moral imperative in that ever-so-lovely “social contract.” You can also realize that not all goods and services are inherently on even ground in terms of their impact on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (namely: health care, education, housing). And while I’ll spare you a dry Marxian rant on the labor theory of value and labor-supply demand curves and the like, let’s think about that infamous example of the wealth of Jeff Bezos versus the wealth of a full-time Amazon warehouse employee. Can you honestly tell me that there’s no inherent labor exploitation occurring in this capitalist enterprise?? Simply put, the highly complex and caveat-laden process of government-mandated wealth redistribution is an attempted process of returning stolen wealth. * Inquisitive Kay: All well and good, Didactic Kay, but the road to hell is paved with… * Didactic Kay: Yeah, I know…good intentions. All governments, no matter how big or small, need carefully crafted metrics of accountability and carefully implemented safeguards from corruption and inefficiencies. No one wants their taxed money stolen or wasted. An educated and civically engaged electorate would help greatly in this regard. * Persnickety Kay: Hey, don’t forget to address the Bill Clinton content in Redtail Hawk’s post. * Didactic Kay: Yes, thank you. So bearing in mind that I wasn’t alive for much of the Clinton presidency, I’m opting to steer clear of any meaningful analysis of what was in Bill’s heart or brain during those years (though we do have a pretty good idea of what was going on in his loins…ba-dum-tss…). I have a reputation for being overly cynical of mainstream politicians. All I’ll say is that I remember reading articles discussing Clinton’s longstanding hostility toward unions, dating back to his ascendant days in Arkansas and reaching a crescendo at some point following the NAFTA signing. If unions backed him during his 1992 and 1996 election campaigns, maybe it was a “lesser of two evils” situation? But Bill Clinton was undoubtedly more progressive in his first presidential campaign and very early on in his presidential tenure. Obama followed a similar trajectory. Hmmm…something about progressivism that’s popular with the people?? And something about the American political system that intrinsically corrupts ($$)?? * Supercilious Kay: Wow! Another outstanding post, Didactic Kay! You’ve really raised the bar of enlightenment in this one. Gosh, you’re such an effective communicator. No doubt this will garner multiple positive emoji reactions, even from the usual right-wing a#&holes like Westsnide and Over_29_Years_Of_D!ckheadedness. * Didactic Kay: Thanks! * Persnickety Kay: Hey, can we wrap it up, ladies? We’ve got so many other threads to read this morning. It’s Draft Day!! Yay!! * Inquisitive Kay: Oh, that’s right. Say, do you think Redtail Hawk is creeped out by this split personality literary shtick? * Didactic Kay: Yeah, probably. I’m sure he blocked us already and isn’t even reading this sentence that I’m typing right now. * Supercilious Kay: Nah, we good. We’re the only far-leftist game in town. All of PPP needs our commentary. We’re super special. Whether I agree or not I typically respect your ideas and thoughts. That said, I think we currently face a disaster scenario because of several choices. I'll call them priorities, First our society and government has prioritized spending on war and consumption over building out and investing in and developing productive capacity. RFK Jr spoke the hard truth recently saying we spend billions blowing stuff up and China is building infrastructure and productive capacity. Guess which might attract more friends? The leadership prioritizes their personal acquisition and maintenance of political power over a duty and obligation to preside over and lead a productive and healthy society. The political establishment is comfortable with substituting handouts for a system of genuine opportunity. The academic and educational systems have prioritized social engineering projects at the expense of teaching time for necessary skills and knowledge for work in the private sector or in some productive public sector occupation. Corporations have no interest in what's "good" for American and along with the government have prioritized support for globalization at the expense of the middle and working classes. Monetary policy has been a God-send for the financial community. More or less sucking up lots of free money while draining the rest of the country dry. Enabling a high concentration of wealth and glutenous consumption among very few individuals and entities (the .1%). I saw it said best recently that to fix the financial system the Federal Reserve must be willing to allow the wealthy to suffer. That I expect isn't in the cards or the plan. There's just no will to change course or adopt any ideas outside the box. I've concluded we're doomed to a crisis the size of which the world has never seen. 1 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 27, 2023 Posted April 27, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said: * Didactic Kay: Various forms of progressive taxation, i.e. the dreaded “redistribution of wealth.” here's the sticky wicket and the crux of the problem. Many middle class people, despite the clear future benefits to the them, will yell "Socialism" at this from the rooftops or from their doctors office while using their Medicare cards. Split personalities are extremely rare and the lack of religious allegory in your piece virtually rules out schizophrenia. If you had used "Divine Kay" or "Omnipotent Kay"I'd be concerned... Edited April 27, 2023 by redtail hawk 1 1
Tommy Callahan Posted April 27, 2023 Posted April 27, 2023 5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: here's the sticky wicket and the crux of the problem. Many middle class people, despite the clear future benefits to the them, will yell "Socialism" at this from the rooftops or from their doctors office while using their Medicare cards. Split personalities are extremely rare and the lack of religious allegory in your piece virtually rules out schizophrenia. If you had used "Divine Kay" or "Omnipotent Kay"I'd be concerned... Unless I am mistaken. Medicare or Medicaid are absolutely worthless if they are not managed by an insurance company. in NY we got child health care plus, but it's ran by Blue cross and others. Medicare is like SS, folks have paid in. thats for seniors.
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 27, 2023 Posted April 27, 2023 4 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: here's the sticky wicket and the crux of the problem. Many middle class people, despite the clear future benefits to the them, will yell "Socialism" at this from the rooftops or from their doctors office while using their Medicare cards. Split personalities are extremely rare and the lack of religious allegory in your piece virtually rules out schizophrenia. If you had used "Divine Kay" or "Omnipotent Kay"I'd be concerned... A distinction could be made for Medicare Part A (pays 80% of Hospitalization) as a casual glance at my pay stub reveals my paycheck is debited each pay period for Medicare taxes which is "paying" into the system. Add in that base Medicare covers Part A w/Part B typically requiring a payment or deduction from social security or a monthly payment by the participant, and Part C and Part D provided through enrollment in a Medicare Advantage type plan (which also covers most of the 20% patient responsibility for Part A and Part B) and its hardly free. Compare that to most "social" programs are government transfer payments or subsidies either from general tax revenue or borrowing of which the recipient contributes nothing specifically earmarked for those programs.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 27, 2023 Posted April 27, 2023 2 minutes ago, Chris farley said: Unless I am mistaken. Medicare or Medicaid are absolutely worthless if they are not managed by an insurance company. in NY we got child health care plus, but it's ran by Blue cross and others. Medicare is like SS, folks have paid in. thats for seniors. you are mistaken. Traditional medicare pays very well. Much better than the private BCBS insurance I had through a major healthcare system. As far as paying in, I believe the average benefits received or somewhere near 8X's what was paid in. I'd need to look it up however.
Tommy Callahan Posted April 27, 2023 Posted April 27, 2023 2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: you are mistaken. Traditional medicare pays very well. Much better than the private BCBS insurance I had through a major healthcare system. As far as paying in, I believe the average benefits received or somewhere near 8X's what was paid in. I'd need to look it up however. Who manages the Medicare. but in reality, its the same as SS. SS also has horrid returns. and an issue with being flush.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 27, 2023 Posted April 27, 2023 (edited) 21 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: A distinction could be made for Medicare Part A (pays 80% of Hospitalization) as a casual glance at my pay stub reveals my paycheck is debited each pay period for Medicare taxes which is "paying" into the system. Add in that base Medicare covers Part A w/Part B typically requiring a payment or deduction from social security or a monthly payment by the participant, and Part C and Part D provided through enrollment in a Medicare Advantage type plan (which also covers most of the 20% patient responsibility for Part A and Part B) and its hardly free. Compare that to most "social" programs are government transfer payments or subsidies either from general tax revenue or borrowing of which the recipient contributes nothing specifically earmarked for those programs. can't find the reference but it was based on contribution rates for octogenarians paying in at lower rates and burning dollars like kindling. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/what-to-know-about-medicare-spending-and-financing/ here's more balanced data. by my math, $1.2 trillion is more than 888 bil. the difference is what is subsidized. Therefore we need to reel in costs. A national pharmacy formulary would be a start as would guidelines and safe harbor laws on futile end of life care. Lots more ideas... Edited April 27, 2023 by redtail hawk
Tiberius Posted May 25, 2023 Posted May 25, 2023 Legislators in Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa are actively considering relaxing child labor laws to address worker shortages, which are driving up wages and contributing to inflation. Employers have struggled to fill open positions after a spike in retirements, deaths and illnesses from COVID-19, decreases in legal immigration and other factors. https://apnews.com/article/child-labor-laws-alabama-ohio-c1123a80970518676be44088619c6205
Tommy Callahan Posted May 25, 2023 Posted May 25, 2023 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Legislators in Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa are actively considering relaxing child labor laws to address worker shortages, which are driving up wages and contributing to inflation. Employers have struggled to fill open positions after a spike in retirements, deaths and illnesses from COVID-19, decreases in legal immigration and other factors. https://apnews.com/article/child-labor-laws-alabama-ohio-c1123a80970518676be44088619c6205 Thats horrible. they need to learn how to message better. The Chicago mayor said that jobs for kids would be a way to stop them from joining gangs. and that was very well received.
Tiberius Posted May 25, 2023 Posted May 25, 2023 1 minute ago, Chris farley said: Thats horrible. they need to learn how to message better. The Chicago mayor said that jobs for kids would be a way to stop them from joining gangs. and that was very well received. Ya, ok
Tommy Callahan Posted May 25, 2023 Posted May 25, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Ya, ok Why do youth in low income areas turn to crime? Edited May 25, 2023 by Chris farley 1
Recommended Posts