Republican Judgement

[retro]

Wait... so how is Drudge a biased news source? Jesus, you'll go after anyone that's labeled as a "conservative".

 

[Johnfromokc]

Moonie, thanks for asking these questions. I do hope Cammie will come along and add to it. I can answer your questions from my personal knowledge, and Cammie can keep me honest and on track if she chooses to. I completely understand it is one thing to visit Australia, and quite another to reside there as far as perception is concerned. I developed a fondness for Australians while in the Phillipines in 1985 and 1986. Many of them were vacationing in the Phillipines at the time and I became good friends with a guy from Perth and we spent weeks together discussing our countries. Also my cousin lives in Sydney, since 1975, and of course, I have taken my family to visit. I have a keen interest in Australia and have learned much about it, and continue to learn.

I believe this topic deserves its own thread so not to get caught up in the mass of information and varying topics already being discussed here. I'll go ahead and start it and I invite everyone ahead of time to participate.

I know it will be an eye opener for most to see our two countries compared side by side.

SwamiWoman!

I know you don't do politics but as someone who lives over there can you detail for us (just a bit) some of the things mentioned here? Namely this quote from John:

"Why can Australia provide it's people with universal health care, a $15 per hour minimum wage, 4 weeks paid vacation with a vacation premium pay, and have a 4.9% unemployment rate."

I would assume you're paying higher taxes than us?

I've read that Sweden's taxes are high. BUT you get many things back as a citizen for those dollars. Like healthcare, long vacations, higher education, extended maternity-leave, etc. That there are countries that actually use their tax dollars for their citizens and not for war, bailouts & foreign nations. (Novel concept)

I understand that we as children are raised to believe we live in the best nation in the world. Funny. When I look around now, I don't see the nation I grew up in. All one has to do is look at our airports now yet we are expected to remember 'they hate us for our freedoms'.

So MsCam, if you could detail a bit about your taxes and the benefits you get for them I'd be grateful :ninja As one who cannot afford health insurance any longer I'd be curious about what having 'free' healthcare is like? Here, we're put under the impression that y'all languish for years w/illness waiting to get procedures from quackish doctors. Because of course, we have the best health care in the world. I can see why our politicians say that. They have great plans that WE pay for. Cuz of course, it's good to be King/Queen. Or at least have $650/mo for a $5k deductible. Interesting that in the greatest country in the world I had to make a choice between putting food on the table & keeping the lights on in the roof over our head or health care for three.

So yeah... Tell us please Then again, I can understand if you don't elaborate. Don't want boat-loads of peeps trying to get to your shores for a taste of the good life we're supposed to be enjoying here. :ninja

I greatly appreciate your offer to bunk us up. As I watch the nation I love fall apart it's becoming a very attractive proposition to move to where our work efforts actually buy us a quality of life like the one we all used to enjoy.

XXOO
MO

 

[Kyle B]

I'm not an economist, but it probably goes something like this:

Higher wages in Australia = higher taxes and higher prices

I know, it was an eye opener for me too.

 

[Panacea]

I'm not an economist, but it probably goes something like this:

Higher wages in Australia = higher taxes and higher prices

I know, it was an eye opener for me too.

You're probably right, but the living wage may take that into consideration and therefore still be more beneficial for workers than a minimum wage in a country with lower prices/taxes.

 

[cam elle toe]

Moonie, thanks for asking these questions. I do hope Cammie will come along and add to it. I can answer your questions from my personal knowledge, and Cammie can keep me honest and on track if she chooses to. I completely understand it is one thing to visit Australia, and quite another to reside there as far as perception is concerned. I developed a fondness for Australians while in the Phillipines in 1985 and 1986. Many of them were vacationing in the Phillipines at the time and I became good friends with a guy from Perth and we spent weeks together discussing our countries. Also my cousin lives in Sydney, since 1975, and of course, I have taken my family to visit. I have a keen interest in Australia and have learned much about it, and continue to learn.

I believe this topic deserves its own thread so not to get caught up in the mass of information and varying topics already being discussed here. I'll go ahead and start it and I invite everyone ahead of time to participate.

I know it will be an eye opener for most to see our two countries compared side by side.

You start it, and I will do what I can to help add to it. I have to go to work for minimum wage now

 

[Johnfromokc]

You start it, and I will do what I can to help add to it. I have to go to work for minimum wage now

Awesome! Thanks Cammie!

Here's the thread guys. Please come check it out and participate in the discussion:

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?p=1954975#post1954975

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm not an economist, but it probably goes something like this:

Higher wages in Australia = higher taxes and higher prices

I know, it was an eye opener for me too.

In the U.S. the price of goods produced in cheap labor/non-existent environmental law countries have dropped, with the consumer getting 30% of the savings and the company stuffing 70% into their executives pockets. In the mean time average citizens have either taken substantial pay cuts or have seen their jobs totally evaporate having been exported to the manufacturing country. They have come out behind, not ahead. So we were better off when our goods were more expensive, but produced at home.

The Republican's and their agenda fully support this chain of events. When they express their concern over jobs, it's not high quality, good paying jobs. If you can find something at the fast food chain, then they are happy.

You guys want an eye opener? Conservatives please explain this puzzling chart. (sarcasm)
Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits

It does not appear Republicans who make under $75k auunally are on board with the GOP program. I really hope these statistics bite GOP leadership in their collective asses.

Today: Once again forced to watched Faux News (they had me strapped down with those Clockwork Orange eyelid pryers unable to blink or look away)... their main news plays like 24 hr political commentary. Bohner was talking about excessive government regulation holding back business. You know they (you know who) want to remove all federal oversight of off shore oil rigs, like the one that blew up, and if regulation must exist, they definitely don't want the oil companies paying for it *AND* if the oversight remains, they want the tax payers paying for it. It made me want to puke.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Labor is the single largest variable expense in foodservice. No one in my business makes as low as the current minimum now, but if you raised it to $15, then we would incur about a 35%-40% increase in labor costs.

So? The playing field would be level as all your competetion would also be paying the same. Your customer base will increase because the people who could not afford to eat in your establishment while earning $7.25, can now afford a night out each week at $15.

Of course it wouldn't double our prices, no one would ever pay $8 for a taco. But it probably would be at least the same 35%-40% cost increase to the menu. Because you also have to factor in that every single product we buy would also increase about the same amount, as the cost of picking, packing shipping etc would increase as well. In that same way, you cannot claim that your overhead would go down. Does your business purchase anything? The cost of all raw materials, all services like delivery and shipping, etc would ALL increase if the minimum wage were doubled. And a 30%+ price increase would most certainly decrease our sales. Less revenue would likely mean a few folks lose their jobs.

Working along this line of logic, we should actually cut the minimum wage instead of raising it right? Afterall, then prices would naturally drop because we could pay the entry level peasants less and we could all eat $1 tacos. However, wages on average are decreasing, but prices continue to rise. Why is that?

Doubling the minimum wage does not necessarily result in an automatic 35% - 40% increase in overhead or prices. Yes, there will be price increases - how much those increases might be is subject to many other factors in addition to wages. If Wal-Mart suddenly discovered a corporate conscience and began paying their people $15 per hour, the price of their consumer goods would not increase in direct proportion to wage increases. Why? Because much overhead will remain the same, like utilities. The power and other energy companies already pay decent wages for most of their employees due to union contracts and the higher skill levels required of journeyman level workers and will not be affected.

Further, with a change in tax policy that will require the Walton's and other's like them, who hide their income in capital gains, to actually pay income taxes on their incomes just like their store managers have to, wil get those billions circulating instead of stagnating. It is an economic fact that when less money circulates through the economy, recession results.

Redistribution of wealth? To some extent, it is. The multi billionaire and millionaire classes won't be able to hoard and hide so much of their income, but millions of low wage earners will suddenly have billions more to spend and circulate into the economy. The rich stay rich, and the working class no longer has to choose between food, electricity and health insurance premiums. It's a win-win for larger society in the long run.

And of COURSE additional vacations cost every employer money, with the exception of any business where every single employee is salaried AND exempt from overtime. (Very rare) No, you don't have to HIRE extra people, but you have to pay DOUBLE the wages for the vacation in that you are paying someone to actually WORK the hours, while also paying the person on vacation to NOT work them. If the Government mandated 4 weeks paid vacation for every employee - add 1 months pay PER EMPLOYEE to your operating costs right off the top.

Again, so what? The playing field is level because all other businesses would be providing 4 weeks paid vacation.

Question: Your $15+ an hour employees wouldn't decide that they needed a raise immediately if the minimum wage went up? Right now they make double or more the minimum. Would they be content if they were suddenly only making 10% above minimum?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Double the current minimum wage is $7.25 x 2 = $14.50 per hour. Who is earning this? The dishwashers? The hostess? The chefs? Anyway, if the minimum wage went to $15, thats already 50 cents per hour more than they were making at double the minimum wage. Add in that 10% increase and they are now earning $16.50 per hour. Yeah, I imagine they'd be content with that.

Let's not forget there are millions of union-contracted jobs in the marketplace whose wages are tied to minimum. If there is an increase, they are contractually guaranteed wage increases to scale with the minimum.

Millions of union contracted jobs tied to minimum wage? What was your source of that information? Union contracts with compensation tied to the minimum wage under the current law and contract will remain the same for the duration of the collective bargaining agreement and renegotiated based upon the new minimum wage law. Every collective bargaining agreement I've ever read has a "memorandum of understanding" covering provisions linked to federal or state wage laws.

 

[Minor Axis]

The Economist speaks: Shame on Them: The Republicans are playing a cynical political game

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political.

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

It feels good to be vindicated by a conservative publication. Stop trying to argue that Dems and GOPpers are the same. I realize this may be extreme, but I'm getting out of the market for a while... I've got less than 2 years to retire. I don't particularly feel like riding this one down. It's arguable that the GOPpers will blink, but if they don't, look out.

 

[Accountable]

The Economist speaks: Shame on Them: The Republicans are playing a cynical political game


It feels good to be vindicated by a conservative publication. Stop trying to argue that Dems and GOPpers are the same. I realize this may be extreme, but I'm getting out of the market for a while... I've got less than 2 years to retire. I don't particularly feel like riding this one down. It's arguable that the GOPpers will blink, but if they don't, look out.

1. Citing that the Republican half are cynical does not mean that the Democrat half are not.
2. Any Brit will tell you that a British conservative is far to the left of an American conservative.
3. There is not a cunt hair's difference between a Dem and a Repub.
4. If you're only 2 years from retirement you're late in pulling out of the stock market. Here's hoping for a spike in prices when you sell. :thumbup

 

[Accountable]

Today on This Week:

GEORGE WILL: Before we have a moratorium I hope on the can metaphor, let’s look at who’s been kicking the can down the road. Democrats started kicking the can down the road when they stopped writing budgets. The President kicked the can down the road by appointing a deficit commission. Then he kicked it again down the road by ignoring the deficit commission. Then he submitted a budget in February that no one on either side of the House would support that promised to increase the deficit. That’s a lot of kicking. That’s can abuse.

 

[Minor Axis]

1. Citing that the Republican half are cynical does not mean that the Democrat half are not.
2. Any Brit will tell you that a British conservative is far to the left of an American conservative.
3. There is not a cunt hair's difference between a Dem and a Repub.
4. If you're only 2 years from retirement you're late in pulling out of the stock market. Here's hoping for a spike in prices when you sell. :thumbup

1. & 3 You are entitled to your opinion. The difference I cite is relative danger to our way of life. Republican leadership is more dangerous boarding on lethal to average citizens economically, more so than Dems. GOP complete and entire focus is sending benefits to those who need it the least. FACT. I'm sorry, but the harsh language is appropriate. Those fuckers will look you in the eye with a smile and tell you how much they care about you while they knife you in the economic back. The evidence is plentiful.
2. This article was published by the Economist. You really are a fucked up Republican if they criticize you. (No I'm not talking about you. I realize you are a Liberterian. )
4. Actually I got out before the crash, later got in and am ahead for the last 2 years. I have entirely been in mutual funds. Now seems like a very good time to take a breather. I appreciate the thought.

 

[Accountable]

1 is not opinion, it's simple logic.

3 is only opinion because cunt hairs aren't uniform.

2. The Economist is a British publication.

 

[Minor Axis]

1 is not opinion, it's simple logic.

I forgot, you don't have one ounce of opinion in you.

 

[Accountable]

I forgot, you don't have one ounce of opinion in you.

I'm very opinionated; it's just that you picked out a statement that's not opinion.

eta: #2 - #4 were opinions.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm very opinionated; it's just that you picked out a statement that's not opinion.

eta: #2 - #4 were opinions.

I stand corrected, but #1 is an opinion, sorry.

There you go again trying to say the Dems are just as bad. They could be a lot better but they not nearly as nefarious as the opposition imho. For gosh sake, you talking about a political party that can't afford to spend any money on social issues because it means some rich dude will have a couple less $ to buy his next luxury vehicle, a party who are cheerleaders for business practices that destroy domestic jobs, eradicating an entire economic class for the sake of profits and not profiting society overall, just a select few. And if you look at GOPper actions around the country, their number one intent is not to fix deficits, but to secure power. The worst thing about this are legions of bafoons who support policies that hurt themselves. It's mind boggling. However it's good to know that even the majority of Republican's who make $75k or less annually want to keep their medicare and SS. Can you imagine??

 

[Accountable]

I stand corrected, but #1 is an opinion, sorry.

There you go again trying to say the Dems are just as bad. They could be a lot better but they not nearly as nefarious as the opposition imho. For gosh sake, you talking about a political party that can't afford to spend any money on social issues because it means some rich dude will have a couple less $ to buy his next luxury vehicle, a party who are cheerleaders for business practices that destroy domestic jobs, eradicating an entire economic class for the sake of profits and not profiting society overall, just a select few. And if you look at GOPper actions around the country, their number one intent is not to fix deficits, but to secure power. The worst thing about this are legions of bafoons who support policies that hurt themselves. It's mind boggling. However it's good to know that even the majority of Republican's who make $75k or less annually want to keep their medicare and SS. Can you imagine??

There you go again trying to say the Repubs are somehow worse, as if that's possible. They could be a lot better; you think they not nearly as nefarious because it pains you to face the truth, Partisan, imho. For gosh sake, you have not the least shame in spouting groundless lies about Repubs while completely ignoring that nothing happens without "bipartisanship." And if you look at Dem actions around the country, their number one intent is not to fix deficits, but to secure power. The worst thing about this are legions of buffoons like you, Partisan, who support policies that hurt themselves. It's mind boggling.

Not a cunt-hair's difference, Partisan.

 

[Johnfromokc]

There you go again trying to say the Repubs are somehow worse, as if that's possible. They could be a lot better; you think they not nearly as nefarious because it pains you to face the truth, Partisan, imho. For gosh sake, you have not the least shame in spouting groundless lies about Repubs while completely ignoring that nothing happens without "bipartisanship." And if you look at Dem actions around the country, their number one intent is not to fix deficits, but to secure power. The worst thing about this are legions of buffoons like you, Partisan, who support policies that hurt themselves. It's mind boggling.

Not a cunt-hair's difference, Partisan.

What is it with you right wingers descending into name-calling? Yes, you're a right winger in libertarian clothing.

I just love Republican government employees like you who cut their own families throats. You are going to wake up one morning, 65 years old, broke, and go sign up for medicare. You will have already signed up for SS at age 62 most likely. And you'll be happy to get it because those Texas right wing values cut your teachers pension and insurance.

Gawd help our educational system with teachers like you. So, what subject (s) do you teach accountable?

 

[Minor Axis]

There you go again trying to say the Repubs are somehow worse, as if that's possible. They could be a lot better; you think they not nearly as nefarious because it pains you to face the truth, Partisan, imho. For gosh sake, you have not the least shame in spouting groundless lies about Repubs while completely ignoring that nothing happens without "bipartisanship." And if you look at Dem actions around the country, their number one intent is not to fix deficits, but to secure power. The worst thing about this are legions of buffoons like you, Partisan, who support policies that hurt themselves. It's mind boggling.

Not a cunt-hair's difference, Partisan.

Lets hear more about my groundless lies...

Here is a good one in USA Today by Mitch McConnell:

I refuse to help Obama get reelected by marching Republicans into a position were we have co-ownership of a bad economy. After 2 years in office, Obama is now responsible for the economic condition that began under Bush.

This coming from a party who was instrumental for the economic conditions under Bush and have had only one goal for the last two years, prevent Obama's reelection, stone wall EVERYTHING Obama proposes, even if it is something that they would normally agree to. This performance on behalf of the GOPpers is disgraceful. One of the hallmarks of government is compromise, not drawing lines in the sand. This is not working to make the country better, it's placing their ideological priorities in front of the country. Accountable, keep defending this bullshit. It clearly illustrates where you're coming from and keep calling me partisan.

 

[Accountable]

I haven't defended anything the repubs have done. I've merely pointed out that you are as partisan as partisan can be, Partisan. Nothing would make me happier than to see The Party destroy itself. Any damage that would do to my beloved country would be peanuts compared to the damage they have done and continue to do now.