• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Hmmmm.....

DUKE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!:santa::brofist::screw::bills:

Duke Of Dystopia said:
There should be no unpaid interns. It's a sham for business owners to make extra money off of free labor.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 would effect the cost of goods or small business owners very little. The cost is spread out over the cost of all units produced. Meaning a very small raise in costs while increasing the purchasing power of the employees across the board. As far as labor costs go for small businesses go, a raise to $15 would effect the cost of labor seemingly significantly. Until the increased cost of purchasing power for employees is factored into the the benefits category. Remember, you can not say that the equation is one sided, if it is a net loss for labor costs, you have to add a significantly greater number of sales of units to the benefits side of the ledger due to increased purchasing power.

Waitresses should receive the same hourly wage as anybody else. A tip is then just a tip, for doing a good job, and not as a means to externalize the cost of labor by the business owner so they can rake in unwarranted profits.

All of this could just shift the cost of training and retaining multiple part time employees to training and retaining fewer more motivated full time workers.

Big box stores such as Wal-Mart should have to reimburse the Local/State/Federal government the ENTIRE cost of government benefits for any employee that is on public assistance. This would encourage such business entities to pay the actual cost of employees and more full time employees over lower paid part time workers.

Any business caught employing illegal immigrants is seized, to include the assets of the business owner, and then the assets auctioned off and the business managers sent to jail for fraud. This includes farmers. Watch illegal immigration disappear, FAST! Watch under employment noted below disappear.

The draw back? What do we do when we find the true rate of under employment.
Click to expand...
 
michaelskis said:
Sounds like the congressional budget office does not have good things to say about Obamacare. LINK
Click to expand...

The CBO isn't saying good or bad things. They are making a projection based on their models.

One could very easily look at this as good news (or at least not bad news) because, per the report, those are not jobs being eliminated, but rather workers voluntarily deciding to leave full-time (or full-time equivalent) employment because it now makes better sense for them to work part-time. According to their report, the demand for jobs isn't being decreased. It's quite possible that many of those that will be leaving the FTE workforce will be doing so by just cutting back on hours or going to only one part-time job instead of multiple part-time jobs.

The long run question will be what effect this has on productivity and output (I'd argue very little) and, more importantly, how does this effect the lives of those who are leaving the FTE workforce, their families, and their communities. I would love to cut back on hours and work part-time if it meant that I would have more time to spend with my wife and daughter, pursue hobbies and better myself, and possibly volunteer with some things that I feel passionately about.

If these workers are sitting down and looking at the numbers in their situation, realizing they will be better off by cutting back their hours, and making the rational decision to do so, I'd say that's good news. If in doing so, they have more $$$ to pay down debt, put towards savings, or spend in the economy then that is even better news.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
The CBO isn't saying good or bad things. They are making a projection based on their models.

One could very easily look at this as good news (or at least not bad news) because, per the report, those are not jobs being eliminated, but rather workers voluntarily deciding to leave full-time (or full-time equivalent) employment because it now makes better sense for them to work part-time. According to their report, the demand for jobs isn't being decreased. It's quite possible that many of those that will be leaving the FTE workforce will be doing so by just cutting back on hours or going to only one part-time job instead of multiple part-time jobs.

The long run question will be what effect this has on productivity and output (I'd argue very little) and, more importantly, how does this effect the lives of those who are leaving the FTE workforce, their families, and their communities. I would love to cut back on hours and work part-time if it meant that I would have more time to spend with my wife and daughter, pursue hobbies and better myself, and possibly volunteer with some things that I feel passionately about.

If these workers are sitting down and looking at the numbers in their situation, realizing they will be better off by cutting back their hours, and making the rational decision to do so, I'd say that's good news. If in doing so, they have more $$$ to pay down debt, put towards savings, or spend in the economy then that is even better news.
Click to expand...

I see it as a good thing. And actually it is something that has been a part of republican health care proposals all along, that giving workers the freedom to remove themselves from unattractive employment is a good pro-America thing. The freedom to quit your 9-5 job and start a business without worrying about losing your health care coverage was always a good thing according to republicans and democrats alike. I specifically remember this topic being discussed during the 2008 election and both McCain and Obama were in support of this type of effect on employment.
 
michaelskis said:
Sounds like the congressional budget office does not have good things to say about Obamacare. LINK
Click to expand...

I think it clearly shows that the Affordable Care Act isn't going to function as hoped. The President even admitted that his statement on keeping your health coverage was not exactly true. Now will the R's and D's fix it? Doubtful.
 
Hink said:
I think it clearly shows that the Affordable Care Act isn't going to function as hoped. The President even admitted that his statement on keeping your health coverage was not exactly true. Now will the R's and D's fix it? Doubtful.
Click to expand...

The only thing it clearly shows is that several reporters misrepresented what the CBO actually said actually.

Oh, and there are plenty who want to believe the misrepresentation.
 
ColoGI said:
The only thing it clearly shows is that several reporters misrepresented what the CBO actually said actually.

Oh, and there are plenty who want to believe the misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116469/cbo-updates-analysis-obamacare-effect-jobs

Sure there are two sides to the story, but I think if you are being fair, it is clear that the ACA is not going to function as hoped, because the market is not doing what they wanted it to do, which is to adapt to the requirements. Sure over time they might, but it isn't going to substantially increase the number insured, and it might even reduce the overall opportunity for businesses to provide insurance.

The ACA to me is not the success that was sold. Sure there is a lot of good to it, but to deny all the bad, seems unfair to me.

On another hot topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/o...&gwh=5F7A9931CD064D86CDEA6AC3139D3E37&gwt=pay

This is interesting....

Thoughts on the NYTimes Gun Report?
 
Hink said:
On another hot topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/o...&gwh=5F7A9931CD064D86CDEA6AC3139D3E37&gwt=pay

This is interesting....

Thoughts on the NYTimes Gun Report?
Click to expand...

Arrgh, holy cow, it's hard to read one Monday's report. :( I completely agree with this: "First, the biggest surprise, especially early on, was how frequently either a child accidentally shot another child — using a loaded gun that happened to be lying around — or an adult accidentally shot a child while handling a loaded gun. I have written about this before, mainly because these incidents seem so preventable. Gun owners simply need to keep their guns locked away."

His other points make sense to me as well. Yes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but guns make it too easy to kill someone in the heat of the moment or to accidentally kill someone (or permanently damage them).
 
Hink said:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116469/cbo-updates-analysis-obamacare-effect-jobs

Sure there are two sides to the story, but I think if you are being fair, it is clear that the ACA is not going to function as hoped, because the market is not doing what they wanted it to do, which is to adapt to the requirements. Sure over time they might, but it isn't going to substantially increase the number insured, and it might even reduce the overall opportunity for businesses to provide insurance.

The ACA to me is not the success that was sold. Sure there is a lot of good to it, but to deny all the bad, seems unfair to me.
Click to expand...

The only thing I, personally, am denying is the veracity of the Republican spin. The ACA will not "cost jobs" - that is the dishonest side of the "two sides".
 
Hink said:
I think it clearly shows that the Affordable Care Act isn't going to function as hoped. The President even admitted that his statement on keeping your health coverage was not exactly true. Now will the R's and D's fix it? Doubtful.
Click to expand...

Is there anyone left who thinks that Obama Care is working property?

terraplnr said:
Arrgh, holy cow, it's hard to read one Monday's report. :( I completely agree with this: "First, the biggest surprise, especially early on, was how frequently either a child accidentally shot another child — using a loaded gun that happened to be lying around — or an adult accidentally shot a child while handling a loaded gun. I have written about this before, mainly because these incidents seem so preventable. Gun owners simply need to keep their guns locked away."

His other points make sense to me as well. Yes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but guns make it too easy to kill someone in the heat of the moment or to accidentally kill someone (or permanently damage them).
Click to expand...

I agree with everything that you said. There are 3 places that a gun should be, in the hands of someone trained to use it, in a proper fitting holster on someone who is trained to use it and legal to carry it, or in a safe or similar situation that prevents unauthorized use or possession. There are so many inexpensive options out there. HERE is a great example of something super inexpensive that provides at least a minimum level of security.
e1t4.png
 
imaplanner said:
I see it as a good thing. And actually it is something that has been a part of republican health care proposals all along, that giving workers the freedom to remove themselves from unattractive employment is a good pro-America thing. The freedom to quit your 9-5 job and start a business without worrying about losing your health care coverage was always a good thing according to republicans and democrats alike. I specifically remember this topic being discussed during the 2008 election and both McCain and Obama were in support of this type of effect on employment.
Click to expand...

Canadians have done that for years. I have relatives in Toronto who were able to do exactly that years ago, and they've become quite wealthy. A lot of Americans would like to do that but can't see how to do it because they need to work for health care.
 
"Obama's a useless criminal junior senator incompetent..."

Went out for what was supposed to be a pleasant evening with members of my church's singles group, and our newest participant went off the rails. It was somewhat amusing...our institution is a notoriously open-minded, capital D Democratic, liberal one. And this gal has a long history of previous membership.

She was spouting every Fox "News" conspiracy -- Benghazi, the IRS -- and riffing on slurs like "stupid," as well as "inexperienced." Um, this is his second term already. She launched into it with a sweeping defense of Chris Christie.

I didn't bother offering a rebuttal, partly because she and I had already exchanged comments about a topic we have in common -- seems she's also in the local bicycle club -- and it was clear that she was not grasping simple concepts. Besides, the other seven people in attendance were doing a superb job of presenting the MSNBC viewpoint. (I catch some of Rachel Maddow's show every evening on the elliptical at the local Y; fun to hear others offering the same phrases about the shower surveillance in Sochi.)
 
Hink said:
http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-senator-says-vw-product-way-uaw-union-022622568--sector.html

Yea... that is a good way to get things done... make promises that may or may not be true. Good idea!!! :r:
Click to expand...

I've been sort of following the issues around that plant and the ballot over the past few weeks and have to say that this just gets uglier and uglier. I haven't seen a state or local politicians make themselves look so petty over a relatively small labor issue in such a long time.
 
ColoGI said:
The crazies are taking over the sanitorium. Personally I think if you watch them as a whole, they are getting crazier and more desperate. The world;s ship is sailing, and they're left on the dock, screaming and waving their arms for the ship to turn around (and travel back to 1950).
Click to expand...

But in 1950 the unions were MORE powerful.
 
Way to go......

NPR: Texas Issues Tough Rules For Insurance Navigators
Texas has imposed strict new regulations on the insurance helpers, or navigators, who work in the community to enroll people in health plans under the Affordable Care Act. The navigators must register with the state, undergo a background check and fingerprinting, and complete 20 hours of additional training — beyond the 20 to 30 hours of federal training they've already received (Feibel, 1/23)

Because making it more difficult to provide information to enroll people in Health Plans is how texas ROLLS:-{

I'm sure there is a six week waiting list for the training and there is NO funding for any of these extra hoops:-@:screw:texas
 
michaelskis said:
Retired, ultra-conservative, and out of his freaking mind.

People like are an embarrassment to anyone who is pro-gun, or pro-second amendment.
Click to expand...

I know - and I love the response,

“So this guy was the under secretary of defense for intelligence under Bush. Seems about right.”
 
To say this doesn't bring me joy would be an outright - Fox/MSNBCism (i.e. lie).

EXCLUSIVE: Politico Tries to Manipulate Hannity Comment on Michael Savage
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/01/24/Hannity-Politico-Savage
The poor guy is just an angry, depressed, and jealous human being who has been hanging around the backwaters of broadcasting for too many years.

Now in his 70's, it's sad to see that he is so angry, envious, and obsessed with fellow broadcasters. Perhaps his anger and conflict comes from his skinny dipping days in Fiji with his liberal poet friend Alan Ginsburg, or from having to admit his support of Jerry Brown.

I have never been happier in my broadcast career. I am extremely grateful for my friendship with many prominent local and national hosts all over the country. as well as my over 500 station partners.
Click to expand...

Savage dominates Hannity in key markets
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ates-hannity-in-key-markets-183513.html?ml=bp

----

Ps. To say I am excited would be an understatement...

Sarah Palin: 'Prepare to be amazed'
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/sarah-palin-reality-show-103758.html?hp=r8
 
So do you think Arizona's governor Jan Brewer is going to veto the bill they recently passed to allow legal protections for those businesses who discriminate based on religious beliefs?
 
Maister said:
So do you think Arizona's governor Jan Brewer is going to veto the bill they recently passed to allow legal protections for those businesses who discriminate based on religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

She said she is "going to do the right thing". Which obviously means....

I think she will veto it because both Arizona Senators have told her to do so. Arizona is pretty [STRIKEOUT]bigoted[/STRIKEOUT] closed minded, but I think they realize they got this one wrong. Who knows though. We will find out on Friday...


---

Speaking of Friday. It seems Mr. Camp is going to give us his Tax Reform bill on Friday as well. This should be interesting. I strongly doubt it is going to go anywhere in a mid-term election year, but I will give him credit for at least trying...
 
I imagine Jan Brewer will veto the bill. She's vetoed a few other controversial bills in the past few months that her legislature has sent her. Is it possible she's now the voice of reason at the state level there in Arizona?
 
Maister said:
So do you think Arizona's governor Jan Brewer is going to veto the bill they recently passed to allow legal protections for those businesses who discriminate based on religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

Yes. Chamber is telling her the bill would make big business have a sad, so she'll likely veto.
 
I too think (hope) that Gov. Brewer will veto this mistake of a bill. With both Senators and the State Chamber of Commerce urging a veto, coupled with three of the state senators who voted for the bill saying they made a mistake, it seems like the tide is pretty strong against this bill. We shall see...
 
I just got back from visiting family in Pheonix. The family members (in-laws) are extremely conservative but opposed to this and I got the sense that most everyone in Pheonix was straight embarassed by their lawmakers. In any case, Brewer seems to be back on her meds and said she will veto the bill.
 
HA HA HA

WSU MUP Student said:
I imagine Jan Brewer will veto the bill. She's vetoed a few other controversial bills in the past few months that her legislature has sent her. Is it possible she's now the voice of reason at the state level there in Arizona?
Click to expand...


Nope.....only by default because of the poor image they are giving out.
 
ColoGI said:
...and her delay in vetoing is telling (delaying until Friday?).
Click to expand...

I don't envy the republican politicians that actually are sane and wanting to actually govern. They have to be careful not to completely alienate the base, which at the moment seems to consist of crazies and/or bigots.
 
ColoGI said:
...and her delay in vetoing is telling (delaying until Friday?).
Click to expand...

Probably strategic for political reasons. Most governors from what I've seen tend to wait as long as possible before vetoing in order to limit the time available for an override before the session ends.
 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
- Mark Twain,
 
imaplanner said:
I don't envy the republican politicians that actually are sane and wanting to actually govern. They have to be careful not to completely alienate the base, which at the moment seems to consist of crazies and/or bigots.
Click to expand...

Suburb Repairman said:
Probably strategic for political reasons. Most governors from what I've seen tend to wait as long as possible before vetoing in order to limit the time available for an override before the session ends.
Click to expand...

Right. As she's not up for reelection (maybe) who do you alienate? The people with all the power, or the [STRIKEOUT]wingnuts[/STRIKEOUT] base (and I do mean "base")?
 
The bill in AZ is an interesting one. Personally, I am opposed to the bill that would permit businesses to refuse services to gay people, and classify it as a form of discrimination. A guy who is in my bible study and I discussed this idea a while back and thinks that it should be left to a business owner. He works as a wedding photographer and he holds very strong religious views against gay marriage. He stated that personally, he does not know if he would be able to photograph a gay marriage under biblical context as he believes that by doing so, and being part of such an event would be accepting of it. He went on to say that the next step would be a battle in the churches that oppose gay marriage. If it is classified as discrimination, what is to say a couple can’t sue the Catholic Church for such discrimination? My attempt to explain that taking pictures does not express acceptance was unsuccessful.

On a different note, the gun battle in my City is heating back up. LINK

A Grand Rapids City Commission meeting turned into a heated debate about guns after a group of people showed up openly carrying handguns.

“I note the presence of a number of armed civilians in our audience tonight. That may make you uncomfortable. I know it makes me uncomfortable,” Mayor George Heartwell said to open the Tuesday evening meeting.

Open carry is legal under Michigan law, but Heartwell has repeatedly said he’s against it at city commission meetings.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this and I find a few things interesting. The former Mayors idea of airport scanners is not a bad idea. That would keep guns out of the meetings and everyone, including potential bad guys would be put on the same playing field as anyone else in the meeting. It might not eliminate a risk once a person leaves the safe area, but it does address concerns while in the meeting room.

However I also think that if the local law is in conflict with the state law, they should change the local law. Finally, I personally am not a fan of open carrying in public places. I think that a person who wants to carry in public places like this should conceal. I think opening caring is fine when a person is out at camp, a gun range, or similar place, but the more that I think of it, the more I question the reason for people to open carry at a public meeting.
 
ColoGI said:
IMHO intimidation. Then flaming ignorance, then projection to cover up his physical inadequacy(ies).
Click to expand...

99.9% of open carry laws are not necessary. What scenario do you need your weapon out in the public? If you are a peace officer? Yep. Otherwise, nope.

It is legal to open carry in front of a school. The school will go into lockdown, but the person is protected. They cannot even be charged with causing panic - even though that is exactly what they are doing. It is more scary when you think about those laws protecting people with AK-47 or any other high capacity machine gun.

Open carry is just another of the troubling interpretations of the Second Amendment.
 
Hink said:
99.9% of open carry laws are not necessary. What scenario do you need your weapon out in the public? If you are a peace officer? Yep. Otherwise, nope.

It is legal to open carry in front of a school. The school will go into lockdown, but the person is protected. They cannot even be charged with causing panic - even though that is exactly what they are doing. It is more scary when you think about those laws protecting people with AK-47 or any other high capacity machine gun.

Open carry is just another of the troubling interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Here in MI, it is worse than that... if a person has a valid Concealed Pistol License, (CPL) they are permitted to open carry in a school. But it is illegal for them to conceal carry. (LINK) (Michigan State Police Link)

It is a messed up loophole that our Governor was about to fix as part of a "advanced CPL" bill that would have allowed people to get advanced training to conceal carry in many current pistol free zones, but the bill was vetoed due to the CT shootings that happened the same week. An ex who is an anti-gun teacher was posting on FB about how wonderful it was that it got vetoed... until I sent her the MSP link. She quickly took down her entire post.

Personally, I think it is stupid for anyone to carry an AK-45 (or in the Civilian world, an AR-15), in general public. It is great for home defense, shooting out in a rural area, or at the range. Just because it is legal to carry it down the street, does not mean that it is wise to do so.
 
ColoGI said:
IMHO intimidation. Then flaming ignorance, then projection to cover up his physical inadequacy(ies).
Click to expand...

I agree, I question the reason to open carry at all in public. There is no reason in my mind that it is better than say conceal carry. Open carrying is mostly for intimidation and serves no real purpose in most public settings. I would be very concerned if members of the audience were carrying any weapon during a public hearing, concealed or not, especially considering what has happened at public meetings in the past. I know Texas prohibits firearms at governmental meetings and I believe government buildings.
 
rcgplanner said:
I agree, I question the reason to open carry at all in public. There is no reason in my mind that it is better than say conceal carry. Open carrying is mostly for intimidation and serves no real purpose in most public settings. I would be very concerned if members of the audience were carrying any weapon during a public hearing, concealed or not, especially considering what has happened at public meetings in the past. I know Texas prohibits firearms at governmental meetings and I believe government buildings.
Click to expand...

Posturing clowns on City Council in a town not too far south of here just repealed weapons ban in City Hall. Staff were horrified, Council preening and stoking their...Second 'Mindmint. Can't wait for the inevitable 'angry property owner' story.
 
All this anti-gay legalize same sex marriage stuff began many many years ago when someone's partner needed health insurance and tried to use their employers spousal coverage,


It was way before the ACA, although I've heard it's Obamacare's fault. :-c:wall:
 
Another Cyburbian posted a comment and link about the movie Inequality for All on FB. I watched it and I can not believe that I am about to say this... but I agree with a lot of stuff that was in there. To make matters worse, the guy who did the documentary was in the Clinton administration. Overall I thought it was a good documentary and I would love to see some of these things change, especially in terms of government interaction with corporations and taxes.

Have you watched it? If so what did you think of it?
 
OH MY GAWD!!!!!

michaelskis said:
Another Cyburbian posted a comment and link about the movie Inequality for All on FB. I watched it and I can not believe that I am about to say this... but I agree with a lot of stuff that was in there. To make matters worse, the guy who did the documentary was in the Clinton administration. Overall I thought it was a good documentary and I would love to see some of these things change, especially in terms of government interaction with corporations and taxes.

Have you watched it? If so what did you think of it?
Click to expand...

Michaelskis has just pulled back the curtain and found the WIZARD!!! THIS IS THE POST OF THE MONTH!!!

Thank you Mskis for this post!

The One is being DEADLY SERIOUS RIGHT NOW
 
Back
Top