2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

Demyx wrote:
jowner wrote:

I can be very sympathetic and liberal when its clearly a case that the odds are stacked against people in an unfair way.

And you personally know that no one in that situation doesn't have the odds stacked against them?

Then you fix those problems which have 0 to do with how Papa Johns gets to run their business.

They make pizza. Not utopias.

jowner wrote:

Then you fix those problems which have 0 to do with how Papa Johns gets to run their business.

They make pizza. Not utopias.

Which is pretty much exactly why public welfare issues such as health care shouldn't be in the hands of employers, but good luck getting single payer passed here.

Jayhawker wrote:

I'm sure he would be just as impressed with an academic article out of Ohio State that examined the inability of conservatives to realize that Stephen Colbert is laughing at them, not with them.

There are a lot of people on both sides that don't "get" Colbert. I've heard people refuse to watch it because they think he's a pundit like Bill O'Reilly.

Stele wrote:
I'm sure he would be just as impressed with an academic article out of Ohio State that examined the inability of conservatives to realize that Stephen Colbert is laughing at them, not with them.

There are a lot of people on both sides that don't "get" Colbert. I've heard people refuse to watch it because they think he's a pundit like Bill O'Reilly. :lol:

IMAGE(http://blog.earnmydegree.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/exploding_head.jpg)

gore wrote:

I can't really make a comment on that personally, since I don't buy Papa John's pizza except on rare occasions when I travel.

I can say that I would fully expect an organization like Papa John's to have actual metrics on what increasing the cost of their pizza would do to their bottom line, and would know better than the Internet how price sensitive their clientele are.

I suppose we'll know for sure once Papa John actually does something more than just talking about things.

Then look at it in generalities. Say your favorite local restaurant makes the best Item X you have ever had. In fact, you crave Item X often and return to this local place often. You have told your friends all about Item X and how fantastic it is.

One day, the owner tells you that due to costs, he will be raising the price on Item X by $0.25.

Will you abandon the best Item X you have ever had and the restaurant and seek our a subpar Item X somewhere else just to save the quarter?

But reducing hours really does seem like a logical response to me.

Let's talk about this a bit.

Do you remember Circuit City? I do. In fact, I loved the Circuit City near my home. It saved me from having to go into the hell hole known as Best Buy. The staff at Circuit City was informed, friendly, helpful, and the layout of the store was great. I could often get items I needed on sale or they would price match. Then, the CEO decided that it would "logical" to fire all of the staff who were making about $12-$14 an hour and replace them with $7-$8 an hour employees in order to increase profits and cut costs.

Shortly after the change, I went into the new Circuit City twice, and never to return again. The staff were bumbling fools who had no clue as to what they were doing. Asking for assistance with questions on computer peripherals was an E-ticket on the Voyage of the Damned. I remember one clown responding to me when I asked about a certain router, "Well, the box is real nice." The complains about the ignorant staff was too much for most people and, like me, they simply stopped going. Only a few short months later, Circuit City went the way of the dodo only to have its name memorialized by Tiger Direct.

So, the "logic" of trimming costs by firing the knowledgeable staff result in the company's downfall.

If you transition that logic now to, say, Papa John's, they may be saving money in the short term, but when the economy comes back (and it will), how much money do you think it will cost to spend recruiting, hiring and training new employees at Papa John's to replace those who leave?

While I understand it may seem logical to trim hours, that assumes you have accounted for all variables, which I think no one can do. Be that as it may, that does beg the question that if it is logical to trim hours, why isn't is logical to increase prices?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

While I understand it may seem logical to trim hours, that assumes you have accounted for all variables, which I think no one can do. Be that as it may, that does beg the question that if it is logical to trim hours, why isn't is logical to increase prices?

Cause he's a Republican businessman? Can't raise revenue, only make cuts. :p

DSGamer wrote:

Papa John would use immigrant workers, but as a strong Republican I'm sure he's against that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

IMAGE(http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg)

Cause he's a Republican businessman? Can't raise revenue, only make cuts.

I wonder how Peyton feels about this?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Then look at it in generalities. Say your favorite local restaurant makes the best Item X you have ever had. In fact, you crave Item X often and return to this local place often. You have told your friends all about Item X and how fantastic it is.

One day, the owner tells you that due to costs, he will be raising the price on Item X by $0.25.

Will you abandon the best Item X you have ever had and the restaurant and seek our a subpar Item X somewhere else just to save the quarter?

I would buy the best product available at the best price. If that $.25 made the value proposition of that product worse than the competition, sure, I'd go elsewhere.

Asking any specific person what "he" would do is irrelevant. What matters is what "people" would do as a whole. I don't know that and I cannot extrapolate that out from what I personally feel.

But reducing hours really does seem like a logical response to me.

Let's talk about this a bit.

Do you remember Circuit City? I do. In fact, I loved the Circuit City near my home. It saved me from having to go into the hell hole known as Best Buy. The staff at Circuit City was informed, friendly, helpful, and the layout of the store was great. I could often get items I needed on sale or they would price match. Then, the CEO decided that it would "logical" to fire all of the staff who were making about $12-$14 an hour and replace them with $7-$8 an hour employees in order to increase profits and cut costs.

Shortly after the change, I went into the new Circuit City twice, and never to return again. The staff were bumbling fools who had no clue as to what they were doing. Asking for assistance with questions on computer peripherals was an E-ticket on the Voyage of the Damned. I remember one clown responding to me when I asked about a certain router, "Well, the box is real nice." The complains about the ignorant staff was too much for most people and, like me, they simply stopped going. Only a few short months later, Circuit City went the way of the dodo only to have its name memorialized by Tiger Direct.

So, the "logic" of trimming costs by firing the knowledgeable staff result in the company's downfall.

You don't see all that many horse and buggy operators any more, nor telegraph operators. Circuit City failed because they are a dinosaur of a business that was undercut by Best Buy in a race to the bottom. Now Best Buy is failing because they're finding the bottom, and it's still not low enough to compete with online. Actually having any staff in stores at all is a liability that they can barely afford.

If your presupposition about why Circuit City failed was correct, then where is the comparable retailer with excellent service that replaced them? Best Buy? I don't think so.

Having excellent customer service can matter in some cases, but not in Circuit City's. There was nothing that company could have done at that point in its death spiral.

And Papa John's? A PJ's customer interacts with two people: the person on the phone, the person giving your pizza. Nobody else has to interact with a customer at all.

If you transition that logic now to, say, Papa John's, they may be saving money in the short term, but when the economy comes back (and it will), how much money do you think it will cost to spend recruiting, hiring and training new employees at Papa John's to replace those who leave?

Why do you think they will leave when their hours are cut? Are they all going to work at Whole Foods or Costco or one of the handful of companies that has good benefits for unskilled labor? This isn't exactly a great market to have no job skills, and any hours are better than zero hours.

While I understand it may seem logical to trim hours, that assumes you have accounted for all variables, which I think no one can do. Be that as it may, that does beg the question that if it is logical to trim hours, why isn't is logical to increase prices?

It may well be, but that depends on how price sensitive the business is, and how competitive the market is. Papa surely knows those things about his own business better than I do.

gore wrote:

I would buy the best product available at the best price. If that $.25 made the value proposition of that product worse than the competition, sure, I'd go elsewhere.

Asking any specific person what "he" would do is irrelevant. What matters is what "people" would do as a whole. I don't know that and I cannot extrapolate that out from what I personally feel.

That may sound great, but I seriously doubt that is the reality. Most people understand that prices will increase and will understand why Item X costs more. I know of very few people that would invest the time to try and money to try every Item X in every restaurant in their locale in order to find a similar product for $0.25.

gore wrote:

Why do you think they will leave when their hours are cut? Are they all going to work at Whole Foods or Costco or one of the handful of companies that has good benefits for unskilled labor? This isn't exactly a great market to have no job skills, and any hours are better than zero hours.

I think you misread what I wrote. I said that when the economy improves, people who had their hours cut will start looking for better jobs. This is inevitable in a job seekers market. I know several people at my place of employment that have good jobs with very good benefits who have already stated that when jobs are flush, they will be looking for greener pastures. Why would that not apply to someone who just had their hours cut by Papa John's?

gore wrote:

It may well be, but that depends on how price sensitive the business is, and how competitive the market is. Papa surely knows those things about his own business better than I do.

He may know his business better than you, but that doesn't mean he knows what is best for his business.

So if we actually had single payer health care and removed health care from business all together they could then have everyone be full time if they feel like it because they are no longer obligated to provide health care for their employees. If I'm understanding this right. So then what was the argument against single payer?

master0 wrote:

So if we actually had single payer health care and removed health care from business all together they could then have everyone be full time if they feel like it because they are no longer obligated to provide health care for their employees. If I'm understanding this right. So then what was the argument against single payer?

WHY DO YOU LOVE COMMUNISM??

master0 wrote:

So if we actually had single payer health care and removed health care from business all together they could then have everyone be full time if they feel like it because they are no longer obligated to provide health care for their employees. If I'm understanding this right. So then what was the argument against single payer?

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Hammer_sickle_clean.png)

master0 wrote:

So if we actually had single payer health care and removed health care from business all together they could then have everyone be full time if they feel like it because they are no longer obligated to provide health care for their employees. If I'm understanding this right. So then what was the argument against single payer?

Our current system is how God shows who is a winner, and who is a loser. Who are you to defy the will of the King of Kings!?

master0 wrote:

So if we actually had single payer health care and removed health care from business all together they could then have everyone be full time if they feel like it because they are no longer obligated to provide health care for their employees. If I'm understanding this right. So then what was the argument against single payer?

NathanialG wrote:
master0 wrote:

So if we actually had single payer health care and removed health care from business all together they could then have everyone be full time if they feel like it because they are no longer obligated to provide health care for their employees. If I'm understanding this right. So then what was the argument against single payer?

WHY DO YOU LOVE COMMUNISM??

If you guys get single-payer before we do...
IMAGE(http://labourlawreporter.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/chinese-sad.jpg)

I still wonder what the productivity gains would be if we did not tie health care to employment and had single-payer.

My guess the gains would be rather jarring.

I can't even begin to count the number of people I know who stay with the job they have despite the fact they hate it because of the health insurance.

Imagine being in a job you actually want and like or even love and never having to worry about losing insurance coverage for yourself and your family.

Bloo Driver wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Bear wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Oh. Well then - I agree that Republican party members who vote Democratic are "wackadoodles" by definition :)

Serious question, does every idea or proposal instantly have to be qualified "Republican" or "Democratic"? Seems the label is far more important that the substance.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatch...

I appreciate the honesty contained in answering "why do you have to be so blatantly partisan" with a blatantly partisan link.

Sorry I didn't have time to fully comment on that link - the question posed wasn't "why are you so blatantly partisan" but "are labels or substance more important". I was saying that the reality to most people is that labels are more important - I'm not trying to say this is a left-only phenomenon either, it's all over both sides of the "politics as sport" spectrum. Although I consider myself a Republican, some of my beliefs don't toe the party line. I hope those beliefs become "Republican ideas" at some point.

Demyx wrote:
jowner wrote:

I can be very sympathetic and liberal when its clearly a case that the odds are stacked against people in an unfair way.

And you personally know that no one in that situation doesn't have the odds stacked against them?

Apparently it doesn't matter just how bad your situation is. Bootstraps are free for the taking in any size, shape, and quantity.

1. Lose sh*tty-paying job that was the best you could get
2. Bootstraps
3. ??
4. PROFIT!

Seriously Jowner, you're coming across like Romney here. Sure, if you're single and in good health, then theoretically you could just up and pack all your sh*t on your back and walk across the USA to some better job market. But if you have poor health, no money, kids to worry about, ailing parents, or whatthef*ckever else to worry about, just packing up your sh*t and moving to Where the Wild Jobs Aretm is not necessarily a viable solution.

But hey, congrats on your own luck in not having to face real sh*t like that. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But I'm not naive enough to think that it's enough of a solution to hang my nation's policies on.

Rubb Ed wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Yonder wrote:

As is often the case Norman, your phrasing is anti-democrat to the extent it can be while still being technically true, and sometimes a little beyond. you claim that Democrats don't think Part Time workers "deserve" healthcare because employers are not forced by the law to provide it for them.

Why is it fair to claim that CEOs don't care about part time workers' health (as the post I was responding to said) but assigning the balme to Congress is somehow a false choice?

Because Congress isn't holding a gun to CEOs' heads and saying "You will provide benefits to your part-time employees and you will not reduce their hours."

My point is that if cutting back due to added employment costs is such a moral crime, Congress can do that, right?

It's the CEOs who are choosing to cut workers' hours in order to prevent being responsible for the provisions of the act, rather than saying "This is an added cost to the company, let's see how we can make a profit by increasing the price of our product and/or cutting in other areas."

First, you're making an assumption that they didn't look at all the other options, and secondly, I don't see why they're under some compulsion to try other options rather than the most direct method of controlling costs.

The CEOs of the individual companies are themselves responsible for what happens to their employees, and the ones who choose to cut hours are rightly being called out for their behavior.

"Called out" for... controlling costs? Keeping prices low? Giving more money back to the people who invested in the company? It could very easily be the case that any other option carries additional risks that could harm the company and put ALL the employees at risk.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Bear wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Oh. Well then - I agree that Republican party members who vote Democratic are "wackadoodles" by definition :)

Serious question, does every idea or proposal instantly have to be qualified "Republican" or "Democratic"? Seems the label is far more important that the substance.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatch...

I appreciate the honesty contained in answering "why do you have to be so blatantly partisan" with a blatantly partisan link.

Sorry I didn't have time to fully comment on that link - the question posed wasn't "why are you so blatantly partisan" but "are labels or substance more important". I was saying that the reality to most people is that labels are more important - I'm not trying to say this is a left-only phenomenon either, it's all over both sides of the "politics as sport" spectrum. Although I consider myself a Republican, some of my beliefs don't toe the party line. I hope those beliefs become "Republican ideas" at some point.

Okay, so you showed off a blog by a hack that showed off a lame video, that if anything, showed how lame it is to be so focused on picking sides. And this somehow supports your constant need to play sides rather than hold a discussion?

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DeOGxaSZKqU/TpKu0O0MjJI/AAAAAAAAAVs/nJf426bn3Ik/s1600/confused.jpg)

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I think you misread what I wrote. I said that when the economy improves, people who had their hours cut will start looking for better jobs. This is inevitable in a job seekers market. I know several people at my place of employment that have good jobs with very good benefits who have already stated that when jobs are flush, they will be looking for greener pastures. Why would that not apply to someone who just had their hours cut by Papa John's?

These people never have a lot of choices, though. If times get so good that PJ's can't find workers, the same will be true for their competitors, and employers (including PJ's) will adapt to the labor market in ways that bring them back at that time.

That's even assuming that the market for this sort of worker ever really recovers. Unskilled workers are needed in fewer and fewer roles as time goes on.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I still wonder what the productivity gains would be if we did not tie health care to employment and had single-payer.

My guess the gains would be rather jarring.

I can't even begin to count the number of people I know who stay with the job they have despite the fact they hate it because of the health insurance.

Imagine being in a job you actually want and like or even love and never having to worry about losing insurance coverage for yourself and your family.

The pre-Obamacare system seems to combine the worst of all worlds. Real costs are masked from individuals, so consumers do not make informed choices in many cases. Emergency care is subsidized by the private sector, but much more cost effective primary care is not. Employees are indentured to their employers due to pre-existing conditions.

Obamacare solves some of the absolutely most broken stuff about the system, but it's a half-measure at best. Employer-provided coverage is bad for everybody in the long run. I honestly don't understand why most corporations aren't all for a single payer system. Some industries (the insurance industry, maybe some other health care industries) have stakes as middlemen in the current system, and there is no doubt they wield substantial power (and they helped shape Obamacare), but in the long run surely most employers would prefer to be out of the health care business, and that will result in pressure on Washington to get them out of it.

gore wrote:

Some industries (the insurance industry, maybe some other health care industries) have stakes as middlemen in the current system, and there is no doubt they wield substantial power (and they helped shape Obamacare), but in the long run surely most employers would prefer to be out of the health care business, and that will result in pressure on Washington to get them out of it.

The problem is that most employers don't have enough dog in the hunt to lead the charge against healthcare insurance companies and Big Pharma. If they're going to spend money on lobbying, it's going to be on something that benefits them in the near term.

What is needed is an interest group that would attend every Chamber of Commerce and trade association luncheon they possibly could to explain how our current healthcare system is hurting American businesses by putting them at a severe disadvantage when competing against foreign companies. Not only that, but all those companies could be so much more profitable if they didn't have to spend so much money on their employees.

A couple of years of that, some repeated guest spots on CNBC and the Sunday morning political shows and you might get enough interest that CEOs might start to speak wistfully about being able to unload their healthcare costs on to Uncle Sam.

Once you reached that point you wouldn't have to worry about conservatives fretting about single payer healthcare being communism. The entire issue would have been recast in the conservative mind not as a handout, but something that was necessary to truly unleash the power of the free market and to keep America and American businesses dominating the world for another century.

*facepalm*

What is [em]wrong[/em] with people?

Hypatian wrote:

*facepalm*

What is [em]wrong[/em] with people?

Door, ass, etc..

Tanglebones wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

*facepalm*

What is [em]wrong[/em] with people?

Door, ass, etc..

Yeah, given how may 'red states' are subsidized by 'blue states', I have no problem with them seceding.

For my entire life, I have seen the constant flag waving from the right side of American politics.

Yet, when an election doesn't go their way, many who did wave the flag are first to trash it and demand succession.

Incredible.

Jayhawker wrote:

And this somehow supports your constant need to play sides rather than hold a discussion?

This again, huh? You'll forgive me if the accusation of playing sides coming from someone who says things like "conservatives are incapable of understanding Cobert" fails to shame me into not expressing my political opinions.

The goofy thing to me is that one of their chief complaints seems to be that their rights have been taken away. Nevermind that Bush did that...

I'm all for states rights, including succession. Just be consistent is all I ask.