dmillsphoto

GO VOTE FOR YOUR CANDIDATES TODAY!

46 posts in this topic

Seriously. Go do it if you haven't already.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If you're clueless about what each candidate stands for (and many are, due to the way this train-wreck election has played out), Nashville Public Radio has done a great job profiling each candidate, as well as aggregating all of their election-related coverage into one location.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Thank you!!! I was telling my dad a few days ago how I wish I knew more about each candidate outside of the awful commercials. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted earlier this morning.  It is my duty…and I always consider it a privilege.   : )

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early voted. This election very important for the next era for Nashville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the reason that I dredged up the related thread on this topic a few weeks ago, just before the "forwst" day of early voting, July 17.  Unfortunately, even in the Coffee House, it got out of hand, and virtually useless, due to over-passionate expressions.  But I did vote early, the first of last week.
-==-

Edited by rookzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

barry is our new mayor, fox dull get beaten like a drum in the run off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Fox won because of him pushing to the Right. The PAC fliers that went out mentioning Fox News assured him almost 100% of the conservative vote.  In a field with no other definite fiscal conservative then it was easy for him to get the needed votes to make it in a runoff. He will have to address the transit issue, however.  The winner will present a bold plan for transit.  For the average voter it is my belief that traffic woes is the single most important specific issue (excluding things like like-ability, honesty, integrity, etc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I agree. Fox won because of him pushing to the Right. The PAC fliers that went out mentioning Fox News assured him almost 100% of the conservative vote.  In a field with no other definite fiscal conservative then it was easy for him to get the needed votes to make it in a runoff. He will have to address the transit issue, however.  The winner will present a bold plan for transit.  For the average voter it is my belief that traffic woes is the single most important specific issue (excluding things like like-ability, honesty, integrity, etc). 

I do think Barry has a big edge initially because most Davidson County voters lean left (at least somewhat), but I wouldn't be so quick to assume it will be an easy victory. 

What benefits Fox the most is that a lot of voters, whether right or left, are concerned (whether justly or not) by how much money has been spent by Dean in his 8 years. Whether or not you think that is legitimate, there are plenty of people that think that is unsustainable. Fox strikes a chord with them. I also think that Fox will grab votes from the crowd worried about breakneck growth (again, I'm not arguing a position here -- but merely the fact that a lot of people out there think like this). He ran ads about 'not becoming like Atlanta', which is a concern of those that are worried about traffic. You can think of that as pandering if you like, but it was a smart play on his part. Fox describes himself as fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Barry is definitely fiscally and socially liberal. Traditionally, I would say that most Nashville mayoral candidates are fairly moderate big business democrats (which is why it is a little surprising that Freeman did not make the runoff).

I think ultimately Barry will win, because she will be able to frame this as a Democrat vs. Republican bout, and frankly Nashville is not used to voting for a Republican (it has happened a few times -- in statewide elections). Fox, though, could very well have a fundraising edge (unless the defeated candidates rally money behind Barry). I wouldn't be surprised if the margin is less than 10%. The conservative vote is probably worth 35-40% of the total, but I think he'll grab some fiscally conscious Democrats/Moderates as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully some sanity will prevail in the Mayoral runoff. One candidate will bankrupt us, the other won't. Question is whether there are enough intelligent voters that haven't left Davidson County for the suburbs who can figure that out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry definitely has the edge in the run-off. Fox is very close to Bredesen philosophically so it will be interesting to see if that message is communicated clearly to the electorate and how much love Nashville has for that legacy. Barry will need to pivot for the social agenda and focus on how she will keep Nashville's economy and the 'Brand' growing. 

Fox has the money (he will needs lots more), but Berry has (and has had) all the free exposure necessary from the fish wrap Tennesseean. 

I believe that if Berry had been mayor the last 2 terms we would have no MCC nor Bridgestone  Corp relocation... but fast food workers would probably be on their way to making $15 /hour and the tax payers would be coughing up big for (yet more) money for a failed school system and to house more people downtown via subsidies...

Sorry (cross-posted) I just saw the coffee house thread...

Edited by nashville_bound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry definitely has the edge in the run-off. Fox is very close to Bredesen philosophically so it will be interesting to see if that message is communicated clearly to the electorate and how much love Nashville has for that legacy. Barry will need to pivot for the social agenda and focus on how she will keep Nashville's economy and the 'Brand' growing. 

Fox has the money (he will needs lots more), but Berry has (and has had) all the free exposure necessary from the fish wrap Tennesseean. 

I believe that if Berry had been mayor the last 2 terms we would have no MCC nor Bridgestone  Corp relocation... but fast food workers would probably be on their way to making $15 /hour and the tax payers would be coughing up big for (yet more) money for a failed school system and to house more people downtown via subsidies...

Sorry (cross-posted) I just saw the coffee house thread...

Fast food workers may get $15 and deservedly so for what they have to put up with each shift; heat, grease, rude customers, and all the other filth from fast food service, but tax payers also gave Bridgestone 100 million in incentives...so don't get my Socialist rants going....If you can give Bridgestone $100,000,000.00 (Very Socialist of the local government), then give fast food workers, and every worker at least $15 an hour...it's a living wage. Try looking at the job boards once in while at the amount of jobs available for $30,000+ Not many.

Bridgestone is a multi-billion dollar company. Let them finance their own building and not use taxpayer money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha, John....I cross-posted in the coffee house. You should move your post there as well and I will respond to your points later today. 

 

I hope all is well.

 

- Todd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Fox wins. But if he doesn't I hope this Barry person doesn't DiBlasio this city by way of being anti-Police/pro criminal, or turning it into a sanctuary city and bringing in even more illegals, or becoming a place that terrorists feel safe to operate in, or expanding section 8 housing and making neighborhoods even more h--lish.

Edited by Ingram
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry definitely has the edge in the run-off. Fox is very close to Bredesen philosophically so it will be interesting to see if that message is communicated clearly to the electorate and how much love Nashville has for that legacy. Barry will need to pivot for the social agenda and focus on how she will keep Nashville's economy and the 'Brand' growing. 

Fox has the money (he will needs lots more), but Berry has (and has had) all the free exposure necessary from the fish wrap Tennesseean. 

I believe that if Berry had been mayor the last 2 terms we would have no MCC nor Bridgestone  Corp relocation... but fast food workers would probably be on their way to making $15 /hour and the tax payers would be coughing up big for (yet more) money for a failed school system and to house more people downtown via subsidies...

Sorry (cross-posted) I just saw the coffee house thread...

Why is your focus on fast food workers? There are hundreds of thousands of blue collar jobs that Americans work and yet for some reason people feel the need to deride people who work at fast food restaurants in order to feel good about themselves. But why not the roofer, or the construction worker, or taxi driver, the landscaper, the delivery driver, or grocery worker, etc?

 

My guess as to why some people do this is because of the "tee vee" aka "idiot box". The goal of the "tee vee" is to make people feel good about themselves. And the "tee vee" industry has chosen the fast food worker as a means to do this. I guess because people get irate when they don't get ketchup in the bag when they are about to consume their greasy viddles.

Edited by Ingram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Fast food workers may get $15 and deservedly so for what they have to put up with each shift; heat, grease, rude customers, and all the other filth from fast food service, but tax payers also gave Bridgestone 100 million in incentives...so don't get my Socialist rants going....If you can give Bridgestone $100,000,000.00 (Very Socialist of the local government), then give fast food workers, and every worker at least $15 an hour...it's a living wage. Try looking at the job boards once in while at the amount of jobs available for $30,000+ Not many.

Bridgestone is a multi-billion dollar company. Let them finance their own building and not use taxpayer money.

I agree with you on corporate welfare, John. As for the minimum wage, that's up to the free market and individual businesses to determine, not the government. Minimum wage is just that, a starting point, not a place where people are meant to remain at for perpetuity. Too many anti-business politicians don't grasp that, since many have never operated a business with onerous demands and regulations they themselves have championed (the same ones obsessed with a "living wage", which is also a notion that the government has no business attempting to establish).

You have to remember whom is doing the giving. A tax subsidy is the purview of elected officials, but "giving" folks at McDonalds a $15 per hour wage is not. They don't own McDonalds. If you want to pay employees that, buy a McDonald's franchise and do just that. But don't forget that you'll have to jack up costs to make up the difference. $25 Big Macs, $20 Filet-O-Fish and $15 small fries. When patrons see said prices, they'll go on over to Burger King. A premier example of late is the guy that decided to pay his employees an exorbitant amount ($75,000) regardless of their station and seniority. It was a predictable fiasco. Free market always works, Socialism never does. That $19 trillion debt in DC is a clue about that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Fox wins. But if he doesn't I hope this Barry person doesn't DiBlasio this city by way of being anti-Police/pro criminal, or turning it into a sanctuary city and bringing in even more illegals, or becoming a place that terrorists feel safe to operate in, or expanding section 8 housing and making neighborhoods even more h--lish.

You're doing an excellent job being afraid of all the things Sean Hannity is instructing you to be afraid of!  I'll sum up your post for you.  "EEEK, non white non middle class non christians!  Oh, the horror!"

In any case, tongue-in-cheek hyperbole aside, I haven't been following this election too closely since I'm obviously not a Nashvillian any longer and won't be voting in it, but as far as I can tell, it sounds like both Berry and Fox have what it takes to do good by the people of Nashville.  I like much of what I've heard from both candidates. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, some of us actually live in those mahvelous neighborhoods that the enlightened left has helped create, while same said elitists wouldn't be caught dead visiting them (except perhaps to pick up some nose candy), let alone residing there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is utterly ridiculous to label people xenophobic because they believe in law-and-order, and oppose sanctuary cities....ridiculous. I stand firmly behind our cops and not thugs, I stand firmly behind our immigrations laws...to the extend that I actually want such laws enforced. ha

That is in not way radical... but I can see how many, that follow Dear Leader, would be troubled.

 

As for the new board member, Ingram... his first 2 posts are so utterly diametrically opposite to each other that i actually guffawed ...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^You don't think it's John trolling us, do you ? :blink:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite hilarious how polically polarized many people have become, as if this prevailing all-or-nothing attitude towards "the other guys" is in any way productive beyond media viewership and consumption metrics.

I will throw my hat in the ring on the minimum wage debate, however. While I think an arbitrary $15/hr is excessive, I do think the minimum wage should be tied to a reworked CLI (cost of living index). Full-time workers should make enough at minimum (through direct pay or employer-provided benefits) that they can survive without government assistance. Will this increase the cost of goods for some products and services? Absolutely. But at least I can choose to forgo the purchase of said items. Currently our government is de facto subsidizing for-profit corporations via benefits programs in which I have no choice but to participate. Death and taxes, as they say.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SoundScan -

It is my view, and that of the Chicago School of Economics, that your solution will result in less employment and higher cost to the government. A minimum wage is a 'tax' on employing the low-skilled worker. In the macro, governments that attempted to manipulate the market (through laws or subsidies) to behave in such a way as to accomplish a social engineering goal fail or increase inefficiency and restrict liberty while not accomplishing stated goals. Examples include public education and Great Society programs.

Minimum wage as a policy failes on two fronts -

(1) You claim that the US taxpayer is subsidizing corporations when the opposite is true. The role of a corporation is not to provide any wage or benefits beyond what the market demands. To state the obvious, the corporation's responsibility is to the shareholder not the worker and not society. Now, there are arguments to be made that keeping high-demand, high-skilled workers happy and being a good corporate citizen increases productivity and engenders goodwill and thus increases shareholder value, but this is neither universally applicable nor is the cost irrelevant. The result of the government codifying a wage that prices the cost of a worker higher than the workers profitability to the corporation is increases unemployment. What segment of the labor force do you believe this impacts? What do you think happens in these situations? 

(2) I am sure you will agree that the result of increasing the the minimum wage is upward pressure on all wages. As the wage increases ripple throughout the labor force inflation is triggered on 2 fronts... increasing disposable income will force up prices and the cost of the wage increases will be passed on to the consumer. You have accomplished nothing but help the low-skilled or youth worker ... in fact you have decreased the opportunities for tis labor segment to become employed... this is worse that just chasing your tail.

 

Now if you want to talk about solutions we can take that in another post as I have to run.

Edited by nashville_bound
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SoundScan -

It is my view, and that of the Chicago School of Economics [Citation Needed], that your solution will result in less employment and higher cost to the government. A minimum wage is a 'tax' on employing the low-skilled workers. In the macro, governments that attempted to manipulate the market (through laws or subsidies) to behave in such a way as to accomplish a social engineering goal fail or increase inefficiency and restrict liberty while not accomplishing stated goals. Examples include public education and Great Society programs.

Minimum wage as a policy failed on two fronts -

(1) You claim that the US taxpayer is subsidizing corporations when the opposite is true. The role of a corporation is not to provide any wage or benefits beyond what the market demands. To state the obvious, the corporation's responsibility is to the shareholder not the worker and not society. Now, there are arguments to be made that keeping high-demand, high-skilled workers happy and being a good corporate citizen increases productivity and engenders goodwill and thus increases shareholder but this is neither universally applicable nor is the cost irrelevant. The results of the government codifying a wage that prices the cost of a worker higher than the workers profitability to the corporation. What segment of the labor force do you believe this impacts? What do you think happens in these situations? 

(2) I am sure you will agree that the result of increasing the the minimum wage is upward pressure on all wages. As the wage increases ripple throughout the labor force inflation is triggered on 2 fronts... increasing in disposable income will force up prices and the cost of the wage increases will be passed on to the consumer. You have accomplished nothing but help the low-skilled or youth worker ... in fact you have decreased the opportunities for tis labor segment to become employed... this is worse that just chasing your tail.

 

Now if you want to talk about solutions we can take that in another post as I have to run.

I too could cite thousands of different opinions of economists from all over the globe--from this era and through history--that reinforce whatever ideology I chose to support. This is a topic that economists debate more than most, so I'm rather skeptical that the entirety of the Chicago School of Economics sat down and agreed on this subject--but I've been wrong before. Here we go:

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-14/seven-noble-laureates-urge-increase-in-u-s-worker-minimum-wage

http://www.nationalmemo.com/over-600-economists-agree-its-time-to-raise-the-minimum-wage/

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

There is no real-world statistical data you can find that demonstrates any long-term effect on job growth or economic function precipitated by a moderate minimum wage increase. Most increases were followed by short-term growth, some by short-term loss, and still others had no significant effect whatsoever. Most, however, have resulted in pushing significant numbers of workers above the federal poverty line. Furthermore, let's recognize the relative insignificance of low-income earners and their cost of wages on the whole of the U.S. economy. To claim otherwise is disingenuous to the point and problem.

As to your statement regarding corporate responsibility, perhaps within the domain of theoretical raw capitalism you're correct, but we do not exist inside of a book. The robber barons from our history may agree with you--they believed that labor was expendable, a sentiment that extended beyond that of wages to a complete disregard for human life. The U.S. labor market was an ugly place before the FLSA.

I'll argue that if shareholders are entitled to enjoy a corporation's profits without any liability for its debts then there should be some consideration for the worker who helped create those profits. The corporation itself is a construct created within the boundaries and laws set by government and society--you cannot abstract it from that reality--so to claim it carries no responsibility in deference is rather odd. If you're prepared to go really meta we can dive into corporate personhood, which after the case law created from Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission makes this conversation even more strange. A corporation can claim no responsibility to government or society while simultaneously being a legally recognized and protected member of said government and society? Bulls**t.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow the board was doing some weird things with my post ... I will try again below

Edited by nashville_bound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I will go down the rabbit hole... 

 

The original critique of my post was in relation to the totally arbitrary $15 / hour wage mandate for low-skilled workers. If you wish to show some dissent within Booth with a $9 / hour wage then you will of course see less unanimity. The second article by the laureates cite a $10.10 / hour wage is less than a ringing endorsement of the $15 cause de la joune, “Certainly a high enough minimum wage would have damaging effects, but it seems to me unlikely that $10.10 is high enough to have widespread bad effects,” Sims said in an e-mail. (This was one of the best arguments for an increase in your article). Your third article is again left-of center and yet again only calls for a $10.10 wage limit... it may have even been reporting on your previous article. And the CBO report you posted actually says...that a $10.10 min wage would cost the jobs of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 low-skilled workers....what do you think that number would be with an insane $15 rate?

Basically, the lower the artificial wage mandate the lower the ill effects... and the converse is true. As the artificial wage approaches and then exceed the previous national median wages, the more likely the jobs of low-skilled workers will be eliminated never to return. This is common sense. A $10.10 wage may not move the fast food industry to develop new technologies to replace workers but each successive increase exponentially increases that eventuality. Different industries will be affected in different ways and have different wage tolerances. It is currently difficult for a robot to clean an office building so that segment has a higher cost tolerance because currently only a person can perform the task to satisfaction...of course one answer is to have the office cleaned less frequently. However, is quite simple to automate a fast food restaurant...from self-service to mechanized cooking ... the jobs are extremely sensitive to a wage increase.


http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21659741-global-movement-toward-much-higher-minimum-wages-dangerous-reckless-wager?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
 

You throw down quite the gauntlet by stating -

 

“There is no real-world statistical data you can find that demonstrates any long-term effect on job growth or economic function precipitated by a moderate minimum wage increase. Most increases were followed by short-term growth, some by short-term loss, and still others had no significant effect whatsoever. Most, however, have resulted in pushing significant numbers of workers above the federal poverty line.”

 

Well actually it was quite easy…. did you read the CBO report to which you linked…. as I quoted above a $10.10 increase would cost 500,000 to 1,000,000 job loses I will let you extrapolate the jobs lost due to a ruinous $15 wage. Also, this article from Forbes does a rather rapier job on your arguments absolutist tone.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/17/the-record-is-clear-minimum-wage-hikes-destroy-jobs/

 

 

Ha, Only a weak argument would try to equate my stance with a view that labor (people) is expendable… To be clear, common sense dictates the jobs of highlyp-available, low-skilled workers are in jeopardy …  but not by my views...by the same people that purport to want to ‘help’ the plight of workers.
 


“I'll argue that if shareholders are entitled to enjoy a corporation's profits without any liability for its debts then there should be some consideration for the worker who helped create those profits.”

Why should you concern yourself with the debt of corporations. It is the market that determines and sets risk tolerances. The shareholder is only providing capital for a (hopeful) return and thus are in a subordinate position to bondholders when if an enterprise must reorganize. As for the ‘consideration’ owed to the workers … it is called wages and benefits.

 

 “The corporation itself is a construct created within the boundaries and laws set by government and society--you cannot abstract it from that reality--so to claim it carries no responsibility in deference is rather odd. If you're prepared to go really meta we can dive into corporate personhood, which after the case law created from Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission makes this conversation even more strange. A corporation can claim no responsibility to government or society while simultaneously being a legally recognized and protected member of said government and society? Bulls**t.”

Again, in your hubris, you belittle the corporation as a simple construct of law. In reality it is a collective of individuals acting in concert and thus has almost all (no 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination) of the associated rights. It is not easily beholden to the whims of nascent left-wing demagoguery. If a corporation speaks, it is but the voice of the shareholders… at least 50%+1 support.

 

Responsibility to government? Flesh this out for me. What is the responsibility that you speak of? To overpay labor, or are you again trying to minimize corporate personhood? And if corporate personhood is anathema to your conscience, are you also offended by the double taxation that derives from the corporate ‘person’.

Edited by nashville_bound
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.