Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority  

Go Back   Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority > General Sports > Debate Forum

Hello Guest!
Take a minute to register, It's 100% FREE! What are you waiting for?
Register Now
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-06-17, 11:39 PM
Yappi Yappi is offline
Go Buckeyes
 
Join Date: 04-15-01
Location: Ohio
Posts: 49,368
Yappi will become famous soon enough
Missouri Republicans Lower St. Louis Minimum Wage From $10 To $7.70

Another interesting issue...do you agree with the Republicans lowering the minimum wage back to state levels? Do you think they were right to use a state preemption law to overturn a local law in the city of St Louis?

Quote:
If you thought the minimum wage only moved in one direction, then Missouri Republicans have a surprise for you.

After St. Louis leaders raised the wage floor for workers within city limits, the state GOP recently passed what’s known as a statewide “preemption” law, forbidding localities from taking such matters into their own hands. On Friday, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens (R) said he would let the law go into effect, thereby barring cities and counties from setting a minimum wage higher than the state level.

For low-wage earners in St. Louis itself, the new law will have a startling consequence: It will actually push the minimum wage back down, from the city-approved $10 per hour to the state-approved $7.70. The downgrade is slated to take effect on Aug. 28.
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0da2c7324d725
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 07-07-17, 05:03 AM
queencitybuckeye queencitybuckeye is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 11-12-09
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 4,215
queencitybuckeye is on a distinguished road
If the powers that be in St. Louis so hate the working poor as to pass a law to keep them unemployed, I'm not sure that the state should interfere. The effects of such laws are not in serious dispute by anyone who has taken more than zero courses in Economics.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-07-17, 05:50 AM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 31,489
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
This min wage raise was attempted in Cleveland by the council members whose wards include the major hospitals. It might have had benefit for those few emloyees, but the Mayor correctly recognized that it would have cratered the rest of the city. He appealed to Gov Kasich to preemptively defeat the measure via similar means. It was a good call, for sure. Mayor Jackson was all for a statewide min wage increase, but he had no desire to help every suburban business bordering his city. He collects no taxes from them.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-07-17, 06:54 AM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 23,541
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yappi View Post
Another interesting issue...do you agree with the Republicans lowering the minimum wage back to state levels? Do you think they were right to use a state preemption law to overturn a local law in the city of St Louis?
They were absolutely right. You can't have children running a city government. At some point the adults must retake charge.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-07-17, 07:08 AM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 17,422
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
I like the idea of local government/politicians being able to directly act on behalf of their constituents. That's where change and innovation should happen - not on a national level (God knows the federal government can't create OR manage programs that address actual issues) where it has to be one-size-fits-all.

Maybe $15 IS a good wage for NYC or Chicago, maybe it's $10 in Columbus.... I'd like to see the feds drop it to $5 to protect teens and unskilled laborers and then let the states and local governments make their own determinations. That way, $15 nonsense in Seattle doesn't destroy entry-level jobs in Tacoma or Hattiesburg.

When St. Louis passes a $15 wage and the McDonald's in Ferguson puts in the automated kiosks and cuts 30 jobs, the government and politicians can see the effect of their short-sighted policies and other politicians and governments can observe the problems and make their own decisions for their constituents and communities.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-07-17, 07:16 AM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 23,541
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
I like the idea of local government/politicians being able to directly act on behalf of their constituents. That's where change and innovation should happen - not on a national level (God knows the federal government can't create OR manage programs that address actual issues) where it has to be one-size-fits-all.

Maybe $15 IS a good wage for NYC or Chicago, maybe it's $10 in Columbus.... I'd like to see the feds drop it to $5 to protect teens and unskilled laborers and then let the states and local governments make their own determinations. That way, $15 nonsense in Seattle doesn't destroy entry-level jobs in Tacoma or Hattiesburg.

When St. Louis passes a $15 wage and the McDonald's in Ferguson puts in the automated kiosks and cuts 30 jobs, the government and politicians can see the effect of their short-sighted policies and other politicians and governments can observe the problems and make their own decisions for their constituents and communities.
Local government control is fine SWM until their actions are corrupt or wrongheaded. I have no problem with a county, state or even federal government stepping in and correcting a problem if the local authorities are blinded by ideology or incompetence.

The problem with local government is they often don't approach their actions as an experiment that must be shutdown ASAP if it fails. Their egos (or financial health) are often entwined with the decision and they'll use every justification available to them to keep it going - no matter how many people they screw. A perfect example of this is the famous Cincinnati streetcar. If only the State had stepped in and said NO, you can't waste that much money when you have so many other needs that must be funded.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-07-17, 07:32 AM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 17,422
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotr10 View Post
Local government control is fine SWM until their actions are corrupt or wrongheaded. I have no problem with a county, state or even federal government stepping in and correcting a problem if the local authorities are blinded by ideology or incompetence.
Wrongheaded is not a crime..... people should be allowed to do stupid things. Take Detroit as an example, local politicians ruined the city and it will take decades to recover from the stupidity - but it serves as an example to other local governments on what not to do. Of course there's always the stupidity of "we can do the same things but we won't make the same mistakes".

Let the people get what they voted for.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-07-17, 07:36 AM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 23,541
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
Wrongheaded is not a crime..... people should be allowed to do stupid things. Take Detroit as an example, local politicians ruined the city and it will take decades to recover from the stupidity - but it serves as an example to other local governments on what not to do. Of course there's always the stupidity of "we can do the same things but we won't make the same mistakes".

Let the people get what they voted for.
I get what you're saying and generally I prefer local "rule' over the rule of more distant authority BUT there are times when the local government must be reined in.

BTW, Detroit is a good example of what happens when you allow the patients to run the insane asylum! But I do understand your Schadenfreude for these electorates suffering the consequences of who they voted in.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-07-17, 09:53 AM
Michael Bluth Michael Bluth is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 05-29-11
Location: The Mailroom
Posts: 16,308
Michael Bluth is on a distinguished road
Too low, but that's what the people voted for
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-07-17, 10:08 AM
Neopolitan Neopolitan is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 10-12-16
Posts: 3,783
Neopolitan is on a distinguished road
I'm in favor of decisions being made by the most local form of government. While I think St Louis made a dumb decision, it should be their decision to make.

The need for a minimum wage died decades ago. I'd be in favor of scrapping it altogether, but since that's not realistic, local control is the best option.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-07-17, 10:55 AM
Sykotyk Sykotyk is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 10-12-06
Location: Lowellville, OH
Posts: 4,084
Sykotyk will become famous soon enough
Republicans: I'm in favor of small government.
Also Republicans: Unless the small government wants to pass something I don't like, then let's have a bigger government override them.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-07-17, 11:02 AM
Sykotyk Sykotyk is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 10-12-06
Location: Lowellville, OH
Posts: 4,084
Sykotyk will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
When St. Louis passes a $15 wage and the McDonald's in Ferguson puts in the automated kiosks and cuts 30 jobs, the government and politicians can see the effect of their short-sighted policies and other politicians and governments can observe the problems and make their own decisions for their constituents and communities.
But, why should the government decide on economic policy based on 'what may happen' to the current jobs. Isn't that what Republicans were angered about with the auto bailout? That the government interfered with the natural order of commerce in order to prop up a business (and jobs) that otherwise might fail or be automated further to the benefit of potential customers?

If you want to hold the world hostage with 'this job might be eliminated if we consider actually paying someone a fair wage' then maybe that job needs to be eliminated...

I mean, switchboard operators were done in by technological advancement and nobody cries for them. Video rental stores are all but gone across the country and yet nobody is demanding cable and internet providers restrict their product or service in order to prop up an outdated business. A cashier punching buttons onto a screen that you can do just as easily is one aspect of commerce that needs to go.

Sheetz, GetGo, Wawa, etc have already figured it out. And it makes submitting your order much easier and at your pace and let's you contemplate your options much more than holding up a line because they can have one employee or five or more kiosks.

Don't fear progress. Even if it costs jobs. Maybe your fear of 'losing the jobs' should be factored into whether or not you support unemployment, universal minimum income, government subsidy of technological progress in terms of grants and investment, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-07-17, 11:15 AM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 17,422
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sykotyk View Post
But, why should the government decide on economic policy based on 'what may happen' to the current jobs. .......
If it were up to me I would drop the minimum to what a teenager needs for gas and movie money and let everyone else negotiate based on their value and contributions to the organization.....

The whole concept of "minimum wage" is a government economic policy that hinges on "what may happen" if companies and individuals are allowed to operate in a free market.

If the goal for a city/state/nation is 100% employment then the role of government should be setting policies that make that goal a reality. If the goal of an elected official is to get everyone a raise to $15 then there is a goal for business to be able to work within that law - even if it means cutting positions/hours/benefits/etc. Taking an impoverished suburb like Ferguson and eliminating half the jobs available should make people suffer, from the politicians that passed the laws to the people that voted for them.

About half the people in this country do not worry about economic policy because they don't have to pay for it directly. They are negatively impacted by companies moving overseas, by policies that limit growth, by excessive government interference - but they can't see that. It's not as real as if they were writing the checks to pay for failed policies because they don't pay their share of taxes. If everyone paid the same percentage or at least their portion of public policies, there would be more pushback on stupidity.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-07-17, 11:42 AM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 9,939
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
Laws that protect workers hurt employers. From workplace safety, EEO, discrimination, to overtime rules, breaks, and pay etc. All the way down to east Asian sweat shop conditions (desperation). That costs us a lot of jobs. Good.

I thought Make America Great Again referred to the 50's??? Must have been 1850's.

Fair and minimum standards lead to not only higher wages for those workers, but ALL workers, and...oh no...advances in technology (better jobs). The recurring nightmare of the republican base. Bring back the picks, shovels, and horses! Coal miners! Lol.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-07-17, 11:48 AM
zeeman zeeman is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-22-11
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 5,690
zeeman is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerPaw View Post
Laws that protect workers hurt employers. From workplace safety, EEO, discrimination, to overtime rules, breaks, and pay etc. All the way down to east Asian sweat shop conditions (desperation). That costs us a lot of jobs. Good.

I thought Make America Great Again referred to the 50's??? Must have been 1850's.

Fair and minimum standards lead to not only higher wages for those workers, but ALL workers, and...oh no...advances in technology (better jobs). The recurring nightmare of the republican base. Bring back the picks, shovels, and horses! Coal miners! Lol.
Is $7.70 or $15 better than 0? Ask the working poor in Seattle who have lost their jobs
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-07-17, 12:11 PM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 9,939
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
The working poor in Seattle are poor if they are working for $7 or not. How about bettering yourself? 'Will work for food' is no vocation.

Though I did mention earlier I believed there should be a separate & lower minimum for minors vs. adults. < 18 or 21 depending on a bit more research.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-07-17, 01:40 PM
eastisbest eastisbest is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-27-06
Posts: 17,561
eastisbest will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerPaw View Post
The working poor in Seattle are poor if they are working for $7 or not. How about bettering yourself? 'Will work for food' is no vocation.

Though I did mention earlier I believed there should be a separate & lower minimum for minors vs. adults. < 18 or 21 depending on a bit more research.
Minors in the part of town are often working to support a family not on assistance or to keep it off assistance. Some just want to get on with life. Many reasons that don't have to do with "gas and movie" money at these economics.

This is a tough nut.

Those jobs teens used pre-80s for "gas and movie" money became necessary as family money when the blue collar jobs left for the many reasons they left. There used to be paper routes every few blocks. Now there is one per neighborhood, meant as family income. No one bags your groceries anymore..... Waitressing and other service jobs were second income, they're now head of household income.

But setting minimum wages in a way that raises the costs of living for the very people the policy is supposed to aid, isn't a solution.

Ignoring reality when setting policy isn't realistic.

I'm convinced there's no "solution" in free market that doesn't end up with RIGHTFULL civil unrest from the WORKING poor. We have avoided return to days of violent union protests and riots, we've not become "France," so in this case, the solution does seem to require government intervention even if that raises the boogey of socialism. I'd rather fight to limit socialism than civil crisis from people who actually are working.

The "solution" to the working poor, providing a country with a decent balance between the time a parent has to work to provide essentials (presuming that is a goal) and the time needed to raise their children seems better found in affordable housing not minimum wage. That's a tough nut too. How do you "mandate" the existence of "affordable?"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-07-17, 01:53 PM
ronnie mund ronnie mund is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 11-11-13
Posts: 6,771
ronnie mund can only hope to improve
Quote:
Originally Posted by sykotyk View Post
republicans: I'm in favor of small government.
Also republicans: Unless the small government wants to pass something i don't like, then let's have a bigger government override them.
+1
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-07-17, 02:10 PM
Sykotyk Sykotyk is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 10-12-06
Location: Lowellville, OH
Posts: 4,084
Sykotyk will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
If it were up to me I would drop the minimum to what a teenager needs for gas and movie money and let everyone else negotiate based on their value and contributions to the organization.....

The whole concept of "minimum wage" is a government economic policy that hinges on "what may happen" if companies and individuals are allowed to operate in a free market.

If the goal for a city/state/nation is 100% employment then the role of government should be setting policies that make that goal a reality. If the goal of an elected official is to get everyone a raise to $15 then there is a goal for business to be able to work within that law - even if it means cutting positions/hours/benefits/etc. Taking an impoverished suburb like Ferguson and eliminating half the jobs available should make people suffer, from the politicians that passed the laws to the people that voted for them.

About half the people in this country do not worry about economic policy because they don't have to pay for it directly. They are negatively impacted by companies moving overseas, by policies that limit growth, by excessive government interference - but they can't see that. It's not as real as if they were writing the checks to pay for failed policies because they don't pay their share of taxes. If everyone paid the same percentage or at least their portion of public policies, there would be more pushback on stupidity.
This is where I differ greatly. This is like saying "I'd rather work every day, than make enough in one day to take the next six off."

If 100% 'employment' is the goal, then the reality is that most of those 100% are going to be paid very very little for their work. There's no reason to advance or compete, if you know they HAVE to work and you can pay them as little as you want.

A captive audience is the best audience. Unless you're the audience.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-07-17, 02:40 PM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 9,939
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
Uh yeah, what he said. The goal for a nation is NOT 100% employment, with no regard to the advancement of society or standard of living, except for the simple minded. I'm sure it sounded good when he typed it though.

Not that I doubt for a second even the staunchest Trump supporters didn't really believe the "higher paying jobs" bs.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-07-17, 08:20 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 17,422
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastisbest View Post
Minors in the part of town are often working to support a family not on assistance or to keep it off assistance. Some just want to get on with life. Many reasons that don't have to do with "gas and movie" money at these economics.
........
According to the BLS 3% of adult workers (25 or older) earn minimum wage or below. Only 5.2% of ALL workers earn minimum wage or less. Your minimum wage slave argument is not indicative of a problem in the labor market. BTW - nearly 14% of workers in 1979 made minimum wage or less.....
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-07-17, 08:38 PM
eastisbest eastisbest is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-27-06
Posts: 17,561
eastisbest will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastisbest
Minors in the part of town are often working to support a family not on assistance or to keep it off assistance. Some just want to get on with life. Many reasons that don't have to do with "gas and movie" money at these economics.
According to the BLS 3% of adult workers (25 or older) earn minimum wage or below. Only 5.2% of ALL workers earn minimum wage or less. Your minimum wage slave argument is not indicative of a problem in the labor market. BTW - nearly 14% of workers in 1979 made minimum wage or less.....
Is it the word "minors" you're needing help with?

I didn't refer to a theoretical or a globally statistical "labor market." I referred to reality of some working individuals. Why are you responding to my post about the reasons teens work with statistics about "25 or older" or adults and minimum wage?

Your response may have value in some discussion but doesn't seem to have pertinent sense to what you quoted. Are you responding to imaginings and desired interpretations in your head or what others actually post?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-08-17, 12:49 AM
irish_buffalo irish_buffalo is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-06-09
Posts: 3,605
irish_buffalo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastisbest View Post
Minors in the part of town are often working to support a family not on assistance or to keep it off assistance. Some just want to get on with life. Many reasons that don't have to do with "gas and movie" money at these economics.

This is a tough nut.

Those jobs teens used pre-80s for "gas and movie" money became necessary as family money when the blue collar jobs left for the many reasons they left. There used to be paper routes every few blocks. Now there is one per neighborhood, meant as family income. No one bags your groceries anymore..... Waitressing and other service jobs were second income, they're now head of household income.

But setting minimum wages in a way that raises the costs of living for the very people the policy is supposed to aid, isn't a solution.

Ignoring reality when setting policy isn't realistic.

I'm convinced there's no "solution" in free market that doesn't end up with RIGHTFULL civil unrest from the WORKING poor. We have avoided return to days of violent union protests and riots, we've not become "France," so in this case, the solution does seem to require government intervention even if that raises the boogey of socialism. I'd rather fight to limit socialism than civil crisis from people who actually are working.

The "solution" to the working poor, providing a country with a decent balance between the time a parent has to work to provide essentials (presuming that is a goal) and the time needed to raise their children seems better found in affordable housing not minimum wage. That's a tough nut too. How do you "mandate" the existence of "affordable?"
Excellent post. And as you say, "tough nut".
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-08-17, 10:04 AM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 23,541
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sykotyk View Post
Republicans: I'm in favor of small government.
Also Republicans: Unless the small government wants to pass something I don't like, then let's have a bigger government override them.
Gross oversimplification of "republican" politics and conservative politics in general.

First off what evidence is there that the GOP prefers "small government" over "big government"? Sure there are individual republican office holders who take this position but overall the party is fine with "big" government as long as it's not quite as big as the democrats want. Case in point was how the GOP absorbed than assimilated the "tea party". Originally this group was a grass roots effort to force the GOP to adopt limited government principals. The republicans tapped into their energy & support to win elections then promptly dropped most of what they stood for - after they infiltrated and subsumed the various groups.

Second, there is a wide spectrum of "conservatives" ranging from live & let live Libertarians to the alt right. I fall into the group that while preferring small/local government over large/distant government doesn't have a reflexive hatred of "big" government. This is because IMO some efforts can only succeed with BIG government such as national infrastructure projects and national defense. There is a certain quality to scale.

Third, Trump has reintroduced a potent brand of nationalism & populism to the "conservative" program in a way that blurs some of the distinctions between democrat & republican. Overall this is good as SOMETHING must be done to unite the country. Particularly since the entire democrat progressive agenda seems bent on dividing the nation along the lines of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation & gender identity.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-08-17, 01:54 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 17,422
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastisbest View Post
Is it the word "minors" you're needing help with?

I didn't refer to a theoretical or a globally statistical "labor market." I referred to reality of some working individuals. Why are you responding to my post about the reasons teens work with statistics about "25 or older" or adults and minimum wage? .....
You referred to a possible scenario and I pointed out while possible it was incredibly unlikely. It's an incredibly SMALL number of workers, it's a rounding error. The number of minors working is small, the number of people making minimum wage is even smaller.

If you told me that 50% of minors were working to support their families you'd have an argument worthy of discussion. You are attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill and the numbers don't support your assumption.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-08-17, 02:21 PM
Sykotyk Sykotyk is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 10-12-06
Location: Lowellville, OH
Posts: 4,084
Sykotyk will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotr10 View Post
Gross oversimplification of "republican" politics and conservative politics in general.

First off what evidence is there that the GOP prefers "small government" over "big government"?
Part of their stated platform. Government doesn't 'work' so it must be reduced. Their logic, not mine.

Quote:
Sure there are individual republican office holders who take this position but overall the party is fine with "big" government as long as it's not quite as big as the democrats want.
Big and small is relative to the other option. So Republicans do advocate for small government.

Quote:
Case in point was how the GOP absorbed than assimilated the "tea party". Originally this group was a grass roots effort to force the GOP to adopt limited government principals. The republicans tapped into their energy & support to win elections then promptly dropped most of what they stood for - after they infiltrated and subsumed the various groups.
The Republicans also have had the benefit of controlling congress during the last two census redistricting events. If you can gerrymander the districts to contain as many democrats into one district as possible, you can make many more 'Republican leaning' districts despite overall population preferences in politics. North Carolina has done this very well. And to an extent, Ohio.

It goes from actually proving yourself better, to simply making sure your seats are safe. One reason the House is probably staying Republican at least through 2020. The only hope is removing the gerrymandered district lines during the next census. But if Republicans control the state house, expect the same system to flourish. It's the scorched Earth philosophy to representative politics. Simply make the options unpalatable as one party will always win a district and another will always lose.

[quote]
Quote:
Second, there is a wide spectrum of "conservatives" ranging from live & let live Libertarians to the alt right. I fall into the group that while preferring small/local government over large/distant government doesn't have a reflexive hatred of "big" government. This is because IMO some efforts can only succeed with BIG government such as national infrastructure projects and national defense. There is a certain quality to scale.
I said Republican, not 'conservative'. Most Trumpites are not true conservatives. They were in favor of Trump interfering with private business in part of Carrier to 'save jobs', yet bitched and moaned about Obama's auto bailout. Regardless your belief if either would work, or whether it was sound policy. It still was the exact same philosophy condoned by one and vilified by the other.

Quote:
Third, Trump has reintroduced a potent brand of nationalism & populism to the "conservative" program in a way that blurs some of the distinctions between democrat & republican.
Honestly, the Republicans wrapped themselves in the flag as far back as Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" in the 90s. It was their only hope of winning by tying social conservatives and fiscal conservatives and libertarians into the same party. Prior to that, abortion wasn't a party issue. The Fiscal Conservatives, to regain control, had to throw a bone to the Social conservatives, and that's exactly what they did. Years upon years of control, and their only hope of changing anything is 'starve the beast' because even they know America wouldn't stand for drastic, changes all at once. Don't kill the post office, medicare, social security, etc, simply under fund it until the point that it is no longer sustainable and then argue your own malfeasance as the reason it needs to be rescinded or scaled back. Same argument with roads. Won't raise taxes to match inflation, and then argue the need to sell off toll roads to private international conglomerates or to build all new roads that are grossly out of touch with the actual cost of construction, maintenance, and with poison pills such as anti-competition clauses in Indiana that actually stifle development and construction anywhere deemed 'competition' to the Indiana Toll Road. AND, if the road becomes unprofitable, there's requirements for the state to make up the loss for a private business.

Quote:
Overall this is good as SOMETHING must be done to unite the country. Particularly since the entire democrat progressive agenda seems bent on dividing the nation along the lines of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation & gender identity.
And yet the Republican conservative agenda is bent on instilling only ONE WAY of doing anything, from marriage, rights, contracts, will of the people, benefits of society favoring corporations over individuals, etc. It's not the 'big tent' the Republican party once claimed to be.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-08-17, 04:56 PM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 23,541
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sykotyk View Post
Part of their stated platform. Government doesn't 'work' so it must be reduced. Their logic, not mine.

Who cares what they put in their "platform". Gee do you believe the cable Company when they put you on hold claiming your business is important to them? Watch what the republicans do and you can easily see that shrinking government is not at the top of their list. Sure they may try to restrain the rate of growth but to actually do things that would reduce government - give me a break.


Big and small is relative to the other option. So Republicans do advocate for small government.

Seriously? So if I weigh 400 pounds I should consider myself "thin" relative to a person weighing 500 ponds?


The Republicans also have had the benefit of controlling congress during the last two census redistricting events. If you can gerrymander the districts to contain as many democrats into one district as possible, you can make many more 'Republican leaning' districts despite overall population preferences in politics. North Carolina has done this very well. And to an extent, Ohio.

It goes from actually proving yourself better, to simply making sure your seats are safe. One reason the House is probably staying Republican at least through 2020. The only hope is removing the gerrymandered district lines during the next census. But if Republicans control the state house, expect the same system to flourish. It's the scorched Earth philosophy to representative politics. Simply make the options unpalatable as one party will always win a district and another will always lose.

Well if it makes you sleep better blaming "gerrymandering" for the republicans stunning NATION WIDE election successes go for it. The truth though is that in spite of their utter ineptitude the GOP has managed to slowly but steadily take over the local/state/national legislatures & the governorship's of most of the country. This speaks directly to the even greater incompetence and bankrupt nature of progressive/democrat ideas than it does to GOP scheming or political skill.


I said Republican, not 'conservative'. Most Trumpites are not true conservatives. They were in favor of Trump interfering with private business in part of Carrier to 'save jobs', yet bitched and moaned about Obama's auto bailout. Regardless your belief if either would work, or whether it was sound policy. It still was the exact same philosophy condoned by one and vilified by the other.

What's a "true conservative"? You got a litmus test? Trump supporters are very diverse covering everything from the extreme right wing to disillusioned democrats. And for the record, I'm sure some Trump supporters did complain about the auto bailout while others thought it was a great solution to the problem.



Honestly, the Republicans wrapped themselves in the flag as far back as Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" in the 90s. It was their only hope of winning by tying social conservatives and fiscal conservatives and libertarians into the same party. Prior to that, abortion wasn't a party issue. The Fiscal Conservatives, to regain control, had to throw a bone to the Social conservatives, and that's exactly what they did. Years upon years of control, and their only hope of changing anything is 'starve the beast' because even they know America wouldn't stand for drastic, changes all at once. Don't kill the post office, medicare, social security, etc, simply under fund it until the point that it is no longer sustainable and then argue your own malfeasance as the reason it needs to be rescinded or scaled back. Same argument with roads. Won't raise taxes to match inflation, and then argue the need to sell off toll roads to private international conglomerates or to build all new roads that are grossly out of touch with the actual cost of construction, maintenance, and with poison pills such as anti-competition clauses in Indiana that actually stifle development and construction anywhere deemed 'competition' to the Indiana Toll Road. AND, if the road becomes unprofitable, there's requirements for the state to make up the loss for a private business.

Man where have you been? The social conservatives have been destroyed and most have gone into political hiding. Their world view has been brutally crushed by the progressive tidal wave, biased media, propagandist entertainment industry and the disloyalty of fickle republican leadership. Heck, the GOP has treated the social conservatives ALMOST as badly as the Democrats have treated Black folks.


And yet the Republican conservative agenda is bent on instilling only ONE WAY of doing anything, from marriage, rights, contracts, will of the people, benefits of society favoring corporations over individuals, etc. It's not the 'big tent' the Republican party once claimed to be.

Surely you jest! The republicans control a large surplus of state/local governments and their styles of governing are very diverse. And as their efforts to repeal Obama care have revealed getting the GOP to even agree on something central to their platform (like getting rid of OC) is like herding cats!
-
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-08-17, 08:12 PM
eastisbest eastisbest is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-27-06
Posts: 17,561
eastisbest will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
You referred to a possible scenario
No I didn't. I referred to an actual and specific scenario so once again I find myself using the word "reality" with you. A reality quite common for the SPECIFIC case I was addressing. The thing you don't see from the first class seat at 35,000 ft on the way to a marketing call.

You were off topic of the post you quoted. It's beyond comprehension you can't just admit you screwed up. But if you have any input pertinent to the reasons teens in lower economic families seek employment, provide or if you wish to debate my take on it, feel free. If you can see any of them from up there, lol.

Listen, I get it. YOU had a DIFFERENT topic you wanted to address to me so you were going to twist whatever I had posted. I could have posted "sky is blue" and your reply would have been the same. You don't create credibility for yourself that way. If you want to talk or debate a particulat topic, start a thread or ask the opinion. It's easy. I'd suggest first though, if you want to DEBATE a topic, first find out if we disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-08-17, 08:52 PM
JediMaster JediMaster is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 02-16-11
Location: Mason, OH
Posts: 772
JediMaster is on a distinguished road
The real problem in all of this is peoples' (primarily the poor) perception of minimum wage as being an extension of government sponsored welfare that allows them to continue being mediocre at life. Minimum wage is not supposed to be comfortable; minimum wage is not supposed to house and feed a family of 4; minimum wage is meant to be a way for people to skate by doing the bare minimum of menial tasks that society as a whole can gain benefit from WHILE keeping costs down for the rest of the free markets' participants.

People advocating to raise minimum wage so that Burger Flippin' Phil can feed his wife and two kids while living "comfortably" are not only setting Phil up for a hasty retirement, but crippling small business, discouraging new entrepreneurs and subjugating the free and prosperous country the U.S. has established itself as for well over 2 centuries to anecdotally-based and flawed policy.

Why is it wrong for people to double down on the concept of accepting and practicing personal responsibility? I know that I can't go off and have unprotected sex- which would more than likely result in children- if I'm making $7.30 an hour at waffle house and expect to be able to provide adequately for those kids; that's an unrealistic expectation that a LOT of the country is flat out lost on today.

Preach the right values; Go to school, work hard in school, GRADUATE from school, work hard in your job, get married, THEN have kids. Statistically speaking that is the BEST path towards financial security/happiness long-term. It's not guaranteed though; nothing in life should be guaranteed other than death and the rights provided to you by the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-08-17, 10:41 PM
eastisbest eastisbest is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-27-06
Posts: 17,561
eastisbest will become famous soon enough
To ME, it seems you're still mixing two separate concepts and that's the current problem with minimum wage definitions. I think others are on a better track, connecting "minimum wage" to hours and age and let free market deal with "liveable income" for adults.

I think we're all mostly agreed, defining "liveable wage" with a "minimum" doesn't help those it's supposedly designed to help, the working "poor." That method begs price controls, an even bigger boogeyman. Only free market consumerism will encourage employers to provide liveable incomes. "Minimum" is only to keep minors and purposeful part-timers from being taken advantage of, used to perform jobs that should be paid liveable wage.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Registration Booster - Powered By Dirt RIF CustUmz