6-6-6

[Jim]

But slience from the majority of moderates is what allows the idiots a venue. I mean really, Palin, Bachman, Kain, Perry, - these folks should be defended? What does it say about the Republican base and the party in general if they have to appeal to tragically failed policies, dumb-dumb false science, and ignorance of how our financial systems work - or actually haven't worked in the recent past. Sheesh!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The contempt is based on the actual results of the implementation of the policies these folks have been advocating for 40 years. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

I agree. The Republican Party has been taken over by the right fringe and folks that might have a reasonably moderate bone in their body, Mitt included, are constantly covering their right flank. The press is pretty lame at calling most of the field what they are, blathering idiots.

 

It's not he press's job to call people "blathering idiots". That's part of the problem of you progressives.

 

The press should report in an unbiased manner and let the people make their own judgement. If an idea is "wacko" it's up to those who think it so to argue a better point. I'm disappointed you are going with this intellectually vapid shortcut, Jim.

 

 

[ivan]

Not a productive tack, OW. Each candidate is trying to appeal to the base to win the nomination, and one has to ask why certain ideas get support and argue against those ideas without being an elitist ass (I have contempt for you wackos!)

 

trying to appeal to assholes (the republican base) = being an asshole yourself

 

ow's spot-on.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

But slience from the majority of moderates is what allows the idiots a venue. I mean really, Palin, Bachman, Kain, Perry, - these folks should be defended? What does it say about the Republican base and the party in general if they have to appeal to tragically failed policies, dumb-dumb false science, and ignorance of how our financial systems work - or actually haven't worked in the recent past. Sheesh!

 

Heaven forbid that someone dare come to a different conclusion than you, or see things differently! They must all be IDIOTS!

 

[Jim]

OK - you are correct - they should not call them idiots. But they should do a better job showing how vacant their statements are -

[ivan]

The press should report in an unbiased manner and let the people make their own judgement. If an idea is "wacko" it's up to those who think it so to argue a better point. I'm disappointed you are going with this intellectually vapid shortcut, Jim.

 

basic social studies - there is no such thing as an "unbiased" history. better to have your bias up front and center so everyone can take that into consideration when sorting out their own personal version of "truth."

[ivan]

OK - you are correct - they should not call them idiots. But they should do a better job showing how vacant their statements are -

pretty sure sarah palin needs no help in that regard

 

i'm all for civility in politcs, but jesus christ, not calling a true asshole an asshole just muddies the water...

[Jim]

I'm ok with opposing views based in some logic - but fantasy is another thing. Let's take one item from the Perry, Bachman, and Palin rule book for instance.

 

They don't believe in global warming or they may couch it that it is not human causes. Great - an opinion based on what exactly - no facts certainly. The door has closed on that one. They could say what they likely mean - that there is global warming but they don't think we should tinker with industry becase they think that is bad for certain economic sectors. That, at least, would be an honest policy decision.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Not a productive tack, OW. Each candidate is trying to appeal to the base to win the nomination, and one has to ask why certain ideas get support and argue against those ideas without being an elitist ass (I have contempt for you wackos!)

 

trying to appeal to assholes (the republican base) = being an asshole yourself

 

ow's spot-on.

 

BS. You have to argue your points at all time to get them out there. If you can't do it effectively, that's your problem.

 

 

 

[backclipped]

Ivan took care of it for me...nuff said.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The press should report in an unbiased manner and let the people make their own judgement. If an idea is "wacko" it's up to those who think it so to argue a better point. I'm disappointed you are going with this intellectually vapid shortcut, Jim.

 

basic social studies - there is no such thing as an "unbiased" history. better to have your bias up front and center so everyone can take that into consideration when sorting out their own personal version of "truth."

 

We are not talking about history, we're talking about reporting. And yes, you can be unbiased. Did anyone know what Walter Cronkite's politics were when he reported? That's how it should be.

Edited October 13, 2011 by KaskadskyjKozak

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm ok with opposing views based in some logic - but fantasy is another thing. Let's take one item from the Perry, Bachman, and Palin rule book for instance.

 

They don't believe in global warming or they may couch it that it is not human causes. Great - an opinion based on what exactly - no facts certainly. The door has closed on that one. They could say what they likely mean - that there is global warming but they don't think we should tinker with industry becase they think that is bad for certain economic sectors. That, at least, would be an honest policy decision.

 

 

We aren't talking about global warming (gee, what has Barry done about that, BTW?) - we are talking about tax reform. Barry proposed something like a 5.6% surtax on all individuals making more than 1 million. Kain proposed this 999 plan. Plenty of room here for discussion - of facts, without calling people morons or assholes.

[Jim]

OK - you are correct - they should not call them idiots. But they should do a better job showing how vacant their statements are -

pretty sure sarah palin needs no help in that regard

 

i'm all for civility in politcs, but jesus christ, not calling a true asshole an asshole just muddies the water...

 

 

Pearls from Bachman. Derision is an appropriate response to such nonsense.

 

''Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of 'The Lion King' for instance, and a teacher might say, 'Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?' The message is: I'm better at what I do, because I'm gay.''

 

 

''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.''

 

 

''And what a bizarre time we're in, when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.''

 

 

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.''

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

OK - you are correct - they should not call them idiots. But they should do a better job showing how vacant their statements are -

pretty sure sarah palin needs no help in that regard

 

i'm all for civility in politcs, but jesus christ, not calling a true asshole an asshole just muddies the water...

 

 

Pearls from Bachman. Derision is an appropriate response to such nonsense.

 

''Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of 'The Lion King' for instance, and a teacher might say, 'Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?' The message is: I'm better at what I do, because I'm gay.''

 

 

''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.''

 

 

''And what a bizarre time we're in, when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.''

 

 

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.''

 

 

 

Bachman is losing.

[prole]

Willful ignorance of the historical record of the Right's failed economic policies does not constitute a "viewpoint". Nor does Cain's response to decades of flat-tax debunking and critique (as if the Pizza Plan were something new!) constitute a "discussion".

 

One independent analysis of the Cain's plan suggests that it would not create enough revenue to sustain the government's most basic functions. When asked about this, Cain simply dismissed the premise and repeated the "9-9-9" pitch.

 

"The problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect," Cain said, dismissively.

 

The comparison with climate change denialism is quite apt.

 

 

 

[ivan]

We are not talking about history, we're talking about reporting. And yes, you can be unbiased. Did anyone know what Walter Cronkite's politics were when he reported? That's how it should be.

ha!!!

 

put "walter cronkite bias" into The Google and see what you get - there's no small # of folks who are convinced he was an evil liberal biased minion of the donkeys

 

here's one of the gems: http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/cronkite/welcome.asp

 

the news is oft called "the first draft of history" - so if history is inevitably biased, then so too must be its rough draft.

 

again, bias is natural and not to be feared, especially when it's confronted up front. nothing is what it is, it is what we want and make it to be.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

We are not talking about history, we're talking about reporting. And yes, you can be unbiased. Did anyone know what Walter Cronkite's politics were when he reported? That's how it should be.

ha!!!

 

put "walter cronkite bias" into The Google and see what you get - there's no small # of folks who are convinced he was an evil liberal biased minion of the donkeys

 

here's one of the gems: http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/cronkite/welcome.asp

 

the news is oft called "the first draft of history" - so if history is inevitably biased, then so too must be its rough draft.

 

again, bias is natural and not to be feared, especially when it's confronted up front. nothing is what it is, it is what we want and make it to be.

 

On many occasions on this board you have claimed that as a school teacher you leave your bias at home and present your subject manner in a neutral way. I guess by your arguments above, that just is false. So you might start letting all your kids know you're a left wing extremist and consider any of them who happens to be R's to be "assholes" - and their parents too. Then, once you've given this full disclosure, you can be as biased as you want...

 

 

[j_b]

You just know it must be opposite day when the psychopaths who gave us 8 years of Bush policies, followed by 3 years of constant obstructionism to avoid any sanction of wall street crooks, try to bludgeon their critics by calling them extremists.

[JayB]

OK - you are correct - they should not call them idiots. But they should do a better job showing how vacant their statements are -

pretty sure sarah palin needs no help in that regard

 

i'm all for civility in politcs, but jesus christ, not calling a true asshole an asshole just muddies the water...

 

 

Pearls from Bachman. Derision is an appropriate response to such nonsense.

 

''Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of 'The Lion King' for instance, and a teacher might say, 'Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?' The message is: I'm better at what I do, because I'm gay.''

 

 

''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.''

 

 

''And what a bizarre time we're in, when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.''

 

 

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.''

 

 

 

Agree that there's lots of crazy there - but neither Germany, Denmark, Sweden, or Switzerland have statutory minimum wages. They do have a process that accomplishes more or less the same thing for most workers, but in the case of Germany they've used the "Mini-jobs" that came out of the Hartz reforms to promote workforce participation at total pay levels that would have been impossible before these labor market reforms, and is an important part of the structural reforms that have driven down unemployment in Germany since ~2000.

 

Anyone who generates less income for any employer than the employer is required to pay him is effectively unemployable. The less skilled and educated you are the more likely it is that you'll fall below that line.

 

It'd be much more effective and compassionate to eliminate the minimum wage and use transfer mechanisms like the EIC to bring people's total incomes up to whatever standard the country decides is fair. Locking people out of the labor force prevents them from ever setting foot on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. This is much more detrimental to their long-term well being than having them work for whatever they employer is willing to pay them + whatever transfer payments the government kicks in to add to their total income.

 

I'm always surprised by the depth of progressive opposition to eliminating the minimum wage in exchange for conditional transfer payments. I've literally had this discussion with someone who was working as an unpaid intern (wage = zero) who said that the skills and connections they were accumulating made it worthwhile, and made it much more likely that they'd get a job with a good salary afterwards.

 

When asked to explain the difference between someone working for nothing for the chance to pick up skills and connections that might get them a better job later, and someone working for less than the minimum wage with the same objectives outside of a formal internship (even with the EIC) - this person insisted that that should remain illegal.

 

Fascinating. Kind of like talking with a prostitute who's sermonizing on behalf of mandatory chastity laws for other people.

 

The only thing sillier would be spending 15 minutes typing out this post...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

OK - you are correct - they should not call them idiots. But they should do a better job showing how vacant their statements are -

pretty sure sarah palin needs no help in that regard

 

i'm all for civility in politcs, but jesus christ, not calling a true asshole an asshole just muddies the water...

 

 

Pearls from Bachman. Derision is an appropriate response to such nonsense.

 

''Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of 'The Lion King' for instance, and a teacher might say, 'Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?' The message is: I'm better at what I do, because I'm gay.''

 

 

''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.''

 

 

''And what a bizarre time we're in, when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.''

 

 

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.''

 

 

 

Agree that there's lots of crazy there - but neither Germany, Denmark, Sweden, or Switzerland have statutory minimum wages. They do have a process that accomplishes more or less the same thing for most workers, but in the case of Germany they've used the "Mini-jobs" that came out of the Hartz reforms to promote workforce participation at total pay levels that would have been impossible before these labor market reforms, and is an important part of the structural reforms that have driven down unemployment in Germany since ~2000.

 

Anyone who generates less income for any employer than the employer is required to pay him is effectively unemployable. The less skilled and educated you are the more likely it is that you'll fall below that line.

 

It'd be much more effective and compassionate to eliminate the minimum wage and use transfer mechanisms like the EIC to bring people's total incomes up to whatever standard the country decides is fair. Locking people out of the labor force prevents them from ever setting foot on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. This is much more detrimental to their long-term well being than having them work for whatever they employer is willing to pay them + whatever transfer payments the government kicks in to add to their total income.

 

I'm always surprised by the depth of progressive opposition to eliminating the minimum wage in exchange for conditional transfer payments. I've literally had this discussion with someone who was working as an unpaid intern (wage = zero) who said that the skills and connections they were accumulating made it worthwhile, and made it much more likely that they'd get a job with a good salary afterwards.

 

When asked to explain the difference between someone working for nothing for the chance to pick up skills and connections that might get them a better job later, and someone working for less than the minimum wage with the same objectives outside of a formal internship (even with the EIC) - this person insisted that that should remain illegal.

 

Fascinating. Kind of like talking with a prostitute who's sermonizing on behalf of mandatory chastity laws for other people.

 

The only thing sillier would be spending 15 minutes typing out this post...

 

Sorry, but I disagree. The proposal you make is just another form of corporate welfare funded by the taxpayer. There should be a minimum wage, and it should be adjusted annually to allow for changes in cost of living. How high should be? Well, I definitely would not favor something on the level of some of our progressives here, but it should at least be comparable to say, the highest it has ever been in the past, adjusted for inflation into 2011 dollars. What would the impact be? I really doubt it would force employers not to hire, folks to be unemployed, etc. It would drive up some prices at places like Walmart and fast food franchises. Would it kill Americans to pay 7.50 for a #5 instead of 6.50?

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You just know it must be opposite day when the psychopaths who gave us 8 years of Bush policies, followed by 3 years of constant obstructionism to avoid any sanction of wall street crooks, try to bludgeon their critics by calling them extremists.

 

It is up to Barry to prosecute those on Wall Street who are responsible for our mess. He's done nothing. I, for one, would favor the investigations/prosecutions.

 

Bugger off, j_b, your simplistic world view just doesn't hold water.

 

 

[j_b]

Agree that there's lots of crazy there - but neither Germany, Denmark, Sweden, or Switzerland have statutory minimum wages. They do have a process that accomplishes more or less the same thing for most workers, but in the case of Germany they've used the "Mini-jobs" that came out of the Hartz reforms to promote workforce participation at total pay levels that would have been impossible before these labor market reforms, and is an important part of the structural reforms that have driven down unemployment in Germany since ~2000.

 

Although there is no federal minimum wage in Germany and Sweden, trade unions negotiate minimum compensations by economic sector. It works because unions are strong and they are accepted as necessary partners for all negotiations regarding working conditions. Your brand of union busting combined with the lack of of a minimum wage would lead us toward slave labor.

 

Anyone who generates less income for any employer than the employer is required to pay him is effectively unemployable.

 

except that the main reason for paying non-living wages isn't for lack of profit but for maximizing profit.

 

It'd be much more effective and compassionate to eliminate the minimum wage and use transfer mechanisms like the EIC to bring people's total incomes up to whatever standard the country decides is fair.

 

that's rich coming from someone who otherwise stigmatizes transfer recipients. Paying people a living wage is certainly more valorizing and conducive to positive dynamics toward self-sustenance than handing out welfare.

 

Locking people out of the labor force prevents them from ever setting foot on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. This is much more detrimental to their long-term well being than having them work for whatever they employer is willing to pay them + whatever transfer payments the government kicks in to add to their total income.

 

look who is touting corporate welfare

[j_b]

It is up to Barry to prosecute those on Wall Street who are responsible for our mess. He's done nothing. I, for one, would favor the investigations/prosecutions.

 

It's up to you to not support politicians who oppose investigations and prosecutions, who oppose re-regulation of the financial sector and who oppose fair taxation of those who profited from the financial collapse. Yet, you systematically support them as can be seen in this very thread.

[prole]

It'd be much more effective and compassionate to eliminate the minimum wage and use transfer mechanisms like the EIC to bring people's total incomes up to whatever standard the country decides is fair.

 

that's rich coming from someone who otherwise stigmatizes transfer recipients. Paying people a living wage is certainly more valorizing and conducive to positive dynamics toward self-sustenance than handing out welfare.

 

C'mon j_b, there has to be an upside here somewhere. Kojak?

 

 

 

Locking people out of the labor force prevents them from ever setting foot on the lowest rung of the economic ladder...

 

Which rung is that? The homeless rung? 'Cause we sure got plenty of thems! Or is that the forclosed/underwater rung? Check. Or is that the 15-year old working before, during, and after school hours (they do still have school hours, right?) to provide a first, second, or hopefully third household income rung?

 

 

[prole]

Yeah uh, buh-bye Herman.