Jump to content
Tornado

The General 'Murican Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/warren-to-unveil-universal-child-care-plan-funded-by-wealth-tax

Warren's unveiled one of her huge policy points: universal childcare, paid for by a wealth tax.

Universal childcare has actually been a feminist wishlist item for decades, so choosing to roll out this policy early on is a savvy move. When you're competing against Bernie's brand name and Yang's basic income, you really need to focus on something big.

2 hours ago, Meta77 said:

I dont care to be taxed more to pay for others like Sweden. 

Were you ever poor?

This is a serious question.

And by poor, I mean regularly worrying about your basic human needs.

(Also, if you're worried about being taxed more, you must presumably be fairly well-off (I'm talking six digits and then some), because that's what most of these plans are targeting. If you are that well off, you absolutely should be taxed more, because you benefit the most from our society.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does being poor have to do with anything. I work full time 9 to 5. I pass homeless people on the street everyday going home.  I'm far from six figures. I doubt I'll see that money but I do not know one person anywhere that is happy to be taxed. But besides that why should I need to pay for someone else because they are poor besides a feel good moment? Honest question. If that's the case why should I need to work if people just want to dice my cheek up to give it to someone else just because they are poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Legosi (Ogilvie) said:

Heeeeere we go again.

He's not going to have an easy time though. Definitely not like 2016. He's not the anti-Hillary candidate anymore. There's not even a Hillary in the race this time. And there are more Progressive candidates running. He's not going to stand out anymore.

I don't think he'll make it past the primaries again. But this time, it's just because the field of candidates is just...better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Meta77 said:

What does being poor have to do with anything.

I was checking to see if you're privileged and if this would impact your perspective.

Quote

I'm far from six figures.

So realistically, Democratic tax plans will not affect you. They're going after people in the upper brackets.

If Dems raised taxes on the lower classes, it would cost them votes.

Republicans get away with it because they have wedge issues like religion and race to make up the difference.

Quote

Honest question. If that's the case why should I need to work if people just want to dice my cheek up to give it to someone else just because they are poor?

Because you're better off working than you are when you're not.

There's a sense of pride from working.

People who don't need to worry about where their next meal is coming from will be less inclined to commit crime.

And with a welfare system you know if something happens to your job, you won't struggle to survive between jobs.

Stop thinking of welfare as theft. It's insurance. Even if you are taxed more, odds are you're getting a service from it that quite possibly is cheaper than paying for it privately.

Even if you say you've never taken money from the government, odds are you've taken money from family in a time of need. Not everyone has that support network. I posit this: why should people's ability to survive and prosper be dependent on which mother they fall out of?

I speak as someone who has seen bad times and good times, who has been both rich and poor. A support system is invaluable.

Andrew Yang made his name as a CEO of a charity. He worked in some of America's poorest urban communities. And he concluded that charity is not enough to solve socioeconomic problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privileged is a word im not sure on how to navigate. I mean if anything being black makes it that much harder for me in many things. But one should not be penalized for going to school to get a better degree to basically get into that upper bracket. That is the point of college. Sure not every degree is going to result in a huge payout. If your going for a art degree compared to say a IT degree odds are ones going to come out better for it. By saying we are going to tax you harder for doing well basically says to not go for a higher degree. I doubt many take higher paying jobs just for the sense of pride behind it but instead of the pay. But you are right someones ability to survive should not be based on the mother they come from but just cause someone has a child that does not entitle them to money. People sometimes make mistakes or just do not want or care to work at times as well. One should not be taxed more to pay for someone that many times chooses to sit on the side of the street collecting money when many stores have now hiring signs sitting on nearly every window. Now if someone literally can not do anything/are handicapped from working then sure help them out. And yes I have had family help me at times but it is usually the bare minimum and I always pay them back within a few months. But I do not see why every deserves a income. That is like saying everyone deserves a house. And if you continue to go after the rich all they will do is move their money offshore as many have tried, basically how i see it is everyone needs to make near the same thing. But that is just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in the 'bootstraps' myth or the 'dignity of work', especially since automation is increasingly going to eliminate many jobs. In the cases of many people, getting out of poverty is simply not achievable without outside assistance. Over time, the threshold for being able to even get a job is going to get higher as automation becomes more common, and suddenly not everyone will be able to get fancy degrees or even be able to survive through college/university. It isn't helped by the fact that unionism in the US is in a horrifyingly bad state thanks to the demonisation of unions by the right-wing and union-killing laws, which reduce wage growth and working conditions.

Economics requires the vast majority of the population to work right now, but that's going to change. Ultimately, to avoid a violent revolution, policymakers will have to think about how capitalism will have to change to accommodate the rise of automation and an increasing class of people who simply can't get a high-skilled job not taken by robots. And, well, that will likely involve taxing the rich who own the robots.

Still, even a universal income isn't going to stop the vast majority of people from working. Humans are greedy, we want more shit and fancier shit. And, well, some people just straight up enjoy their work. But universal income will also free up a lot of people to do things that aren't stable income-wise, like art or writing, or more 'charitable' work (such as actual charities and stuff like wildlife rescue centres). And ultimately, the goal of society should be a system where everyone doesn't have to work, and ideally people should be able to do work they want to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the trump administration is vowing to not fund anymore California’s high speed rail funding which was around $929 million in grant funds. After the recent news of California calling to take Trump to court over the national crisis declaration, proper are saying this is nothing more than “payback” from Trump. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://freespeech.org/stories/andrew-yang-corrects-fox-news-fat-cat-ubi-and-socialism/

Andrew Yang was interviewed about his basic income by a Fox News guy. The Fox News guy just kept throwing around the buzzwords like "anti-market," "socialism," "handouts," etc.

He kind of froze up when Yang was pointing out (not in these words) that most people who would quit their job for $12,000 a year are idiots. That money is far better used to start businesses, pay for college, or just to inject spending into the economy.

On 2/19/2019 at 8:37 PM, Meta77 said:

Privileged is a word im not sure on how to navigate. I mean if anything being black makes it that much harder for me in many things.

Yes, but privilege is intersectional.

Caitlyn Jenner is a transwoman, one of the most oppressed groups to be part of. But she's rich as Hell, so she doesn't have the same problems poorer transwomen would have.

Being privileged with money goes a long way to outweigh any disadvantages you have from other groups you're part of.

Quote

But one should not be penalized for going to school to get a better degree to basically get into that upper bracket.

Those schools are often heavily-subsidized so it's actually perfectly fair to tax people who benefit from that.

You're not being penalized. You're paying it forward. You benefited from the system. You're not special. Everyone else deserves that same opportunity.

Quote

By saying we are going to tax you harder for doing well basically says to not go for a higher degree.

That doesn't make sense. You're still making more money.

Especially if those same taxes paid for you to get through college in the first place.

Take a look at the current high income workforce. If tax brackets really deterred people, would they exist?

They exist because, even with a higher tax bracket, it's worth it to make more money.

Again, though, the people that most social democrats and socialists want to tax heavily are people making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even the best degrees often will not get you that. We are talking about taxing the propertied class, people who get paid by collecting the surplus value of their businesses. This is where the "people wouldn't work" argument falls apart; that's not how profit from business works. As a businessman, I receive whatever's left over after all expenses (whether directly or through my increased share value). The rich are on a completely different income model than you or me.

Quote

I doubt many take higher paying jobs just for the sense of pride behind it but instead of the pay.

I was talking about working in general. There is satisfaction from work. So when you suggested welfare would cause people to quit their jobs, I think that flies in the face of human psychology.

Even my broke ass derives enormous satisfaction from being able to buy my own things rather than begging my parents for money.

Quote

just cause someone has a child that does not entitle them to money.

Would you prefer we let the children be homeless, starving, without healthcare, etc.?

When they're born, they're born. Somehow, some way, society's going to have to provide for them. There's really no way around that.

Of course, this is where the old joke about the GOP comes from. Republicans are the biggest advocates of children's rights. Until they're born.

Quote

People sometimes make mistakes

It would help if the side that shares your views on welfare was not so keen on keeping people from learning about sex.

Quote

One should not be taxed more to pay for someone that many times chooses to sit on the side of the street collecting money when many stores have now hiring signs sitting on nearly every window.

For someone who claims a working class background, it's surprising you think the throngs of poorer people are like this.

Those horror stories of people panhandling are just that, horror stories. Most people prefer to work. Even when welfare benefits were extremely generous and easy to stay on for life, most recipients left the rolls and never came back.

You know when the welfare bum myth became really prominent? In the late 1980s, when activists started helping large numbers of black people sign up for it. Historically, welfare discriminated against black people; governments purposely limited how many offices they opened in black neighborhoods and such.

But then activists got involved and helped a lot of people get around the barriers, and suddenly white people cared about "welfare abuse."

It's important to remember there is a quickly noticeable racial dynamic to dislike of welfare. It's thought of as a "black" thing even though roughly equal numbers of white and black people are on it.

Quote

But I do not see why every deserves a income.

Numerous reasons.

Morally, there's basic human dignity on the line here. Not having to sift through garbage cans for your next meal. Not dying from some preventable disease because you can't afford insurance. Not having to constantly worry about abuse from people because you have no safe place to call your home.

Economically, an expanded consumer base helps guard against recession. Healthier workers are more productive workers. More access to education means more skilled workers to draw from. With our basic human needs taken care of, there's very little incentive to commit economic crime.

Politically, there's a very blunt reason here: the downtrodden, pushed hard enough, will burn shit.

Quote

That is like saying everyone deserves a house.

I'd think it's perfectly fair to say everyone should not be homeless.

Quote

And if you continue to go after the rich all they will do is move their money offshore as many have tried

Here's the fun part though.

The rich live here. A lot of their customers are here. A lot of their property is here. They can only move so many assets overseas when so much of their capital is physical.

We can absolutely tax them, and if they decide to play this game, we can confiscate what they have here to make up the difference.

They need us. We do not need them.

22 hours ago, Tornado said:

I sure hope the DNC has learned its lesson once it starts sorting through this increasingly large candidate list...

I do recall they more or less gutted the superdelegates so it seems they did. Now the candidates who get ahead will be the ones who are genuinely popular.

If the candidate doesn't win, however, the DNC will take it as an excuse to reinstate the superdelegates' power, just as they did decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636

Could this be Bernie's "very fine people" moment? Even as GOP and Democratic leaders agree that Venezuela's Maduro is a dictator who should go, Bernie declines to say something that strong. He has criticized the socialist Maduro, but that doesn't say much when he says Castro's revolution in Cuba "wasn't perfect."

Venezuelans and Cubans in Florida are not too happy with his decision to avoid comment. This is to say nothing of evidence that anti-socialism messaging looks to have helped the GOP in Florida in the 2016 and 2018 campaigns.

On the plus side, going by the 2016 map, the race will be decided in the Rust Belt, not Florida, so this actually doesn't doom Bernie's chances in the wider race. It just creates a big hurdle since it's not a good look for him. Bernie calls himself a socialist but if he's going to handwave the abuses of autocrats like Maduro, he's more accurately dubbed a tankie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Plasme said:

Nuclear energy is the only realistic way to transform the fossil fuel industry though.

I wouldn’t sell the others alternatives too short though, but that’s not entirely the deal going on with talks over nuclear tech in the Middle East right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2019 at 4:59 AM, Legosi (Ogilvie) said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636

Could this be Bernie's "very fine people" moment? Even as GOP and Democratic leaders agree that Venezuela's Maduro is a dictator who should go, Bernie declines to say something that strong. He has criticized the socialist Maduro, but that doesn't say much when he says Castro's revolution in Cuba "wasn't perfect."

Sanders has always had problems with calling out "socialist" foreign dictators for their shit, and that will be a contributory factor in his not getting the nomination again. But, real talk time, he shouldn't need to be the nominee - he only needs to advance left-wing policies and ideals into the party's election platform, for better candidates to endorse, adopt and, ideally, enact. With Elizabeth Warren also running, it should end up being the most progressive platform in the party's history.

Just so long as the eventual nominee isn't an octogenarian, things should work out well for the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/supreme-court-rules-against-civil-forfeitures-rbg-timbs.html

It's a huge victory for police reform! The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled to incorporate the Excessive Fines Clause. Many police departments have developed a habit of legally stealing through "civil asset forfeiture," where they can seize any property tenuously connected to a case, and then the department gets to keep the profits. Even Neil Gorsuch thought it was ridiculous that states can get away with this today, so the 9-0 decision is unsurprising.

20 minutes ago, Patticus said:

With Elizabeth Warren also running, it should end up being the most progressive platform in the party's history.

Just so long as the eventual nominee isn't an octogenarian, things should work out well for the Democrats.

We have Yang, Warren, and Sanders as very left wing candidates; Castro and Gillibrand as acceptable candidates, and then Harris, Booker, and Klobuchar as likely establishment favorites.

This will be an interesting race. Democratic leaders want to court the swing states by giving them more moderate as a whole candidates, while there's a rival strand that feels we could swing sing voters through a full embrace of economic populism.

Everyone underestimates Yang right now, but the fact he's getting resources from Richard Ojeda, a candidate who was able to make some serious waves in "Trump" country with left wing policies, means Basic Income might become a viable policy in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/429937-democrats-need-someone-in-the-ojeda-lane

Interesting piece covering the Ojeda campaign and ones similar to it.

The usual trend is people who like Democratic ideas in the countryside vote Republican due to a sense of alienation.

Ojeda was able to get not only disaffected Democrats, but even conservatives to back him (even if he lost the race), and it gave him the biggest partisan shift in the whole country with how he destroyed Clinton's 2016 numbers in his district. Ojeda ran as a fairly left-wing Democrat, only really breaking with the party over coal. But his interest in the coal industry, love of recreational firearms, and overall demeanor made him resonate with a lot of rural populists and gave him a huge boost.

If the Democrats nominated someone like Ojeda - and the article points out that someone working class is more important than someone necessarily rural, even if that would be a plus - there's a strong possibility they would crush Trump and destroy the GOP's stranglehold on the countryside.

I've heard a lot of liberals say the countryside isn't necessary, that they can reach victory through the suburbs... the suburbs. The places that are well-to-do... and who substitute genuine economic reform for a few token acts of social justice. Yeah they'll fight tooth and nail against free tuition and higher minimum wages, but hey, at least they support affirmative action and access to abortion!

The hammer and sickle's message still rings true to this day. Only an alliance between the rural and urban working classes can bring real, lasting change.

9 hours ago, Heckboy said:

Sanders better get in line and support military intervention in Venezuela immediately to overthrow the evil dictator and bring all the freedoms.

There's a world of difference between disliking military intervention and then refusing to condemn an autocrat as illegitimate.

I understand Sanders is fairly non-interventionist. But his refusal to come down hard on left wing tyrants is very tankielicious.

Considering the enormous success Rojava has had as a democratic socialist state despite being poor, multi-ethnic, and in the middle of a warzone? Western socialists have even less of an excuse to apologize for tyrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie's "oof" train continues. This is in the context of him backing Trump's "humanitarian aid" package to Venezuela.

A good chunk of the American left are displeased with his decision. Not because they support Maduro (though conservatives are of course embracing Cold War-esque socialist hive mind ideas), but because there's a valid concern the aid will be used as a vehicle to try and push Venezuela towards being a pro-American, neoliberal regime.

As an example, one branch of the Sanders-inspired Our Revolution gave an alternate approach to disputing Maduro's legitimacy while still supporting socialist and humanitarian ideas. Of particular note is that aid should not appear politically motivated, unlike the aid Trump is currently peddling.

Bernie did his part for left-wing ideas in America but the more he talks, the more damage he does, I think. If he does not tread carefully with foreign policy decisions, he's no different from the Soviet Union, which actively worked to suppress all socialists worldwide who were not loyal to Moscow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Heckboy said:

Sanders better get in line and support military intervention in Venezuela immediately to overthrow the evil dictator and bring all the freedoms.

Venzuela is close enough to the US that we can just bomb the country from bases in Florida or Texas and have the airmen back in time for dinner. That doesn't even really count as intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tornado said:

Venzuela is close enough to the US that we can just bomb the country from bases in Florida or Texas and have the airmen back in time for dinner. That doesn't even really count as intervention.

Indeed, which is why Presidents have invoked "well all we did was airstrikes for a year plus, that's not a real military action" as a means to get around the War Powers Act for decades!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Sanders just toasted his chances at the nomination again.

Trying to explain the complexities of political psychology and coalition building to urban liberal voters goes over about as well as Clinton trying to explain the complexities of economics to rural voters.

It's going to come off as detached and ultimately alienating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/us/politics/michael-cohen-testimony.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1vFRiHef6a8E02TJDITLtUNjtKb-D9RtsPaSalddynaO3YgujCpT3cAiM

So the night before Cohen will give his testimony before Congress, a GOP Congressman - Matt Gaetz of Florida - made a Tweet about Cohen's mistresses and how his wife will surely leave him due to information she would soon find out. Needless to say, it came off as blackmail.

This is witness intimidation. There's just no way to slice it. He should immediately be expelled from the House.

And if the GOP fails to do so, I think it's time we reconsider how we conduct business in this democracy. Democracy is meaningless without the rule of law.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ally-rep-matt-gaetz-insists-hes-not-threatening-michael-cohen-by-suggesting-his-wife-will-leave-him

Gaetz says this is standard procedure, casting doubt on the witness' reliability. But you know damned well he wouldn't be doing this against someone trying to testify against a Democrat.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/26/politics/senate-resolution-border-wall/index.html

Meanwhile, looks like a majority of the Senate will vote to disapprove of Trump's emergency declaration. He will be able to veto the resolution, but it is incredibly embarrassing when Senators from Texas and North Carolina are saying "Nah."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get on MSN.

"Michael Cohen to testify that Trump is a racist."

He's getting a deal for that?

 

 

 

 

No, I didn't bother to read the actual article since I was at work and only searching for something, but that's the headline MSN leads a news article off with? No wonder people are so stupid when it comes to political news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.