StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Who would profit from turning one $100,000 union job into two $50,000 union jobs? Where is this magical demand for increased labor coming from? Why wouldn't ownership simply pocket the $50k they just saved on labor?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) Great. I am willing to cede drug tests for welfare any form of government funds at all, including SS, Medicare, tax deductions and government contracts if we get the government out of any other paternalistic decision making. I am willing to make that sacrifice. Let's not leave out the full scope of your position here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) If Robin Hood economics works at the top of the food chain, why does it quit working at the 1.01 percentile? Yes, this is very perplexing. Who profits from reduced labor costs? Such a mystery.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:23 PM) It absolutely proves my point. Wealth hasn't just been created at the 1% level. If people really believe in sacrifices for societal good, they don't get to sit them out because they are just well off, or even wealthy, and not ultra-wealthy. You're right, it hasn't been created "just" at the 1% level, just overwhelmingly so. You still haven't given an explanation at how unions earning less results in those below earning more. You haven't explained how unions earning less results in lower income and wealth inequality across the board, not simply between union and non-union labor, and how it wouldn't just result in bigger gains for that top 1%. You haven't even attempted to argue your point until you explain that. No, the point of that graph is to show the massive disparity in economic gains across income groups.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) They would be free to do so. They just couldn't force taxpayers to pay for them as they can now. This still leaves you with a paternalistic government deciding that drug use is a bad personal decision.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) Actually that changed at least in Illinois. You are allowed to make half of your benefit in wages and still receive your full benefit. this seems reasonable at a glance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) If drugs aren't bad, then why do we have clinics for treatment and recover at taxpayer expense? I'm not making a pro or con argument for drugs here. I'm using it to highlight that your claim of being in line with libertarian philosophy doesn't hold. The libertarian argument would be that anyone should be free to do as they please with their own bodies. At the very least, it should be completely decriminalized.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) The thing that really bothers me is that if someone goes on Welfare or UE, and they get a very low paying job, it works out worse for them than if they stay at home. I honestly don't know what the best solution to that is, but it is not a good model. Also, I agree with others that if a person is on UE, after some period, they should be required to do work FOR the government in some capacity. Part time would be best, so that they can continue their job search. You don't want someone on UE taking whatever job they can immediately find because they otherwise face destitution, though. Part of the point is to provide a cushion so that you don't end up with massive underemployment.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:15 PM) It squares with not wasting. Opting out squares with personal economic freedom. Having standards for distribution of funds is not different than anything else we do as a government. You've still got the core paternalistic assumption that drug use is a bad thing that government should control. This runs counter to just about any libertarian I've seen. I should be free to spend my SS check on pot or coke if I want--I sure as hell can spend it on booze. Second, you need to consider how expensive national drug testing of tens of millions of people would be and whether that would actually result in any form of cost savings.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) Actually you demonstrated my point perfectly. The next two quintiles saw plenty of growth as well. Why are they immune from "fair shares"? you really think this helps make your point? The gaps in growth between the bottom 99% are pretty tiny. The gap between "everyone else" or even the "top 9% below the top 1%" is huge. The goal is more equality across the spectrum, not the 4th-lowest quintile sacrificing so that the 5th lowest quintile is now equal but both are still in really bad shape. I know you don't agree with that goal. That doesn't make those who espouse that goal hypocrites. You still need to demonstrate how reduced union benefits and wages will result in increased wage gains for those below them. Explain how unions taking wage cuts mean increased wages for those below and not increased profits for those above.

yes, always. bmags, isn't this something covered in JOUR 101?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:36 PM) Absolutely. A single Senator can pretty much shut down the Senate if he or she chooses to do so. If one Senator makes it clear they will not let a candidate come up for a vote, that candidate will not come up for a vote any time in the near future. The first stipulation was a reformation of the filibuster rules such that this tactic is only possible if they legitimately hold the floor by talking indefinitely.

Could a minority party hold things up in committee still? Obviously, if there's a D in the WH and an R Senate, they can just vote his appointments no if they so choose. There's political and philosophical reasons not to, but they could. But when there's a minority with 40-45 seats, could they really hold up nominees like that? It also seems like giving the Senate a bit of a pass by pointing out how many more people they need to confirm. It's not like it's just taking them a long time to vet and confirm, they're completely stopping the process. edit: I'm not asking for ideas that will actually be implemented, because I seriously doubt the Senate (or any branch of government) will voluntarily give themselves less control, even if their exercise of that control is reckless.

Here's a great illustration of why ss2k5's argument that the unions are being hypocritical is so wrong:

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) I counted 6 steps. there was a nice little slide in there, too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) Any proposal that would actually be effective seems to me to involve Congress giving up a substantial fraction of their power in order to make the executive branch run more smoothly. I can't foresee any case where that will happen. Right, you don't want to remove or cripple the Senate's ability to actually advise and consent on a nominee. At the same time, something is clearly broken when a minority can refuse to confirm any nominee until substantial legislative changes to the department are made. Maybe the long-needed reformation of filibuster rules would be all that's needed.

But significantly more so if they have the bomb.

Does anyone have a good proposal for reforming this sort of Congressional sham of refusing to advise and consent on Executive appointments (yes, it goes both ways)? The few I've seen raise significant problems of their own and limit the ability of the Senate to actually advise and consent.

I can't find where Balta originally posted the news that Obama had appointed Cordray and three NLRB members recently, but thought this was important enough of an issue to merit its own thread. The Office of Legal Council released it's legal opinion on the legality of Obama's appointments today. It lays out their justification that these appointments were in fact legal. http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-...ons-opinion.pdf The executive summary: The fact that the Senate actually did conduct business at one of the pro forma sessions outside of the scope of this opinion may undercut their claims. Also that they use pro forma sessions to meet their Jan. 3rd Constitutional obligations.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:58 AM) The tendency to have arguments go to extremes and hyperbole drives me batty. And yet, I keep coming back for more punishment. I think I need help. Aside from me intentionally using class warfare rhetoric of the right to illustrate how silly it is to say it's a one-way street, what's so hyperbolic or extreme about my line of questioning to ss2k5? Do you see it as hypocritical for unions to advocate that other workers with less rights and protections than the unions should fight for better rights and protections themselves, and not fight against unions in a last-place-aversion manner?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) I love the game. I've spent hours just walking around. Between this game and Fallout. Lot's of hours walking around finding stuff. I have Fallout: NV next in the que. It'll probably be 3-4 months before I get around to playing any other games.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) Well we can't have class warfare without your assumptions, so I am not surprised that is the house of sand yours is built on. Of course only once you get to the magic point do you become greedy and resentful of others. Until then you only want just your fair share, and nothing more. The idea that that Robin Hood economics only works for the top 1% is just blind to reality. First, lol at the bolded. It's only class warfare when the wealthy are targeted! Noticeably missing from this post and any others is an argument for your assumption that unions ceding gains to owners/shareholders/management will actually result in increased income and wealth equality. The only way your objection makes sense is if we remove the top 1% from the scope of income and wealth distribution such that when more money is funneled to them, it really does make everyone below more equal. Can you actually explain how unions making less means those with lower wages and benefits than unions making more and having better benefits? Can you show how this would decrease inequality and increase mobility? Can you point to any historical evidence of this? Because there's quite a bit pointing in the exact opposite direction.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) Absolutely. Next class warfare assumption. I've already given you tons of credit for holding a consistent position here. That was in response to NSS. But I'd really like you to expound on how drug testing every SS and medicare recipient squares with small government.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:28 AM) The difference of course being the option of opting out of programs instead of the mandatory nature you are looking for. [insert condescending phrase about applying my POV to others argument.] Stipulating government programs that, taken as a whole, almost every American partakes in with invasive testing procedures, even if said programs are voluntary, is still not a small-government position. What about the war on drugs in general? Good idea? Gigantic waste of resources?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) In my view, it is only intrusive if it is required. No program so-far promoted that I have seen is a requirement to exist and be a citizen. The ones I see are for sports (all the way down to high school), private companies at their will, and government if granting free-and-clear assistance like welfare. Now, the difficult part here comes in when you consider whether or not Welfare is "mandatory". By constitutional definition, it seems not to be, but the US government has decided (and most of its citizens agree) that some sort of safety net program is a good thing. So we have it. But for people who draw from it, should the government (and more importantly, the taxpayers) expect some modicum of effort to get off of it? Again, most would agree the answer is yes. So let's shed all the extreme arguments here, and boil it down to this: is the expectation of being clean of illegal drugs a reasonable expectation for those receiving taxpayer dollars as a subsidy for their existence? It's been ruled by at least one state supreme court (Michigan) to be a violation of 4th amendment rights to privacy. Should we drug test CEO's whose companies subsist on government contracts or generous tax deductions? What about middle and upper-class citizens who utilize various tax deductions? Or seniors collecting social security and utilizing medicare? Or is drug testing reserved for the programs that benefit the poor alone?