DiscussMormonism.com

Tucker Carlson says that Bernie Sanders is trying to get your money back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8gqHnCB3Qg

This is one of Sanders' most obnoxiously economically ignorant proposals I've seen. Possibly the worst. It'll incentive businesses against hiring workers who meet criteria for benefits, which involve things that have nothing to do with their productivity like how many children they have, stigmatize welfare benefits more and push businesses to lobby against them harder, possibly reduce employment, and do nothing address labor bargaining power that is at the heart of low wages in the first place. There are already existing, popular methods of redistribution that are far more efficient that this ignores. That includes min wage laws that I'm not even a fan of, but are so much better than this. And as a cherry on top, he's got Elizabeth Warren out there running against him from the same progressive wing actually offering far more sane, tested leftist regulatory tactics for improving working life at the bottom rung that are at least subject to nuanced debate.

This is demogogic asshattery at its finest, so of course you get Tucker Carlson out there endorsing it to own the libs. We live in a hell-world.

Everything about that video is bananas. I missed when this became bizarre world.

possibly reduce employment, and do nothing address labor bargaining power that is at the heart of low wages in the first place

What can you do about labor bargaining power?

If you can't get a job that pays enough to have lots of children, why are you choosing to have them? I do think Bernie has a point. Yet as Tucker predicted, don't ever expect the left to stand up against corporations in this way.

honorentheos wrote:Everything about that video is bananas. I missed when this became bizarre world.

Why did you make me watch that?

I do agree conceptually with what Bernie's bill wants to do, but I think we should just be more direct about it. I suspect the bill is structured the way it is more to bring attention to the issue than as a workable solution to the problem. If you work, you should be paid reasonably. The argument that big businesses can't afford it is or that it will cost jobs is idiotic. Businesses don't determine how many workers they need based on how much they can pay, but by how much work there is to be done. I have a hard time understanding why people think it's a bad thing to flood the economy with money rather than funneling it to rich people's offshore bank accounts.

Regardless, I, for one, am tired of my tax dollars going to snap programs for people working full time. It's part of the reason I never step inside a Walmart and don't use Amazon.

Regardless, I, for one, am tired of my tax dollars going to snap programs for people working full time. It's part of the reason I never step inside a Walmart and don't use Amazon.

'


It's as if we've circled the world and left met right. I agree with Schmo.

What's bananas to me is this would never have played on Fox News even 4 years ago. Saying the Walton's are largely Democrat supporters? Anyone heard of the Koch brothers? Sheldon Adelson? Everyone forgot the brouhaha over Warren Buffet commenting about the tax burden of his secretary compared to him? What happened to all of these people being the job creators who need never answer to anyone so long as they pay people a pittance to be gainfully employed? Bach's entire shtick is based on this idea.

That really was bananas to watch. Fox News showed it's shifted it's allegiance from what has been the neoconservative dominate view to the unbelievable irony of Donald Trump led populism. It's so bizarre it seems like none of it can be really happening outside of bad TV programming.

ajax18 wrote:What can you do about labor bargaining power?

That I favor or or policy ideas that exist? For one, I favor loosening legal restrictions on collective bargaining, which would significantly strengthen labor bargaining power. I come at that from a free market perspective where people should be allowed to set terms of employment that involve making work or walk demands as a union. People forget that 1) there's actually a ton of legal restrictions on collective bargaining and 2) the justifications for those regulatory restrictions are anti-trust in nature.

If you mean in general, read Elizabeth Warren's proposed reforms. There's a bunch, and they are aimed at strengthening labor bargaining power. The one that got the most press attention is co-determination on corporate boards as designed in Denmark. That certainly would have that effect.

If you can't get a job that pays enough to have lots of children, why are you choosing to have them? I do think Bernie has a point.

That wasn't Bernie's point at all. That's an unintended consequence of his point. This is the wrong way to look at it though. My point is that the government shouldn't be creating incentives for business not to hire people with children. Remember, unlike Bernie Sanders and apparently yourself, I believe in small government.

If you want to make it more expensive for businesses to hire workers, while not just hike the min wage a bunch instead of encouraging businesses to engage in illicit discrimination against anyone who might be more likely to qualify for higher welfare benefits? And remember, a person receiving food stamps having a harder time getting a job doesn't make them less likely to persist on food stamps. It makes them more likely to. It's kicking their ladder out of poverty out from under them. It's so stupid.

Yet as Tucker predicted, don't ever expect the left to stand up against corporations in this way.

It's perfect that you like this.

Republicans currently are aiming at reducing eligibility for SNAP benefits that would kick a few million people off the rolls. If Bernie's plan was in effect, this would be a massive win for companies like Amazon. Right now, it's neutral to them. How do you think those companies would lobby the government if Bernie's plan was in place with respect to benefits? Good, someone like Ajax might say. But it's insanely counterproductive to what Bernie Sanders supposedly wants. It's not thought out at all. He's going with it anyway because it plays well to economically ignorant rubes whose anti-corporate sophistication doesn't rise much above "Get the bastards!"

EAllusion wrote:Republicans currently are aiming at reducing eligibility for SNAP benefits that would kick a few million people off the rolls. If Bernie's plan was in effect, this would be a massive win for companies like Amazon. Right now, it's neutral to them. How do you think those companies would lobby the government if Bernie's plan was in place with respect to benefits? Good, someone like Ajax might say. But it's insanely counterproductive to what Bernie Sanders supposedly wants. It's not thought out at all. He's going with it anyway because it plays well to economically ignorant rubes whose anti-corporate sophistication doesn't rise much above "Get the bastards!"

To me the story here is Tucker Carlson's piece. Sanders is doing what he's always done and demonstrating the kind of extreme left naïve economic positions that put elements of his voting block on par with Trump voters in my opinion. But FOX NEWS shifting to such a populous statement? Wow. I'm honestly flabbergasted by that.