Official 2012 Democrat Gloating/Republican Tears Thread

I swear that is not the bottom line. Would it help if I told you that the people that work at your local Papa Johns store do not work for a multibillion dollar company?

It's the entire point, actually. The question is simply how far should it extend. All laws, military, and police are a form of social safety net that prevent things from getting to a certain point (contracts not being honored, hostile forces claiming land, theft, etc)

We simply assume most of that because we've always had it. And our children's children will assume healthcare is part of that because they'll always have had it. And that's how "normal and expected" evolves. I've never had to assume drinkable water was a social safety net thing, but it IS. It's just absurd to think of life without it, or what crazy person would argue that we shouldn't have it because Big Government.

Seriously: the social safety net argument is not actually "is this a function of government", but rather an argument of to what extent should it extend.

Speaking as someone who is very reflexively opposed to for-profit entities being involved in any aspect of health care, it is fair to note that a number of good international models manage to integrate them while still having cost/outcome competitive with the more public systems.

Dear Red States:

We're ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we've decided we're leaving.

We intend to form our own country and we're taking all of the Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware that includes California, Hawaii , Oregon, Washington , Minnesota , Wisconsin , Michigan , Illinois and the rest of the Northeast.

We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A).

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs.

You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that the E.S.A. will anti-war and we're going to want all our citizens back from Afghanistan at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home.

We wish you success in Afghanistan, and possibly Iran as well, but we're not willing to spend our resources in these sorts of pursuits.

Since we're predominantly pro-choice, you can finally undo Roe V Wade and make your women folk happy they can have their rapists's babies without having to consider aborting the fetus.

With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford , Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University , Clemson and the University of Georgia .

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred but only before birth, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy .......s believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

We're taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,

Citizen of the Enlightened States of America

I couldn't agree more with all that, but the more I think about it the more I think I actually prefer keeping them in the union. That way they can suffer over how everyone else is not as godly as they are as they lose election after election after election, and their kids will have a much easier time moving to saner states. If they really did secede, their kids would routinely die trying to get over the electric fences around the New Confederacy.

Because of the competition. I am fully aware that for every regulation put on any industry there are dozens of cost/benefit analysis studies made up of "cost of dead users vs cost of implementation".

Look I don't want to argue with you, I like you. I'm just saying that a greedy asshole is a greedy asshole, and someone telling his employees who to vote for in a free election is wrong.
I, personally, don't see how he can say that pizza prices will raise and employees will be cut back AND have no actual say over any part of any of that within his own company and not be some psychic of levels heretofore unheard of on this astral plain but apparently you can, c'est la vie.

The nation is neither as starkly divided nor as polarized as the popular narrative would have it:


From here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

Since this is really just awful gloating:

Pah, don't get your facts all up in my gloating!

You've been mentioning this to show how Schnatter hasn't said much that was all that controversial. I say that yeah, the "Cost of pizzas will go up 10 cents" was just election-friendly BS -- Fox and fans could use it as anti-Obamacare scare tactics; progressives could use it as "here's another clueless multimillionaire to dogpile on." But I'm still keeping the pitchfork handy, though.


He's described himself a couple times as being neither for or against the AHA, but then goes on:

Which makes me wonder what he'd say if he were actually against it. It's all covering his own ass, to say "hey, don't look at me, I'm not the bad guy. Blame Obama and big government!" Earlier, the article says that a third of Papa Johns's employees are covered by the company's health plan, and of course he'd like to be able to cover all of them, but it's just too expensive. So of course you can see why he's in favor of keeping health care privatized, because it's worked out so well so far.

So I think it's pretty disingenuous to say that Schnatter has "no control" over what the franchises are doing. It's not like he's talking about McDonald's (at least directly). You already cited something I didn't know and never would've expected -- the amount of influence a parent company has over whether a franchise closes. If they can get that involved with an independent business, how come they're suddenly helpless in the face of setting franchise best practices? If the Cathy family can exert enough power over Chick-fil-a franchises to insist that they be closed on Sundays, how come Schnatter can't tell franchise owners not to cut hours for their employees to keep existing profit margins?

I could see how they can't enforce it, since presumably the licensing agreement has already been signed long ago, but they can definitely make recommendations. Better recommendations than "Welp, guess you're going to have to cut the hours of some employees. Can't be helped." Raise the price (or suggested price) per unit even more to offset the cost, and don't dial the Fox News hotline and make a press announcement when you do it. Add it to the franchisee guidelines. Let the parent company take the hit in either royalty/licensing fees or the cost of supplies (I don't know how Papa Johns is structured, apart from the fact that they get some ongoing revenue from each individual franchise), so that the franchises can afford to pay.

The article quotes him as saying:

Yes, Mr. Schnatter. That's pretty much exactly the idea behind Obamacare. And for those of us who don't think "charity" is synonymous with "tax deduction," it's not a good news/bad news situation. 100 percent of the population having health insurance is really, really good news.

It seems that best case, Schnatter and Papa Johns are just proving that "trickle-down economics" are bullshit. All the wealth from the franchises is going up to the parent company, but they're "unable" to send that back down towards the people who are generating all that wealth. It puts that quote from Romney in perspective, as he was walking around the mansion and marveling that "pizza built this" and talking about entrepreneurship. Apparently, the real money isn't in selling pizzas but in selling franchises, since they sound like the perfect pyramid scheme. The American dream!

I can't be the only one waiting for Brett's announcement that he's put Lum on ignore.

Sadpeopleeatingcake.tmblr

I like you too. <3

Agreed. Did John Schnatter do that?

Dude, it's really simple. John Schnatter has no control over the hiring or firing or scheduling of the employees of Papa Johns Fine Pizza Establishments, because they are owned by other people and in fact other companies. The reason he and I both know that some of his franchisees are a-holes who will make a point of punishing their employees for Obamacare is that we have met and interacted with a lot of them. I'd put the number of franchisees and other small business owners that I've met personally who would do that at about ten to fifteen percent, because running a small business attracts the kind of malcontent that has a libertarian streak in them and because running a franchise in particular has a way of making that kind of person feel like they don't have as much control over their affairs as they might like which causes them to act out in such ways. I don't mean to disparage all small business owners or all franchise owners by a long shot; a large majority of both are fine and reasonable people. But like I said, about ten or fifteen percent in my experience are the type of people who would rather harm their employees to make a point about how awful Obamacare is than deal with the cost increase like a grown-up.

The way I know that there will be Papa Johns franchisees to take it out on their employees is that I don't believe I've oversampled that type of person by so much that they don't even exist in the Papa Johns system. The way Schnatter knows is that he knows them personally. Either way it's not hard to suss out, psychic powers or no.

Just because I'm a pedant (and because I've seen it like a dozen times now): the "Rape guy, which one?" line isn't from Alec Baldwin. It was from somebody on Twitter named Alex Carpenter.

First off I'd say - I'm too much of a political goodie two-shoes and fact-stickler to get behind Wisbechlad's rant anyway, in general.

But a map like that as a retort to the "there are red and blue states and a sectional divide" is problematic. Right off the top you really need A: population proportionality and B: informational clarity, which unfortunately both county maps and even the proportional-but-purplish-and-messy election results maps tend to fail on.

The key point here - that there are urban-rural divides and huge ideological enclave/exclaves contrary to the red/blue state divide - is well enough taken, but so are things like the vastly disproportionate partisan identification of whites (especially white males) with the conservative party in one more or less contiguous section of the country. In key respects the US is as sectionally divided as it's ever been. I don't even know if the usual "except for the runup to the US civil war" caveat even applies.

The least-worst ones that fellow ran up would be, for clarity and precision compromises respectively, these two, imo:




However, because I don't think the brain can really grok the quantity of data thrust at one by a "purply map" (and struggles even with a wooshy, blobby map) I actually think a polygonal, box-based cartogram version of the first of those two images would perhaps be my most helpful version. And it does kind of contain a "Jesusland," just one that would be a Balkan nightmare to untangle from the rest of the United States.

The first thing that came to mind from wisbechlad's letter is that just such a proposed split seems to be the first of many in the long road to Snow Crash. I'm fine with this.

Uh, do we really need to clarify that we don't literally want to split the USA in two? I just thought it was funny.

Wu Tang!

By saying "If this guy gets re-elected pizza prices will go up and employees will lose" I believe he was making a threat. We'll have to agree to disagree.

But does he control the price of pizzas? And have you looked at the numbers? Obamacare is either not going to effect the average franchisee, or they'll own two or three and, honestly, does such a negligible tax increase really require a 10-15 cent increase in that case?
And yeah, as company owner he can require that franchisees give all workers 30+ hours a week instead of watching them cut employees, employee hours, increase pizza prices, and go "What can I, one man, do???" As a single tear tracks down his cheek.
I'm willing to concede that "franchisees are assholes", you seem adamant :) (and angry, holy shit if you have stories please share)

Yes, while I would prefer a geometrical cartogram made out of little squares, it'd be best if it still looked like the Wu-Tang symbol.

Just telling you how it is in my experience. The answer to that question is that the franchisor has a profound interest in whether or not stores close and almost no interest in how each individual store is staffed, let alone the resources to micromanage that.

Because they put that in their franchise agreement, which is there prerogative. If they wanted to set employee schedules for every store in the chain they could put that in too. Only they wouldn't, because that would be an unbelievably stupid waste of money and manpower. But if you or Otterloop wants to get ahold of the Papa Johns franchise agreement and let me know if it has such a dumb provision in there, by all means be my guest; as I've said, I'm only going from what I know from experience about how franchises ordinarily do business.

You think the idiots champing at the bit to screw over their employees in the name of libertarianism are waiting for recommendations from corporate? El oh el. Those guys hate being told what to do, no matter who's telling them. That's the whole reason they hate Obamacare in the first place, and it's not made better by a friendly suggestion from the home office about how they should and should not conduct themselves.

I'm sorry to keep saying it, but no, that is not how it works. Permanently rebate one percent of every store's operating expenses? No franchise company on Earth would do this. They'd be taking on an enormous combined expense that each store could certainly afford to pay their own share of, and the few assholes who were inclined to screw over their employees would probably still do so.

Honestly, I'm not trying to snow you guys here. This is a simple instance of the HuffPo or whoever else started circulating this story not understanding franchising and also not bothering to quote him correctly, that's all. The outrage is nonsensical.

You're right, of course. I apologize. Now, the wikipedia page talks more about John's Camaro than any political opinions he holds.

I think my added point about the fact he's even announcing this stands. He wouldn't call a press conference together and say "we have to raise prices 1%, no big whoop." He's doing it in hopes that people get outraged that this law is making their pizza cost more. He's hoping to stir up outrage against the bill, by saying "we're all in this together, because I will make you suffer."

Thing is, it's not easy or fast to change the franchise agreement, and I don't think it would be a good fix for this problem anyway; as I said above, micromanaging employee schedules is not a good idea.

Ha! There are some good ones. I'll tell you sometime when I'm a little more sober and a little less sleepy and can properly vet them for identifying information. ;)

Well to be fair that camaro is pretty bitchin'.

Man, Disney should cast Nathan Fillion as Han Solo in the new Star Wars movie and have him say that line to make that image true.

I don't believe you're trying to snow anybody; I was genuinely asking how franchises work since I've never worked for one. I'm not sure who's not bothering to quote him correctly, though, since I've seen the same quotes from multiple sources and they all make him sound pretty douchey.

If you're saying that it's just a guy complaining about how expensive health care is and how much franchises are slaves to the bottom line, then fair enough, I guess. I still don't think it's a discussion about how franchises work as much as a (likely pointless) philosophical discussion.

So, how'd this happen....and can we fix it?

Shortest possible capsule is deunionization (partly as jobs and people moved SE and into new industries while unions did not), and dramatic reductions to the top end of the progressive income tax starting under Kennedy. The former vitiated the old New Deal-y left politically, the latter allowed the rebirth of the plutocratic class FDR more or less put paid to.

That political-economic opportunity fed into political developments; a lot of conservative parties worldwide, but especially the increasingly coherent-right GOP, started reconsidering their commitment to "postwar consensus politics" as Keynesianism seemed inadequate in dealing with the oil shock and economic times afterwards. Both right and increasingly centre-left embraced neoliberalism through the 1980s and 1990s, which meant taxes and government's role in the economy kept being ratched down rather than returning to the mid-century position that had (in retrospect) succeeded so well at producing political-economic equity.

Post 2008 - our millionaire overlords having blown up the global economy - it looked like there might be an opportunity to reassess things, but I frankly have my doubts now. Reunionization's been a flop, as has been any sort of plutocrat-humbling ala the post-depression and WWII adjustments that buried the original gilded age. At this point it's uncomfortably like we're hoping for watered-down, noblesse oblige-style progressivism from "our" set of millionaires.

Well fair enough. And to be clear, I'm not saying that Schnatter isn't douchey (and he certainly does come off that way sometimes), just that his statements aren't worth the Dan Cathy-level outrage that some people in the world (not you) are directing at him.

Anyone that has eaten there knows exactly how they keep the pizza costs so low.

The more you recycle cardboard the cheaper lil cesars is. COINCIDENCE?

*snerk*

http://disappearingromney.com/

Holy shit:

Holly Solomon Blames Husband for Obama's Re-Election, Allegedly Rams Him With Her Car

I'm also a fan of "massive increase in pool of labour available for capitalism" as an explanation, rather than pure domestic factors. Between 1945-1980 or so, only NATO & some other Asian & Latin America countries were open for business. Cue 1978, and China starts to open up, cue 1989 and E Europe does, cue 1991/2 and India does. That's a massive supply side shock in a generation

On the micro side, there is also the argument that technology allows much more leverage for those at the top of their skill set. E.g. cable TV means that you are able to pay to see the best sports team, rather than a local farm team. Firms have been able to delayer middle management