|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 27 2017 04:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On June 27 2017 01:55 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:39 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:26 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:21 Danglars wrote:On June 26 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:
Also, it looks like Trump is going to score a win on the travel ban, with the Supreme Court allowing it to go into effect provisionally (pending reargument) against persons without a "bona fide relationship to the US."
EDIT: And it appears to be a per curiam opinion with no full liberal dissent. Interesting.
EDIT 2: Heh, looks like the Court wants to duck this one. They direct the parties to address the following issue in the next around of briefing: whether the challenges to the EO became moot on June 14, 2017.
EDIT 3: Looks like the language is narrower than initially reported:
[quote] Affirming (in reasoning) that EO-2 was a constitutional exercise of executive power. It's a welcome relief to the courts claiming the power to make national security judgements. One key argument destroyed. + Show Spoiler +Also: Wedding cake designers get writ of cert I still fail to see how the travel ban does anything in the vein of national security. It's a yet more limited version of a ban that was already limited to a selection of countries that had nothing to do with terrorism in the US. Temporarily stopping immigration from countries that cannot track their terrorists, or failed states where identities cannot be proven in any way, is a national security question at its core. Some are state sponsors of terrorism aka "nothing to do with terrorism in the US" is not for lack of trying. The majority of terrorists that have attacked not only the US, but Europe as well, have been domestic - they were there their whole lives. Shotgun-banning travel from countries that may have something to do with terrorists does nothing to address the genuine issue. If the problem is lack of tracking, maybe we ought to track what's going on in our country first. Maybe you disagree substantially on the means the president is using to fix a problem. Maybe you would argue a basis in historical deaths or attacks evidenced. It still doesn't deny his statutory and constitutional authority to do so, and the previously discussed facts of inability to vet and state sponsors of terrorism. I have no doubt Clinton would've chosen a different choice for national security, and many of her supporters disagree with Trump's approach, but elections have consequences. Best of luck next time around. And no one ever disputed that the President has that right. The issue has always been with the how. Mainly the initial ban and it blocking legitimate vetting people from entering the US. like foreign students and visa/green card holders. Something that is specificity addressed by the SCOTUS. They say and have said that arguing animus and prejudice denies the President that right. That was the context of the denial ("Anyone else, say Hillary, would have the right to issue this exact same executive order, but Trump does not under this circumstance"). It's been in dispute in the same way the right to free speech isn't subject to Government not liking what you say. Let's not whitewash arguments made not even six months ago; rights taken away by men in black robes start becoming government-afforded privileges real fast. I understand the person Trump kind of short-circuits critical thinking because somehow people think he's president for life or something. Danglars, your posts would almost be reasonable if you could somehow restrain you need to talk down to people that disagree with you at every turn. You like to talk like the reasonable party, but can’t help yourself. It damages every argument you make and puts you squarely in the camp of internet conservatives wanting to “trigger the liberals”. "Nobody has disputed that right" runs contrary to the broad argument present in this same thread that these rights are subject to judicial consent/interpretation stretching back to the campaign trail (Watch what you say, or your presidency might be constrained by men in black robes!). That and the dithering on the EO-1 vs EO-2 that sweeps away the context of my original post (hey, I even tried highlighting through the tweets) earns the tone of my response. In short, you've ignored the tone of liberal posters here and the "thread standard snark" that I see little point in rising above at every post. Secondly, sidestepping to green card holders and admitted foreign students is entirely sidestepping the central point.
Do you support the Supreme Court's right to impose on Trump's travel ban a requirement to let in those with a bonafide connection to the US?
|
On June 27 2017 04:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 03:24 Buckyman wrote:The city of Seattle's study on the effects of its minimum wage increases are in. tl;dr: mixed results on an $11/hr minimum wage - "the relatively modest estimated wage and hours impacts of the first phase-in create considerable statistical uncertainty" - but the further increase to $13/hr was clearly a mistake - "within Seattle,low-wage workers lost $3 from lost employment opportunities for every $1 they gain due to higher hourly wages". Yeah 538 reporting on the study highlighted that affected workers lost 125$/month after the increase to 13$. I hope Seattle treats its lowest-income workers better in the future.
Funny you would be fighting for the low wage worker and not thrilled that businesses are saving money?
So if this study is to be believed, a $13 minimum wage is cheaper for business than a $11 minimum wage. Seems like pro business folks should be clamoring to make it $15 and hope to save even more money.
|
On June 27 2017 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 04:25 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 03:24 Buckyman wrote:The city of Seattle's study on the effects of its minimum wage increases are in. tl;dr: mixed results on an $11/hr minimum wage - "the relatively modest estimated wage and hours impacts of the first phase-in create considerable statistical uncertainty" - but the further increase to $13/hr was clearly a mistake - "within Seattle,low-wage workers lost $3 from lost employment opportunities for every $1 they gain due to higher hourly wages". Yeah 538 reporting on the study highlighted that affected workers lost 125$/month after the increase to 13$. I hope Seattle treats its lowest-income workers better in the future. Funny you would be fighting for the low wage worker and not thrilled that businesses are saving money? So if this study is to be believed, a $13 minimum wage is cheaper for business than a $11 minimum wage. Seems like pro business folks should be clamoring to make it $15 and hope to save even more money.
I don’t believe that is the case. It is that the increased wages makes it so less works hours are available. That businesses did not spend more money on labor, so the market got smaller.
|
Making the maximum amount of money is not necessarily the end all be all for everyone. If I worked 30 hr/wk and made the same as if I were working 40, I'd be glad even if it meant I didn't have the opportunity to work 50 hours/wk.
|
On June 27 2017 05:03 Nevuk wrote:
Making the maximum amount of money is not necessarily the end all be all for everyone. If I worked 30 hr/wk and made the same as if I were working 40, I'd be glad even if it meant I didn't have the opportunity to work 50 hours/wk.
Although a completely valid counter point, doesn’t that run counter to the goal of the wage increase? Or do we expect the person to seek out a second job if they want more money?
|
On June 27 2017 05:03 Nevuk wrote:
Making the maximum amount of money is not necessarily the end all be all for everyone. If I worked 30 hr/wk and made the same as if I were working 40, I'd be glad even if it meant I didn't have the opportunity to work 50 hours/wk.
Bravo. We really need to bite the bullet here and raise min wage to reflect on inflation. The middle class is dying as the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. This is the solution to solve our poverty crisis not welfare. With expendable income the lower to middle class can now allocate resources to education or investment instead of just keeping their head above water.
|
On June 27 2017 05:08 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 05:03 Nevuk wrote:
Making the maximum amount of money is not necessarily the end all be all for everyone. If I worked 30 hr/wk and made the same as if I were working 40, I'd be glad even if it meant I didn't have the opportunity to work 50 hours/wk. Bravo. We really need to bite the bullet here and raise min wage to reflect on inflation. The middle class is dying as the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. This is the solution to solve our poverty crisis not welfare. With expendable income the lower to middle class can now allocate resources to education or investment instead of just keeping their head above water.
minimum wage is a welfare program though; just by another more palatable name.
That said, it seems an acceptable, though rather imperfect, tool to accomplish the task.
middle class dying isn't really affected by minimum wage issues; it has entirely to do with structural changes in the economy.
it's certainly good to scale minimum wage to reflect inflation at any rate of course.
|
On June 27 2017 05:17 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 05:08 Noidberg wrote:On June 27 2017 05:03 Nevuk wrote:
Making the maximum amount of money is not necessarily the end all be all for everyone. If I worked 30 hr/wk and made the same as if I were working 40, I'd be glad even if it meant I didn't have the opportunity to work 50 hours/wk. Bravo. We really need to bite the bullet here and raise min wage to reflect on inflation. The middle class is dying as the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. This is the solution to solve our poverty crisis not welfare. With expendable income the lower to middle class can now allocate resources to education or investment instead of just keeping their head above water. minimum wage is a welfare program though; just by another more palatable name. That said, it seems an acceptable, though rather imperfect, tool to accomplish the task. middle class dying isn't really affected by minimum wage issues; it has entirely to do with structural changes in the economy. it's certainly good to scale minimum wage to reflect inflation at any rate of course.
Yeah true its hard to work your way up these days so to speak and a low min wage just keeps you stagnant. The idea is more income gives people options to purse opportunities or just have fun without a middle class then? I just want to avoid a class divide where poor people are on food stamps without work or opportunity.
|
Want a lower minimum wage, make the cost of living cheaper. AKA, don’t do what the GOP is doing right now. 22 million is quite a few.
|
Has each revision resulted in 1 million fewer uninsured? At this rate it'll be a 22 more rewrites and we'll just have the ACA.
|
On June 27 2017 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Funny you would be fighting for the low wage worker and not thrilled that businesses are saving money?
So if this study is to be believed, a $13 minimum wage is cheaper for business than a $11 minimum wage. Seems like pro business folks should be clamoring to make it $15 and hope to save even more money.
Naah, this is anti-business. The businesses lose more from not having the labor on hand than they're "saving" on payroll. It's a lose-lose situation where workers want to take a $1-2 pay cut in exchange for extra hours and the businesses want both of those but the law doesn't allow it.
On June 27 2017 05:08 Noidberg wrote:
Bravo. We really need to bite the bullet here and raise min wage to reflect on inflation. The middle class is dying as the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. This is the solution to solve our poverty crisis not welfare. With expendable income the lower to middle class can now allocate resources to education or investment instead of just keeping their head above water.
Indexing minimum wage to inflation is the sort of thing that can destroy an economy if one isn't careful. A rising minimum wage is itself inflationary. And rapid inflation is the economy's last resort against a minimum wage that's set too high.
|
On June 27 2017 05:28 Nevuk wrote:
Has each revision resulted in 1 million fewer uninsured? At this rate it'll be a 22 more rewrites and we'll just have the ACA.
15 million by next year. 22 Million by 2026. The impacts on Medicaid reductions are still not know, but a lot of people are talking about healthcare wastelands in the poorest sections of the country.
|
On June 27 2017 05:28 Nevuk wrote:
Has each revision resulted in 1 million fewer uninsured? At this rate it'll be a 22 more rewrites and we'll just have the ACA.
We're getting these things once every 2ish months, right? It'll never get done this term.
|
On June 27 2017 05:25 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 05:17 zlefin wrote:On June 27 2017 05:08 Noidberg wrote:On June 27 2017 05:03 Nevuk wrote:
Making the maximum amount of money is not necessarily the end all be all for everyone. If I worked 30 hr/wk and made the same as if I were working 40, I'd be glad even if it meant I didn't have the opportunity to work 50 hours/wk. Bravo. We really need to bite the bullet here and raise min wage to reflect on inflation. The middle class is dying as the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. This is the solution to solve our poverty crisis not welfare. With expendable income the lower to middle class can now allocate resources to education or investment instead of just keeping their head above water. minimum wage is a welfare program though; just by another more palatable name. That said, it seems an acceptable, though rather imperfect, tool to accomplish the task. middle class dying isn't really affected by minimum wage issues; it has entirely to do with structural changes in the economy. it's certainly good to scale minimum wage to reflect inflation at any rate of course. Yeah true its hard to work your way up these days so to speak and a low min wage just keeps you stagnant. The idea is more income gives people options to purse opportunities or just have fun without a middle class then? I just want to avoid a class divide where poor people are on food stamps without work or opportunity.
again, minimum wage has NOTHING to do wtih middle class.
avoiding a class divide is good; but you gotta understand the effects of what you do, and what will and will not work.
I get the feeling you're advocating for policies with very little understanding of their actual strength/weaknesses/effects.
dealing with the stagnation issues also has to be addressed from a number of other perspectives; such as cost of living, savings habits, and educational opportunity.
|
On June 27 2017 05:28 Buckyman wrote:
Indexing minimum wage to inflation is the sort of thing that can destroy an economy if one isn't careful. A rising minimum wage is itself inflationary. And rapid inflation is the economy's last resort against a minimum wage that's set too high.
Tax the rich  Oh wait trump wants to decrease taxes for the 1% by 50% pooling wealth at the top? And put all america to work without a min wage increase. You know what that reminds me of? Prior to WW2 after the great depression when we were getting ready for war. Trumps banging the war drums i can see it.
|
On June 27 2017 02:09 Plansix wrote:
There are rumors floating around that the Senate Healthcare bill may bar someone from getting insurance for 6 months if they have a laps in coverage. Legally baring a US citizen from an entire market sounds legally questionable. Also easily abused by insurance providers without a fleshed out appeal process.
Edit: 63 day lapse, per the newest version of the bill.
So apparently the purpose of this provision is to be a substitute for the individual mandate. It is supposed to convince people to sign up for insurance, because otherwise they'd have to wait for 6 months once they decide to sign up. Doesn't seem very compelling to me.
Aside from that restriction, insurance companies will be required to accept everyone. Can someone tell me how this will not simply be worse than Obamacare. And was a better plan expected from Republicans?
|
Once again, the 20+ million number is overstated; if you take that methodology and plug in a plan that is identical to the current law, but require them to do the analysis from scratch, they'd get say the 'new' plan would cause about 8 million people to lose insurance. This is an artifact of using 2016 projections of the 2017 market as the baseline, when actual insurance enrollment is lagging behind the projections, and requiring new proposals to conform to the current reality.
|
On June 27 2017 05:46 Buckyman wrote:
Once again, the 20+ million number is overstated; if you take that methodology and plug in a plan that is identical to the current law, but require them to do the analysis 'from scratch', they'd get say the 'new' plan would cause about 8 million people to lose insurance. This is an artifact of using 2016 projections of the 2017 market as the baseline, when actual insurance enrollment is lagging behind the projections, and requiring new proposals to conform to the current reality.
So what you are saying is that this bill accelerates the loss of insurance by around 12 million people? Not only does it not fix the ACA, but it makes it worse and does little to reduce the cost of healthcare.
|
On June 27 2017 05:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2017 04:25 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 03:24 Buckyman wrote:The city of Seattle's study on the effects of its minimum wage increases are in. tl;dr: mixed results on an $11/hr minimum wage - "the relatively modest estimated wage and hours impacts of the first phase-in create considerable statistical uncertainty" - but the further increase to $13/hr was clearly a mistake - "within Seattle,low-wage workers lost $3 from lost employment opportunities for every $1 they gain due to higher hourly wages". Yeah 538 reporting on the study highlighted that affected workers lost 125$/month after the increase to 13$. I hope Seattle treats its lowest-income workers better in the future. Funny you would be fighting for the low wage worker and not thrilled that businesses are saving money? So if this study is to be believed, a $13 minimum wage is cheaper for business than a $11 minimum wage. Seems like pro business folks should be clamoring to make it $15 and hope to save even more money. I don’t believe that is the case. It is that the increased wages makes it so less works hours are available. That businesses did not spend more money on labor, so the market got smaller.
So the argument that higher minimum wage costs businesses more isn't accurate, or they paid more for less work and then just made less money?
Did the study cover the bottom lines of businesses? Like could people have been more productive at $13 meaning business paid the same for labor but needed less labor hours to get the same amount of work done?
|
On June 27 2017 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did the study cover the bottom lines of businesses? Like could people have been more productive at $13 meaning business paid the same for labor but needed less labor hours to get the same amount of work done?
If businesses could have done that, they probably would already have done so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
