Democrats starting to get the message? (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

I have no clue what the actual percentage but you see it everyday.

I am not asking how many it actually is I am asking what percentage you think it is. A frame of reference would help me understand your position better.

 

[humpback]

I see that you are factoring in the potential for higher prices due to a higher minimum wage but I think that will ultimately be offset by a lower overall usage of the social safety net.

What it has to do with the discussion is I am curious as to your opinion on those issues and see if they are consistent. 

I see the bigger concern for the risk of increased prices is protectionist trade policies and threats to dissolve our trade agreements. Those are the things that keep our cost of goods down, if we lose out on the benefits of cheap foreign manufacturing we will see far bigger price increases than raising the minimum wage.  Additionally if we have to bring a significant amount of our manufacturing back to US soil (something I am not opposed to btw) those jobs will likely lead to higher than minimum wage salaries (automation could have a big impact on this, but likely not enough over the next eight years to notice) and you can bet that unions will start to grow again for the first time since Reagan. Are you in favor of those policies?

And is life really all about getting the cheapest goods? If things are more expensive and you suddenly can't afford them shouldn't you practice the behaviors that we expect the poor to practice in regards to spending habits? Well we should all practice them regardless of our financial status (as Shuke would say "Rule #1: Live below your means") I mean, if it benefits the country as a whole. Is your cheap 78" television really worth the price of not feeding Americans?  Couldn't you be perfectly happy with the 65" television?

My point is the EVERY policy has pro's and con's- there is no magic elixir that is going to pull everyone out of poverty with no negative side effects. No, I'm not in favor of most of those things (manufacturing I am to some extent), but again, each is an entirely different topic from minimum wage.

Doesn't your last paragraph fall under "taking more personal responsibility"? So many people think the "solution" is to throw more money at a problem, but that doesn't always work and sometimes makes the problem worse. A couple of dollars per hour more will undoubtedly help some people, but if you make terrible decisions with money, it isn't going to improve your life.

You're barking up the wrong tree about practicing what your preach, I live solidly below my means and am perfectly happy with my even smaller television. I'm talking about the impact higher prices will have on those minimum wage workers- it's great that they'd be making more money, but not as great as they thought if the things they buy now cost more.

Overall I'm in favor of a modest bump in the minimum wage and adjusting it for inflation. I wouldn't want anything close to $15/hr on the federal level though because of the massive differences in cost of living around the country- local governments can go higher if they choose. However, I think the net positive impacts are largely overstated by the pro-increase crowd. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it necessarily, but we should be more realistic with our expectations, and focus more energy on things that can have a greater impact IMO.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Yes, something is.  If you pay more than your tax return says you should, the IRS refunds it.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about him paying extra taxes.  Nothing is stopping him from writing a big old check to the gubment via a donation or whatever.

 

[Dickies]

Who sees it everyday?

You.

 

[Sand]

You question the same Census that puts 43.1 million Americans in poverty.

The Census does not define the line - that is a political construct and the Census simply fills in the buckets.  I'm sure the Census got the counting and categorizing right.  Doesn't mean that those 43.1 million are in "Desperate Poverty".  Your assignment of that description to that group of people simply doesn't fit.  

 

[The Commish]

Yes, something is.  If you pay more than your tax return says you should, the IRS refunds it.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about him paying extra taxes.  Nothing is stopping him from writing a big old check to the gubment via a donation or whatever.

 

Nothing is stopping you from sending in more tax money.

 

[Henry Ford]

You.

I've never seen an 80" tv at all.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yeah, but I'm not talking about him paying extra taxes.  Nothing is stopping him from writing a big old check to the gubment via a donation or whatever.

Then you should probably rethink calling them taxes. 

 

[Sand]

I've never seen an 80" tv at all.

Better than sex with five Russian ballet dancers at the same time.  You have no idea what you're missing.

 

[Chaka]

The Census does not define the line - that is a political construct and the Census simply fills in the buckets.  I'm sure the Census got the counting and categorizing right.  Doesn't mean that those 43.1 million are in "Desperate Poverty".  Your assignment of that description to that group of people simply doesn't fit.  

It is your prerogative to feel that $1,000 a month (and that's the high end) doesn't qualify as desperate. And if you pinch your pennies to the very extreme and never got injured or I'll, or had a crisis then you might be right. Personally I feel that an existence with zero margin for error qualifies as desperate.

But since you seem to take that specific word as a point of contention, I gladly withdraw it and going forward will only refer to poverty without any qualifiers.

 

[Sand]

Poor people have VCRs, no need to worry anymore.

I just saw there are still ~12 Blockbusters left in the US.  I smell comeback.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Then you should probably rethink calling them taxes. 

Sure.  I think it was obvious what I meant, though.  

 

[TripItUp]

Bottom line, 98% of the country is given an opportunity to live better than 90% of the global population.

if you are among the 2% that is not good at "playing the capitalism game" we even have safety nets for you like free education, free healthcare, free retirement and in most cases free food.

what a great country we live in!

 

[eoMMan]

I've never seen an 80" tv at all.

That wasn't meant to be literal....replace 80" TV with any luxury item that a person with lesser means really shouldn't be buying (new car, latest iPhone, whatever).

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have a "Warren in 2016" t-shirt I've been wearing for the past couple of years.  I say that because I'm a voter who was initially a supporter, but she needs to slow her roll or she will lose the Democratic base.  Attacking Obama is a horrible, horrible move.  

 

[tommyGunZ]

That wasn't meant to be literal....replace 80" TV with any luxury item that a person with lesser means really shouldn't be buying (new car, latest iPhone, whatever).

Shouldn't be buying according to who? 

 

[RCon]

I have a "Warren in 2016" t-shirt I've been wearing for the past couple of years.  I say that because I'm a voter who was initially a supporter, but she needs to slow her roll or she will lose the Democratic base.  Attacking Obama is a horrible, horrible move.  

I suspect it won't hurt her 2016 chances in the slightest.

 

[timschochet]

That wasn't meant to be literal....replace 80" TV with any luxury item that a person with lesser means really shouldn't be buying (new car, latest iPhone, whatever).

How familiar are you with the "rent to own" business? I used to lease for them quite a bit, in poor areas, so I'm very familiar with them. They offer what you refer to as "luxury items" to very poor people on reasonable payment plans. If the renter stops paying, they redeem the item and sell it again.

This can be a shady business, depending on who's running it. But your impression that these people are spending a ton of money on these items is just not correct. It's not set up that way.

 

[roadkill1292]

It's so much fun picking at Trump and his merry band of idiot advisers that I'm a little worried that we Dems aren't coming up with attractive candidates and platforms of our own, especially in time for the 2018 elections. The very interesting New Yorker article article linked to in another thread noted that, when a sitting president's approval ratings were less than 50% at the time of the mid-terms, the opposition party picked up an average of 35 seats. In light of the GOP's inherent districting advantages in rural counties, however, Dems may be hard pressed to match that next year, especially if they have no effing coherent and popular message. I think I'm echoing NCC when I ask, where's the message?

Also, what's the message and who's the messenger?

 

[roadkill1292]

If the Repubs get their hateful health care plan enacted, I think it represents an opportunity for Dems to become the messengers of modernity regarding the nation's health care. Go all in on it, what have they got to lose? Who are the crazies going to run who's worse than Trump?

 

[roadkill1292]

"ONE BIG RISK POOL!"