The General American Politics Thread

[turbojet]

So, if you haven't been following the news, Michigan went to shit over the Right To Work laws. How this came about was through a deception of Richard Snyder when he told them that he viewed Right To Work as too divisive to attempt to implement thus quelling any concern from the Union populace in Michigan(which 67% of workers belong to). Now what Right to Work does is create this conflict between workers and worker union by forcing Unions to not collect dues even though said Union is the reason why you have higher wages, better benefits, and workable hours. It essentially creates free loaders. This of course guts the power of Unions, sets workers against each other, and it diminishes the power of the labor force. No bueno.

Now these Michigan people are rioting because they are in danger of getting their pensions cut thus aren't too happy mainly because Snyder lied to them a year earlier. The citizens took them at face value. Now here is a chart of other Right To Work States.

Note that the only two blue states that have these laws are Nevada and Michigan(Florida barely counts).

Now this may be me sounding like a conspiracy theorist and you all have the right to be skeptical of me because I am an admitted Socialist and I don't just give a fuck, but isn't just a tad peculiar how the Republicans are waging war with the Middle Class in favor of the 1%? The Koch Bros. the guys who pretty much backed the Tea Party through their Think Tank, AFP, backed this asshole. Rick Singer backed this asshole and he is notorious for destroying the Union jobs. Hell, Snyder's entire history is connected with the aforementioned Koch Brothers and the Walton Family aka the owners of Wal Mart. It seems like these politicians are being bought and are reducing Democracy since it is not like they can be told no. I mean they pretty much fund your campaign and if you go against them, they will bring up another candidate to run against you in the primary election and you will most likely lose. Maybe that is just me? It is not a coincidence that the moment it became legal for corporations to spend money on politics in 1978, there has been a large discrepancy between corporate tax share of revenue and corporate share of profits in GDP?

Any who, one can say that Unions are thugs and should be dismantled at the knees, and Right To Work states are doing financially better. However they are not. Wages in RTW states are 3.2 percent lower, the health insurance are 2.6 percent lower, and the rate of employer sponsor pensions is 4.8 percent lower. RTW has not created jobs in states that adopted them, the recent drop in unemployment has to do with economic recovery and not RTW. So this law just fucking sucks.

So there is that. My reaction to all this? Well, it can be summed up in two gifs.

My Neo-Liberal sympathetic side is like this:

My Marxist/Anarcho-Syndicalist side

So I'm obviously conflicted.

Edited December 13, 2012 by turbojet

[Patticus]

My hope is that the mid-term elections will kick out Snyder (wait... will he even be up for re-election?) and reinstate the forced unionism stuff, because you just know this isn't going away and people are going to want things to go back to before Mr. Lying Sonofabitch did that stuff. Unions and their members aren't thugs, although thugs can be found in most organizations (not just unions) - unions are a good thing and the lack thereof across much of the country is one of the primary reasons for the terrible state of wages and worker conditions in modern America. Fucking rich people.

Anyone else hear about Mitch McConnell a few days ago? As far as I understand it, he proposed a vote on a bill in the House that he knew Harry Reid wouldn't want a vote on, and it'd make the President look bad or something. Then Reid was all, "Hell yeah, let's vote this bitch up!" (paraphrasing) because he knew he had the 51 votes to get it passed, and McConnell, desperately trying to salvage the situation he had created, was all (again paraphrasing), "Oh, this bill's controversial, so we uh, uh, we need like, 60 votes instead of the usual 51," but that shit didn't fly so he was forced to filibuster his own bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU36stfP_xk

[turbojet]

Yeah, I had a good laugh about that since it just shows how ridiculous Congress is getting. People expecting both sides to try to compromise on a decision, but this something that you can't compromise on. I really don't like bi-partisanship when the other side just wants to make you look bad.

[Tornado]

I... honestly find it hard to even care about Michigan politics anymore. Every single time something like this happens, there is no middle ground. Sometimes, it's those evil unions who are at fault for making the obvious heavy hitters in Detroit so uncompetitive. Other times, it's that horrible free trade concept that does it. Still other times, it's because the companies are taxed too harshly compared to the foreign competitors. Other times, it's because they aren't taxed harshly enough, and the money has to come out of the buying public. And that's not when they decide that its other states who are the reason that Michigan is as bad as it is. It's NEVER anyone in Detroit's fault that the entire state has been such a mess for the past 30 years. There's always someone else to blame.

When they are that schizophrenic about everything they do over there, I... just can't be bothered.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Ricky Bobby

[turbojet]

I think the whole schizophrenic nature of Michigan politics has to do with the how dependent it is on the auto industry. The same could be said of Ohio, but I think it represents the schism between unionization and business like a textbook thus it brings out the polar opposites on both sides of the political spectrum. It could be America's prime example of an enclave economy.

[Patticus]

(Reuters) - Laws that weaken the power of organized labor could spread to more U.S. states in 2013 after supporters of the measures scored a major victory over unions in Michigan this week, and earlier in the year in Indiana, experts said.

The next battles over what advocates term "right-to-work" laws could be neighboring Midwest states of Wisconsin and Ohio, where Republican governors and legislatures have shown a willingness to take on the unions.

Missouri also could turn out to be the next flashpoint in efforts to end a "closed-shop" system that makes union membership a condition of employment.

Supporters say the new laws give workers the choice whether to join a union and pay dues. They also argue they encourage corporate investment. Critics say the laws undermine the basic tenet of union collective bargaining, suppress wages and strip workers of leverage to improve pay, benefits and conditions.

Michigan on Tuesday became the 24th of the 50 American states to enact such laws.

The outcome was a "catastrophe" for unions and a sign of their waning power, said Gary Chaison, industrial relations professor at Clark University's Graduate School of Management.

"Other states will be emboldened by the passage of the right-to-work law in Michigan," he said. "Before the next year is over, we will probably see a majority of states with right to work laws."

The outcome in Michigan struck organized labor particularly hard, because it is the birthplace of the United Auto Workers union and a symbol of union might. It followed a series of recent setbacks for the union movement from California to Wisconsin.

Before the Michigan eruption, Wisconsin was the epicenter of the debate over unions, but the issue was different. Republican Governor Scott Walker stripped public-sector unions of most of their bargaining power in 2011 but has not tried to enact right-to-work laws in the public or private sector there.

LINK TO BILLIONAIRES

"We will be pushing for a right-to-work bill here in Wisconsin," said Luke Hilgemann, the Wisconsin State Director for Americans for Prosperity. His group, linked to the billionaire Koch brothers, owners of an energy and trading conglomerate, was a significant force in getting the laws passed in Michigan.

After almost two years of acrimony with Wisconsin unions, Walker has avoided right-to-work in recent months and his office said the governor was focused on creating jobs, reforming government and improving infrastructure.

"Anything outside of that is a distraction," spokeswoman Jocelyn Webster said in an email earlier this week.

That statement is similar to words spoken by Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder just before he announced his support for right-to-work earlier this month.

Wisconsin State Assembly Democratic Leader Peter Barca, who has opposed such laws, said he is bracing for a new assault.

"We would be foolhardy... to not be skeptical and nervous," he said in an interview on Thursday.

Experts said the competitive balance among states affects corporate investment decisions and weakening unions is a factor.

"If it can happen in Michigan, it can clearly happen anywhere," said Mark Mix, the president of the National Right to Work Committee, a Virginia-based organization that has been battling unions since the 1950s.

Competition with Michigan could raise the pressure on neighboring Ohio, where Republican Governor John Kasich took on public-sector unions in 2011 and lost badly in a subsequent referendum.

The Ohio legislature has not seriously considered right-to-work, but a conservative group is collecting signatures there to put the issue to a referendum. The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a nonprofit legal center that litigates on behalf of free markets and limited government, said it has collected fewer than 100,000 of the 385,000 signatures required to get the referendum before voters.

"Ohio is going to have a lot of trouble keeping the businesses it has that are near those borders and also attracting new businesses anywhere near those borders," Maurice Thompson, executive director of The 1851 Center, told Reuters.

Kasich, who is up for re-election in 2014, is also keeping mum about right-to-work, although he said he supports a business-friendly investment environment.

In Missouri, a Senate bill early this year on unions failed to reach the floor for a vote and similar legislation was debated in 2011 for an hour before being set aside.

But Richard AuBuchon, a lobbyist and general counsel for the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, which supports right to work, said he is hopeful the measure will fare better in 2013. Missouri Democratic Governor Jay Nixon opposes right-to-work, but the November election gave Republicans veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the state legislature.

"There's national attention to this issue now," AuBuchon said. "You are seeing more focus on states trying to be more competitive in the national and global economies."

Until the flurry of action this year, the last state to adopt such a law was Oklahoma a decade ago.

(Additional reporting by Bernie Woodall in Michigan, Jo Ingles in Ohio, Kevin Murphy in Missouri, Susan Guyett in Indiana and Brendan O'Brien in Wisconsin; Editing by Greg McCune and David Brunnstrom)

http://www.reuters.c...FZ20121213#post

I know Michigan can be difficult to care about, but if it starts a trend of killing off union power in other states then the country is going to be fucked over many more times before the next general election season in 2016. Unions are more important than ever before since that Citizens United shit passed - rich corporations and the wealthy political elite would gladly see them gone so they could pay less and treat workers worse legally, which is exactly why a strong nation-wide labor movement is absolutely necessary. Employers need to be put on a leash, not taken off it.

 

tl;dr: FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU

 

 

 

Edit: In other news, Susan Rice has bowed out of the Secretary of State race:

 

 

"While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first," Mr. Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

 

 

In a letter to the president, Ms. Rice wrote she had been honored to be considered. "However," she added, "if nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly—to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities."

 

Ms. Rice is scheduled to meet with the president on Friday in the Oval Office. She may remain in the administration, but in a different role that doesn't require Senate confirmation. One possibility is national security adviser, if incumbent Thomas Donilon were to leave the White House or take another position.

 

The leading candidate to helm the State Department now becomes Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Kerry has played a central role in many of Mr. Obama's most important foreign policy initiatives in recent years. Unlike Ms. Rice, the former Democratic presidential nominee is viewed by his Senate colleagues as having the international stature to step into one of the most prestigious cabinet posts.

 

"As someone who has weathered my share of political attacks and understands on a personal level just how difficult politics can be, I've felt for her throughout these last difficult weeks," Mr. Kerry said in a statement. He didn't comment on his possible nomination to the Secretary of State post.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578177710433336462.html

[Kevin]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two case involving same-sex marriage.The first concerns the Defense of Marriage Act and the second concerns California's Prop 8.

This is absolutely huge due to the possibilities the Supreme Court could rule in both these cases. Imagine if the Supreme Court ruled on a broad scale that same-sex marriage is legal nationwide; It would be a major historic decision.

Public opinion on same-sex marriage here has been shifting towards a favorable view. However, I'm not sure if it's likely that the court will rule on a broad scale or not and instead rule on a more narrow scale to strike down the ban only in California and leave the other states to decide. Of course this is the same court that ruled narrowly that the Affordable Care Act's mandate is constitutional, so there's reason to be cautiously optimistic. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah, so...North Korea had launched a satellite recently. No doubt many are already aware of this.

 

Not sure if this is something to bring to the American Politics thread, but in hearing this news and all the hysteria about the DPRK's Space Program being a veiled Ballistic Missile program, I'm starting to become hella skeptical of any threat the DPRK poses on an international level to the level that the US seems to make out.

 

Doesn't help that in learning of this news, I stumbled across other research about how a ballistic missile works (and the parts they used to make the rocket in the first place...talk about primitive). Don't get me wrong, they definitely are some concern in the Eastern Hemisphere regarding Japan and their South Korean neighbor, and they're definitely persuing nuclear weapons. But even with the capability to launch a satellite in orbit (and on an unstable path at that), it's a matter of actually accomplishing re-entry so that it can hit the target...nevermind how accurate it needs to be.

 

So this just leads me to a question I've been wanting to know: how serious a threat is the DPRK really to the US and it's allies? I recall Tornado mention that the South Koreans could steamroll them even without US help if it wasn't for the North's nukes, but now I'm just more skeptical if they could even launch them if that were to happen.

 

Sounds more to me like the US is just paranoid of North Korea, and China seems to be using them as a bargaining chip to counter US aid in Taiwan.

 

Er...I'm rambling, aren't I?

Edited December 14, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Patticus]

North Korea has armed forces numbering around 1.1 million, utilizing older weapons technology backed up by the nuclear option the regime in PyongYang is most definitely prepared to whip out if active hostilities resume.

South Korea's armed forces weigh in at about 650,000, utilizing cutting edge technologies, backed up by the USA and its dominating presence in the region. It may not be prepared to go nuclear for the South, but it has other massive weapons it can use.

 

The risk is that, without American aid (specifically in the aerial theater), with Seoul being within easy reach of the border with the North (it's only like, 50 miles away), even though the North is technologically inferior, its massive armies could well swamp Seoul and beyond before the South can respond in an effective manner, using its more advanced tech's force multipliers and greater organizational ability to force the North to withdraw or even concede. SK needs America to act as a solid blocking force. Plus, IIRC, the armies of the North are all well trained in guerrilla warfare, which the South may not necessarily be best prepared to combat.

 

North Korea is a threat, make no mistake, particularly given its likely use of atomic weapons in the event of renewed offensive operations against it, and the US' presence in the area is vital to making sure it doesn't try anything silly. Plus, China is NK's key ally in the region and is sat next door like a giant Panda, and even though the regime in Beijing views NK as something of an embarrassing, spoiled child, it might just come to its aid in the event of all-out war. That's not something the US wants. So that, combined with NK's nuclear capability, is probably what's keeping the "good guys" from launching a renewed war effort to finally get rid of the North. Plus, Russia would probably like to weigh in too.

[-Robin-]

Robert Bork passed away earlier today. He was 85.

 

We can only imagine where the U.S. would be today if he had been accepted onto the Supreme Court back in the 80s.

[Patticus]

Robert Bork passed away earlier today. He was 85.

 

We can only imagine where the U.S. would be today if he had been accepted onto the Supreme Court back in the 80s.

 

What were his views? Was he a liberal? A conservative? Give me a picture here.

[-Robin-]

Very staunch conservative. He believed that the Constitution should only be read in its original language and apply governing from there; there is no inferring from it to adjust to current dilemmas. He also wanted to roll back the civil rights decisions made by the Warren Court in the 60s and 70s, believing them to be a over-extension of the national government's power.

 

The Republican Party today embodies some of his ideals. Back in March, Mitt Romney said he would base his Supreme Court picks on Bork if he was elected president. Ideologies from the 80s onward might have been significantly different had Bork been accepted to the Court.

[PSI Wind]

well, I'm ready to enter another recession

Not really

[turbojet]

This is why I hate bi-partisanship. When one party who has no business in even wanting to suggest this attempts to do so only to get bitch slapped, it was a pointless endeavor. When they both have to do this, one party is being held hostage by their elite and refuse to renig on anything thus holding the entire country hostage over their bullshit. Fucking idealists and co-operation.

[Patticus]

What are the odds that the Farm Bill is going to be allowed to expire and unnecessarily hike my milk prices up past $7/g?

[vgmaster]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/31/16268297-congress-poised-to-go-over-fiscal-cliff?lite

Welp, we're pretty much fucked now. Fingers crossed I don't lose my job.

Edited January 1, 2013 by vgmaster

[Linkabel]

A deal was apparently made:

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Democratic aide says the White House and congressional Republicans have reached an agreement to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.

 

The measure would extend Bush-era tax cuts for family incomes below $450,000 and briefly avert across-the-board spending cuts set to strike the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week.

 

Vice President Joe Biden was set to sell the agreement to Senate Democrats at a meeting at the Capitol on Monday night.

The aide required anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fiscal-cliff-disputes-remain-deadline-nears

 

And more details about the deal:

 

Under the deal, income taxes would rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent on income over $400,000 for single people and $450,000 for couples. Above those income levels, dividends and capital gains tax rates would also rise, to 20 percent from 15 percent.

 

An official familiar with the negotiations stressed that taxes would rise in some sense on the top 2 percent of earners, as Mr. Obama has wanted since his first presidential campaign in 2008. That is because the deal would reinstate provisions to tax law, ended by the Bush tax cuts of 2001, that phase out personal exemptions and deductions for the affluent. Those phaseouts, under the agreement, would begin at $250,000 for single people and $300,000 for couples.

 

The estate tax would also rise, but considerably less than Democrats had wanted. The value of estates over $5 million would be taxed at 40 percent, up from the current 35 percent. Democrats had wanted a 45 percent rate on inheritances larger than $3.5 million.

 

Under the deal, the new rates on income, investment and inheritances would be permanent, as would a provision to stop the alternative minimum tax from hitting middle-class families.

 

Mr. Obama and the Democrats would be granted a five-year extension of tax cuts they won in the 2009 stimulus law for middle-class and working-poor taxpayers. Those include a child credit that goes out as a check to workers who do not earn enough money to pay income taxes, an expanded earned income credit and a refundable credit for tuition.

Democrats also secured a full year’s extension of unemployment insurance without strings attached and without offsetting spending cuts, a $30 billion cost.

 

Tentative Deal Is Reached to Raise Taxes on the Wealthy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/us/politics/tentative-deal-is-reached-to-raise-taxes-on-the-wealthy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss

Edited January 1, 2013 by Jaime Bond

[PSI Wind]

So, is that a good thing?

[Tornado]

Not really. It just pushes everything back (again) without actually fixing everything. It's a nice symbolic victory for Obama because he got his meaningless tax hikes, further (but still meaninglessly) skewing the tax burden; and Republicans get to look nice and smile for the camera and say that they were able to work together, but all of this shit is just going to pile up again.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Tornado

[PSI Wind]

Oh, it turns out the deal didn't go through after all

........Because of the fucking Republicans

Someone go look it up, I'm too pissed to do it.

[Linkabel]

Oh, it turns out the deal didn't go through after all

........Because of the fucking Republicans

Someone go look it up, I'm too pissed to do it.

 

The deal has to pass through the House of Representatives but the GOP is opposing it.

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Emergency legislation to avoid the economy-threatening fiscal cliff ran into vehement New Year's Day opposition from House Republicans, casting doubt on the divided government's ability to prevent widespread tax increases and painful, across-the-board federal spending cuts.

 

"I do not support the bill. We are looking, though, for the best path forward," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., declared after a closed-door meeting of his party's rank and file.

 

As the extraordinary New Year's session wore on into the evening, the clamor to add spending cuts to the measure became tempered by concerns that the Senate would refuse to consider any changes, sending the bill into limbo and saddling Republicans with the blame for a whopping middle class tax increase.

 

One Senate Democratic leadership aide said Majority Leader Harry Reid "will absolutely not take up the bill" if the House changes it. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a requirement to keep internal deliberations private.

 

The legislation cleared the Senate hours earlier on a pre-dawn vote of 89-8. White House aides met at the White House to review its progress.

Despite Cantor's remarks, Speaker John Boehner took no public position on the bill as he sought to negotiate a conclusion to the final crisis of a two-year term full of them.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-avert-fiscal-cliff-heads-house#overlay-context=article/brain-image-study-fructose-may-spur-overeating

 

Honestly I suspect this is just a way for them to put on a show that they oppose the bill, but it's almost political suicide if they don't pass it. Though like someone already said don't believe this deal is going to have a great positive impact on the economy since it does push everything that needs to solve to another date.

[PSI Wind]

No but it's better than having an enormous tax increase on EVERY ONE!

[Tornado]

Is it, though? Massive across the board tax hikes might be enough to actually tackle the problems with the tax code, or with deficit spending, or any number of things that this passing without a hitch wouldn't have done; because the outrage would actually force Congress to do something.

[Johnny Boy]

Wait, the deal didn't go through? Well the Republicans sure came up with one hell of a way to start the new year didn't they? Ugh

[turbojet]

Is it, though? Massive across the board tax hikes might be enough to actually tackle the problems with the tax code, or with deficit spending, or any number of things that this passing without a hitch wouldn't have done; because the outrage would actually force Congress to do something.

I'm curious as to what you mean when you say the tax code being skewed. I ask because I'm not sure for whom the tax code is skewed for in your opinion because I've seen you go on about class warfare and how politicians(mainly democrats) are using jargon resembling it.