Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
darkblue

Bernie Sanders!

Recommended Posts

Two things.

1.  Carl P. Leubsdorf had an interesting editorial re: how Democrats risk another Al Gore moment.

Basically, because the liberal wing gets mad that a "moderate" won the nomination, they do not support the Dem. nominee in the national election.

Not sure I agee, but Leubsdorf thinks that this led to Nixon defeating Humphrey and began the conservative swing on the Supreme Court.  Also believes that the liberals failing to support Carter in '80 contributed to Reagan's victory as well as GW Bush's win over Al Gore.

Will the Sanders supporters again contribute to a Republican (Trump) victory by failing to support Clinton?

 

2.  Raising the minimum wage helps all.  While prices/rents may go up, they may not.  This is up to the corporations, businesses, landlords, etc. Most will simply absorb it as they do other costs of business increases.  Oh, but they will complain and lobby against it until then.  They will also use it as an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway.  Such as raising rents, moving plants out of country, etc.

However, raising the minimum will give lowest paid workers more money to spend, therefore increasing volumes of production and sales.  This will lead to economies of scale for landlords, corporations and businesses.  They will also be able to sell their products with higher profit margins.

There will be an upward trend for those making just over minimum wage to receive increases as well. This is basic economics.  However, the businesses and corporations may decide to establish new wage scales whereby some positions pay the same.

Don't forget, the American economy has always had those that provided a lower cost product/service to be more competitive than the other guy.  That won't change.

 

Like I stated the issue I see is the impact of a scheduled and predetermined annual minimum wage increase like the law CA just passed.   That type of predetermined transparently gives corporations, businesses and landlords even more leeway to 'game' the system to maximize their profits by timing increases in the cost of their products and services to scheduled wage increases.  

 

Again, a wage increase gives poor people more money to spend BUT, if at the same time the cost of products and services increases relative to the wage increase poor people will NOT be able to purchase MORE with that MORE money.     That is basic economics as it relates to inflation.     Of course there is a chicken \ egg effect here and honest, non pandering liberals in CA like Governor Brown admitted he didn't know how the CA law would impact the CA economy in the future.    This is why he said he wouldn't sign the bill into law unless it contained a clause that allows the Governor to stop the annual increase.   

 

I'm fine with the new CA law with my only concern being that future CA Governors will not be as solid as good old Jerry Brown.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum wage causing major loss
 
California recently became the first state to enact a $15 minimum wage, and the business community is stunned. Not by unions pursuing such an increase. They had a $15 initiative on the ballot this November in any event. Rather, the surprise was that California’s lawmakers were so anxious to avoid a popular vote on a measure that significantly reduces opportunities for working class Californians, the very individuals it was supposed to benefit.

 

In December, The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a paper examining the current research on the impact of minimum wage increases. It stressed that the “most important” policy consideration was whether there would be “fewer jobs for the least skilled workers” because “they are the ones the minimum wage is intended to help.” It found that the “most credible” research showed minimum wage increases resulting in “job losses” for these workers and “with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested.”

 

In January of this year, Gov. Jerry Brown agreed, stating that raising “the minimum wage too much” would put “a lot of poor people out of work.” His conclusion: “There won’t be a lot of jobs.”
 
Read more:
 
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/minimum-714190-wage-increase.html
 
ECON 101 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see how there will be "fewer jobs for less-skilled workers".

Maybe the bosses will try doing those jobs for a little while out of spite - just to prove that paying a decent wage was a bad idea - but they'll give that up soon enough.

It's not like all kinds of extra un-needed workers were being employed before. If the job was legitimate, it'll still be legitimate, and unless these bosses plan to hire illegal labour to get around the new pay rate, they'll comply or do the dirty work themselves.

And they don't want to do the dirty work - count on it.

All that "we're gonna stop hiring minimum wage workers" is horse****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Financial Times has this cover story:

 

Norway wealth fund set to launch crackdown on high executive pay

 

Norway's $870 billion oil fund is the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. As its assets have grown, it holds shares of considerable value in many international corporations and is beginning to recognize its responsibility in getting involved publicly in executive pay issues.

 

That is where the shocking excess lies -- not in minimum wage increases. What the world needs is a decrease in outlandishly high pay for executives.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders to Democratic Party: Whose Side are We On?

 

 

“Are we on the side of working people or big-money interests? Do we stand with the elderly, the sick and the poor or do we stand with Wall Street speculators and the insurance companies?” the Democratic Party presidential candidate asked 8,300 supporters at an outdoor rally at Island Park.

 

He said a key reason why 63 percent of voters did not go to the polls in the last election and nearly 80 percent of young and low-income people stayed home is that “the Democratic Party, up until now, has not been clear on which side they are on on the major issues facing this country.”...

 

https://berniesanders.com/sanders-democratic-party-whose-side/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=fb160501

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see how there will be "fewer jobs for less-skilled workers".

 

Maybe the bosses will try doing those jobs for a little while out of spite - just to prove that paying a decent wage was a bad idea - but they'll give that up soon enough.

 

It's not like all kinds of extra un-needed workers were being employed before. If the job was legitimate, it'll still be legitimate, and unless these bosses plan to hire illegal labour to get around the new pay rate, they'll comply or do the dirty work themselves.

 

And they don't want to do the dirty work - count on it.

 

All that "we're gonna stop hiring minimum wage workers" is horse****.

 

Higher wages will lead to an increase in the cost of goods and services and that could impact demand and decreased demand could result in fewer jobs.     But this fear is way overblown when government mandated wage increases are 'reasonable' and 'spaced out' time wise.    CA's new wage law will result in a 50% increase in the minimum wage over a fairly short period of time.    The overall impact of this legislative isn't known since this type of government mandated increased hasn't been tried before in state.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He said a key reason why 63 percent of voters did not go to the polls in the last election and nearly 80 percent of young and low-income people stayed home is that “the Democratic Party, up until now, has not been clear on which side they are on on the major issues facing this country.”...

 

 

All candidates -- mine, yours, our parents' and grandparents' candidates -- have used statistics to bolster their arguments. Sometimes the same statistic is used to bolster opposing arguments!  In any case, one can always attribute voter turnout to suit one's argument. The fact is, the highest percentages of people voting took place in the early years -- before women's suffrage.  In 1920, the turnout declined. In the early years for which statistics exist, there were more requirements for voting, for example, sex, age requirements, etc.. So I assume the percent reckoned was from a much smaller pool -- certainly no women would have been included. It's much harder to reach a higher percent of a much larger number, which the female population would have swelled in 1920.

 

However, since 1932, the turnout has been fairly stable, always between 51 and 62%, with the average being in the mid 50s. 2008 saw a turnout a bit higher, probably because Mr. Obama occasioned a larger black turnout.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders to Democratic Party: Whose Side are We On?

 

He said a key reason why 63 percent of voters did not go to the polls in the last election and nearly 80 percent of young and low-income people stayed home is that “the Democratic Party, up until now, has not been clear on which side they are on on the major issues facing this country.”...

 

 

There are a lot more reasons than that.  You also have to define voters.  Many use registered voters, while some use voting eligible people.  Add in that many people don't participate because of how difficult it is to vote and voter suppression will make that even more difficult (thank you SCOTUS).

Often wondered how it would be if we had elections on Sundays instead of Tuesdays.  I beleive some countries do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot more reasons than that.  You also have to define voters.  Many use registered voters, while some use voting eligible people.  Add in that many people don't participate because of how difficult it is to vote and voter suppression will make that even more difficult (thank you SCOTUS).

Often wondered how it would be if we had elections on Sundays instead of Tuesdays.  I beleive some countries do that.

 

Well CA auto registers everyone that gets a drivers' license and one can vote by mail.    These changes haven't increased voter participation significantly.       But I don't believe the reason for low Dem voter turnout by 'progressives' in non Presidential years is due to lack of faith in the Dem party.     I would assume it is more about lack of faith in the overall 'system' and just general lack of interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2016 at 3:53 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Higher wages will lead to an increase in the cost of goods and services and that could impact demand and decreased demand could result in fewer jobs.     But this fear is way overblown when government mandated wage increases are 'reasonable' and 'spaced out' time wise.    CA's new wage law will result in a 50% increase in the minimum wage over a fairly short period of time.    The overall impact of this legislative isn't known since this type of government mandated increased hasn't been tried before in state.   

You really think anyone's gonna give up their big mac because it goes from 3.99 to 4.29?

And how about the new customers that can now maybe afford a big mac once in a while?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think anyone's gonna give up their big mac because it goes from 3.99 to 4.29?

 

And how about the new customers that can now maybe afford a big mac once in a while?

 

I gave it up after trying it, finding out it's not a BIG Mac.  Little thing is tailored for Weight Watchers. What a scam! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think anyone's gonna give up their big mac because it goes from 3.99 to 4.29?

 

And how about the new customers that can now maybe afford a big mac once in a while?

 

I agree with you which is why I stated "But this fear is way overblown,,,".    The CA law does have a clause that allows the Governor to delay or suspend the annual minimum wage increases based on the inflation index when the Governor believes economic conditions warrant it.  e.g. the unemployment rate is increasing at an unacceptable rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think anyone's gonna give up their big mac because it goes from 3.99 to 4.29?

 

And how about the new customers that can now maybe afford a big mac once in a while?

4.29? Not so. Much more. How about at least 6 bucks and up. Watched the CEO of Wendy's on Fox Business with Neil Cavuto  a few weeks ago who conveyed the company was prepared for a new political  climate and was prepared to automate its restaurants and would not need many of its present workers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2016 at 10:05 PM, JakeHolman said:

Watched the CEO of Wendy's on Fox Business with Neil Cavuto  a few weeks ago who conveyed the company was prepared for a new political  climate and was prepared to automate its restaurants and would not need many of its present workers. 

He copied that rant from the guy from Carls Jr who vomited up the same scare story a month ago.

Can't wait to see how much market share these goofballs end up with with their robot hamburgers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Latest: Sanders says Indiana victory 'great upset'

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Latest on campaign 2016 as voters in Indiana head to the polls for the state primary (all times Eastern):

9:50 p.m.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders tells The Associated Press that he has won a "great upset victory" in Indiana over rival Hillary Clinton and he expects "more victories in the weeks to come."

The Vermont senator said Tuesday "the Clinton campaign thinks this campaign is over. They're wrong." 

Read more on AP: 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_2016_ELECTION_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-03-21-55-48 

The Dems look like they still might have a knock down drag out fight at their convention in Philadelphia, PA.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders would be Donald Trump's worst nightmare; Hillary, not so much...

 

1. Like Donald's other fallen foes, Hillary Clinton represents the political establishment....

 

2. Hillary's millions of dollars worth of paid speeches to banks, lobbyists and billionaires cede a certain moral high ground to Donald Trump....

 

3. Independent and new voters are flocking to Bernie Sanders and even to Donald Trump, but not to Hillary Clinton....

 

4. Hillary's reliance on millions of dollars from Super PACs is a real problem....

 

5. Young voters are crazy about Bernie Sanders and just don't care for Hillary Clinton...

 

This race isn't new anymore. People know enough about Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to make an informed decision. I believe these polls are accurate. The team at FiveThirtyEight stated that they believe the polls between Trump and Clinton will continue to narrow.

We can all agree that Trump must be stopped, but this much is clear - Hillary Clinton is not the best opponent to stop him.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-worst-nightmare-article-1.2624564

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders would be Donald Trump's worst nightmare; Hillary, not so much...

 

1. Like Donald's other fallen foes, Hillary Clinton represents the political establishment....

 

2. Hillary's millions of dollars worth of paid speeches to banks, lobbyists and billionaires cede a certain moral high ground to Donald Trump....

 

3. Independent and new voters are flocking to Bernie Sanders and even to Donald Trump, but not to Hillary Clinton....

 

4. Hillary's reliance on millions of dollars from Super PACs is a real problem....

 

5. Young voters are crazy about Bernie Sanders and just don't care for Hillary Clinton...

 

This race isn't new anymore. People know enough about Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to make an informed decision. I believe these polls are accurate. The team at FiveThirtyEight stated that they believe the polls between Trump and Clinton will continue to narrow.

We can all agree that Trump must be stopped, but this much is clear - Hillary Clinton is not the best opponent to stop him.

 

 

Increasingly, polls are showing that Hillary will carry all the blue states plus Florida, and possibly even North Carolina, two states that Bernie can never carry. Republicans -- who have a reason for not attacking Bernie -- know that his support for Fidel will lose the state of Florida, without which Democrats cannot win. Bernie's increasing criticism of the "establishment," taking a page from the Tea Party's book, does not recognize the damage he's doing. It's the establishment that supports the bigger government that progressives believe in, that gives us the programs like Social Security and Medicare that are under threat from people who criticize the establishment. Younger voters, like those who support Bernie, don't really identify with the need for those late in life programs yet. 

 

And many moderate Republicans will vote for Clinton -- they will never vote for Sanders.  And they vote, unlike the loud young masses who love to go to rallies and shout. 

 

A Sanders nomination would ensure a Trump presidency.    But it's not going to happen, so this whole conversation is all in fun.

 

Hillary still has more than 3 million more votes than Bernie. In Florida, she won more than half a million more votes than Bernie. Bernie loses Florida in the general; Trump wins the election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He copied that rant from the guy from Carls Jr who vomited up the same scare story a month ago.

 

Can't wait to see how much market share these goofballs end up with with their robot hamburgers.

 

Does Canada have laws against automation?    L.A. County does; e.g.  stores can't use automated check out machines.    The county supervisors said the reason was to prevent the sales of alcohol but this provision was pushed hard by the service industry unions who provide a lot of campaign dollars to the supervisors.

 

I wish they would ban copying machines and printers.  This way we could return to offices full of secretaries like I see in old movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2016 at 6:19 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Does Canada have laws against automation?   

Canada has a non-partisan department of operations named simply Elections Canada.

It oversees all public national elections and referendums - sets the rules, times , locations, methodology.

And we use hand-counted paper ballots - not machines.

Other than elections, I'm not aware of the banning of automation other than that which attempts to sell controlled substances (example: cigarette machines).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada has a non-partisan department of operations named simply Elections Canada.

 

It oversees all public national elections and referendums - sets the rules, times , locations, methodology.

 

And we use hand-counted paper ballots - not machines.

 

Other than elections, I'm not aware of the banning of automation other than that which attempts to sell controlled substances (example: cigarette machines).

Speaking of another country, there was a big election in the UK today. Their processes are different from ours, but there was a big problem in Barnet, London today. Probably no fraud involved, as there usually isn't in these cases -- just incompetence:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36210786

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Canada have laws against automation?    L.A. County does; e.g.  stores can't use automated check out machines.    The county supervisors said the reason was to prevent the sales of alcohol but this provision was pushed hard by the service industry unions who provide a lot of campaign dollars to the supervisors.

 

I wish they would ban copying machines and printers.  This way we could return to offices full of secretaries like I see in old movies.

Around here the automated check out machines stop if alcohol crosses the scanner.  The clerk in the automated area has to call a supervisor who uses a card to key in an over ride after checking your ID and obtaining your DOB.tAs for copying machines and printers, they will probably go away anyway because of the increasing use of purely electronic "data" - no paper at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasingly, polls are showing that Hillary will carry all the blue states plus Florida, and possibly even North Carolina, two states that Bernie can never carry. Republicans -- who have a reason for not attacking Bernie -- know that his support for Fidel will lose the state of Florida, without which Democrats cannot win. Bernie's increasing criticism of the "establishment," taking a page from the Tea Party's book, does not recognize the damage he's doing. It's the establishment that supports the bigger government that progressives believe in, that gives us the programs like Social Security and Medicare that are under threat from people who criticize the establishment. Younger voters, like those who support Bernie, don't really identify with the need for those late in life programs yet. 

 

And many moderate Republicans will vote for Clinton -- they will never vote for Sanders.  And they vote, unlike the loud young masses who love to go to rallies and shout. 

 

A Sanders nomination would ensure a Trump presidency.    But it's not going to happen, so this whole conversation is all in fun.

 

Hillary still has more than 3 million more votes than Bernie. In Florida, she won more than half a million more votes than Bernie. Bernie loses Florida in the general; Trump wins the election.

Sanders would also lose many of the purple states that generally go Dem in presidential elections.  NC will go GOP this time as the GOPers have taken control of the state and enacted voter suppression.

A Trump-Sanders contest would result in a lot of moderates and probably even minorities sitting out the election.  Taking time off from work or other activities and standing in line for hours to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Within the political establishment today, it’s not in anyone’s short-term interest to look out for the public good. That’s what a rigged system is all about. Which is why Sanders’ campaign could be perfectly justified in writing its own rules. They are waging a battle for the soul of the party and the country. Anyone who thinks it will end in a few weeks or months is missing the big picture. Which is just what the establishment is hoping for… still."

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/07/theyre_still_not_telling_the_real_story_donald_trump_bernie_sanders_and_the_analysis_you_wont_hear_on_cable_news/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Within the political establishment today, it’s not in anyone’s short-term interest to look out for the public good. That’s what a rigged system is all about. Which is why Sanders’ campaign could be perfectly justified in writing its own rules. They are waging a battle for the soul of the party and the country. Anyone who thinks it will end in a few weeks or months is missing the big picture. Which is just what the establishment is hoping for… still."

 

 

 

I don't think Sanders is a crackpot, but I do know that every crackpot candidate that ever was -- including Trump -- thinks that he/she has some special reason for writing their own rules. Really scary candidates have thought that.

 

What worries me is that Trump is having all these big rallies and getting media attention. Big rallies don't necessarily translate into votes -- they certainly didn't for Bernie -- but they capture the media's imagination. If you believe that Bernie should write his own rules, then he should start his own party, rather than take over a party that is not where he is, despite the shrill cries of the people at his rallies.

 

There is still a large number of people who oppose Obama Care. And that's hardly a radical program!  The most recent respected poll puts Obama Care at 44% in favor; 54% against. That really scares me. It hangs by a thread, and people really need it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders on How Trump Is Already Destroying America’s Image Around The World..

 

"Sanders mourns that Trump is already hurting the image of the United States abroad just “by virtue of the fact that the Republican Party picked him” to be their nominee...

 

We can’t let Trump’s dangerous delusions become a reality – not just for our sake but for the world at large. What kind of a message would a Trump win send to our European allies, who are struggling with their own far right-wing anti-Muslim/white supremacy movements? Dictators and fascists across the world would cheer and their downtrodden peoples would despair. “You see what democracy and freedom brings?” the autocrats would say,.."

 

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/05/07/bernie-sanders-explains-trump-already-destroying-americas-image-around-world/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...