Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:42 AM) I wish I had your powers of knowing everyone's true thoughts and beliefs. Well, you don't.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:40 AM) It's not shortsighted. It's how a democracy should function. I'll be unhappy if right-wing Republicans are elected to majorities in Congress and to the White House. I'll fear the s***ty, horrible policies we'll get. But I'll fully believe that those majorities have every right to pass those policies. StrangeSox: Listen to me say all the right things, but mean none of them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) No, I don't "know it." I know that I believe elected majorities should be able to govern, even if I don't agree with those majorities. Our presidential system has far too many veto points and shields elected officials from responsibility far too much. It's actually possible for people to take a principled stance. And you know it. Yea, you do know it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:26 AM) The one thing that I really would fear is the Republicans getting all 3 and enacting the Ryan budget...but because that's a budget, there is already a 50 vote maneuver to get around the filibuster for that if they had all 3, so it wouldn't really matter. I trust that when they have the power/chance to use this in the future, they will find a way to abuse it in a way democrats didn't intend or imagine.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:19 AM) Alright, bud, mark my words: I'm more in favor of a functional government. You shouldn't the threat of a filibuster to bring nominations to a hault. And when democrats lead again, I'm going to be happy that we can fill government positions with people. And then I hope they hire 8 million czars and take everyones property. Wolverine? Who says things like bud or bub in 2013?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:16 AM) But the threat of "getting rid of it even more" doesn't seem too strong when it didn't stop those guys, it didn't stop the wars, it didn't stop the tax policy of the last administration, etc. At the very least, this makes it possible to fire Kathleen Sebelius. I'm not really opposed to this or for it. I just think it's a shortsighted mistake for democratic voters to be happy about this change. There will come a time that this is used against them, and when that time comes, they'll be singing a much different tune. This is typical loving a rule when it favors you now, and not thinking that there will come a day that it favors your opponent. And it didn't stop the wars because both parties voted for the wars before they voted against them (after their votes were in saying yes, no less).

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:13 AM) No it isn't. Because democrats acquiesce to Republicans anyway for their legislative wants. Democrats can't even get heads of departements up SIX YEARS LATER. And why? For no reason, and it isn't covered by media. Nobody seems to care, so at that point, yeah, majority rule. Like I said to them, I'll say to you. You say that now. In 10 years remember you were happy about this, because if you thought it was worse before, wait until the Republicans enter with THIS sort of power now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:08 AM) Having the Filibuster didn't stop Roberts or Alito from getting onto the court. I think that filibuster still exists...I think this is for NON supreme justices only.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:07 AM) The remarkable thing is that there are so many other ways to gum up the process which have been deployed over the last few years...it'll take the next step of the Republicans taking the Senate and removing more of the filibuster just to bring the senate back to basic funcionality. I'm sure they'll all find a way to mess it up even more when fixing it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 09:00 AM) I think I'm happier after the last 20 years that you can play offense as opposed to smoltering defense. You're happier now. Wait until a party shift occurs. This is shortsighted.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 08:56 AM) Elected majorities should be able to govern. If Americans elect a majority right-wing Senate and a right-wing President, their chosen elected officials should be able to enact the policies and appoint the people that they want. I again say the same thing to you, while this favors your party now, there will be a day it doesn't...and then you'll be crying that the minority party has no power. The only reason you are for this, is because you're a democrat. If the republicans were in the senate majority right now and did this, you'd be singing a different tune. And you know it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:43 PM) Very proud of Reid for finally developing a spine I'm not sure how good of an idea this is, though. When the day comes that the opposing party is in power, you won't be as happy about this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 03:34 PM) Maybe. I know it's frequently argued that minimum wages lead to more unemployment because employers will still have the same overall pool of "wages money," it'll just get split up across less people now, but real-world studies haven't found that effect. I guess it's possible that overqualified college students who'd otherwise not be working would take jobs at retail and fast food places if the wages were bumped up to $10-12/hr, but like Balta said, there's a lot more people working minimum wage (or near-minimum wage) jobs than there are non-working college students who'd suddenly take one of these jobs part-time if it paid a few more dollars an hour. I can't find anything on it, but I don't have much time to check, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find Australia's minorities have the same exact unemployment problems that we have here. Of course, the %'s would be on a smaller scale as the country is over 90% white.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 03:26 PM) So? You'd still see the same effect, more-qualified college students taking lower-level-but-now-higher-paying jobs regardless of race, if it's a real effect to be concerned about. Raising minimum wages (or providing a UBI) has a racial aspect because of the disproportionate number of minorities in poverty in this country, but there's plenty of white poverty. There are poor white people and college-going middle and upper class people of color. You could be correct that this change would lead to more middle-class college students pushing out working-class people from low-skill jobs, but it wouldn't be a directly racial thing. To put it another way, why would McDonalds in America hire the college-going middle-class person over someone who isn't going to college, but McDonalds in Australia wouldn't? They probably do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 02:08 PM) Australia's minimum wage is somewhere around $15 or $16. I wonder if they've seen that effect. Australia is also 92% white.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) There's another way to look at that though...if college students are able to make better wages in part-time positions, they are out of debt sooner, they're better able to afford to start households, they're able to start businesses or find long-term jobs of their own, which in turn creates more of those positions. I get what MF is saying there and as I said if you pushed to $15 maybe he starts becoming right, but in the current situation that's just not going to happen. You're not going to push a substantial number of people out of the work force with a $10 minimum wage because the positions that pay those rock-bottom wages right now don't take extreme skill levels anyway - if they did they'd have to offer higher wages. The only things that could change that relationship would be if you pushed the wage so high that additional automation became more cost-effective. Yes, but in the meantime you just forced many more poor people, especially minorities into unemployment, because the jobs they'd otherwise get are now being taken by higher skilled, more intelligent college kids. That doesn't solve the problem you were attempting to solve.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:48 PM) It's all connected. you fix healthcare, you take a huge chunk out of the problems of our economy and economic inequality. I don't know why people don't see this. Is ACA that fix? Nope. But it's definitely a step in the right direction. I think drastically increasing the minimum wage would simply assure that companies hire more white people and less minorities in which the law is intended to benefit most, which is Friedmans point. They will simply attempt to hire higher skilled workers that the new wage justifies. College kids would be more likely to take these jobs they'd otherwise pass on if the minimum wage was jacked to 15-20$. And the people it was actually intended to help, it would harm further.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:34 PM) Raising minimum wage is a good idea in theory but there may be some unintended consequences. If it goes up to 10 or 12/hour, what do we do about all the people with quite a few years of experience who are making less than that? Is it fair that they make the same amount as someone with no experience? How many small businesses would be forced to close or lay off employees because they couldn't afford that much of an increase? While antiquated, I still believe Friedman was correct in what the actual effect of a minimum wage actually is:

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:23 PM) You'd probably have me moving on to complaining about the failure of the 401k as a retirement plan, if that counts. How are 401k's a failure? Mine has been massively successful.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) Just so it's said, I agree with a lot of what you say here. I think our teachers being paid below the OECD average is a very clear symptom of this problem. Right, which is why it makes no sense. How can we be spending so much on education in this country if one of the most important factors in educating people (teachers) are being paid LESS than the OECD average? That money is going somewhere, and I'm betting if you followed the trail, it'd lead to a bunch of politicians bank accounts, or the bank accounts of their friends. One place it isn't going, for sure, is to teachers or modernizing a lot of these classrooms, who STILL have limited or no access to modern computers or the Internet. It's ridiculous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) Yes, you are correct, the United States is bigger than Germany or France. Correcting for the "size of the country" is sort of hte most basic thing possible here. Would you be in favor of the U.S. spending the same total amount on education as a country 1/3 its size? I'd be ok with the US spending less on education period. Since what we're spending now, is by and large, completely wasted since they have no idea where or how to spend the money. We're great at spending money. We're even better at spending money in all the wrong places, so long as they're in the general "area" where we need to spend it. It's hard to spend money properly on education when the people we have in charge of the money spent on education are political cronies that knew the right people to get their job in the first place.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:04 PM) Dude...here are your exact words. I'm pretty sure "Higher than anyone in the world" includes small countries. If you want to say "higher than the largest developed countries" then use the qualifier in the first place. No, what you posted was bulls***. You posted cost per student. So do that, add up all the students in the US and compare it to the total spending of the nations you compared it too. Add it up...I know you're good at math. You're argument just fell apart. Let me be more clear for you since you seem to require that. Overall, we spend FAR more than anyone else on education in the world.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:03 PM) Make it free and over the counter. People use stuff like crazy when it's free. A tiny price is an enormous economic disincentive compared to "free", there's real solid economic literature on that topic. Well, if you're right, babies being born out of wedlock in poor communities should drop to almost zero within a decade. Watch as that doesn't even come close to happening.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) Really? Would you care to write a budget that allows someone to live self sufficiently on $15,000 in America? Since people are doing it, it must be possible.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 12:59 PM) Just so it's pointed out, we're close to the top but this isn't health care. We're also below the OECD average on spending for teacher salaries, to throw that into the pot as well (I read that as saying a whole lot of that education spending goes to administration, which sounds pretty accurate to me since tests aren't cheap). You just compared the US as #3 to two places that are as small as Rhode Island.