David:
Can Bernie Sanders get elected?
Doug:
Yes, if it he makes it out of the primaries and enough people vote for him.
David:
Iowa is done, and Sanders finished second in a surprisingly close race (because Hillary won 6 coin tosses in a row. Inconceivable!). He's been steadily gaining steam in the early voting states, but can that provide enough momentum to carry him further? If he wins the primaries, can he win in a general election?
Doug:
I think his messages are the right messages for today. They are not just progressive arguments, but are on point with what is wrong. For example, I would think it is hard for anyone to justify the following questions Sanders asks Walmart:
https://www.good.is/articles/bernie-v-walmart
.gif)
Sanders asks: "The Walton family is the wealthiest family in America, does anyone on the panel think that they need significant welfare help? Yet, it turns out that they are the largest recipient of welfare in America. Because when you pay workers starvation wages, which is what Walmart does, how do the workers at Walmart or McDonald's or Burger King survive? Well, they get Medicaid for their kids and for themselves, they get food stamps, and they live in government sponsored affordable housing."
David:
That's a pretty convoluted thought process going on. And it really isn't based in reality, but in class warfare. Maybe the solution is for the government to stop providing all of those things, so the people will rise up and demand more from their employers. If that is his message, I could jump on the Bernie train...
Doug:
It isn't "class warfare" because I don't blame the Waltons---I blame the government for letting them get away with this scam. I don't think that we need to blame the Waltons for not having basic morals. But there needs to be some principles in place that prevent any corporation from making us taxpayers pay for the things that their employees cannot afford.
David:
Whoa. Walmart has people lining up to work for them. Unions can't get a foothold in Walmart because the employees are happy with their jobs and wages. And yet, you and Bernie say that because some of their workers might get subsides (which have become much easier to get under the Obama administration, even for folks who are well above the poverty line), that somehow that equates to Walmart getting subsidized from the government? Employing people across the country, and providing inexpensive goods to purchase, and at the same time creating a workforce that loves their company is a feat that should be praised, not demonized. They've certainly created more jobs than President Obama, or Bernie Sanders. So who's morals should we besmirch? The ones who spend other people's money, and have put us all in incredible debt, or the one's who put their own money on the line and have helped thousands in the process?
Doug:
It is not that complicated: Walmart pays very low wages, and the US tax payers end up giving Walmart employees food stamps and other support just to survive. Pay the employees more, and we don't have to subsidize them. Can the Waltons afford to pay their employees more? Judging from their profits, yes.
David:
Walmart employs more folks than any other company in America. Walmart pays an average of $13 per hour. That's more than many other jobs. For an entry level, unskilled worker without an education, their $10 per hour minimum is better than just about anywhere else.
Doug:
That is patently not true because there are many places that have a higher minimum wage in the US. And there are many other corporations that pay all of their workers a living wage.
David:
You're dreaming. You need to remember that the cost of living is tremendously variable across the country. Walmart serves many small communities where their wages provide what people need in a job. It seems that you and Bernie, along with union bosses, are the only ones complaining about Walmart. Their employees certainly aren't.
Doug:
It isn't that hard to show that there are many minimum wages higher than $10 an hour:
http://time.com/3890984/cities-highest-minimum-wage-map/
And there are many companies that pay all of their employees a living wage, like Costco paying $21 an hour:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/02/3p-weekend-10-companies-pay-living-wage/
David:
It's true some cities and towns have been setting wages, and some states, too. This allows companies to decide where to open up their shops. If a town has too many regulations, a company may decide to locate elsewhere. Companies should be able to decide what they pay their workers. That's called competition. Good workers will then all work for companies that pay more. Bad companies that pay less go out of business, and cities that over-regulate will loose companies to other cities. So, if what you say is true, how is it that people are clamoring to work for such a terrible company? Because you and Bernie are wrong, about a lot of things.
Walmart is the place for many Americans to get real job experience. If they stay with the company, stats show they get promoted quickly, and if they leave the company, they have valuable experience that can provide for a better paying job.
Doug:
There are many people that work there as their career.
David:
Exactly. Because they are happy working there. And, as you just said so well, they are living their entire careers on the wages provided. This isn't a Communist country where they are forced to work where the government demands (for the greater good, of course).
Doug:
No, our government allows companies to pay too little for people that have few choices.
David:
The fed's intrusion into the business marketplace is what is dragging down the economy. If they made it easier for small businesses to get started and operate, workers would have a lot more choices. President Obama has made things worse with a continuous flurry of new regulations. Bernie is Obama on steroids. (Wait. Does that mean their presidencies would have to be marked with an asterix?)
The flip side of all of this is when Walmart increased (voluntarily) it's minimum wage, it had to close 269 stores, 154 in the US. So, if you pay some workers more, other workers are out of work completely. Old Bernie doesn't mention the much higher government cost of unemployed Americans. Once again, the Democratic Party believes it's better to have no job, than to have an entry-level job that doesn't provide as much as a high-skilled job.
Doug:
Walmart has been doing this scam for a long time. They will move into a community, provide lower costs on everything from haircuts to tires, suck all of the money out of the community, close their doors, and move on to the next community. We should not support this operation with tax dollars.
David:
That's complete fiction.
Doug:
"Wal-Mart isn’t just the world’s biggest company, it is probably the world’s most written-about." You'll find many entire books written about Walmart's methods, but they are not in the "fiction" section. There isn't a debate about how they operate, but whether they should be able to do it.
David:
They operate just like every other large, big-box store. You're right, there shouldn't be a debate about how they operate, which is why you have to make things up to have this debate.
The complaint I have with Walmart, and with other large retailers, is they put mom-and-pop stores out of business.
Doug:
But ask yourself: how do they do that? It is because they don't pay their employees as well as Mom and Pop do. And the US taxpayers have to step in.
David:
There is a word I'll introduce you to: economics. Large companies can offer goods at lower prices than smaller companies (mom-and-pops) because they can buy products at bulk prices. They pass those lower prices on to customers. People buy goods that cost less. Stores that cannot compete go out of business. Nothing sinister at work here. It's simple supply and demand. That was going on long before Walmart was ever even conceived. (And before most of the afore mentioned Waltons were conceived either...)
But they don't bleed a town dry and then "move on to the next community". No one would allow them into their town or city if that were true. Every jurisdiction has zoning laws and ordinances that require a new store to get approval before they move in. Instead, town leaders lobby Walmart to come to their communities.
Doug:
It happens. Probably the same way that cities get professional sports teams and stadiums: the allure of jobs and better economy. But often, it doesn't work. Mom and Pop are still there, but where did Walmart go?
David:
I also note that Bernie did not say that if we raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour nationally, that we can get rid of welfare. Using his argument, we should be able to do away with (or seriously cut ) Medicaid, government housing, and food stamps, if only big, evil companies are forced to pay a better wage.
Doug:
There is still a need for welfare, even if everyone makes enough to survive. For example, what happens if you get hurt, or need to take care of a loved one, or get fired. A living wage is just part of the solution.
David:
Ah. Now I see. Even if everyone has enough, Big Government must still be there, to provide even more. Insurance covers health and illness, and if you lose your job, you need to get another one. See, only limited government is needed in the real world, unless you eliminate insurance and jobs.
Now, if Hillary Clinton gets indicted, or if the FBI recommends indictment, will Joe Biden jump back in to "save the day"? Is he a better choice for the general election than a Socialist?
Doug:
Besides the fact that your premise is completely delusional, and that Joe was never "in", the fact is that the people get to pick our President. You say "Socialist" like that is a bad thing. Perhaps you don't understand the basic idea of what Socialism is in the United States?
David:
Delusional is exactly the word I would use to describe someone who won't admit the possibility there is enough evidence to indict her for the same crimes that got General Petraeus indicted and convicted. Do you not watch any news? I know the White House prefers to say there is no substance to the rumors, but they also said we'd all get to keep our doctors and health insurance after Obamacare was passed.
And your question about Socialism is just the question I'm asking: Do you think a majority of Americans would elect an admitted Socialist? I do think it is a very bad thing.
Doug:
A lot of people use those evil Socialist services: unemployment services, social security, healthcare when you are broke, services for the elderly, education, transit infrastructure, etc. Those are not bad, and could very well help win Sanders some votes. Could Sanders get elected? You betcha!
David:
Not this time around.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
This poll was from June, and more recent polling shows that Democrats are now more in favor of a Socialist than at that time. But, that may be because they don't like Hillary that much, are afraid she may become ineligible to run, and the Socialist, Bernie Sanders, may be their only hope this year. Or maybe, it's because they have no idea what they're talking about, as seen in this CNN clip:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-baldwin-asks-sanders-supporters-to-define-the-word-socialist/
Regardless, the Iowa caucuses did show us some things. The preliminary front-runners didn't fulfill expectations, a millionaire and billionaire can't buy the presidency, and the race for the presidency is likely to provide us with more blog material. A lot more.....
Doug:
We can certainly agree on that!
Can Bernie Sanders get elected?
Doug:
Yes, if it he makes it out of the primaries and enough people vote for him.
David:
Iowa is done, and Sanders finished second in a surprisingly close race (because Hillary won 6 coin tosses in a row. Inconceivable!). He's been steadily gaining steam in the early voting states, but can that provide enough momentum to carry him further? If he wins the primaries, can he win in a general election?
Doug:
I think his messages are the right messages for today. They are not just progressive arguments, but are on point with what is wrong. For example, I would think it is hard for anyone to justify the following questions Sanders asks Walmart:
https://www.good.is/articles/bernie-v-walmart
Sanders asks: "The Walton family is the wealthiest family in America, does anyone on the panel think that they need significant welfare help? Yet, it turns out that they are the largest recipient of welfare in America. Because when you pay workers starvation wages, which is what Walmart does, how do the workers at Walmart or McDonald's or Burger King survive? Well, they get Medicaid for their kids and for themselves, they get food stamps, and they live in government sponsored affordable housing."
David:
That's a pretty convoluted thought process going on. And it really isn't based in reality, but in class warfare. Maybe the solution is for the government to stop providing all of those things, so the people will rise up and demand more from their employers. If that is his message, I could jump on the Bernie train...
Doug:
It isn't "class warfare" because I don't blame the Waltons---I blame the government for letting them get away with this scam. I don't think that we need to blame the Waltons for not having basic morals. But there needs to be some principles in place that prevent any corporation from making us taxpayers pay for the things that their employees cannot afford.
David:
Whoa. Walmart has people lining up to work for them. Unions can't get a foothold in Walmart because the employees are happy with their jobs and wages. And yet, you and Bernie say that because some of their workers might get subsides (which have become much easier to get under the Obama administration, even for folks who are well above the poverty line), that somehow that equates to Walmart getting subsidized from the government? Employing people across the country, and providing inexpensive goods to purchase, and at the same time creating a workforce that loves their company is a feat that should be praised, not demonized. They've certainly created more jobs than President Obama, or Bernie Sanders. So who's morals should we besmirch? The ones who spend other people's money, and have put us all in incredible debt, or the one's who put their own money on the line and have helped thousands in the process?
Doug:
It is not that complicated: Walmart pays very low wages, and the US tax payers end up giving Walmart employees food stamps and other support just to survive. Pay the employees more, and we don't have to subsidize them. Can the Waltons afford to pay their employees more? Judging from their profits, yes.
David:
Walmart employs more folks than any other company in America. Walmart pays an average of $13 per hour. That's more than many other jobs. For an entry level, unskilled worker without an education, their $10 per hour minimum is better than just about anywhere else.
Doug:
That is patently not true because there are many places that have a higher minimum wage in the US. And there are many other corporations that pay all of their workers a living wage.
David:
You're dreaming. You need to remember that the cost of living is tremendously variable across the country. Walmart serves many small communities where their wages provide what people need in a job. It seems that you and Bernie, along with union bosses, are the only ones complaining about Walmart. Their employees certainly aren't.
Doug:
It isn't that hard to show that there are many minimum wages higher than $10 an hour:
http://time.com/3890984/cities-highest-minimum-wage-map/
And there are many companies that pay all of their employees a living wage, like Costco paying $21 an hour:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/02/3p-weekend-10-companies-pay-living-wage/
David:
It's true some cities and towns have been setting wages, and some states, too. This allows companies to decide where to open up their shops. If a town has too many regulations, a company may decide to locate elsewhere. Companies should be able to decide what they pay their workers. That's called competition. Good workers will then all work for companies that pay more. Bad companies that pay less go out of business, and cities that over-regulate will loose companies to other cities. So, if what you say is true, how is it that people are clamoring to work for such a terrible company? Because you and Bernie are wrong, about a lot of things.
Walmart is the place for many Americans to get real job experience. If they stay with the company, stats show they get promoted quickly, and if they leave the company, they have valuable experience that can provide for a better paying job.
Doug:
There are many people that work there as their career.
David:
Exactly. Because they are happy working there. And, as you just said so well, they are living their entire careers on the wages provided. This isn't a Communist country where they are forced to work where the government demands (for the greater good, of course).
Doug:
No, our government allows companies to pay too little for people that have few choices.
David:
The fed's intrusion into the business marketplace is what is dragging down the economy. If they made it easier for small businesses to get started and operate, workers would have a lot more choices. President Obama has made things worse with a continuous flurry of new regulations. Bernie is Obama on steroids. (Wait. Does that mean their presidencies would have to be marked with an asterix?)
The flip side of all of this is when Walmart increased (voluntarily) it's minimum wage, it had to close 269 stores, 154 in the US. So, if you pay some workers more, other workers are out of work completely. Old Bernie doesn't mention the much higher government cost of unemployed Americans. Once again, the Democratic Party believes it's better to have no job, than to have an entry-level job that doesn't provide as much as a high-skilled job.
Doug:
Walmart has been doing this scam for a long time. They will move into a community, provide lower costs on everything from haircuts to tires, suck all of the money out of the community, close their doors, and move on to the next community. We should not support this operation with tax dollars.
David:
That's complete fiction.
Doug:
"Wal-Mart isn’t just the world’s biggest company, it is probably the world’s most written-about." You'll find many entire books written about Walmart's methods, but they are not in the "fiction" section. There isn't a debate about how they operate, but whether they should be able to do it.
David:
They operate just like every other large, big-box store. You're right, there shouldn't be a debate about how they operate, which is why you have to make things up to have this debate.
The complaint I have with Walmart, and with other large retailers, is they put mom-and-pop stores out of business.
Doug:
But ask yourself: how do they do that? It is because they don't pay their employees as well as Mom and Pop do. And the US taxpayers have to step in.
David:
There is a word I'll introduce you to: economics. Large companies can offer goods at lower prices than smaller companies (mom-and-pops) because they can buy products at bulk prices. They pass those lower prices on to customers. People buy goods that cost less. Stores that cannot compete go out of business. Nothing sinister at work here. It's simple supply and demand. That was going on long before Walmart was ever even conceived. (And before most of the afore mentioned Waltons were conceived either...)
But they don't bleed a town dry and then "move on to the next community". No one would allow them into their town or city if that were true. Every jurisdiction has zoning laws and ordinances that require a new store to get approval before they move in. Instead, town leaders lobby Walmart to come to their communities.
Doug:
It happens. Probably the same way that cities get professional sports teams and stadiums: the allure of jobs and better economy. But often, it doesn't work. Mom and Pop are still there, but where did Walmart go?
David:
I also note that Bernie did not say that if we raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour nationally, that we can get rid of welfare. Using his argument, we should be able to do away with (or seriously cut ) Medicaid, government housing, and food stamps, if only big, evil companies are forced to pay a better wage.
Doug:
There is still a need for welfare, even if everyone makes enough to survive. For example, what happens if you get hurt, or need to take care of a loved one, or get fired. A living wage is just part of the solution.
David:
Ah. Now I see. Even if everyone has enough, Big Government must still be there, to provide even more. Insurance covers health and illness, and if you lose your job, you need to get another one. See, only limited government is needed in the real world, unless you eliminate insurance and jobs.
Now, if Hillary Clinton gets indicted, or if the FBI recommends indictment, will Joe Biden jump back in to "save the day"? Is he a better choice for the general election than a Socialist?
Doug:
Besides the fact that your premise is completely delusional, and that Joe was never "in", the fact is that the people get to pick our President. You say "Socialist" like that is a bad thing. Perhaps you don't understand the basic idea of what Socialism is in the United States?
David:
Delusional is exactly the word I would use to describe someone who won't admit the possibility there is enough evidence to indict her for the same crimes that got General Petraeus indicted and convicted. Do you not watch any news? I know the White House prefers to say there is no substance to the rumors, but they also said we'd all get to keep our doctors and health insurance after Obamacare was passed.
And your question about Socialism is just the question I'm asking: Do you think a majority of Americans would elect an admitted Socialist? I do think it is a very bad thing.
Doug:
A lot of people use those evil Socialist services: unemployment services, social security, healthcare when you are broke, services for the elderly, education, transit infrastructure, etc. Those are not bad, and could very well help win Sanders some votes. Could Sanders get elected? You betcha!
David:
Not this time around.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-baldwin-asks-sanders-supporters-to-define-the-word-socialist/
Regardless, the Iowa caucuses did show us some things. The preliminary front-runners didn't fulfill expectations, a millionaire and billionaire can't buy the presidency, and the race for the presidency is likely to provide us with more blog material. A lot more.....
Doug:
We can certainly agree on that!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!