The New American Politics thread

[AR_Six]

^ It wasn't that crazy. He's basically saying that people pretty much intuitively decide on things they find morally blameworthy enough to prohibit in a society governed by the rule of law. In his view two of those things are murder and sodomy. That's not a useful moral theory but 99.5% of the population hasn't really put any thought into the foundations for their moral views in any event, so here we are.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^ It wasn't that crazy. He's basically saying that people pretty much intuitively decide on things they find morally blameworthy enough to prohibit in a society governed by the rule of law. In his view two of those things are murder and sodomy. That's not a useful moral theory but 99.5% of the population hasn't really put any thought into the foundations for their moral views in any event, so here we are.

Yes, and as far as it goes that is sort of true (that moral feelings are intuitive). But using murder as an example transforms his argument into utter nonsense; murder is not something we intuitively believe is wrong, and have "moral feelings" against on that basis: it's wrong according to most ways of schematizing ethics and morality in society--that is, in addition to being "intuitively wrong," it violates the rights of others, contravenes the harm principle, is anti-utilitarian, the list goes on and on.

Two guys having sexy time with each other doesn't do any of that stuff. All that's left is the "intuitive" feeling that Scalia has, and he uses this to ground his support for so-called "anti-sodomy" measures--that is, he uses it to ground his legal support for the policy objective of denouncing that behaviour.

I also think it's fair to ask that he hold himself to a higher reasoning standard than the 99.5% of the population who (you are no doubt right) have moral views that are unexamined from any standpoint other than their intuition.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The biggest news in American politics right now is an unprecedented step of union rights stripping in Michigan.

This is incredible:

(video version)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908..._show#50153807

Shorter Video, still incredible


Text for those that can't separate the source from the substance:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...tle-explained/


http://www.freep.com/article/2012121...ar|text|NEWS15


http://www.freep.com/article/2012121...ssey=topicpage

Two years ago, a newly elected Rick Snyder told the Free Press editorial board he was determined to be a new kind of governor -- a pragmatist focused like a laser on initiatives that promised to raise standards of living for all Michiganders.

And until last week, we believed him.

For two years, we supported Snyder as he took painful steps to restore Michigan's fiscal stability and confront a crisis in which plunging tax revenues and mounting obligations to retired workers threatened to cripple the state's cities and school districts.

We criticized the governor for signing legislation that burdened a woman's right to choose, condoned discrimination against gays, and beggared colleges and universities to pay for business tax cuts.

But we also indulged many compromises Snyder maintained were necessary to advance his pro-growth agenda. And when ideologues on the right and left mounted campaigns designed to hamstring state government by limiting its authority to raise revenues, regulate labor relations, and fund critically needed infrastructure, we joined the governor in opposing them.

In short, we trusted Snyder's judgment.

That trust has now been betrayed -- for us, and for the hundreds of thousand of independents who voted for Snyder with the conviction that they were electing someone more independent, and more visionary, than partisan apparatchiks like Wisconsin's Scott Walker or Florida's Rick Scott.

...

Watching Snyder explain his right-to-work reversal was disturbing on several levels.

His insistence that the legislation was designed to promote the interests of unionized workers and "bring Michiganders together" was grotesquely disingenuous; even as he spoke, security personnel were locking down the capital in anticipation of protests by angry unionists.

Snyder's ostensible rationale for embracing right-to-work legislation -- it was, he insisted, a matter of preserving workers' freedom of association -- was equally dishonest.

The real motive of Michigan's right-to-work champions, as former GOP legislator Bill Ballenger ruefully observed, is "pure greed" -- the determination to emasculate, once and for all, the Democratic Party's most reliable source of financial and organizational support.

http://www.freep.com/article/2012120...betrays-voters

[Flame Of Liberty]

Big props to him for having the balls to tackle the parasites.

The US needs more politicians like him.

[Caged Great]

This just proves that if there's an R by their name that they should not be elected.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Hilarious:

Berkshire Seeks To Avoid 2013 Tax Hike, Buys Back BRK Shares

Define irony: when the most vocal supporter of a dramatic change to the existing tax policy takes advantage of the last few days of the old one...

- BERKSHIRE HAS PURCHASED 9,200 OF CLASS A SHRS AT $131,000-SHR
- BERKSHIRE RAISED PRICE LIMIT FOR BUYBACKS TO 120% BOOK VALUE
- BERKSHIRE MAY BUY ADDED SHRS AT NO MORE THAN 120% BOOK VALUE
- BERKSHIRE BOOSTS BUYBACK PRICE LIMIT TO 120% BOOK VALUE VS 110%

A total $1.2 billion spent to avoid a few hundred million in new taxes. And now back to the hypocrticy of the "Buffett tax", and "Patriotic Millionaires for America."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...ack-brk-shares

(Reuters) - Warren Buffett's $1.2 billion share buyback from a single unnamed investor likely helped that person's estate save substantially on taxes, just one day after the Berkshire Hathaway CEO said the rich should actually be paying more, not less, when they die.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BB0ZV20121212

[Rockin' Flames]

What a horrible governer that Snyder is...what's he thinking trying to create a more pro-business environment. What a horrible concept of allowing workers the choice of whether they want to contribute to the union or not.

[HPLovecraft]

Susan Rice withdraws from SoS consideration:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ion/?hpt=hp_t1

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has withdrawn her name from consideration for secretary of state, President Barack Obama said in a Thursday statement.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

What a horrible governer that Snyder is...what's he thinking trying to create a more pro-business environment. What a horrible concept of allowing workers the choice of whether they want to contribute to the union or not.

except that in right to work states, the average income drops significantly, and that they become in fact less competitive.

But yes, Unions are bad.....

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

What a horrible governer that Snyder is...what's he thinking trying to create a more pro-business environment. What a horrible concept of allowing workers the choice of whether they want to contribute to the union or not.

I'm not exactly pro-union, but anyone without some serious bias can see this for what it is.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

What a horrible governer that Snyder is...what's he thinking trying to create a more pro-business environment. What a horrible concept of allowing workers the choice of whether they want to contribute to the union or not.

What this does, period, is neuter the power that unions have to enact change, to protect workers' wages and benefits, their ability to lobby politicians for better working conditions, better compensation and competitive health care benefits.

Meanwhile, corporations save more money and are more able to exert their monetary influence over politicians, therefore further extending the difference between lower class and upper class. Without unions to stop them, corporations can continue paying employees pathetically low wages, limit their hours, limit their benefits, leaving the government to foot the bill for low income workers' survival (food stamps, etc).

This is very business friendly, sure, but it's awful for employees, employees who are already getting screwed pretty regularly by the higher ups.

[nik-]

You guys just don't get it. Don't you know that when companies are released from the burden of regulation and unions that they always do the right thing for all involved. Especially when they're publicly traded.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

What this does, period, is neuter the power that unions have to enact change, to protect workers' wages and benefits, their ability to lobby politicians for better working conditions, better compensation and competitive health care benefits.

Meanwhile, corporations save more money and are more able to exert their monetary influence over politicians, therefore further extending the difference between lower class and upper class. Without unions to stop them, corporations can continue paying employees pathetically low wages, limit their hours, limit their benefits, leaving the government to foot the bill for low income workers' survival (food stamps, etc).

This is very business friendly, sure, but it's awful for employees, employees who are already getting screwed pretty regularly by the higher ups.

wow, Americans are really living in a Charles Dickens novel, aren't they?

Please.

[Red Slinger]

In my job I visit a lot of manufacturing facilities (ie.factories), primaily in Canada and the US (and now in Australia) but also around the world. This is very much anecdotal but I've found that the factories that are unionized tend to be:

-cleaner
-better organized
-safer
-less volatile in changing staff (and therefore deliver a more consistent product)
-more productive due to the workers being more engaged in the company and, dare I say, happier to come to work

I can't speak to the overall profitability though.

Regardless, this move by the Michigan Governor has nothing to do with workers flexibility and very little to do with corporate profits. This is primarily about weakening the largest contributor (and voting block) for the Democrats. It's politics as down and dirty as it gets. Karl Rove is probably kicking himself he didn't think of it first.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

wow, Americans are really living in a Charles Dickens novel, aren't they?

Please.

In fact, we're getting there.

[Vulcan]

Once a year my union magazine publishes the wages of all our union locals in NA. It's easy to spot the right to work states as their wages are far lower, maybe about 60% of the rest of the states and provinces. So while on a total employees percentages of the wages, it may be only a few percentages lower, when it comes to union wages, they are much lower.

One other thing is that the union worker's companies have to compete with the non union worker's companies as it is. The union workers and companies set the standard for wages, safety, and other benefits that the non union worker enjoys. This eroding of worker rights is a step back for every employee, not just union employees. If you are an employee of any kind, this is bad news.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

wow, Americans are really living in a Charles Dickens novel, aren't they?

Please.

Take a look at your basic Walmart worker.

That worker has no chance of unionizing, and therefore has no way to fight against poor wages. Walmart limits hours to prevent paying for health care. That worker would probably love to work 40 hours at a reasonable wage, but Walmart prevents it. That worker making minimum wage <40 hours a week cannot afford health insurance and often can't afford enough food for his family. So he applies for assistance from the government to keep his children fed.

He has no chance of advancement, no chance of making a better wage, no way to fight for his rights as an employee, and if he tries to unionize he can be terminated for whatever reason the company decides fits their cause best.

So he depends on the ER for health care (which taxpayers pay for) and on food stamps to keep his family from starving (which taxpayers pay for).

If Walmart and others would merely pay their employees a reasonable wage and cover their healthcare, far fewer people would need public assistance to survive, the economy as a whole would be stronger, the workforce would be healthier and likely more productive, and the only group whose profits would suffer (slightly) would be corporations.

If corporations/employers were willing to treat employees with respect and basic dignity, there would be no need for unions.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Once a year my union magazine publishes the wages of all our union locals in NA. It's easy to spot the right to work states as their wages are far lower, maybe about 60% of the rest of the states and provinces. So while on a total employees percentages of the wages, it may be only a few percentages lower, when it comes to union wages, they are much lower.

One other thing is that the union worker's companies have to compete with the non union worker's companies as it is. The union workers and companies set the standard for wages, safety, and other benefits that the non union worker enjoys. This eroding of worker rights is a step back for every employee, not just union employees. If you are an employee of any kind, this is bad news.

Exactly. This doesn't just affect employees who are members of unions, if affects any worker in a general area.

What's "good for business" is not always good for human beings or the economy as a whole. What we have right now is a ridiculously strong and wealthy upper class and a weak and shrinking middle class--and look how wonderful our economy is doing.

[Red Slinger]

^ I don't think your Walmart analogy is quite right.

If the people working at Walmart don't like working at Walmart because of the wages and lack of benefits they are certainly free to look elsewhere. And let's be honest, many Walmart "associates" are either young, old or generally not qualified for most higher paying jobs. That's who Walmart hires. If those associates use Walmart as a first job or a retirement job (to keep busy) I don't think they care too much about unionizing, other than the possible higher salary. The rest of the employees have options like improving their education and other skills.

I think there is a place for unions but I don't think Walmart is a great example of that place.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

^ I don't think your Walmart analogy is quite right.

If the people working at Walmart don't like working at Walmart because of the wages and lack of benefits they are certainly free to look elsewhere. And let's be honest, many Walmart "associates" are either young, old or generally not qualified for most higher paying jobs. That's who Walmart hires. If those associates use Walmart as a first job or a retirement job (to keep busy) I don't think they care too much about unionizing, other than the possible higher salary. The rest of the employees have options like improving their education and other skills.

I think there is a place for unions but I don't think Walmart is a great example of that place.

The people I know that work at WalMart do not fit your description.

[HPLovecraft]

The Senate passed the fiscal cliff bill during the middle of the night. Congress is set to vote on it today (probably). There's some optimism it will pass, but there also seems to be a good deal of pessimism, including comments by Republican Congressman and a few Democrats about not liking the bill. The GOP house leader, Eric Cantor, opposes it. If the House sends it back for amendments, they will likely need to start from square one on Thursday, which means the fiscal cliff tax raises, etc., would go into effect. I wonder what will be passed first: this, or a new CBA?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...sses-deadline/