Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats

TTQ64 said:
Because she was.

And I would never vote for a racist white man ever. He doesn't have my best interest in mind.

And miss me with the Hilary is worse. I don't buy the Hilary lies.
Click to expand...

So she really wanted $15/hr but just didn't want to tell anyone? Interesting strategy
 
The Derp said:
Not a real example; one you came up with off the top of your head that makes little sense.

But it doesn't matter. If you work, you deserve a wage high enough that you don't qualify for benefits.

Businesses aren't a charity, and neither are workers.

Get off the government dole and pay your workers more. Taxpayers shouldn't subsidize corporate profits because you think you're entitled to owning a business. Fuck you, and fuck your business you welfare queen.
Click to expand...

SIGH..................gawd, I've been preaching this for years on this board. Not even some on the left agreed with me.

Americans have really been bamboozled.
 
cawacko said:
When you don't understand how markets work and economics you say things like you did.
Click to expand...

Ahem...

You're the ones who promised all this miraculous growth after the tax cut was passed; but growth slowed by 0.6% in Q1 2018.

You're the ones who promised all this wage growth after the tax cut was passed; but wages for 2018 have grown by less than 1%

You're the ones who promised that the deficit and debt would be erased by trickle-down tax cuts; but the deficit ballooned back up to $1T

You're the ones who promised the stock market would reach new heights after the tax cut was passed; but the market is down 100 points or so year-to-date.

So why are you running your mouth, Dunning-Kruger style, about subjects your belief system clearly doesn't grasp?
 
cawacko said:
once again you get personal and resort to name calling because your argument falls apart. What do you think happens to young people and the low skilled when there are less minimum wage/low paying jobs?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who deliberately left out key pieces of information. That was you, remember? You screeched about Seattle, but left out the fact that the loss in low-wage jobs was made up for with the gains in full time jobs.

BTW - what's Seattle's unemployment rate at? Oh right, 3.6%. What's the national unemployment rate? Oh right, 3.9%.
 
The Derp said:
She did go up to $15/hr after the Democratic Convention.

And she got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.

Why do you post without doing proper research? Are you trying to look like a fool?
Click to expand...

I don't even bother with links anymore. Why? it's just another diversion tactic from the racist right to cherry pick and take out of context any part of it.

He knows good and god damn well Hilary was for the $15.00 wage increase.

He's just pissed I call him out.
 
cawacko said:
You think those are the only two companies with minimum wage workers? No small businesses, no restaurants etc. only McDonald's and Walmart?
Click to expand...

If ANY business paid its workers a wage high enough that they don't qualify for benefits, would that business be profitable?

If the answer is no, then the business is welfare-dependent.
If the answer is yes, then the business has no excuse not to raise wages.

I think you realize this is a question from which you cannot give an answer that still preserves your argument.
 
cawacko said:
your argument falls apart. What do you think happens to young people and the low skilled when there are less minimum wage/low paying jobs?
Click to expand...

Just jumping in. Are you assuming a minimum wage raise will create fewer low paying jobs? I think that is demonstrably short sighted.
When I was a kid minimum wage was $2.90 or something. At one time there was none. It was then perhaps what, .50 cents, then 1 buck, then 1.50?
What happened to all the people? Where did the jobs go? Longitudinally, the jobs stayed, the economy adjusted, the capitalists still got rich
and those wage earners lived marginally better lives. And you can't offshore my chicken mcnugget preparation to Lahore.

Keep it local and use a COLA adjustment.
 
Micawber said:
Just jumping in. Are you assuming a minimum wage raise will create fewer low paying jobs? I think that is demonstrably short sighted.
When I was a kid minimum wage was $2.90 or something. At one time there was none. It was then perhaps what, .50 cents, then 1 buck, then 1.50?
What happened to all the people? Where did the jobs go? Longitudinally, the jobs stayed, the economy adjusted, the capitalists still got rich
and those wage earners lived marginally better lives. And you can't offshore my chicken mcnugget preparation to Lahore.

Keep it local and use a COLA adjustment.
Click to expand...

From a macro level I do believe the federal minimum wage should be low and states and cities can change it as they see fit.

I believe you and I are within a ten year range of each other age wise. If so when we came up there wasn't the pressure of technology taking low income jobs away as there is today. That's having a big effect.

If you work a minimum wage job and the minimum wage increases and you keep your job then it works great for you. But as studies have shown increasing it hurts those on the margin.

I'll offer an example. In SF I think we have a $15 minimum wage which is what I think Starbucks Barista's made. Was reading there are kids with college degrees who are baristas right now. Imagine being a high school drop out or high school grad trying to compete with that. That's where the most vulnerable get hurt.

Maybe cities look at a two tier structure of minimum wages based on experience or some agreed upon determination.
 
cawacko said:
From a macro level I do believe the federal minimum wage should be low and states and cities can change it as they see fit.

I believe you and I are within a ten year range of each other age wise. If so when we came up there wasn't the pressure of technology taking low income jobs away as there is today. That's having a big effect.

If you work a minimum wage job and the minimum wage increases and you keep your job then it works great for you. But as studies have shown increasing it hurts those on the margin.

I'll offer an example. In SF I think we have a $15 minimum wage which is what I think Starbucks Barista's made. Was reading there are kids with college degrees who are baristas right now. Imagine being a high school drop out or high school grad trying to compete with that. That's where the most vulnerable get hurt.

Maybe cities look at a two tier structure of minimum wages based on experience or some agreed upon determination.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered the whole "technology is going to unemploy everyone" to be a bunch of hooey?
We have always had technological innovation and yet the jobs for humans still existed. The present threat is robotics.
It's as possible these robots who work the stockrooms will increase productivity that will create the need for more jobs as fewer,
just as my rear steering hydraulic green cutter improved the golf greens marginally improving demand for that game,
thereby creating more jobs for junior high school caddy shack workers on minimum wage.

The Luddites feared technology in the present way and despite technological revolution there are far more
jobs than there were then. And in the end, I don't think there is a robot proof job, even the design and manufacture
of robots. So the impact may skew menial now, but not in the future.
 
Micawber said:
Have you ever considered the whole "technology is going to unemploy everyone" to be a bunch of hooey?
We have always had technological innovation and yet the jobs for humans still existed. The present threat is robotics.
It's as possible these robots who work the stockrooms will increase productivity that will create the need for more jobs as fewer,
just as my rear steering hydraulic green cutter improved the golf greens marginally improving demand for that game,
thereby creating more jobs for junior high school caddy shack workers on minimum wage.

The Luddites feared technology in the present way and despite technological revolution there are far more
jobs than there were then. And in the end, I don't think there is a robot proof job, even the design and manufacture
of robots. So the impact may skew menial now, but not in the future.
Click to expand...

The only real robot-proof jobs are content creation and production. A computer can't write a movie script, can't design advertising/marketing materials, can't shoot a movie. Design jobs are jobs computers can't do because they require innovation and imagination. Maybe someday there will be an AI sophisticated enough to invent and create content, but that requires a level of AI that seems pretty impossible to achieve.
 
Micawber said:
Have you ever considered the whole "technology is going to unemploy everyone" to be a bunch of hooey?
We have always had technological innovation and yet the jobs for humans still existed. The present threat is robotics.
It's as possible these robots who work the stockrooms will increase productivity that will create the need for more jobs as fewer,
just as my rear steering hydraulic green cutter improved the golf greens marginally improving demand for that game,
thereby creating more jobs for junior high school caddy shack workers on minimum wage.

The Luddites feared technology in the present way and despite technological revolution there are far more
jobs than there were then. And in the end, I don't think there is a robot proof job, even the design and manufacture
of robots. So the impact may skew menial now, but not in the future.
Click to expand...

I do not at all buy that technology will unemploy everyone. What it does impact however I do think will have a disproportionate impact on those with lesser skills. But ultimately that's neither here nor there regarding minimum wage.

As stated I believe it should be left up to the cities and states to determine. I stand by the argument that those hurt most by the increase are the ones we call "at risk".
 
Micawber said:
Just jumping in. Are you assuming a minimum wage raise will create fewer low paying jobs? I think that is demonstrably short sighted.
When I was a kid minimum wage was $2.90 or something. At one time there was none. It was then perhaps what, .50 cents, then 1 buck, then 1.50?
What happened to all the people? Where did the jobs go? Longitudinally, the jobs stayed, the economy adjusted, the capitalists still got rich
and those wage earners lived marginally better lives.
Click to expand...
Temporarily, because like you said, the economy adjusts. A min. wage worker will always be a minimum wage worker if others are making more which is what happens when the economy adjusts (inflation).
Micawber said:
Keep it local and use a COLA adjustment.
Click to expand...
Could agree more, but isn't that what is already being done?
 
Micawber said:
Have you ever considered the whole "technology is going to unemploy everyone" to be a bunch of hooey?
We have always had technological innovation and yet the jobs for humans still existed. The present threat is robotics.
It's as possible these robots who work the stockrooms will increase productivity that will create the need for more jobs as fewer,
just as my rear steering hydraulic green cutter improved the golf greens marginally improving demand for that game,
thereby creating more jobs for junior high school caddy shack workers on minimum wage.

The Luddites feared technology in the present way and despite technological revolution there are far more
jobs than there were then. And in the end, I don't think there is a robot proof job, even the design and manufacture
of robots. So the impact may skew menial now, but not in the future.
Click to expand...
It's funny you bring up the "hydraulic steering greens cutter" because that anecdote is total bullshit, and a shining example of machines killing jobs at the same time. If you've been involved in the golf business in the last ten years you'd know first hand what I'm talking about, and just how damaging a $15 minimum wage would be for that industry and others.
 
Controlled Opposition said:
Perhaps many Democrats are realizing that their party is totally corporatist and anything but progressive.
Click to expand...

it isn't. It has real progressives in it. But Clinton and Obama put Goldman bankers in charge of the money, and they did not take care of the people. I still don't know why Obama did it. He is smart enough to know better.
 
cawacko said:
Pretty good NBC article on policy ideas coming from the Democratic Party.






Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats

From legal pot to guaranteed jobs, progressive ideas are drawing more attention from Democratic lawmakers — especially potential 2020 contenders.


Freed from the constraints of power, Democrats are becoming a progressive ideas factory.

On issues like health care, immigration, jobs, and crime, once-fringe policy proposals are gaining traction with lawmakers, activists, and wonks as they debate the party’s path out of its current wilderness.

Democrats point to a few factors driving the progressive policy boom.

At the grassroots level, President Trump spurred a restive base toward fiercer activism with a passion that has politicians worried about getting on their bad side. There’s also the rise of Bernie Sanders, whose policy DNA and loyal following is remaking the broader party.

And at the top, there’s a staring contest between potential 2020 presidential contenders, especially in the House and Senate, that has members looking for new ideas to distinguish themselves and wary of being left off standout legislation from rivals. Many of the bills described below are co-sponsored by the same pool of senators, including Sanders, I-Vt., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Cory Booker, N.J. and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Whatever the cause, here are five areas where left-leaning ideas are gaining ground among Democrats.

HEALTH CARE

This is the biggest shift. Top-tier Democratic candidates around the country, including some in conservative-leaning districts, are running on a promise of universal access to Medicare, with 2020 hopefuls are lining up to showcase their own plans.

There are still major gaps between competing proposals, especially when it comes to their price tags. The most far-reaching legislation, favored by Sanders and co-sponsored by 17 Democratic colleagues, would create a massive single payer system that replaces private insurance with a more generous version of Medicare. Other bills would allow individuals and, in some cases, employers to buy into a Medicare plan, which would compete with private sector options, and expand subsidies in the Affordable Care Act to help finance coverage. But the overall direction is clear: A robust, universally available, government health care plan.

“The conversation is not about whether Medicare for All is a good thing or not, but rather what’s the best way to get us there, which is a radically different place than where we were during the fight over the Affordable Care Act,” Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told NBC News.

JOBS

The hottest new topic in progressive circles is a proposal, backed by several of the Senate’s big names, to enlist the federal government to guarantee jobs for the jobless.

The Federal Jobs Guarantee Development Act, which Booker introduced in April, would set up a pilot program that provides jobs that pay at least $15 an hour in 15 urban and rural areas. Co-sponsors include Sens. Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.

Under the bill, local governments would apply for grants detailing how they would use the money. Those applications would be evaluated based on the level of economic distress in the area and how beneficial the proposal sounds.

Supporters believe this new public sector would compete with private companies for labor and push wages and benefits up everywhere. It would also provide targeted benefits to communities that are struggling the most, potentially helping to combat regional and racial inequality.

But the idea is highly controversial, even among left-wing wonks. For one thing, the cost is enormous: There’s no Congressional Budget Office score on the Booker bill, but Darrick Hamilton, an economics professor at the New School whose own jobs guarantee proposal helped inform framework for the bill, estimates his national version would cost $543 billion each year and up to $700 billion in a recession — roughly the same as the current defense budget.

BASIC INCOME

While not in direct opposition to the jobs guarantee, some critics favor an alternative proposal: Spending big money to subsidize wages at workers’ existing jobs through the tax code.

One bill, backed by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sen. Brown, would massively expand the Earned Income Tax Credit that would cover more families and provide a larger tax refund. The concept has garnered attention from wonks, including some libertarian-leaning thinkers, who have argued America needs to create a guaranteed basic income to deal with the challenges of automation and stagnating wages.

Under the Grow American Incomes Now Act (GAIN), working families with three children would receive up to about $12,131 a year (up from $6,318 today) and childless workers would get up to $3,000 (up from $510).

Khanna estimates the bill would cost $1.4 trillion. Taking a page out of the Republican playbook, he proposes paying for it with a promise of higher economic growth from working families spending their gains on American products.

In order to prevent corporations from using the tax gains to offer lower paying jobs — one common criticism of EITC proposals — he’d pair it with legislation raising the minimum wage to $15 and requiring corporations to help pay for government benefits if their employees qualify for programs like food stamps. Khanna is also introducing his own jobs bill that would offer grants for temporary employment aimed at training people for private sector jobs.

IMMIGRATION

Democrats evolved on immigration enforcement under President Obama, from emphasizing enforcement — he was once dubbed “deporter-in-chief” by activists — to taking actions like DACA to protect huge swaths of undocumented immigrants from removal.

In the Trump era, the administration has stepped up interior enforcement, begun to unravel DACA, pledged a crackdown on “sanctuary cities” that resist deportations, and opened up hundreds of thousands of longtime residents with Temporary Protected Status to eventual removal.

That’s created a greater sense of urgency from immigrant activists, many of whom are DREAMers themselves. They’re pushing Democrats to take a tougher stand against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handles interior enforcement, and some Customs and Border Protection practices as well. New activist groups like Indivisible have taken up the cause too.

And they believe they're getting results. During negotiations over a spending deal, 83 House Democrats signed onto a letter pushing back against requests for increased spending on ICE and instead demanding reduced funds for deportations and detention facilities at the border, among other items. 19 senators signed onto a similar letter, including Sanders, Harris, Booker, and Warren. On Friday, Gillibrand introduced a bill requiring Border Patrol agents to document searches of buses and trains around the border and submit regular reports to Congress.

Last week, progressive sheriff candidates backed by national activists in Durham and Mecklenburg County in North Carolina also ousted incumbents while pledging to reduce cooperation with ICE.

Activist and commentator Sean McElwee has even garnered attention with an “Abolish ICE” campaign to get left-leaning candidates behind dismantling the agency entirely. While it's still far from a mainstream Democratic position, he scored a high-pro file backer in congressional candidate Randy “Iron Stache” Bryce in Wisconsin.

“Even if it doesn’t end ICE, you can create a visceral negative reaction toward the organization,” McElwee said. “We win if people hate ICE enough that it hurts politicians to fund them.”

MARIJUANA

It was an image that would have seemed unthinkable a few years ago: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. signing a bong in an appearance on VICE News — released ahead of 4/20 this year — announcing his support for a national bill decriminalizing marijuana.

When President Obama took office, questions about legalization were treated as a joke — but with states from Colorado to California to Massachusetts since passing recreational pot legislation, the party is at a tipping point. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo denounced marijuana as a “gateway drug” earlier this year, but is moving closer toward legalization while facing a primary challenge from Cynthia Nixon, who has seized on the issue. In California, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. came out for legalization this month while also facing a progressive challenger. First-year Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy is already pursuing legalization in New Jersey. In the Senate, Harris signed onto Booker's legalization bill.

Of course, it isn't just a liberal issue. After the Trump administration threatened to crack down on states who legalized marijuana, Senator Cory Gardner, R-Col. led a blockade of Justice Department nominees to force the White House to back down. Recent polling by Gallup shows legalization enjoys broad majority support among the public.

“Overall, I think it's just a matter of federal lawmakers starting to listen to their constituents,” said Morgan Fox, communications director of the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project. "This is really bipartisan."

GO BIG OR GO HOME?

Some Democrats say Trump has changed the rules by making implausible, unworkable — but eye-catchingly ambitious — promises to voters, and that they need bolder ideas to steal the spotlight back. It doesn’t hurt that few on either side of the aisle seem to care about the deficit anymore.

But there’s risk too: The RNC is talking up an “alarming liberal radicalism” in press releases and sees an upside in defining Democrats as beholden to the far left. Raising voter expectations too high could also lead to disillusionment if those making the promises can’t deliver once in power.

So far, those concerns haven't stemmed the new wave of progressive pledges. “Not everything being discussed is going to fly, but it’s pretty clear to me the party is moving significantly to the left,” Jim Manley, a former Democratic Senate leadership aide, told NBC News. “Anyone running for president in 2020 is going to have to take a good, hard look at some of these ideas.”


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna873516?__twitter_impression=true
Click to expand...

I also have to point out the strawman of your title. A liberal think tank tosses out these ideas and, regardless of merit...or lack there of...they have somehow magically become Democrat policy priorities???
 
The Derp said:
So if a business can't afford to pay its workers, then why should the business be allowed to exist?

Would you agree that it's entitlement for a business owner to make a profit by having their employees qualify for government assistance?





Government assistance included, of course. When you include government assistance with the wages people get, you get a true "living wage". You're only counting the wage, you're not counting the assistance those workers qualify for, are you? So the value of the worker is much higher than $7.25 when you factor in the assistance for which they qualify, and for which exists for business owners to maintain profitability.
Click to expand...

Businesses do pay their workers. That the workers demand handouts has nothing to do with the business but with the worker being a leech.

I only count wages as wages. Handouts come as the result of honorable people having their wages taken to give to the POS freeloaders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top