Author Topic: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...  (Read 1933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25623
  • Gender: Male

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19114
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2015, 06:21:01 AM »
Quote
"I don’t disagree with you that I actually think Mr. Ryan is a great choice for this role, but I want us to be super careful when we use the language ‘hard worker,’ because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like."


I'm not sure whether to say that's a politically correct statement, or something someone with a mental disability would say.

Hard work is not equivalent to forced work/slavery.

Forced worker/slave




Hard worker





I'm not saying the work slaves did wasn't hard.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19114
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2015, 06:34:58 AM »
Too few transgender characters on TV, GLAAD study finds

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/entertainment/glaad-study-transgender-tv-thr-feat/

Man. I'm so glad I'm not a writer on a modern day sitcom. You have to spend more time making sure your script is politically correct (down to the percentages of character demographics apparently) than you do making it a good story.

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 1884
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2015, 06:42:27 AM »
Just another example of why no one should watch MSNBC. Seriously, how does that crack pot have job? Ugh, this stuff pisses me off more than anything at the moment. Exactly why I'm loving the new South Park season.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2015, 08:26:34 AM »
Which is ridiculous; how many openly evangelical Christians are there on TV? Can't name one (but they make up 15% of our population!).   You can go on and on down the list and find inequities.  The fact is, though, that this is trolling and is not indicative of reality.   I take this sentence from the article:  "Still, only four percent of all characters on broadcast TV identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual."  In general, roughly four percent of the population is gay.   

So while it's "not enough" for their agenda, it is in keeping with the norms of population distribution.    Not sure what the problem is. 

Actually, for African Americans, it's better:  by the numbers in the article, there are 287 people of "color" (their words) out of 881 characters, or about 32%.   The general population is only about 13% African American, so...

Transgender people make up less than half a percent of the population.    So, using 881, there should be three people on TV that represent that demographic.  We've got Jeffrey Tambor already (anyone who DIDN'T see that Emmy coming a mile and a half away???)  Yet the article counts SEVEN (including cable and streaming, which are not in the "881" number).   Further, the article says that the streaming services "show more diversity" because the percentage of gay and lesbian characters are between 35% and 40%.  FOUR TIMES WHAT THE GENERAL POPULATION IS.

These people are irresponsible and negligent if you ask me. 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2015, 08:40:59 AM »
Which is ridiculous; how many openly evangelical Christians are there on TV? Can't name one (but they make up 15% of our population!).   You can go on and on down the list and find inequities.  The fact is, though, that this is trolling and is not indicative of reality.   I take this sentence from the article:  "Still, only four percent of all characters on broadcast TV identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual."  In general, roughly four percent of the population is gay.   

So while it's "not enough" for their agenda, it is in keeping with the norms of population distribution.    Not sure what the problem is. 

Actually, for African Americans, it's better:  by the numbers in the article, there are 287 people of "color" (their words) out of 881 characters, or about 32%.   The general population is only about 13% African American, so...

Transgender people make up less than half a percent of the population.    So, using 881, there should be three people on TV that represent that demographic.  We've got Jeffrey Tambor already (anyone who DIDN'T see that Emmy coming a mile and a half away???)  Yet the article counts SEVEN (including cable and streaming, which are not in the "881" number).   Further, the article says that the streaming services "show more diversity" because the percentage of gay and lesbian characters are between 35% and 40%.  FOUR TIMES WHAT THE GENERAL POPULATION IS.

These people are irresponsible and negligent if you ask me.
Ned Flanders
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4843
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2015, 08:59:20 AM »
I wonder if there are pictures of Union soldiers on her wall. They worked pretty damn hard to ensure she can have a crappy talk show and not be in those cotton fields.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2015, 09:04:09 AM »
Yeah, this is all fairly ridiculous.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2015, 10:14:06 AM »
While I'm not crazy about her over-generalization, I don't find her remarks ridiculous at all. She didn't say that hard work was offensive, nor did she compare any of this to slavery. She said she keeps a poster on her wall to remind her what hard work really looks like, presumably in relation to her rather cushy job. She agreed that Ryan was works hard and that she admires him for it. She then went onto say that republicans have a pretty one-sided opinion about hard work that isn't as inclusive as she'd like. While I'm no fan of political correctness, I also have a problem with the desperate need to find it in every statement or action you disagree with.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2015, 11:22:33 AM »
While I'm not crazy about her over-generalization, I don't find her remarks ridiculous at all.
I do.  She might be the worst MSNBC host of the bunch.

Find me a clip of somebody saying something like "Hillary / Obama / Pelosi / Reid have a lot on their plate.  It's a hard job" with MHP responding with references to slavery.  It wasn't an innocent remark.  It is the dog whistle they accuse the conservatives of using.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2015, 11:47:39 AM »
While I'm not crazy about her over-generalization, I don't find her remarks ridiculous at all.
I do.  She might be the worst MSNBC host of the bunch.
Irrelevant.


Quote
Find me a clip of somebody saying something like "Hillary / Obama / Pelosi / Reid have a lot on their plate.  It's a hard job" with MHP responding with references to slavery.
Non-sequitur. She doesn't think that "freeloader!!!" is a part of the democratic platform.


Quote
It wasn't an innocent remark.  It is the dog whistle they accuse the conservatives of using.
Conservatives need no dog whistle. Look no further than "references to slavery" for an example.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35694
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2015, 02:02:07 PM »
I tend to tune out the the PC group.  People know right from wrong.  How about letting our own actions and words speak for themselves.  I'm tired of people pushing their beliefs on me.
“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9291
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2015, 06:31:42 PM »
People absolutely love being offended and it seems that every year more and more people seem to be coming out and letting the whole world know about it.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2015, 07:19:09 PM »
Irrelevant.

Non-sequitur. She doesn't think that "freeloader!!!" is a part of the democratic platform.

Conservatives need no dog whistle. Look no further than "references to slavery" for an example.
Not really having a discussion there, so this will be my only response to that.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2015, 08:13:00 PM »
Irrelevant.

Non-sequitur. She doesn't think that "freeloader!!!" is a part of the democratic platform.

Conservatives need no dog whistle. Look no further than "references to slavery" for an example.
Not really having a discussion there, so this will be my only response to that.
Look, I came here for an argument.
Ah, no you didn't. You came here for an argument!

You made a series of statements intending to establish a proposition. I dismissed one, demonstrated why one was logically incorrect and suggested that the third was just as reasonably an incorrect assertion due to the difficulty of parsing paranoia and baiting.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25623
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2015, 08:21:30 PM »
Just another example of why no one should watch MSNBC. 

Eh, while I am not big at all on MSNBC, I don't think pointing to one of their people and saying, "This is why we shouldn't watch that station," is ever a good idea.  You could say the same thing about Sean Hannity and Fox News, for example.  At least MSNBC was smart enough to take Al Sharpton off prime time.  Chris Matthews has the tendency to say outrageous WTF things, but his show is usually mostly enjoyable (I used to not think that, but have come around a little on him), and the Morning Joe show, which I catch a bit of sometimes in the morning before work, isn't bad.  Many rave over Rachel Maddow, but while obviously very intelligent, she is way too snarky for my tastes, and her show is too often like a radio show on TV (her ranting for 20 minutes straight with no guests at times).  The sad thing with Maddow is that she actually can interview well - while being in the tank for Clinton, her interview with her last week was very good - but far too often goes off on her snarky rants; it's like the left equivalent of Rush Limbaugh (although there are obviously massive differences between the two), and he's unbearable as well.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2015, 08:37:19 PM »
You made a series of statements intending to establish a proposition. I dismissed one ....
And yet you had no problem with the irrelevancy of MHP's statement, from which this line of *discussion* derives.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2015, 08:49:24 PM »
Eh, while I am not big at all on MSNBC, I don't think pointing to one of their people and saying, "This is why we shouldn't watch that station," is ever a good idea. 
I record these shows from each station:
CNN - The Lead with Jake Tapper (used to be Situation Room and I might go back to that)
FoxNews - Special Report with Bret Baier
MSNBC - Morning Joe

I can't watch them every day (even if in the background as opposed to directly watching them), but those 3 and a local news show give me quite the round up.

If I watch another news show it is because it is a special event: debate, special guest, etc.

Lately, I haven't spent as much time in the office, so I've missed a bunch.  And I definitely haven't been able to check out C-SPAN.

But Melissa Harris-Perry, I've seen enough of her to know I don't need to watch any more.  Same with Rev. Al and Rachel Maddow.  MSNBC is easily the worst cable news channel.

Quote
You could say the same thing about Sean Hannity and Fox News, for example.
It is funny to watch people complain about Hannity and then hold up Maddow.

Quote
At least MSNBC was smart enough to take Al Sharpton off prime time.
They finally did that?  That show was a trainwreck. 

Matthews sometimes can put aside the BS and actually become a journalist, but it is very rare.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2015, 08:59:52 PM »
You made a series of statements intending to establish a proposition. I dismissed one ....
And yet you had no problem with the irrelevancy of MHP's statement, from which this line of *discussion* derives.
I'm not sure if her remark was irreverent or not, as she's in a completely different context that the two of us. Her remark actually was a a critique of Ryan's platform with regards to who is or is not considered a hard worker. All you said was that she sucked.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2015, 09:12:45 PM »
You made a series of statements intending to establish a proposition. I dismissed one ....
And yet you had no problem with the irrelevancy of MHP's statement, from which this line of *discussion* derives.
I'm not sure if her remark was irreverent or not, as she's in a completely different context that the two of us. Her remark actually was a a critique of Ryan's platform with regards to who is or is not considered a hard worker. All you said was that she sucked.

The guest brought up the qualities of Ryan .. hard worker.  She stopped him and warned him not to be careful how he uses that term then went off on a slavery not so tangent.  And yes, she's a different context ... she should be held to a higher standard than somebody talking on a forum that maybe 30 people read (this thread, not the entire forum).

I brought up the fact that she used that opportunity to blow the dog whistle based off her extreme bias.  Totally relevant as I am putting her own words into context using her own history.  She used the context of slavery, which has nothing to do with Paul Ryan .... other than the dog whistle.

Then for some reason, you brought up free loader.  I didn't hear that in the video clip at all, and it would not make any sense as they weren't talking about social programs but the work eithic of Ryan.

I'm really not sure what your point is with this one other than to defend something that shouldn't be defended.

And I'm sure if Sean Hannity had a guest on that talked about Obama's hard work with Sean stopping the guest to point out the phrase doesn't apply to Obama because hard work is what the Egyptian slaves did, you'd be perfectly fine with that?
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2015, 11:05:57 PM »
There was no slavery context. You have a good enough grasp of language to be able to see that if you try. I agree that she acted like a nitwit, and her picture of cotton pictures had nothing to do with the greater point she was making, but you're really reading way too much into this. It reminds me of the Greg Hardy "All guns blazing" thing. No dog whistle is needed if you've got people just looking to find something to blast somebody over.
Quote
And I'm sure if Sean Hannity had a guest on that talked about Obama's hard work with Sean stopping the guest to point out the phrase doesn't apply to Obama because hard work is what the Egyptian slaves did, you'd be perfectly fine with that?
Is that really the point you think she was trying to make? Because to me, somebody who has never heard of this woman until this thread, it's not the way it came off.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cedar redaC

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2274
  • Gender: Male
  • Streams of Light Unite With Water
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2015, 11:09:49 PM »
I read once, and I cannot verify it's truthfulness, that the phrase "thought shower" came into existence after "Brainstorm" was deemed too offensive to epileptics.

Scratch that: Here's a source
Perhaps you should ask bosk to reverse the "e" and "a" in the second half of your user name.
Cedar redaC swoops in for the kill!

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2015, 11:33:16 PM »
I read once, and I cannot verify it's truthfulness, that the phrase "thought shower" came into existence after "Brainstorm" was deemed too offensive to epileptics.

Jesus Ch .... oops.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2015, 04:51:34 PM »
Her response is a little over the top, but I actually agree with this part:

Quote
“But in the context of relative privilege, and I just want to point out that when you talk about work-life balance and being a hard worker, the moms who don’t have health care who are working. But, we don’t call them hard workers. We call the failures. We call them people who are sucking off the system.”

Contrary to popular opinion, most poor people in this country work very hard, and often do have two or three jobs.  Or if they're unemployed, they're working pretty hard to find something.  Unemployment insurance pays you very little, and it's an awful life trying to survive on it.  And you don't even qualify for UI unless you had a job previously, and a lot of states still won't give it to you if you lost your job due to your own behavior.

But because our country systematically has promoted outsourcing of certain jobs over the last 35 years or so, people don't have a lot of options.  When there's a 50% un or under employment rate in the kind of work you've done most of your life, it's kind of hard to tell people "bootstraps, yo."  That's not a solution, because if there's only 50 jobs for 100 people in the area, 50 of them are still going to be unemployed no matter how hard they work.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2015, 08:56:44 AM »
Her response is a little over the top, but I actually agree with this part:

Quote
“But in the context of relative privilege, and I just want to point out that when you talk about work-life balance and being a hard worker, the moms who don’t have health care who are working. But, we don’t call them hard workers. We call the failures. We call them people who are sucking off the system.”

Contrary to popular opinion, most poor people in this country work very hard, and often do have two or three jobs.  Or if they're unemployed, they're working pretty hard to find something.  Unemployment insurance pays you very little, and it's an awful life trying to survive on it.  And you don't even qualify for UI unless you had a job previously, and a lot of states still won't give it to you if you lost your job due to your own behavior.

But because our country systematically has promoted outsourcing of certain jobs over the last 35 years or so, people don't have a lot of options.  When there's a 50% un or under employment rate in the kind of work you've done most of your life, it's kind of hard to tell people "bootstraps, yo."  That's not a solution, because if there's only 50 jobs for 100 people in the area, 50 of them are still going to be unemployed no matter how hard they work.

I'm calling bullshit on some of this, though.   You say two things that are telling:  one, "the kind of work you've done most of your life".  There are no guarantees.   How many people that aren't doctors or lawyers (which both have required continuing education) are actively increasing their skill set as they get older?  I don't mean being a better welder than you were the day before, but rather making yourself more marketable.  This notion that you can do the SAME job for the SAME company in the SAME town for your entire career - well, at ever increasing wages - is a fallacy.  it makes no sense.  Which leads to number two, "in the area".  See above.   I WAS out of work in '09-'10, after Obama shit the economy (yes, I know what I just said; I've explained why ad nauseum elsewhere on this forum) and I collected unemployment.  I know how little it is, and yet there were plenty of people that turned down work because "it wasn't enough more to justify actually going to work each day".   They would rather hold out for the job that was BETTER than what they had when they lost it.    I can remember driving to an interview about 30 miles from my apartment in Philly and listening to a morning talk show where a guy called in saying exactly that, and I felt like a fool for actually putting in the effort.   Pride won out, but still. 

I found a job, but it was 265 miles away (each way) doing something I had never done before in an industry I had never worked in before.  I was able to win the job because of my experience with that company (I had worked there before in a different division) and because my whole interview was a compelling advertisement for how I was going to translate my skillset from my old job/industry to the new one.   And I did that commute for over a year.   At great personal sacrifice (not seeing my kid 5 out of 7 days a week for a year, and the time away kinda killed what little intimacy was left in my marriage and made it a lot easier  for her to step out).  So while there are a lot of people working hard and struggling - and I would be unequivocal in helping them out - I have to say, there's a lot more "ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you!" than the other way around, which is the way it was intended.

I don't at all mind helping the "can't"; I object to helping the "won't" or "don't really feel like it". 

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2015, 07:50:18 PM »
Seems to me the shit started hitting the fan in our economy in like September of 2008.  Pretty sure Obama was yet to be elected.  In fact, one of the reasons he won so handily was how bad his predecessor tanked the economy.

The economy was not great in '09-'10, but nobody expected it to be, after the biggest economic crash in nearly 80 years.

I'm not denying that your stories of people turning down work are real, but I haven't seen anything like that in my personal life, and I deal with a lot of unemployed people on a daily basis.  I get to track their work history, etc.  Most of them are applying over and over for jobs, taking temp jobs just above minimum wage for a couple weeks or a couple months (with no healthcare, etc., especially if they're in a state where Republicans blocked Medicaid expansion).  It's an incredibly depressing and draining state to live in, but they don't give up.

And yes, their downtime includes going to community college to learn a different field.

There's just not a lot of jobs out there for blue collar workers, because of American business' constant search for cheaper and cheaper labor, regardless of who it's going to hurt in this country.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2015, 10:13:20 PM »
I'm not denying that your stories of people turning down work are real, but I haven't seen anything like that in my personal life,
As an employer, I've noticed a pretty big change in work ethic.  Especially this year.  It always takes a few employees hired before you find the *keeper*.  Well, all my *keepers* are from previous years hired.

One set of guys constantly said "we don't do that" to accepted practices for that position.  We aren't talking hazardous waste here.

Another guy begged me for a job.  Gave him the job, he showed up the first day, then he would literally show up 50% of the days before I had to tell him "you don't just get to pick and choose your days.  I'm gonna have to let you go."  Gave me the sob story about him living in San Diego and driving up to Orange County was hard and he's just transitioning to the circumstances until he gets back in the routine.  So I told him "Well, I have some work in <city that is 400% closer to him>.  See you there tomorrow."  I drive down there to check on the job, and he's nowhere to be found.  I call and call and call.  Then at quitting time, he finally picks up.  I ask him "why weren't you here today?"  He responded "because I live in Victorville and that drive is too far."  That was it.  "Look.  Even if that were the case, you should at least have the decency to let me know so I can send somebody else.  But why is that no matter where I tell you to go, your *home* city changes to the other side of Southern California?  That was it.  After this call, I'm changing your phone # to "Don't Answer" on my cell."

There's always losers, but it seems to have really ballooned this year.  The complete opposite of how I conducted myself on the way up.

Quote
taking temp jobs just above minimum wage for a couple weeks
What is *above* minimum wage?  $10, $13, $15, $18, $25 /hr?

Quote
or a couple months (with no healthcare, etc., especially if they're in a state where Republicans blocked Medicaid expansion).
If you are working temp jobs at minimum wage, then you would qualify for Medicaid.  No expansion necessary.  So that seems like an exaggeration to me.  And a partisan one.

Quote
There's just not a lot of jobs out there for blue collar workers, because of American business' constant search for cheaper and cheaper labor
Depends on the blue collar job.  They aren't going down in my field.  Perhaps for the *trained in 30 minute* jobs?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 10:19:40 PM by Calvin6s »
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2015, 10:59:51 PM »
Another guy begged me for a job.  Gave him the job, he showed up the first day, then he would literally show up 50% of the days before I had to tell him "you don't just get to pick and choose your days.  I'm gonna have to let you go."  Gave me the sob story about him living in San Diego and driving up to Orange County was hard and he's just transitioning to the circumstances until he gets back in the routine.  So I told him "Well, I have some work in <city that is 400% closer to him>.  See you there tomorrow."  I drive down there to check on the job, and he's nowhere to be found.  I call and call and call.  Then at quitting time, he finally picks up.  I ask him "why weren't you here today?"  He responded "because I live in Victorville and that drive is too far."  That was it.  "Look.  Even if that were the case, you should at least have the decency to let me know so I can send somebody else.  But why is that no matter where I tell you to go, your *home* city changes to the other side of Southern California?  That was it.  After this call, I'm changing your phone # to "Don't Answer" on my cell."

That sounds particularly awful.  I can't say I know anyone that would do that and think they could get away with it.  Well maybe one girl I met once when I lived in Florida.

Quote
If you are working temp jobs at minimum wage, then you would qualify for Medicaid.  No expansion necessary.  So that seems like an exaggeration to me.  And a partisan one.

This is not true in all states.  In a lot of states, people without kids don't qualify for Medicaid at any income (including mine).  You could make $5000 a year here and still not be Medicaid-eligible.

I'm not being partisan, here, I'm just being factual.  Obamacare was written to close these Medicaid gaps, but the Supreme Court changed the bill to make it so individual states could decide.  States run by Republicans mostly decided not to close the Medicaid gaps, so a lot of poor people still don't qualify for any healthcare at all.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2015, 12:49:58 AM »
I'm not being partisan, here, I'm just being factual.  Obamacare was written to close these Medicaid gaps, but the Supreme Court changed the bill to make it so individual states could decide.  States run by Republicans mostly decided not to close the Medicaid gaps, so a lot of poor people still don't qualify for any healthcare at all.
Supreme Court just made the law adhere to its own intent, which was to strong arm the states by shifting massive medicaid costs to them (a tactic to get the correct score with the CBO which viewed it from a Federal budget only viewpoint).  Everybody knew that it was a trap door.  During the creation of the bill, many Dems said exactly that.  Unfortunately, that isn't constitutional or we would have a Federal government that just ramrods the states at will on anything and everything.

The Medicaid expansion was simply using the Federal Poverty Level the way banks use "Prime Interest Rate".  It is the base number that then applies a percentage to it.  Previously, you had to be at the FPL to get Medicaid.  So, if you are in poverty, Medicaid is provided (pre-Obamacare).  I believe the number it was increased was from 100% to 150% of FPL.  So states are either at 150% FPL (using Obamacare) or 100% FPL (not using Obamacare).

Obamacare was threatening to take away all Medicaid funding if the 150% line wasn't met (which would have increased the # of people using it, which would have increased the states costs), so it was a "pay for our bills or we will pretend you don't exist."  So if you want to look at it as "evil", threatening to wipe out the 0% to 100% FPL Medicaid recipients pre-Obamacare is drastically more evil to *the poor helpless souls*.

See how different a story becomes depending on the way it is reported?

Edit: it is 150%, not 130% (fixed above)

Keep in mind, the 101% to 150% FPL recipients might have already received insurance from a spouse or parent.

And if Obamacare wanted to be truly honest (when it was getting scored by the CBO), it would have just offered Federal Subsidies of 100% for the 101% to 150% FPL expansion.  But it didn't, because it would have screwed up its CBO #'s by a wide variance, and people wouldn't have been walking around saying "that's a lie.  It pays for itself!!!"
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2015, 08:59:58 AM »
Seems to me the shit started hitting the fan in our economy in like September of 2008.  Pretty sure Obama was yet to be elected.  In fact, one of the reasons he won so handily was how bad his predecessor tanked the economy.

The economy was not great in '09-'10, but nobody expected it to be, after the biggest economic crash in nearly 80 years.

Okay, since it doesn't appear you're interested in going back...

One of the biggest areas of the initial collapse was in the real estate market.  The rules that allowed the mortgage bundling had been in place for years (in some cases, decades) but because entities were willing to invest regularly, the economy was able to make small corrections in the face of relatively small movements and no hard crash.   I was working in commercial real estate at the time (specifically the remediation and resale of contaminated, "brownfields" properties.   The market was robust, but the deals were complex and multi-variable, meaning there were a lot of moving parts;  you needed cooperation from local communities with respect to redevelopment and taxation, you needed cooperation from state agencies with respect to reasonable, cost effective remedial strategies and reasonable methods for assigning and transferring liability, you needed cooperation from national insurance underwriters (remember AIG?) to put a boundary around liability and make it so companies weren't betting their future on one transaction, and you needed people to have high consumer confidence, i.e. be willing to put their money in the marketplace, at risk, for a minimum of three years.  In February, 2007 (the 10th, if you must) Barack Obama announced his candidacy, and his pledge for "Change" across the board.  Financially, socially, environmentally, and procedurally.  As the message spread, I saw the money stop flowing.  UNCERTAINTY is DEATH in financial markets; not uncertainty of return, that is part of the game.  But uncertainty in terms of the playing field.  Uncertainty in terms of regulatory oversight.  Uncertainty in terms of environmental cooperation.  Uncertainty in terms of financial obligations of each company.  Most pundits put the earliest start to the collapse in August of 2007, about six months after Obama began his campaign of change, targeting those very institutions that were serving to keep their fingers in the dam.  They did what anyone would do, and that is revert to self-preservation mode in the face of wildly unpredictable, unreasonable, and unforeseeable change.

I firmly, and strongly believe that the combination of no possibility of Bush remaining in office, no viable candidate from the right, and Obama's naïve and populist idea of "change" - I often recount the happy young woman on election night that proclaimed, on live television, that she was "just happy we'll all get free gasoline now!" - conspired to send a precarious situation into panic, precipitating, if not the collapse itself, certainly the degree of the collapse. 

Quote

I'm not denying that your stories of people turning down work are real, but I haven't seen anything like that in my personal life, and I deal with a lot of unemployed people on a daily basis.  I get to track their work history, etc.  Most of them are applying over and over for jobs, taking temp jobs just above minimum wage for a couple weeks or a couple months (with no healthcare, etc., especially if they're in a state where Republicans blocked Medicaid expansion).  It's an incredibly depressing and draining state to live in, but they don't give up.

And yes, their downtime includes going to community college to learn a different field.

There's just not a lot of jobs out there for blue collar workers, because of American business' constant search for cheaper and cheaper labor, regardless of who it's going to hurt in this country.

Well, to be fair, both of our experiences are anecdotal and therefore useless as a predictor.   But your last sentence is the kicker; who says it's going to hurt anyone, except that blue collar worker that isn't doing something else?  Would you have these companies go out of business?   That's the part I don't get.   Where is the money going to come from to hire these people that don't have variable and translatable skillsets?   I sometimes feel that your argument - if extended out - would still have us using land line telephones with operators, because, well, to automate those jobs is to hurt our country!

NO, placating and falsely creating jobs for people that want to do the SAME job for the SAME company in the SAME town for ever-increasing wages is what is going to hurt this country.   And IS hurting this country.   Let the business allocate their money where they see fit.  If the cost of making a widget and importing it from China or Hungary or Mexico is less than the savings in labor (provided the labor is legal there, and it usually is, despite the stories that inevitably make it onto CNN) that is their prerogative.  The onus now falls on the worker to make him or herself marketable.   Why is that a bad thing?   Why is that treated as anathema?  Why shouldn't those people evolve like everything else in this country? 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2015, 09:18:24 AM »


I'm not being partisan, here, I'm just being factual.  Obamacare was written to close these Medicaid gaps, but the Supreme Court changed the bill to make it so individual states could decide.  States run by Republicans mostly decided not to close the Medicaid gaps, so a lot of poor people still don't qualify for any healthcare at all.

This is rich to the point of being comical.  John Roberts essentially handed Obamacare to the administration, and because it's not working the way Obama said it would, it's "Republicans fault"???   The people of those states can and should vote for whom they want to lead them.   The Supreme Court, in it's decision, was merely following the law of the land for over 225 years (those powers not explicitly enumerated to the Federal government reside in the states).   That the states don't "play ball" with Obamacare isn't their fault, it's the fault of the drafters of the Federal bill for over-reaching.  They should know better. 

If you're not being partisan in this, why don't we ever hear it's "states fault" that marijuana regulation is so screwed up?   

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2015, 01:26:13 PM »


I'm not being partisan, here, I'm just being factual.  Obamacare was written to close these Medicaid gaps, but the Supreme Court changed the bill to make it so individual states could decide.  States run by Republicans mostly decided not to close the Medicaid gaps, so a lot of poor people still don't qualify for any healthcare at all.

This is rich to the point of being comical.  John Roberts essentially handed Obamacare to the administration, and because it's not working the way Obama said it would, it's "Republicans fault"???   The people of those states can and should vote for whom they want to lead them.   The Supreme Court, in it's decision, was merely following the law of the land for over 225 years (those powers not explicitly enumerated to the Federal government reside in the states).   That the states don't "play ball" with Obamacare isn't their fault, it's the fault of the drafters of the Federal bill for over-reaching.  They should know better. 

If you're not being partisan in this, why don't we ever hear it's "states fault" that marijuana regulation is so screwed up?   

I'm not "blaming" anything on the Supreme Court.  I'm just explaining what happened.  Obamacare was supposed to close Medicaid gaps.  Supreme Court said it's up to the states to do that.  The states controlled by Republicans mostly decided they didn't want to play along, despite the Federal government picking up almost all of the tab.  John Kasich in Ohio was one notable exception, because he felt that denying Medicaid expansion was immoral.

However, in a lot of states, including mine, single men and women who make well below the poverty line are not eligible for ANY healthcare.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2015, 02:19:37 PM »


I'm not being partisan, here, I'm just being factual.  Obamacare was written to close these Medicaid gaps, but the Supreme Court changed the bill to make it so individual states could decide.  States run by Republicans mostly decided not to close the Medicaid gaps, so a lot of poor people still don't qualify for any healthcare at all.

This is rich to the point of being comical.  John Roberts essentially handed Obamacare to the administration, and because it's not working the way Obama said it would, it's "Republicans fault"???   The people of those states can and should vote for whom they want to lead them.   The Supreme Court, in it's decision, was merely following the law of the land for over 225 years (those powers not explicitly enumerated to the Federal government reside in the states).   That the states don't "play ball" with Obamacare isn't their fault, it's the fault of the drafters of the Federal bill for over-reaching.  They should know better. 

If you're not being partisan in this, why don't we ever hear it's "states fault" that marijuana regulation is so screwed up?   

I'm not "blaming" anything on the Supreme Court.  I'm just explaining what happened.  Obamacare was supposed to close Medicaid gaps.  Supreme Court said it's up to the states to do that.  The states controlled by Republicans mostly decided they didn't want to play along, despite the Federal government picking up almost all of the tab.  John Kasich in Ohio was one notable exception, because he felt that denying Medicaid expansion was immoral.

However, in a lot of states, including mine, single men and women who make well below the poverty line are not eligible for ANY healthcare.

Yeah, but your "facts" are blaming.  It's not the Republicans fault that the mechanism was screwy, and it was only set up that way to continue the façade that the act "pays for itself".   Your "factual" statement that "even though the Fed was paying for it" doesn't make it right.   Bad spending is bad spending, whether it's the Fed or the state, and in my eyes, if anything that torpedoes your argument.  My state, Connecticut, only switched because we already had a program, and so there was no substantive "closing of the gap", we just got all of America to fund it instread of the 5 million or however many residents of Connecticut there are (it's actually a little less).   That's in keeping with what the States are entitled to do, but it's not "fact" to say that is a desireable or admirable thing.   

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2756
  • Gender: Male
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2015, 06:52:09 PM »
In February, 2007 (the 10th, if you must) Barack Obama announced his candidacy, and his pledge for "Change" across the board.  Financially, socially, environmentally, and procedurally.  As the message spread, I saw the money stop flowing.  UNCERTAINTY is DEATH in financial markets; not uncertainty of return, that is part of the game.  But uncertainty in terms of the playing field.  Uncertainty in terms of regulatory oversight.  Uncertainty in terms of environmental cooperation.  Uncertainty in terms of financial obligations of each company.  Most pundits put the earliest start to the collapse in August of 2007, about six months after Obama began his campaign of change, targeting those very institutions that were serving to keep their fingers in the dam.  They did what anyone would do, and that is revert to self-preservation mode in the face of wildly unpredictable, unreasonable, and unforeseeable change.
Now, before I comment on this, I'll admit that the political and financial systems and institutions in Canada are different from those in the US, and with my familiarity being more with the former, this is just an outsider's opinion;
My two cents would be, if an economic crisis the likes of which we saw in 2008 can be triggered in any significant part by a person declaring their intention to seek a candidacy for an election 21 months down the line, it seems like that system probably had some drastic underlying problems and instabilities already.

As well, a lot of non-incumbent politicians campaign strongly on "change". Obama's campaign may have pushed the slogan a bit more than others, but it wasn't exactly a new notion. Barring something really drastic, transfer of power in democratic elections shouldn't have that sort of impact on financial institutions, or at least the act itself shouldn't.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: As if we need any more proof that the PC Police are running amok...
« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2015, 07:37:37 PM »
Seems to me the shit started hitting the fan in our economy in like September of 2008.  Pretty sure Obama was yet to be elected.  In fact, one of the reasons he won so handily was how bad his predecessor tanked the economy.

The economy was not great in '09-'10, but nobody expected it to be, after the biggest economic crash in nearly 80 years.

Okay, since it doesn't appear you're interested in going back...

One of the biggest areas of the initial collapse was in the real estate market.  The rules that allowed the mortgage bundling had been in place for years (in some cases, decades) but because entities were willing to invest regularly, the economy was able to make small corrections in the face of relatively small movements and no hard crash.   I was working in commercial real estate at the time (specifically the remediation and resale of contaminated, "brownfields" properties.   The market was robust, but the deals were complex and multi-variable, meaning there were a lot of moving parts;  you needed cooperation from local communities with respect to redevelopment and taxation, you needed cooperation from state agencies with respect to reasonable, cost effective remedial strategies and reasonable methods for assigning and transferring liability, you needed cooperation from national insurance underwriters (remember AIG?) to put a boundary around liability and make it so companies weren't betting their future on one transaction, and you needed people to have high consumer confidence, i.e. be willing to put their money in the marketplace, at risk, for a minimum of three years.  In February, 2007 (the 10th, if you must) Barack Obama announced his candidacy, and his pledge for "Change" across the board.  Financially, socially, environmentally, and procedurally.  As the message spread, I saw the money stop flowing.  UNCERTAINTY is DEATH in financial markets; not uncertainty of return, that is part of the game.  But uncertainty in terms of the playing field.  Uncertainty in terms of regulatory oversight.  Uncertainty in terms of environmental cooperation.  Uncertainty in terms of financial obligations of each company.  Most pundits put the earliest start to the collapse in August of 2007, about six months after Obama began his campaign of change, targeting those very institutions that were serving to keep their fingers in the dam.  They did what anyone would do, and that is revert to self-preservation mode in the face of wildly unpredictable, unreasonable, and unforeseeable change.

I firmly, and strongly believe that the combination of no possibility of Bush remaining in office, no viable candidate from the right, and Obama's naïve and populist idea of "change" - I often recount the happy young woman on election night that proclaimed, on live television, that she was "just happy we'll all get free gasoline now!" - conspired to send a precarious situation into panic, precipitating, if not the collapse itself, certainly the degree of the collapse. 

Quote

I'm not denying that your stories of people turning down work are real, but I haven't seen anything like that in my personal life, and I deal with a lot of unemployed people on a daily basis.  I get to track their work history, etc.  Most of them are applying over and over for jobs, taking temp jobs just above minimum wage for a couple weeks or a couple months (with no healthcare, etc., especially if they're in a state where Republicans blocked Medicaid expansion).  It's an incredibly depressing and draining state to live in, but they don't give up.

And yes, their downtime includes going to community college to learn a different field.

There's just not a lot of jobs out there for blue collar workers, because of American business' constant search for cheaper and cheaper labor, regardless of who it's going to hurt in this country.

Well, to be fair, both of our experiences are anecdotal and therefore useless as a predictor.   But your last sentence is the kicker; who says it's going to hurt anyone, except that blue collar worker that isn't doing something else?  Would you have these companies go out of business?   That's the part I don't get.   Where is the money going to come from to hire these people that don't have variable and translatable skillsets?   I sometimes feel that your argument - if extended out - would still have us using land line telephones with operators, because, well, to automate those jobs is to hurt our country!

NO, placating and falsely creating jobs for people that want to do the SAME job for the SAME company in the SAME town for ever-increasing wages is what is going to hurt this country.   And IS hurting this country.   Let the business allocate their money where they see fit.  If the cost of making a widget and importing it from China or Hungary or Mexico is less than the savings in labor (provided the labor is legal there, and it usually is, despite the stories that inevitably make it onto CNN) that is their prerogative.  The onus now falls on the worker to make him or herself marketable.   Why is that a bad thing?   Why is that treated as anathema?  Why shouldn't those people evolve like everything else in this country?

The real estate market bubble peaked and began its heavy decline in 04. Deregulation in the late 90s and early 2000s made it possible,  if not inevitable.

Further, in late 2007 Obama was still heavily trailing Clinton.http://www.gallup.com/poll/103351/clinton-maintains-large-lead-over-obama-nationally.aspx

Blaming the collapse in 07 on Obama is an incredible reach.