The General American Politics Thread

[turbojet]

So is it wrong that I want Scalia to die if it means that he doesn't repeal the Voting Rights Act and refer to it as Racial Entitlement?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Scalia who? And I'm assuming he's being a bit of a racist?

[-Robin-]

Antonin Scalia, one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices.

 

Makes you wonder whether admitting Robert Bork into the Court would have been a better or worse scenario. Had he been admitted, Scalia wouldn't have.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Joshua

[Tornado]

Not racist so much as overtly right wing, meaning supporting removing things that can clear hurdles for racist laws.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Tornado

[Tani Coyote]

Two people already beat you in telling me that bro...

 

I usually skim threads if there's too much to read.

 

Not racist so much as overtly right wing, meaning supporting removing things that can clear hurdles for racist laws.

 

Yeah this. A lot of conservative (as well as liberal) policies are well-meaning, but often have negative consequences.

 

For example. Removing federal funding for education sounds like some well-meaning states' rights argument, but that shifts the burden onto localities. Since local places fund their schools through property taxes, poor neighborhoods have less funding. Poor neighborhoods tend to have a higher concentration of minorities. Translation: By opposing federal funding for education, one is indirectly promoting a self-reinforcing cycle of continued economic inequality between the majority and minority. At least until an alternative to property taxes is used to fund education.

 

Same goes for harsh prison sentences. When you're listed as a convict, good luck finding a job. A permanent criminal class forms as a result; most repeat offenses have an economic motive - robbery, grand theft auto, etc. I don't think this is a coincidence. When you consider that minorities tend to have less income on average, you can see how this quickly creates another tragedy.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[SenEDDtor Missile]

https://dscc.org/act4?action_KEY=766

 

Basically, Trying to screw over the people who aren't rich even further. Make of this however you see fit.

[Tani Coyote]

With healthcare being so enormously expensive, pushing more people into poverty is not a good idea. Weaker purchasing power = less demand = less production = less jobs. Medicare cuts are not wise.

 

As for tax raises, those are a bad idea in a recession. The money supply needs to stay large and then shrink when the economy starts picking up so as to fight off inflation. We did not keep the money supply small during the mid-2000s, and that was one of the big contributors to the collapse of our financial system. A practical "free money!" approach doesn't work for very long. We should raise taxes as the economy recovers so as to keep growth from overheating.

 

Washington's biggest problem with Medicare is that they address the symptom and not the cause. The profit motives by pharmaceuticals, doctors, hospitals and insurance all couple together to create a gigantic mess of unnecessary costs. Washington should be spending money funding better research, and cutting back regulations to stimulate research, rather than just magically covering the costs as they grow.

 

Like insurance. Why should that be private at all? "The free market does it better?" I hear that a lot, but this isn't like a car or computer. There is no real "quality" to a few numbers. That's all insurance is. Ten guys pay 1000 dollars. Two of them take 2500 each to cover costs. 5000 is left over. A child could do this math. There is no reason to keep insurance privatised. Those who fear the oh so dictatorial government should feel free to get together and organise behind private insurance, but they should allow the rest of us to get over this irrational fear and choose a policy without a profit motive.

 

Just one example. Medicare reform is very misguided since it doesn't address the core issues.

[Burnt Ash]

Colorado legislation approves civil unions for same-sex couples.

 

DENVER — Colorado lawmakers took a historic vote to approve civil unions for gay couples Tuesday, delivering on a campaign promise from Democrats who have capitalized on the changing political landscape of a state where voters banned same-sex marriage not long ago.

 

The bill on its way to the desk of Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper is expected to be signed into law within two weeks, capping a three-year fight over a proposal to grant gay couples rights similar to marriage.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/colorado-legislature-approves-civil-unions-for-gay-couples-governor-expected-to-sign-bill/2013/03/12/13dd8a1a-8b73-11e2-af15-99809eaba6cb_story.html

 

 

Same-sex marriage bill gaining progress within Minnesota

 

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota House and Senate lawmakers have given crucial victories to supporters of same-sex marriage.

The House Civil Law Committee passed a bill to legalize gay marriage Tuesday night on a 10-7 party-line vote, with all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposed. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill earlier Tuesday.

It was the first time state legislative committees have backed marriage rights for gay couples. The bills now head to the floor, where a final vote is not expected until much later in session.

The Democratic-led Legislature is pressing ahead with the marriage bill after voters defeated a constitutional amendment last November that would have fortified an existing ban on same-sex marriage. Gov. Mark Dayton says he will sign the bill if it reaches him.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Minn-House-Senate-panels-pass-gay-marriage-bills-4347058.php#ixzz2NNgi1H4Z

 

Well, this is good news, especially in Colorado, and I hope the bill manages to succeed in Minnesota. 

[Autosaver]

WTF? Who would vote against a bill that protects women* from violence?

 

Ugh.

 

*Includes other groups too, despite bill name.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Autosaver

[-Robin-]

People voted against VAWA because the new edition contained provisions that extended the same protections to the LGBT community, Native Americans, and iirc immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

[Your Vest Friend]

WTF? Who would vote against a bill that protects women* from violence?

 

Ugh.

 

*Includes other groups too, despite bill name.

 

The stats in that picture answer that question. 

[Autosaver]

 

Paul Ryan slips "We're not going to give up destroying the health care system"

[Johnny Boy]

Paul Ryan slips "We're not going to give up destroying the health care system"

There are no words. There just aren't.

[Patticus]

This might be the first time Paul Ryan has been honest with the American people, even if it was just a Freudian slip.

[PSI Wind]

 

Paul Ryan slips "We're not going to give up destroying the health care system"

Apparently, he was talking about the Afordable Health Care law or something that Obama got through or something

But the thing is, he should of said Obama's health care and another problem is the law/bill is based on Mitt's idea. Oh the irony

[Autosaver]

 

47 Percent guy goes Public - has been threatened.

[Tani Coyote]

Colorado legislation approves civil unions for same-sex couples.

 

Same-sex marriage bill gaining progress within Minnesota

 

Well, this is good news, especially in Colorado, and I hope the bill manages to succeed in Minnesota. 

 

This past year really has been a triumph for gay rights. Any place that doesn't have a constitutional gay marriage ban is looking to have civil unions or same sex marriage within a year or two it seems.

 

Kind of makes me worry that the SCOTUS will try to "even the odds" and approve DOMA and the Proposition in the upcoming case. I'm hoping not but we'll have to wait until later this year...

 

That raises a question. If the Supreme Court declares a gay marriage ban law unconstitutional, what effect will that have on the state constitutions that ban it? While an amendment and a law are separate, the same comment that it's fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution applies... can the SCOTUS overturn state constitutions?

 

WTF? Who would vote against a bill that protects women* from violence?

 

Ugh.

 

*Includes other groups too, despite bill name.

 

There could have been rider provisions that the GOP wasn't fond of. When you don't get the right slice of the pie you vote nay.

 

People voted against VAWA because the new edition contained provisions that extended the same protections to the LGBT community, Native Americans, and iirc immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

 

Or this.

 

 

Paul Ryan slips "We're not going to give up destroying the health care system"

 

Considering the GOP is the party that says healthcare's a privilege and a gun is not, the party that says the free market is the best solution but races to erect tariffs against foreign companies that do the job much better and cheaper than our firms, and that abortion is wrong but there should be little welfare to cover the inevitably-expanded families, this isn't surprising.

[Patticus]

Bernie Sanders is up to some good again!

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduces amendment to ban corporate spending in elections

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) on Tuesday introduced the Democracy is for People Amendment, which seeks to overturn the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United ruling.

“What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to tell billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson, ‘You own and control Wall Street. You own and control coal companies. You own and control oil companies,” Sanders said in a statement. “Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own and control the United States government.’ That is the essence of what Citizens United is all about. That is why this disastrous decision must be reversed.”

The 2010 ruling held that limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and union violated the First Amendment. The decision paved the way for so-called Super PACs, which have allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to spend unprecedented amounts to influence elections.

The proposed amendment states that only “natural persons” can make political contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elections. The amendment, if enacted, would completely bar for-profit corporations, nonprofit corporations and unions from spending money in elections.

“The Democracy is for People Amendment will stop corporations and their front groups from using their profits and dark money donations to influence our elections while reaffirming the right of the American people to elections that are fair and representatives that are accountable,” Deutch said.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has also proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling. Schiff’s amendment would give the federal government the authority to impose “reasonable content-neutral limitations” on independent political contributions and spending.

But Deutch suggested such an amendment did not do enough to reverse the negative consequences of Citizens United.

“Any constitutional amendment that simply gives Congress the option of regulating campaign finance fails to immediately achieve what the American people want, and that is a complete reversal of Citizens United and other Supreme Court decisions that have allowed corporations and the wealthy few to drown out the voices of everyday voters,” he explained in a statement.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/12/sen-bernie-sanders-introduces-amendment-to-ban-corporate-spending-in-elections/

I don't know if this amendment business introduced by Sanders is good enough, however. I mean this, Deutch fellow might be right, a complete reversal of CU and other SC decisions that give undue weight to corporations and the wealthy of the country in the political sphere (and outside it) would be by far the better option. Frankly though, anything and everything must be done as soon as possible to stop another election full of dark money and corporate pay-offs on both sides of the aisle. If Bernie Sanders' amendment thingy is all we can get right now, then as much as I want CU as a whole gone, I hope we get it.

[Tani Coyote]

Sounds overall like a good plan. Unions are a corrupt shadow of their former selves that have absolutely zero to do with workes' rights (never mind their market distortion capabilities), so the fact they'd be removed from power by this is a definite plus.

 

I'm just worried about how they'd change things around. There would definitely be some way to get around it. What's to stop a company from instead just redirecting money through PACs and such?

 

It will most likely nonetheless have a positive effect by weakening the power of money in politics, but I consider that the usual symptom and not the problem approach. Currently our system makes elections unnecessarily competitive, thus making every politician fall over eachother trying to get votes and donations.

 

We should instead create instant run off and proportional representation ballots. It would reduce the pressure and the power of money by other means, since politicians no longer have to look the best, merely better than most competitors. Yes, there's a slim chance it'd help folks like Ron Paul make it into office, but it's slim. It would break the duopoly on power as well, which definitely makes it something to strive for; we're always told competition inevitably brings out the best. This requires barriers to entry be minimal however, which is certainly not something a duopoly achieves.

[Autosaver]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-cispa-cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act/19sQhBpy

 

Do me a favor and show your support.

[Patticus]

How exactly would Bernie Sanders' proposed amendment remove "corrupt" unions from power, Oglive? It seems to me that the primary target of it are corporations and the wealthy, and all those nasty "dark money" campaign contributions they like to donate.

 

 

I disagree with your views on unions. Corporations are pushing for them to be crippled, if not completely dismantled. Why are they so determined to stamp out organized labor, spending god knows how much money in the process? I believe that they fear the collective bargaining power of the people these groups represent. That these people can collectively wield as much power as corporate top brass, and that they might not have total control over the workforce should pay or benefits be slashed in the name of profits, frightens them. They don't want to hear what people below a certain pay grade have to say, because they just don't care, nor do they really give a toss how they're treated in the workplace, and they certainly don't want the workers to be able to put corporate revenue at risk by striking of pay, pensions and whatnot.

 

What these anti-union corporate leaders want is more money coming into their wallets, less moolah leaving, and for the workers to be unable to take collective action should decisions be made that negatively impact the lower workforce. In order to do so, they try to get rid of the unions, sometimes successfully (Walmart has some nasty policies regarding unions) and sometimes not. If they're successful, the company is free to reduce employee benefits and pay, treat workers more like cattle, instigate company policies that shit all over the workforce, fire longer-term employees earning higher pay without fear of lawsuits, and so on. It is not in the interests of lower-paid employees to not want unionization.

 

Also relevant:

 

[Remy]

Workers unions are a lot better than their typical enemies- Big as fuck corporations.

 

 

Unless you're a board member or a large business or a CEO, I can't see how you'd be against any kind of workers union, it's the main thing that stops the average employee from getting fucked in the ass worse than they are currently, and it kind of weirds me out seeing a lot of people that would be helped by being in a union speak out against them as if it's some awful evil industry. Corporate brainwashing. 

[Tani Coyote]

How exactly would Bernie Sanders' proposed amendment remove "corrupt" unions from power, Oglive? It seems to me that the primary target of it are corporations and the wealthy, and all those nasty "dark money" campaign contributions they like to donate.

 

To quote your source, "The amendment, if enacted, would completely bar for-profit corporations, nonprofit corporations and unions from spending money in elections." Sounds like it's targeting big money on both sides of the aisle. Would not be surprised if nonprofit could one day be applied to churches, removing their influence as well.

 

I disagree with your views on unions. Corporations are pushing for them to be crippled, if not completely dismantled. Why are they so determined to stamp out organized labor, spending god knows how much money in the process? I believe that they fear the collective bargaining power of the people these groups represent.

 

There's also the fact they harm the ability to conduct business efficiently. If I know a laborer who can do the job for half the price, logically I should be able to hire him. Then the union steps in and says that I can't do that. It's ludicrous, and means prices stay artificially high for the rest of us. Protectionism is bad within companies, between companies, and between countries.

 

benefits be slashed in the name of profits, frightens them.

 

Company benefits being slashed is counterintuitive, actually. Benefits give big business a MASSIVE edge over small businesses, which is why I support illegalising them. As I recall a lot of big businesses, despite their protests on the surface, were supportive of mandated insurance; it would put a bigger squeeze on their small competitors. Which ultimately leads to higher prices and lower quality goods.

 

 

It is not in the interests of lower-paid employees to not want unionization.

 

Sometimes macroeconomic interest actually runs contrary to an individual's interests. The gut reaction to free trade is it's bad for employment, but ultimately it leads to lower prices, which means money that can be spent elsewhere.

 

The biggest problem would be that companies would ultimately reduce wages to a point where the buying power can't even consume correctly; this is a market failure, and is what the government is for. Likewise, the state's also responsible for ensuring workplace safety, in the interests of productivity. Which is probably the biggest argument for keeping corporate money out of the government, to prevent them from interfering with the economically-beneficial duties of the government. People are shortsighted; most business owners don't think like Ford and understand paying your workers good wages is actually a pretty sustainable way to make profits.

 

 

Also relevant:

 

I don't think it's the unions that benefit Costco.

 

Those massive wages are likely what does; it's safe to assume that Costco workers likely spend the money right on the spot, between the already low prices and presumable employee discounts. This is why Ford Motors was so successful: the employees were paid well, and then most would immediately turn around and buy his cars. He turned his employees into a stable consumer base.

 

 

Unless you're a board member or a large business or a CEO, I can't see how you'd be against any kind of workers union, it's the main thing that stops the average employee from getting fucked in the ass worse than they are currently, and it kind of weirds me out seeing a lot of people that would be helped by being in a union speak out against them as if it's some awful evil industry. Corporate brainwashing. 

 

Well, while the union members themselves are probably well-intentioned, union leaders have a poor track record as memory serves. I've known quite a few people who were far left economically and still detested union leadership.

 

In addition, it's a market distortion, same as price ceilings, or minimum wages. The unions artificially drive up the cost of labor, leading to higher prices, and then make it hard to outsource those jobs to cheaper sources. It's easy to cry exploitation, but ultimately lower prices benefit us by freeing up capital for use elsewhere.

 

The biggest problem would be companies lowering wages and conditions to where the employees are basically slaves (as has happened before, hence the existence of unions today), but that is what regulations and social services are for. After that, one must reduce the clout of the wealthy in government so as to ensure they cannot hijack the country's long-term economic prosperity for short-term benefit. If wages fall too low, as a contrast to too high, we run into another bad incident: people being unable to effectively consume, leading to a lower standard of living. It's a very delicate balance.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Pelly <3's U]

Workers unions are a lot better than their typical enemies- Big as fuck corporations.

 

 

Unless you're a board member or a large business or a CEO, I can't see how you'd be against any kind of workers union, it's the main thing that stops the average employee from getting fucked in the ass worse than they are currently, and it kind of weirds me out seeing a lot of people that would be helped by being in a union speak out against them as if it's some awful evil industry. Corporate brainwashing. 

 

I dunno, as a government worker I have to say I see a huge amount bullshittery and damage that unions do. Unions collective power has the same destructive power as any collective power force has; unions are just like any other group, they push for the agenda and benefit of their members and try to take as much as they can get for as little as they can give. I'm not saying that they're worse than corporations (which I don't think are bad), but they definitely shouldn't be considered a 'force for good' by any means. They're basically a lobbying group. 

 

At my job alone I've seen unions make it almost impossible for anyone already not in the union to get a job, people that have had conflict with union leaders get switched out of their positions (aka demoted to another job they don't like), positions that stay open for months because it's also extremely hard to hire people, and the near-impossibility to fire people who are union members (which you have to be anyways, my boss was even threatened by the union leader and called a scab because there was some lapse between him starting work and getting into the union and he had to start work). The not being able to fire anyone is a huge problem, and if you're in america and you wonder why at most government offices you're liable to get horrible service, it's pretty much this. My job is full of people who basically do the bare minimum of what anyone could do to keep a job, yet there's nothing really that can be done as these people know that unless they commit some sort of crime they're not losing their jobs. Honestly people spend much more time regarding matters to do with union and bureaucratic politics than actually doing their jobs. It makes for a pretty frustrating workplace regardless, but the economist in me is really sickened by the minimal productivity.

 

I'm not against workers rights, but honestly I'm not a fan of most unions. Stuff like the firefighters unions in California getting huge benefits and retirement packages for firefighters has over extended the cost and kept money funneling into a profession that in all needs to be downsized. Personally I believe our public education system suffers both finical and quality-wise by the near impossibility to fire union teachers (things such as the rubber rooms in New York, really?!). I was even with Scott Walker when he fought against the collective bargaining power of public Wisconsin unions. Unions fight for their own special interests, and it's usually at the expense of somebody...and that's usually the consumer.

 

But worker's rights brainwashing ensues ;P

[Patticus]

Pelly, are you talking about firing people just because, or firing them when they have committed offences worthy of dismissal? If they have done something wrong that means they should be fired then I would agree that union obstruction in that instance is a bad thing. However, if they're just being a Jobsworth (a person who does their job to the letter and not one single thing more, e.g. helping others with theirs), well, there's not much anyone can do about that - it's not an offence and they are doing their job.

 

As long as corporations try to screw their low-wage workers over, as long as there is a need beyond mere government regulation to prevent big businesses from disregarding the welfare and human rights of their own employees, there will be a continuing need for unions. I'll make a more detailed post later, and I'm not a fan of union corruption, corrupt leaders or obstructionism, but the benefits of unionization really do outweigh the costs in my view.