Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duuvian]

However, the main thrust of the compromises is to limit the power of the slave states, not to increase it-

It's been too long since I've read about the 1808 compromise you've mentioned so I don't recall much about it, but IIRC the later compromises were seen as benefitting the slave states more than the Northern states because the South kept threatening to secede for quite a few decades before the civil war. Remember, this is a time where leadership in the Southern states were coming up with crazy ideas like invading Cuba (by a state government or militia IIRC without checking) and making it a state asap to add more slave state senators.

[Starver]

Also, this sounds terrible. Why and to what degree does it work like that?

Why is that terrible? It's expected that there has to be a line of succession, and Congress decided to place its own leaders next in line after the Constitutionally-designated VP. The Speaker of the House is 3rd and the President pro tempore of the Senate is 4th. If somehow, you managed to kill the VP and President at once, then the Speaker, if surviving (and existent), would act as (but not become) President.

Latest info on the subject...

[Maximum Spin]

However, the main thrust of the compromises is to limit the power of the slave states, not to increase it-

It's been too long since I've read about the 1808 compromise you've mentioned so I don't recall much about it, but IIRC the later compromises were seen as benefitting the slave states more than the Northern states because the South kept threatening to secede for quite a few decades before the civil war. Remember, this is a time where leadership in the Southern states were coming up with crazy ideas like invading Cuba (by a state government or militia IIRC without checking) and making it a state asap to add more slave state senators.

We're talking about the Constitution, so the political climate before 1789. Like I said, developments after that totally derailed the whole plan.

[Duuvian]

Perhaps that's why I quoted a specific part.

[Bumber]

He *did* stall, and yes the money is allocated by congress.

And then demolished the remaining roadblocks instead of sitting on the sidelines. I'm not quite sure how else to say it.

Maybe check Dostoevsky's much more nuanced and researched take?  There's criticism of Biden in it, so maybe you won't reject it out of hand and try to change the subject!

I did before I posted my previous reply. Biden could've been forced to spend the money eventually, but hadn't yet. He certainly fought harder on his previous attempt at student debt relief, didn't he?

Those farmers deserve rights.  Not their states.  The EC does literally nothing to protect them.

How does the EC give rights to the states, and how does an unthinking entity like a state exert its rights?

Republicans screw over their base even harder than the Democrats do, by opposing labor rights and sending jobs overseas.

opposing labor rights and sending jobs overseas.

Pick one. Increasing worker benefits makes outsourcing more attractive. The benefits are useless if you aren't employed.

And Uniparty has the broken immigration system to replace workers with cheap, non-befitted labor here.

[MorleyDev]

Pick one. Increasing worker benefits makes outsourcing more attractive. The benefits are useless if you aren't employed.

The general trend in the US seems to be states with the highest GPD are also the states with the strongest worker protection laws. They also tend to be in or close to the optimum unemployment rate, which 3-5%.

(also welfare and healthcare aren't useless if you're unemployed, quite the opposite in fact)

[Maximum Spin]

The general trend in the US seems to be states with the highest GPD are also the states with the strongest worker protection laws. They also tend to be in or close to the optimum unemployment rate, which 3-5%.

GDP is an elaborate fiction. There's no such thing as an "optimum unemployment rate". And try asking the median people in those states how happy they are with their dead-end jobs first.


Anyway, the Biden administration cannot actually be forced to spend money appropriated by Congress, because that would violate separation of powers. Appropriated funds can expire. This has happened before. You are being lied to.

[Duuvian]

Probably. I didn't even bother to verify because of the nature of the faction that controls that policy making it fruitless to do free work advising them. It's the security wing of the D party heading up that, so it's pretty much to be expected.

[McTraveller]

“With their record profits, they don’t have to lay off a single employee.”

What does profits have to do with laying people off? If you strike at a plant A that consumes parts made by another plant B, what are the workers at plant B supposed to do? Are they just supposed to sit and make their parts with nowhere for them to go?  You really just want to pay the workers to go there and do nothing? /rhetorical

And you do realize that if there are no cars to sell, those "record profits" are going to evaporate pretty quickly... it's an interesting game of chicken and political posturing, both on the OEM and UAW sides.

I'd like, out of morbid curiosity, to be a fly on the wall in these negotiations... why does the Union Leadership think that high profits today mean high profits tomorrow? Why do the OEMs not seem to be able to give any comfort to the workers?

These union strikes this year are interesting micro instances of the macro issues in US economic politics...

[Lord Shonus]

“With their record profits, they don’t have to lay off a single employee.”

What does profits have to do with laying people off? If you strike at a plant A that consumes parts made by another plant B, what are the workers at plant B supposed to do? Are they just supposed to sit and make their parts with nowhere for them to go?  You really just want to pay the workers to go there and do nothing? /rhetorical

Read the full context of this statement, and it becomes clear that he's saying "with the record profits, they can easily give us good terms and end the strike".

why does the Union Leadership think that high profits today mean high profits tomorrow?

They don't. Contracts are always negotiated on the conditions that exist, and everybody knows that a contract negotiated in bad times is going to hurt. And the UAW has repeatedly given consideration, unilaterally, at times when the automakers have been in trouble.

[McTraveller]

Looking only at the present situation seems really immature.

If contracts are always negotiated on current conditions... well then no wonder things are so terrible. Negotiators should be looking at current and likely future scenarios. Why would they give so many concessions in the past, knowing that things should improve? Why ask for the kingdom now, knowing things will likely degrade again in a highly cyclical industry?

Like when I get a windfall or a bonus I don't change my lifestyle assuming I'll continue to get such a bonus, that's just foolishness.

I feel like our governments have the same problem too - they never seem to be able to plan for where they want to be instead of reacting to current situations.

[Maximum Spin]

Looking only at the present situation seems really immature.

If contracts are always negotiated on current conditions... well then no wonder things are so terrible. Negotiators should be looking at current and likely future scenarios. Why would they give so many concessions in the past, knowing that things should improve? Why ask for the kingdom now, knowing things will likely degrade again in a highly cyclical industry?

Like when I get a windfall or a bonus I don't change my lifestyle assuming I'll continue to get such a bonus, that's just foolishness.

I feel like our governments have the same problem too - they never seem to be able to plan for where they want to be instead of reacting to current situations.

Alternative hypothesis: They are fully aware of what's coming, and want to loot what they can before it gets here.

[McTraveller]

Ah yeah I guess that's an option - "Hey, we want more of that income than we already get, give it to us!"

Makes "everyone" look like an evil capitalist at heart, eh?

[Maximum Spin]

Given that this is happening now, when the writing is on the wall already, auto company analysts are certainly aware of it, and if the unions aren't aware of it they must be stupid — I strongly suspect the real reason is "get a bigger slice of the pie while the pie still exists".

Makes "everyone" look like an evil capitalist at heart, eh?

Well, an evil capitalist would have reinvested the money into building more things. This is worse than that.

[Frumple]

Ah yeah I guess that's an option - "Hey, we want more of that income than we already get, give it to us!"

Makes "everyone" look like an evil capitalist at heart, eh?

I... no? It looks like folks that are netting someone even more profits than they used to wanting commensurate remuneration, especially if it's during a peak period and there's likely to be a down turn in the future.

Workers on the ground are benefited a lot more by even meager savings than the CEOs are by even larger bank accounts if they're expecting things to slow down. That's not evil capitalist shit, it's "I don't want to lose my home when hours get cut" shit or "Hey, we're making you a lot more money than we were when the last contract was made, let's balance this out" shit.