What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henry Ford said:
Why would you like to see businesses whose employees need public assistance while working full time profit to the point of expansion without altering their wage scale?
Click to expand...
I want to see small businesses expand. I believe it's one of the great keys to economic growth. I don't think I need to justify that desire. 

Economic growth, when powered by small business, will lead to wage scale increase of its own accord. If it does not, then we can look to government to rectify that issue, but not in such a way that it hampers further expansion. 

 
timschochet said:
Thanks. I'm going to call the guy I'm working with today and tell him that. 

"Hey, somebody on the internet told me that you can afford the wage increase and it shouldn't stop you from expanding. He says you're either being disingenuous or ignorant!" 
Click to expand...
What's your problem? You have admitted in the past you have taken things from here and referenced it about topics you discuss with people.

 
timschochet said:
I understand the arguments for increasing the minimum wage very well. But my point, which none of you chose to specifically refute, is that doing so creates an imbalance in which small businesses are hurt much greater than big businesses because the former are much more unable to absorb the cost. 

Solve this imbalance and I'd be much more in favor. Perhaps you could limit the increase to employers with over 100 employees. Or small businesses could receive a tax credit of some sort.  Something that would alleviate the burden. 

But in the meantime please spare me the lectures about how I'm against people earning a basic living wage, how I'm an imperialist, etc, simply because I'd like to see small businesses like restaurants who pay minimum to many employees continue to expand in our economy and not have to face so many burdens. 
Click to expand...
Everything is a bigger burden to small businesses than larger ones. Health codes, safety regulations, licenses, etc. The goal isn't to relieve small businesses of their burdens but to clarify which ones apply. This is one of them.

 
timschochet said:
I understand the arguments for increasing the minimum wage very well. But my point, which none of you chose to specifically refute, is that doing so creates an imbalance in which small businesses are hurt much greater than big businesses because the former are much more unable to absorb the cost. 

Solve this imbalance and I'd be much more in favor. Perhaps you could limit the increase to employers with over 100 employees. Or small businesses could receive a tax credit of some sort.  Something that would alleviate the burden. 

But in the meantime please spare me the lectures about how I'm against people earning a basic living wage, how I'm an imperialist, etc, simply because I'd like to see small businesses like restaurants who pay minimum to many employees continue to expand in our economy and not have to face so many burdens. 
Click to expand...
Jeez, I wonder why small businesses suffer more than big businesses when the government passes laws.

 
timschochet said:
timschochet said:
Earlier this week California passed a $15 minimum wage increase, the sort both Hillary and Bernie favor (I think Bernie actually wants more.) As a result, a restaurant guy I've been working with for months just cancelled an expansion he's been planning. He simply can't afford the added expense on top of everything else. .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


He can't absorb the huuuuuge $0.50 increase over the next two years?

"Under the plan, the state's hourly minimum wage would increase from the current $10 to $10.50 on Jan. 1, 2017, then to $11 the following year, and increase by $1 annually until 2022."

Seems more like a woe is me kind of guy.

 
timschochet said:
I want to see small businesses expand. I believe it's one of the great keys to economic growth. I don't think I need to justify that desire. 

Economic growth, when powered by small business, will lead to wage scale increase of its own accord. If it does not, then we can look to government to rectify that issue, but not in such a way that it hampers further expansion. 
Click to expand...
That's what's going on here.  Business profits overall are through the roof.  Your client has made enough profit to expand his business, in fact.  But he still isn't paying a living wage.  Because of businesses exactly like that, the minimum wage has to be increased.  And because we have waited so long to reasonably increase it, we have to make a very big jump.

I'm sorry your client can't afford to expand his business.  But the fact is, the taxpayers are subsidizing his business right now. The priority should be to get the business off the public dole, not to expand first.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It might be worth revisiting what he said last time, it will be interesting for revisiting/comparison at least:

Steve Kroft: Did you know about Hillary Clinton's use of private email server--

President Barack Obama: No.

Steve Kroft: --while she was Secretary of State?

President Barack Obama: No.

Steve Kroft: Do you think it posed a national security problem?

President Barack Obama: I don't think it posed a national security problem. I think that it was a mistake that she has acknowledged and-- you know, as a general proposition, when we're in these offices, we have to be more sensitive and stay as far away from the line as possible when it comes to how we handle information, how we handle our own personal data. And, you know, she made a mistake. She has acknowledged it. I do think that the way it's been ginned-up is in part because of-- in part-- because of politics. And I think she'd be the first to acknowledge that maybe she could have handled the original decision better and the disclosures more quickly. But--

Steve Kroft: What was your reaction when you found out about it?

President Barack Obama: This is one of those issues that I think is legitimate, but the fact that for the last three months this is all that's been spoken about is an indication that we're in presidential political season.

Steve Kroft: Do you agree with what President Clinton has said and Secretary Clinton has said, that this is not-- not that big a deal. Do you agree with that?

President Barack Obama: Well, I'm not going to comment on--

Steve Kroft: You think it's not that big a deal--

President Barack Obama: What I think is that it is important for her to answer these questions to the satisfaction of the American public. And they can make their own judgment. I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered.

Steve Kroft: This administration has prosecuted people for having classified material on their private computers.

President Barack Obama: Well, I-- there's no doubt that there had been breaches, and these are all a matter of degree. We don't get an impression that here there was purposely efforts-- on-- in-- to hide something or to squirrel away information. But again, I'm gonna leave it to--

Steve Kroft: If she had come to you.

President Barack Obama: I'm going to leave it to Hillary when she has an interview with you to address all these questions.
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obama-60-minutes-syria-isis-2016-presidential-race/
Click to expand...
WALLACE:  Last October, you said that Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server did not jeopardize national secrets.  

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA:  I can tell that you this is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered.  

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  Since then, we’ve learned that over 2,000 of her e-mails contained classified material, 22 of the e-mails had top-secret information.  Can you still say flatly that she did not jeopardize America’s secrets?

OBAMA:  I’ve got to be careful because, as you know, there have been investigations, there are hearings, Congress is looking at this.  And I haven’t been sorting through each and every aspect of this.  

Here’s what I know: Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State.  She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.

And what I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are -- there’s classified, and then there’s classified.  There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open source.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE:  But last October, you were prepared to say, "She hasn’t jeopardized."  

OBAMA:  Yes.  Well --

WALLACE:  And the question is, can you still say that?

OBAMA:  I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security.  Now what I’ve also said is that -- and she has acknowledged -- that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.

But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective.  This is somebody who has served her country for four years as secretary of state, and did an outstanding job.  And no one has suggested that in some ways, as a consequence of how she’s handled e-mails, that that detracted from her excellent ability to carry out her duties.

WALLACE:  Mr. President, when you say what you’ve just said, when Josh Earnest said, as he did -- your spokesman -- in January, the information from the Justice Department is she’s not a target, some people I think are worried whether or not -- the decision whether or not, how to handle the case, will be made on political grounds, not legal grounds. 

Can you guarantee to the American people, can you direct the Justice Department to say, "Hillary Clinton will be treated -- as the evidence goes, she will not be in any way protected."

OBAMA:  I can guarantee that.  And I can guarantee that, not because I give Attorney General Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated.  

I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations.  I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.  We have a strict line, and always have maintained it, previous [precedent].

WALLACE:  So, just to button this up --

OBAMA:  I guarantee it.

WALLACE:  You --

OBAMA:  I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case.

WALLACE:  And she will be --

OBAMA:  Full stop.  Period.

WALLACE:  And she will be treated no different --

OBAMA:  Guaranteed.  Full stop.  Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department, because nobody is above the law.

WALLACE:  Even if she ends up as the Democratic nominee?

OBAMA:  How many times do I have to say it, Chris?  Guaranteed.
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/04/10/exclusive-president-barack-obama-on-fox-news-sunday/

Just a couple notes:

- I'm ok with Obama saying he does not "think" or "believe" national security was jeopardized. If he truly doesn't know anything about the investigation then he knows nothing more than any of us. However I think the FBI probably cannot help but be concerned that the president is giving the impression they are just wasting time, money and effort. They're probably feeling internally like their credibility is being challenged. It would take no more effort for the president to say he can't speak on the matter, but again that would likely also be taken as a sign that something was brewing, perhaps it's a no-win for him.

- Obama does misspeak though, Hillary has not acknowledged that she was careless in managing emails. Quite the opposite, the only thing she has said 'sorry' for is all the trouble this has caused.

- eta - It is funny, though, if Hillary was indeed found to have been "careless in terms of managing emails" as the President says she would be negligent, thus guilty under the two NDA's she signed.

- eta2 - This is doubly funny, in October and now today the President refers to Hillary not acting "purposefully" and that she was just "careless." The President thinks the standard is intentional only, it's not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama's remarks on Fox are about as good as those of us who think she committed crimes could hope for, outside of him criticizing her overtly.  Certainly feels like he's hedging.  Yes, he protects her, states his opinion that she didn't jeopardize national security (while admitting he can't know because he doesn't know all the facts).  He confuses the legal standard, because intent is not necessary to prosecute and, most importantly -- he's clearly indicating that while he is being loyal to his party, he is not willing to weather the political #### storm and affect on his legacy if the recommendation comes down from the FBI to indict.  For those of us who have faith in the investigation, and are trusting in that recommendation, I think this is very good news.  I don't think Obama wants to go Nixonian on this.  He separated his legacy from Hillary today is pretty stark terms.

 
Last edited:
The Gator said:
He can't absorb the huuuuuge $0.50 increase over the next two years?

"Under the plan, the state's hourly minimum wage would increase from the current $10 to $10.50 on Jan. 1, 2017, then to $11 the following year, and increase by $1 annually until 2022."

Seems more like a woe is me kind of guy.
Click to expand...
Because when you open new restaurants you sign long term leases with extensions. You have to calculate well into the future. 

The guy I'm working with wanted to expand but now he wants to wait a year or two and see what effect this has. It's natural to react to this stuff conservatively, and you guys are behaving like he's stupid or heartless. 

 
Henry Ford said:
That's what's going on here.  Business profits overall are through the roof.  Your client has made enough profit to expand his business, in fact.  But he still isn't paying a living wage.  Because of businesses exactly like that, the minimum wage has to be increased.  And because we have waited so long to reasonably increase it, we have to make a very big jump.

I'm sorry your client can't afford to expand his business.  But the fact is, the taxpayers are subsidizing his business right now. The priority should be to get the business off the public dole, not to expand first.
Click to expand...
Again you're trying to lecture small businesses. Maybe you're right; maybe my client is being subsidized, but I can guarantee you he's never going to see it that way. And since he and people like him are deciding whether or not to expand, there's a big problem here, regardless of the justice of your argument. 

 
timschochet said:
Again you're trying to lecture small businesses. Maybe you're right; maybe my client is being subsidized, but I can guarantee you he's never going to see it that way. And since he and people like him are deciding whether or not to expand, there's a big problem here, regardless of the justice of your argument. 
Click to expand...
I don't particularly care if he sees it that way.  I'm not lecturing small business.  I'm explaining to you that I don't particularly care if the business equivalent of a slumlord wants to raise wages to something reasonable for the people who have given him enough profit to talk expansion.  The fact that he never will is why we need to raise the minimum wage.  Because unless we do, just as you have pointed out, he won't see it that way and he will never pay his employees a living wage.

 
Two reasons why raising the minimum wage, especially by large amounts, is a bad idea...

1. As IvanK notes above, it's a terribly inefficient method of accomplishing the goal (providing the worker with enough to live on).  BIG would be preferable in any number of ways.

2. As wages increase, the incentive to automate increases.  Waitstaff?  Ditch 'em, stick an iPad on the table for ordering, and keep only the busboys/girls.  Cashiers at fast food restaurants?  Replace them with iPads and credit card swipes.  Receptionist?  Replace with annoying automated menu system.

 
Henry Ford said:
I don't particularly care if he sees it that way.  I'm not lecturing small business.  I'm explaining to you that I don't particularly care if the business equivalent of a slumlord wants to raise wages to something reasonable for the people who have given him enough profit to talk expansion.  The fact that he never will is why we need to raise the minimum wage.  Because unless we do, just as you have pointed out, he won't see it that way and he will never pay his employees a living wage.
Click to expand...
Well then call him a slumlord and punish him then. He won't expand, the economy will stagnate, the corporations he's already struggling to compete against will only get stronger while he gets weaker. But you'll get to feel self righteous so it's all worth it. 

 
Rich Conway said:
the incentive to automate increases.  Waitstaff?  Ditch 'em, stick an iPad on the table for ordering, and keep only the busboys/girls.  Cashiers at fast food restaurants?  Replace them with iPads and credit card swipes.  Receptionist?  Replace with annoying automated menu system.
Click to expand...
This is going to happen at many places regardless of what minimum wage is. Which is why the minimum wage thing is more of a red herring than anything else.

 
Rich Conway said:
Two reasons why raising the minimum wage, especially by large amounts, is a bad idea...

1. As IvanK notes above, it's a terribly inefficient method of accomplishing the goal (providing the worker with enough to live on).  BIG would be preferable in any number of ways.

2. As wages increase, the incentive to automate increases.  Waitstaff?  Ditch 'em, stick an iPad on the table for ordering, and keep only the busboys/girls.  Cashiers at fast food restaurants?  Replace them with iPads and credit card swipes.  Receptionist?  Replace with annoying automated menu system.
Click to expand...
You say annoying.  Some one the customer support robots (see Pepper by SoftBank) are way more helpful and pleasant than most service employees...  And they're getting better, don't get sick, never need time off and will cost less than one employee's annual wage even at $10 per hour.  Wage difference won't matter if this is the way we head.  Millions will be replaced.

 
timschochet said:
It won't happen to small businesses because they can't afford it. 
Click to expand...
I guess small businesses are ####ed then. They can't afford workers and they can't afford automation. :bye:

Or is it more like you're being overly dramatic and haven't really thought this through? Hmm...

 
... the Obama administration has used the draconian 1917 law to prosecute more leakers and whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Under the cover of the Espionage Act and other laws, the administration has secretly obtained the emails and phone records of various reporters, and declared one of them — James Rosen of Fox News — a potential “co-conspirator” with his government source. Another reporter, James Risen of the New York Times, faced a jail sentence unless he revealed a government source (which he refused to do).
Click to expand...
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/06/obamas-gift-to-donald-trump-a-policy-of-cracking-down-on-journalists-and-their-sources/

- The Espionage Act is referenced in both the NDA's signed by Hillary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 25m25 minutes ago

Ordinarily, I'd be skeptical of polls showing Clinton with a ~15% lead over Sanders in New York, but the closed primary thing is a big deal.

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 24m24 minutes ago


In Wisconsin, Clinton tied Sanders among Democrats despite being blown out overall. And NY demographics much better for Clinton than WI.

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 22m22 minutes ago


Not only is New York a closed primary -- it's super closed. Deadline for switching party registration was in *October*.


 
Gr00vus said:
Rich Conway said:
the incentive to automate increases.  Waitstaff?  Ditch 'em, stick an iPad on the table for ordering, and keep only the busboys/girls.  Cashiers at fast food restaurants?  Replace them with iPads and credit card swipes.  Receptionist?  Replace with annoying automated menu system.
Click to expand...
This is going to happen at many places regardless of what minimum wage is. Which is why the minimum wage thing is more of a red herring than anything else.
Click to expand...
I agree the minimum wage is a red herring, but then why do you want to raise it instead of focusing on things that would actually address the larger problems?

 
timschochet said:
Well then call him a slumlord and punish him then. He won't expand, the economy will stagnate, the corporations he's already struggling to compete against will only get stronger while he gets weaker. But you'll get to feel self righteous so it's all worth it. 
Click to expand...
It's not a punishment, it's forcing him to pay his employees a reasonable wage.  

 
You know what would help small businesses afford to pay $15 a hour? Not having to buy insurance for their employees. Granted if they are small enough and already paying low wages they probably aren't buying insurance anyways.

 
humpback said:
I agree the minimum wage is a red herring, but then why do you want to raise it instead of focusing on things that would actually address the larger problems?
Click to expand...
I don't want a higher minimum wage, I'd rather just move straight to a guaranteed minimum income, That's where we're going to have to go, unless you want an even more lopsided distribution of wealth in this country.

 
Mr. Ham said:
You say annoying.  Some one the customer support robots (see Pepper by SoftBank) are way more helpful and pleasant than most service employees...  And they're getting better, don't get sick, never need time off and will cost less than one employee's annual wage even at $10 per hour.  Wage difference won't matter if this is the way we head.  Millions will be replaced.
Click to expand...
Sucks that all those Indians will lose their jobs.

 
Gr00vus said:
I don't want a higher minimum wage, I'd rather just move straight to a guaranteed minimum income, That's where we're going to have to go, unless you want an even more lopsided distribution of wealth in this country.
Click to expand...
I'm all for BIG, but until it happens the minimum wage needs to be a wage that people can live on. 

 
timschochet said:
Not to mention Hillary Clinton and at least 51% of those who will be voting this November. 
Click to expand...
You can only live in your fantasy land when you think more than 51% of people like her. There are a lot of people that will vote for her despite the fact they think she's a dishonest and terrible person.

 
BeaverCleaver said:
You can only live in your fantasy land when you think more than 51% of people like her. There are a lot of people that will vote for her despite the fact they think she's a dishonest and terrible person.
Click to expand...
So long as they vote for her, I can live with that. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't Tim the guy who wishes everyone wasn't able to vote because most folk are stupid and make dumb political votes without knowing anything?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top