Current or modern politics in the United States

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

No doubt, it was a serious suggestion on that meeting. It goes back on the increasing of the productivity; goods are getting produced with less and lesser people. (See the 20/80 society too).

Speaking of worker productivity,

"Should the minimum wage be $22 an hour? That’s what Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) of Massachusetts suggested at a recent hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Here’s her logic: If you took the minimum wage from 1960 and indexed it for workers’ gains in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today. And why shouldn’t employees reap the benefits of their own improved labor practices?, she asked at the hearing, rhetorically. Today, the actual minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.

“What happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn’t go to the worker,” Senator Warren said.

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/22-minimum-wag...145204898.html

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by richardoe

Maybe the USA should consider going over to a system of election for the Presidnecy similar to what Britain does for its Prime Minister? By that I mean vote for a party and not the person?

A terrifying number of Americans already vote that way.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69
No doubt, it was a serious suggestion on that meeting. It goes back on the increasing of the productivity; goods are getting produced with less and lesser people. (See the 20/80 society too).

Originally Posted by DTravel

Speaking of worker productivity,

“What happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn’t go to the worker,” Senator Warren said.


Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/22-minimum-wag...145204898.html

I give you a few statistics to answer that question from UC Barkeley:



It says: in average including the lower middle-class your countryman are earning less; the higher middle-class got a moderate increase.
But your 1 Percenter got an enormous increasing in their income.

That's not only in your country!

But (!!): a lot of deals were made in tax havens, using the infra structure of your country (Wall Street !!!) and paying no taxes. That's absolute legal !! I posted (for European issues) an example of Delaware, how this works. The principle for your country is identically, except the tax haven, of course.

-------------------------------------
BTW: I have found pretty less in English of that "Global Braintrust" - meeting in San Francisco; can anyone confirm this ?
I've got less response about ! I think this was an important political & economical milestone in strategies for the future (in a negative way), already some of it is fulfilled.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

I give you a few statistics to answer that question from UC Barkeley:



It says: in average including the lower middle-class your countryman are earning less; the higher middle-class got a moderate increase.
But your 1 Percenter got an enormous increasing in their income.

Thank you for posting that Puhbear. What's "interesting" about those graphs is that they stop in 2007, just before the Sub-Prime Mortgage meltdown completely destroyed the economy, so I expect those graphs suddenly get even worse.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by DTravel

Thank you for posting that Puhbear. What's "interesting" about those graphs is that they stop in 2007, just before the Sub-Prime Mortgage meltdown completely destroyed the economy, so I expect those graphs suddenly get even worse.

The charts had an other theme (income development over four presidencies periods) and before mortgages crash; they were older. Before '79 there were no "dramatically" changes.
Find yourself some more actual charts. You will see how it hit the different groups.

[awboy33]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

What is it with Republicans? Are they just born with perpetual foot in mouth disease? Here's a good one for you.

This is politicians in general. VP Joe Biden advised people to buy a shot gun for protection rather than a AR-15. Apparently VP Biden has no concept of firepower. My ex could not use my Remington shotgun because she was not strong enough to chamber a round let alone shoot it. My law enforcement neighbor advised me to just go ahead an purchase a 9mm because she could handle that. She enjoyed shooting the little .22 handgun I had. The AR-15 rounds are only slightly bigger than the .22, so in fact the AR-15 would be easier for a woman to shoot than a shotgun.

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Chairwoman of the State of Georgia GOP has suggested that straight people, if gays are allowed to marry, could enter into fraudulent gay marriages if someone needs some help with something; such as having problems paying for medical bills.

"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” she told the Journal. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride."

Free ride? Granted, medical bills here in the US are a real problem. But having a gay marriage to get rid of them? Much more likely is that people would marry someone from the opposite sex.

Anyone here willing to get into a gay marriage to help someone out? Or just for the fun of it? And people wonder why Republicans have the IQ of carrots.

No disagreement here on the gay marriage point, but disagree on the IQ comment. IQ does not measure common sense and IMO really does not measure intelligence well. Actor James Wood, who supported GWB, supposedly has an IQ about 180. LBJ, who created Medicare, has about the same IQ as GWB, so maybe it is not political affiliation but more geographic since both were from Texas. Jimmy Carter, who I consider a complete failure as President, supposedly has an IQ of 156. He and Madeline Albright negotiated the deal for the Clinton Administration to provide two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea, which in turn investigators believe they have been using to develop fissionable material for their weapons program. Not to bright IMO.

Good and humanitarian intentions are wonderful but they should never cloud common sense and historical fact. Intelligence is so much more. Clinton had an uncanny ability to read people and make them feel comfortable, which some people say was a trait GWB also possessed. That is a form of intelligence but how do you quantify that. Andy Warhol, who is considered one of the greatest artists in history, supposedly only had an IQ of 86, but he is considered a genius in the artistic world.

All of us are intelligent in some areas and complete idiots in others. The trick is to know what those areas are and stay out of the others. Something politicians just cannot seem to do.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by awboy33

... IQ does not measure common sense...

You're right - it only measures how well you do IQ tests

[HugoHackenbush]

Well to be fair the Madame Chairwoman of the Georgia GOP is half right.

I live in one of the highest concentrations of gay populations in the US, and I can tell you that access to health care was in fact one of the major points which started the gay marriage movement going forward. Gay couples found if one partner was HIV positive that healthcare was unobtainable, and because they were not married, that one frequently could not get healthcare through their partner’s employers.

However now that the US has “Obamacare” everyone will be covered and pre-existing conditions will not be a bar to coverage. So the idea of marrying someone to just to get healthcare is nonsensical. Chances are being a Republican, this lady opposes Obamacare. Pick your poison, and be happy with it.

And while we’re on the subject, much of the push for gay marriage in reality boils down to financial reasons, not equality. Many gays admitted as much to me. The Plaintiff in the case just heard by the Supreme Court on the DOMA sued because she didn’t want to have her Estate pay the required Estate taxes. Certain tax rates favor married couples. Gay partners would be able to receive additional benefits under the Social Security system if their marriages were recognized.

The other reasons trotted out don’t hold water:

My partner can’t inherit from me; Yes, they can. It’s called a Last Will and Testament. The only thing marriage will do for you is make impossible for you to disinherit your partner.

I can’t make healthcare decisions for my partner; Yes you can. Designation of Healthcare surrogate. You can find the form online. Does not need an attorney.

I can’t manage my partner’s property if something happens to them. Yes you can. It’s called Power of Attorney.

All of the above are frequently drawn up even when the parties are married.

The main consequence I can see is that if prohibitions against gay marriages are struck down as violating equal protection principles, is that once you do that there is not one reason in my mind why one could not have several wives. (BTW this precise point was brought up in the argument before the SCOTUS)

Polygamy would be back.

Mormons rejoice.

And you couldn’t thump your Bible in protest, because there’s a whole lot of polygamy going on in those pages.

[2cheap]

Originally Posted by qwerty007

Son of immigrants (but then again, aren't we all immigrants - 'cept for the aboriginals) wants to make it tougher, not easier - with immigration reform:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3080184.html



Marco Rubio: Immigration Reform Compromise Isn't 'Amnesty,' Will Be More Onerous Than Current Law


"The alternative we've created is going to be longer, more expensive and more difficult to navigate," Rubio said.


That's fixing things!!! (The Republican way....)

Son of LEGAL immigrants wants future citizens to follow the law.
Bashing that is defacto aiding and abetting criminals.

[9876543210]

qwerty007,

Originally Posted by qwerty007

I guess sharing doesn't come naturally to his ilk...

Sharing doesn't come easily to any Republican. Its totally against their nature. Very selfish people as a whole.