U.S. Politics - Page 554 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5531  
Old 12-10-12, 17:20
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
Say 90% of food producers in the country, purveyors of bottled water, most clothing lines, 60% of electronic products available to consumers, the vast majority of daily medical products, the majority of home products which are not furniture and cooking supplies, etc. While, we're here: all manner of sports drinks and food, the majority of crap manufactured related to cycling.

You've been saying that about employee numbers for days, but you keep missing the point. First, it's not about where people work, but how the business environment and economy are structured, which, overwhelmingly, is geared to the benefit and on the model of large businesses. Secondly, if you factored in subcontracting and the sheltered effects of deregulation, I suspect your numbers would go down substantially.

If Rhubroma and I are talking about Africa, etc. it's because your developed economies ride on the backs of those places. It's called primitive accumulation and it's how capital reproduces itself.
Quote:
First, it's not about where people work,
No. This started off with the idea that walmart is a terrible employer and what role, if any, employees have in determining their path.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5532  
Old 12-10-12, 17:22
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
No. This started off with the idea that walmart is a terrible employer and what role, if any, employees have in determining their path.
Yes, and the point you're ignoring for the dozenth time is that this is a society that privileges Wal-mart over its employees and consumers.
Reply With Quote
  #5533  
Old 12-10-12, 18:10
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
Yes, and the point you're ignoring for the dozenth time is that this is a society that privileges Wal-mart over its employees and consumers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/op...ries.html?_r=0

Also highlights why labor unions here in the US were (and still are) necessary - to protect workers from the businesses they work for. Today it's Bangladesh and ****stan etc but wasn't so long ago that this sort of thing was happening in New York and Chicago.
Reply With Quote
  #5534  
Old 12-10-12, 18:29
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
Yes, and the point you're ignoring for the dozenth time is that this is a society that privileges Wal-mart over its employees and consumers.
That makes no sense. This society is it's employees and consumers. The consumers are what drives walmart and the practices you don't like. Walmart can neither force people to work there or force people to shop there.

They get 'privileges' that other major employers get, sure. But they also get the backlash that major employers get as well. I live in a community that will not allow walmart to build a super-store. So it's not like they run roughshod over everybody and everything all the time.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5535  
Old 12-10-12, 18:32
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/op...ries.html?_r=0

Also highlights why labor unions here in the US were (and still are) necessary - to protect workers from the businesses they work for. Today it's Bangladesh and ****stan etc but wasn't so long ago that this sort of thing was happening in New York and Chicago.
Interesting then how non-public unions are dying a long, slow, self-inflicted death.

What's your take on Michigan now becoming a right to work state?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5536  
Old 12-10-12, 18:48
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Interesting then how non-public unions are dying a long, slow, self-inflicted death.
Self-inflicted? Hardly.

Quote:
What's your take on Michigan now becoming a right to work state?
The Detroit Free Press pretty much sums it up.

Quote:
Like the failed labor initiative it seeks to avenge, Snyder's right-to-work legislation is an attempt to institutionalize Republicans' current political advantage. Everything else is window dressing, and most of these diversionary talking points are demonstrably false.

The argument that right-to-work status makes states more competitive or prosperous is refuted by a mountain of evidence that shows right-to-work states trailing their union-friendly counterparts in key metrics like per capita wealth, poverty rates and health insurance coverage.

Snyder's contention that workers' First Amendment rights are compromised when a union they have freely elected to bargain on their behalf proposes a contract making union dues compulsory is equally specious. Employees are always free to reject such a contract or decertify the union that negotiated it, just as stockholders can force the ouster of corporate managers they deem unresponsive to their needs.

Snyder has long acknowledged that steamrolling right-to-work legislation through the Legislature would have enduring negative consequences for productive collaboration between workers and employees. His decision to embrace such legislation now destroys, in an eye blink, the trusting relationship he and his business allies have struggled to establish.

It also yokes a governor who once aspired to be seen as a new kind of Republican with the most ideological, backward-looking elements of that party -- the very people whose exclusionary vision of the country's future was rejected by voters in last month's election.

Snyder's closest brush with candor came when he suggested that his endorsement of right-to-work was less than voluntary -- a decision "that was on the table whether I wanted it to be on the table or not."

But that is less an excuse than a confession that Michigan's governor has abdicated his leadership responsibilities to Republican legislators bent on vengeance.

http://www.freep.com/article/2012120...betrays-voters
And that from a paper that endorsed Snyder. Basically, it's a typically clumsy R attempt at union-busting while denying that it's union-busting, simple as that.
Reply With Quote
  #5537  
Old 12-10-12, 19:06
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Self-inflicted? Hardly.

The Detroit Free Press pretty much sums it up.

And that from a paper that endorsed Snyder. Basically, it's a typically clumsy R attempt at union-busting while denying that it's union-busting, simple as that.
Ah yes. Can't have employees deciding for themselves if they want to be part of a union. That would be union busting.

Pro-choice, except when you're not? Is that it?

Quote:
His decision to embrace such legislation now destroys, in an eye blink, the trusting relationship he and his business allies have struggled to establish.
Garbage.

Quote:
Republican legislators bent on vengeance
Yep. The sky is falling.

http://nilrr.org/2012/12/07/detroit-...out-key-facts/
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5538  
Old 12-10-12, 19:51
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Ah yes. Can't have employees deciding for themselves if they want to be part of a union. That would be union busting.
You seem to think that workers don't like being part of a union. I think you may want to think about that.

Quote:
Pro-choice, except when you're not? Is that it?
Pro-worker's right not to be exploited by their employer. I have no idea why but conservatives just really seem to hate that businesses can't just do what they want with their employees. "Without the labor movement, there's not a worker anywhere in the nation who has much of a bargaining position with her or his employer." And that's just the way conservatives want it, apparently.

Quote:
Garbage.
Of course it is.


Right. Speaking of garbage. Did you read their slogan? But ok, I'll counter with:

http://www.epi.org/publication/right...higan-economy/

But hey don't take our word for it:

Quote:
The real motive of Michigan's right-to-work champions, as former GOP legislator Bill Ballenger ruefully observed, is "pure greed" -- the determination to emasculate, once and for all, the Democratic Party's most reliable source of financial and organizational support.
And why are they trying to push it through now and so quickly, Scott?

Quote:
Elected Republican officials in Lansing last week showed in breathtaking manner how little respect they have for the democratic process. In one of the Capitol's most amazing days Thursday, the House and the Senate rushed through lame-duck legislation that will make Michigan a so-called right-to-work state.

The issue had remained largely dormant for the first two years of Gov. Rick Snyder's administration. Snyder repeatedly said the dubious law was not on his agenda and would be a distraction to the more important issues facing Michigan. It was not raised as an issue prior to last November's state House races.

The questionable claims that right-to-work laws — in which people in union shops can still get labor-negotiated benefits but cannot be required to pay dues — will jump-start economic growth could have been earnestly debated beginning in January with the lawmakers that the public elected just four weeks ago.

But Republicans thumbed their noses at the quaint (to them) concept that voters matter. Right-to-work legislation was introduced and passed in a flick of an eye Thursday. No referral to committees, no meaningful debate, no hearings.

Who needs facts when you have a overwhelming majority?

If this was such important and fact-supported legislation, Republicans could have introduced it at any time in the last two years. But that would have made them put their cards on the table before the last election. They could have waited until January, when they would still have legislative majorities — albeit a slightly smaller edge in the House — and let the decision be made by the lawmakers most recently selected by the public.
http://www.livingstondaily.com/artic...ush-unsettling

Personally, I'd love for it to pass and for Snyder to sign it - if he does, he hands MI to the Ds for years to come.

Last edited by VeloCity; 12-10-12 at 20:04.
Reply With Quote
  #5539  
Old 12-10-12, 19:52
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,230
Default

Thigs are getting better

Quote:
As a physician who treats Medicare patients, the fiscal cliff is all too familiar territory. Living under the current Medicare reimbursement system, known as the Sustainable Growth Rate, the viability of my practice is under threat.
Quote:
This threatened cut, coupled with rate reductions and penalties already codified under the 2010 health care law and sequestration amount to a systematic targeting of Medicare doctors to pay for deficit reduction.

To be clear, our SGR cliff is not merely an annual exercise. In 2010, we faced no less than five cliffs, sometimes going over, then fixed retroactively after a few weeks of panic and confusion among us and our patients.

If this werenít enough, the grand promise made to physicians to fix the SGR in the 2010 law actually worsened the situation by once again targeting reimbursement rates and adding reporting and electronic health record mandates. For good measure, the law created the Independent Payment Advisory Board as a means to further reduce reimbursements.

So when Congress went looking for more cuts during the 2011 budget debate, I assumed there would be no more hits coming my way. I was wrong.

The failure of the supercommittee to reach a deal put physicians in line for an additional 2 percent annual cut for the next 10 years in the sequester. Of all the cuts and penalties put on the Medicare provider community, this one is particularly troublesome, given that the ink had barely dried on the law overhauling our industry. But the president and Congress had no qualms in coming back for more.

What is the net effect of these unstable reimbursements, mandated payments and looming cuts? For more and more physicians, these multiple and repeated cliffs give us no choice but to limit the number of Medicare patients we see. Like it or not, this is rationing of care.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/doctors...-219806-1.html

And the Boston Herald chimes in;

Quote:
The Internal Revenue Service released its final rules last week on that Obamacare medical device tax that is expected to hit Massachusetts like a freight train. And, yes, itís every bit as bad as we expected.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opi..._job_creators/

The super-popular program grinds on;

Quote:
Recent news media coverage has highlighted larger businesses reducing employee hours below 30 hours per week in order to avoid the employer-mandate requirements or penalties. Smaller businesses, too, might be forced to reduce employment below the 50 full-time equivalent employee threshold, or resist growing above the threshold, to avoid the mandate. None of these options is productive, and they ultimately harm employees and the economy. Replacing one full-time position with two part-time positions is not job creation. Further, money that must go toward increased benefits or non-tax deductible penalties will crowd out wage increases and business investment.

The realities that smaller employers, in particular, face under this mandate are both economical and emotional, with the consequences of their choices impacting both their employees' well-being and their ability to stay in business. The smaller the business, the more complicated the decision because the employer is closer to the employees and genuinely wants to both continue their employment and provide benefits. The competing desire to stay profitable (and therefore continue to provide more jobs) makes the pending decision gut-wrenching.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...anner/1757269/

Dems: One gear

New Taxes to Take Effect to Fund Health Care Law

Quote:
The new levies, which take effect in January, include an increase in the payroll tax on wages and a tax on investment income, including interest, dividends and capital gains. The Obama administration proposed rules to enforce both last week.

Affluent people are much more likely than low-income people to have health insurance, and now they will, in effect, help pay for coverage for many lower-income families. Among the most affluent fifth of households, those affected will see tax increases averaging $6,000 next year, economists estimate.

To help finance Medicare, employees and employers each now pay a hospital insurance tax equal to 1.45 percent on all wages. Starting in January, the health care law will require workers to pay an additional tax equal to 0.9 percent of any wages over $200,000 for single taxpayers and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.

The new taxes on wages and investment income are expected to raise $318 billion over 10 years, or about half of all the new revenue collected under the health care law.

Ruth M. Wimer, a tax lawyer at McDermott Will & Emery, said the taxes came with ďa shockingly inequitable marriage penalty.Ē If a single man and a single woman each earn $200,000, she said, neither would owe any additional Medicare payroll tax. But, she said, if they are married, they would owe $1,350. The extra tax is 0.9 percent of their earnings over the $250,000 threshold.
The Obama brilliance here, of course, is that getting married is one of the most predictive elements of any person's financial success. I don't expect that BO is aware of this or that he cares about it. This is about redistribution at any cost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/us...dayspaper&_r=0
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5540  
Old 12-10-12, 20:12
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
You seem to think that workers don't like being part of a union. I think you may want to think about that.

Pro-worker's right not to be exploited by their employer. I have no idea why but conservatives just really seem to hate that businesses can't just do what they want with their employees.

Of course it is.


Right. Speaking of garbage. Did you read their slogan? But ok, I'll counter with:

http://www.epi.org/publication/right...higan-economy/

But hey don't take our word for it:



And why are they trying to push it through now and so quickly, Scott?

http://www.livingstondaily.com/artic...ush-unsettling

Personally, I'd love for it to pass and for Snyder to sign it - if he does, he hands MI to the Ds for years to come.
Quote:
You seem to think that workers don't like being part of a union. I think you may want to think about that.
You seem to think right to work precludes people from joining a union. I think you might want to think about that.

Quote:
Pro-worker's right not to be exploited by their employer. I have no idea why but conservatives just really seem to hate that businesses can't just do what they want with their employees.
By forcing union dues? Which employers legally force employees to work for them? Can you name any?

You realize unions are just a simple, in-your-face, money laundering scheme for the D's, particularly public employee unions, right? 11 of the top 16 political donors since 1989 are unions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Quote:
The real motive of Michigan's right-to-work champions, as former GOP legislator Bill Ballenger ruefully observed, is "pure greed" -- the determination to emasculate, once and for all, the Democratic Party's most reliable source of financial and organizational support.
That is hilarious. Lessee, force people who want to work to pay dues, then use those dues to elect policy makers favorable to all things pro-union. It's called special interest and you guys frown on that... except when you don't.

Quote:
And why are they trying to push it through now and so quickly, Scott?
As bad as the economy is in the US, it's worse in Michigan by almost every measure. Gotta start turning it around somewhere.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 12-10-12 at 20:16.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.