View Full Version : White dudes and identity politics.
Ultralight
7-17-19, 8:50am
So I was at a restaurant and there was a work group there. I gathered they were from a public institution. I overheard them talking about the presidential candidates from the Dems.
They were mostly all-about Kamala Harris (which I am mostly on board with -- I like her stance on healthcare and on mary jane legalization, for instance). But they also were talking about Pete. And a man who appeared to be gay said: "I am all about Pete. I mean, he is white so that is a negative, but otherwise he is a really good candidate!"
I have also had other friends and colleagues say they would not vote for Bernie or Biden. They say something like: "I can't vote for another white guy. I just cannot do it."
A confidant of mine, a white guy, said: "I really wanted Beto to come out front and be THE candidate. But it is just not a good time to be a white guy. It is a real liability. So I will just vote for whoever the Dem candidate is."
Do you think that eventually this sort of attitude could turn otherwise liberal and progressive straight white men away from the Dems or perhaps just disaffect them from voting?
(Disclaimer: My dream ticket remains Kamala & Pete.)
Isn’t voting for someone for no other reason than race every bit as wrong as voting against someone for no other reason than race?
iris lilies
7-17-19, 9:22am
UL you are a white dude. Why should we care about any of your political analysis?
Haha kidding.
Ultralight
7-17-19, 9:23am
UL you are a white dude. Why should we care about any of your political analysis?
Haha kidding.
Not an analysis! LOL
Just a question.
Teacher Terry
7-17-19, 1:41pm
Race is a stupid reason to vote for someone.
Ultralight
7-17-19, 1:48pm
Race is a stupid reason to vote for someone.
Is it a stupid reason to not vote for someone?
What about sex? Gender?
Is it a stupid reason to not vote for someone?
What about sex? Gender?
Not relevant to me.
I tend to vote for the person I think is most able to do the job, and not engage in running my own little affirmative action program. If nobody on the ballot can do the job, I generally vote for the candidate that will send the best signal to the mainstream parties, or simply withhold my vote.
ApatheticNoMore
7-18-19, 12:40am
What about sex? Gender?
I don't care about it, not relevant.
Do you think that eventually this sort of attitude could turn otherwise liberal and progressive straight white men away from the Dems or perhaps just disaffect them from voting?
can't be bothered to care too much either. I am a lot MORE concerned about the silencing of necessary opinions (not on race! but on other issues) by this nonsense.
I mean if the opinions of idiots affect their vote one way or other and they refuse even to vote for better candidates because of it ok well we have the cutting off your nose to spite your face contingent I guess. And if one is a politician they try to get as many votes as they can. But white guys aren't the only group who is going to carry the Dem vote. Dems partly lost last time due to low black turnout as much as anything whites did or didn't do.
ApatheticNoMore
7-18-19, 1:38am
They were mostly all-about Kamala Harris (which I am mostly on board with -- I like her stance on healthcare and on mary jane legalization, for instance).
watch the money with her, she has to be taking health insurance money. Of course if all one wants is the ACA not an issue I guess.
And if all one wants is to defeat Trump than almost anybody and maybe nobody could.
In discussions with my more Dem associates there was some general agreement that a female president would be a good move, but as much as Bernie is a one trick pony on the big money is evil card, Kamala is playing the race card. And as much as people like Pete, he is not electable. So we're back to Biden or Warren. Not totally my opinion, but from discussions. I think all would vote for whoever runs against Trump, regardless.
Ultralight
7-18-19, 8:22am
In discussions with my more Dem associates there was some general agreement that a female president would be a good move, but as much as Bernie is a one trick pony on the big money is evil card, Kamala is playing the race card. And as much as people like Pete, he is not electable. So we're back to Biden or Warren. Not totally my opinion, but from discussions. I think all would vote for whoever runs against Trump, regardless.
If the Dems put someone as bad as HRC up there again, I will vote third party (like I did last time).
If the Dems put someone as bad as HRC up there again, I will vote third party (like I did last time).
I've not seen any of the Dem candidates to be as bad as HRC.
If the Dems put someone as bad as HRC up there again, I will vote third party (like I did last time).
ThatÂ’s what I did in 2016. I saw the two as roughly equivalent evils. The Democrats would need to bring forth a truly awful candidate to make me vote for Trump. At the moment this seems to be within the realm of possibility, although a few in the 1% range might be acceptable.
Kamala Harris has too much of a history of being an oppressor for me to consider her:
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/kamala-harris-sex-workers/
I've not seen any of the Dem candidates to be as bad as HRC.
You may not like Hillary, but she would have governed as a bland, middle-of-the-road technocrat--much like Obama, but without the charisma.
By the same token, with Trump we're mostly getting standard issue GOP policies--keep funneling wealth upward, dismantle as much of the regulatory state as possible, ram through as many far-right judges as you can, ignore global warming. Comfort the comfortable; afflict the afflicted. In practical terms, what we're getting with Trump is no different than what we would have gotten with a President Cruz or Rubio, just with a generous helping of racism secret sauce.
Trump is the symptom. The Republican Party is the disease.
Teacher Terry
7-18-19, 11:27am
I agree old hat. We need to vote for whoever is the democratic candidate to get trump out. Anything is better than what we have now. I don’t know why people can’t see that.
The whole business feels like a long con to me.
Ultralight
7-18-19, 12:04pm
The whole business feels like a long con to me.
Very few people ever see this fact, bae.
Ultralight
7-18-19, 12:07pm
Anything is better than what we have now. I don’t know why people can’t see that.
Spoken like a mark in a long con.
I can't disagree too much, Old Hat. Trump has not strayed too far for his parties platform. However, he has kicked the can of bigotry, dishonesty, and white nationalism quite a ways further than Cruz or Rubio were capable.
Very few people ever see this fact, bae.
There are notable and noble exceptions, but I tend to find that people who claim to see facts that very few others can see are the most likely to fit the conspiracy theorist template.
Ultralight
7-18-19, 12:13pm
There are notable and noble exceptions, but I tend to find that people who claim to see facts that very few others can see are the most likely to fit the conspiracy theorist template.
Right! People -- especially national leaders -- don't get together and make long term plans and then execute those plans.
And even if they did, no prole would ever be able to decipher such plans!
I stand corrected. ;)
Ultralight
7-18-19, 12:22pm
Trump... has kicked the can of... white nationalism quite a ways further than Cruz or Rubio were capable.
Here is a question that your point brought up. And it is related to the original question of this thread. Could the far left be feeding white nationalism with their rhetoric too?
Right! People -- especially national leaders -- don't get together and make long term plans and then execute those plans.
And even if they did, no prole would ever be able to decipher such plans!
I stand corrected. ;)
I don’t think national leaders, perhaps with the exception of dictators who plan on being in power for decades, tend to do a lot of long term planning. They mostly just react to short term threats and opportunities and leave the future problems for someone else.
Our current political environment is more the result of a political class trying to give us what they think we think we want.
Here is a question that your point brought up. And it is related to the original question of this thread. Could the far left be feeding white nationalism with their rhetoric too?
Thesis, meet Antithesis?
Here is a question that your point brought up. And it is related to the original question of this thread. Could the far left be feeding white nationalism with their rhetoric too?
I suspect so, though it needs to be looked at in relative terms when comparing the two. I can imagine each pushes the other a little further to the extreme these days. Which brings up the point that a centrist might be the best choice. If one exists.
There are notable and noble exceptions, but I tend to find that people who claim to see facts that very few others can see are the most likely to fit the conspiracy theorist template.
I have great respect for the power of the emergent properties of autonomous self-organizing systems. Amazing things can result from initial conditions, rule sets, and time. No conspiracies are needed, just math.
Ultralight
7-18-19, 1:11pm
I suspect so, though it needs to be looked at in relative terms when comparing the two. I can imagine each pushes the other a little further to the extreme these days. Which brings up the point that a centrist might be the best choice. If one exists.
What I wonder is what sort of rhetoric could the left compose and use to enfranchise straight, white men into a more progressive vision of the future?
I am not sure, but I think it would involve ditching identity politics.
I am not sure, but I think it would involve ditching identity politics.
According to a recent Rasmussen Reports Survey (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/17/racism-alert-32-democrats-say-white-pols-cant-crit/), one third of all Democrats believe it's racism anytime a white politician criticizes a non-white politician.
It seems to me that number is actually higher. I think I could make the case that virtually all Progressives judge everyone by three criteria: skin color, gender and political philosophy. Part of me thinks "whatever makes you feel better about yourself" but the other part of me thinks "grow up little dude, you're irritating everyone else."
frugal-one
7-18-19, 2:59pm
There are notable and noble exceptions, but I tend to find that people who claim to see facts that very few others can see are the most likely to fit the conspiracy theorist template.
A generalization.
frugal-one
7-18-19, 3:01pm
According to a recent Rasmussen Reports Survey (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/17/racism-alert-32-democrats-say-white-pols-cant-crit/), one third of all Democrats believe it's racism anytime a white politician criticizes a non-white politician.
It seems to me that number is actually higher. I think I could make the case that virtually all Progressives judge everyone by three criteria: skin color, gender and political philosophy. Part of me thinks "whatever makes you feel better about yourself" but the other part of me thinks "grow up little dude, you're irritating everyone else."
Total BS!
A generalization.
It is indeed.
frugal-one
7-18-19, 3:08pm
ThatÂ’s what I did in 2016. I saw the two as roughly equivalent evils. The Democrats would need to bring forth a truly awful candidate to make me vote for Trump. At the moment this seems to be within the realm of possibility, although a few in the 1% range might be acceptable.
Why even vote if you know the person you voted for has no chance to win? Vote for the lesser of 2 evils as in the last election. Some say it is the principal ... which in these cases is a waste of time. I wouldn't even bother then. As others have stated, I will vote for anyone but Trump.
Surprised to hear you would vote Democrat LDAHL. You give the impression of being a Trump fan.
Pete or Warren are at the top of my list so far. Kamala Harris is not a contender IMO.
According to a recent Rasmussen Reports Survey (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/17/racism-alert-32-democrats-say-white-pols-cant-crit/), one third of all Democrats believe it's racism anytime a white politician criticizes a non-white politician.
It seems to me that number is actually higher. I think I could make the case that virtually all Progressives judge everyone by three criteria: skin color, gender and political philosophy. Part of me thinks "whatever makes you feel better about yourself" but the other part of me thinks "grow up little dude, you're irritating everyone else."
It seems to me that I think I could make the case that virtually all your reasoning here is laughable. But whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
Total BS!
Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but definitely not BS.
It seems to me that I think I could make the case that virtually all your reasoning here is laughable.
Thank you, I'm here most every day, and please remember to tip your wait staff.
Thank you, I'm here most every day, and please remember to tip your wait staff.
I tip each poster;s thoughts and contribution but your efforts behind the scenes are especially worthy and appreciated.
Why even vote if you know the person you voted for has no chance to win? Vote for the lesser of 2 evils as in the last election. Some say it is the principal ... which in these cases is a waste of time. I wouldn't even bother then. As others have stated, I will vote for anyone but Trump.
Surprised to hear you would vote Democrat LDAHL. You give the impression of being a Trump fan.
Pete or Warren are at the top of my list so far. Kamala Harris is not a contender IMO.
I have never thought much of Trump, ethically, ideologically or stylistically. I think he’s bad for America, the Republican Party and the English language. I would choose the right Democrat over him, should the party nominate one of the two or three less ridiculous candidates putting themselves forward.
But not being a Trump fan does not mean I think that there aren’t even worse choices than Trump out there.
We will have to disagree to disagree as to whether acting on principle is a waste of time.
Why even vote if you know the person you voted for has no chance to win? Vote for the lesser of 2 evils as in the last election. Some say it is the principal ... which in these cases is a waste of time.
There are plenty of nuanced discussions to be had on ethical non-voting - indeed, some have happened on this forum.
The “wasted vote” and “lesser of two evils” tropes have some philosophical and moral issues.
Ultralight
7-18-19, 4:26pm
Why even vote if you know the person you voted for has no chance to win? Vote for the lesser of 2 evils as in the last election.
This is why I think Dems voting for the lesser of two evils is a long con. It is not about a conspiracy theory, LDAHL.
Dem leadership convinces Dems to vote for the lesser of two evils election after election and these Dems think that they will get something other than evil.
If I vote for a third party candidate and either most evil or less evil get elected, then I know I did not for for evil. So there is a personal element to this.
But I also think that we can force a bigger change in the future by voting for guys like Bernie.
It is interesting that the GOP never worries about being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Why? Because they prefer to vote for the most evil! ;) haha
frugal-one
7-18-19, 5:22pm
I have never thought much of Trump, ethically, ideologically or stylistically. I think he’s bad for America, the Republican Party and the English language. I would choose the right Democrat over him, should the party nominate one of the two or three less ridiculous candidates putting themselves forward.
But not being a Trump fan does not mean I think that there aren’t even worse choices than Trump out there.
We will have to disagree to disagree as to whether acting on principle is a waste of time.
Interesting post. In your opinion, who would be worse than Trump?
frugal-one
7-18-19, 5:25pm
The “wasted vote” and “lesser of two evils” tropes have some philosophical and moral issues.
I don't see how.
It is interesting that the GOP never worries about being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.
It's also notable that the media never wrings their hands saying "Oh! This Republican candidate or that Republican candidate is too radical. They need to find someone more moderate or they won't win swing voters." Or, in the rare instance that they do do this, Republican politicians and spin-masters ignore it and go on with their plans. Democrats need to do the same thing. Quit worrying about what beltway prognosticators think and stand up for what they believe is the right thing. That's largely what happened in 2018 and we took 40 house seats. Voters don't seem to be turned off when we talk about issues that actually affect them like healthcare and the minimum wage.
Ultralight
7-18-19, 6:07pm
I don't see how.
Then perhaps it is time to reflect on your own morals and philosophies, if you have them.
Ultralight
7-18-19, 6:08pm
It's also notable that the media never wrings their hands saying "Oh! This Republican candidate or that Republican candidate is too radical. They need to find someone more moderate or they won't win swing voters." Or, in the rare instance that they do do this, Republican politicians and spin-masters ignore it and go on with their plans. Democrats need to do the same thing. Quit worrying about what beltway prognosticators think and stand up for what they believe is the right thing. That's largely what happened in 2018 and we took 40 house seats. Voters don't seem to be turned off when we talk about issues that actually affect them like healthcare and the minimum wage.
Good points!
I don't see how.
Well, as I mentioned, there are some threads on the topic kicking around here, which have pointers to some helpful papers on the matter.
frugal-one
7-18-19, 9:45pm
Then perhaps it is time to reflect on your own morals and philosophies, if you have them.
Blow it out your ear!! I was asking a serious question. This is not a question of morals at all. I believe it to be a wasted, mute point to vote for someone you KNOW is not going to win.... a total waste of time IMO.
Ultralight
7-18-19, 9:58pm
Blow it out your ear!!
Not nice.
I was asking a serious question.
And you got a serious answer. You just didn't like it.
This is not a question of morals at all. I believe it to be a wasted, mute point to vote for someone you KNOW is not going to win.... a total waste of time IMO.
Oh, but it is a question of morals. Voting one's conscience is a moral issue, an ethical issue.
What you believe is not necessarily factual. Your opinions are not necessarily facts.
So keep voting for that lesser evil. You know what you will always get? Evil.
Talk about a waste of time!
On the continuum from evil to awesome who gets to determine what’s midlevel evil and what’s merely slightly good but not awesome. Perhaps your lesser of two evils is another persons ‘the perfect is the enemy of the good’
ApatheticNoMore
7-19-19, 2:08am
Isn't a more reasonable question why vote at all in the general election if you live in a solid blue or red state. I live in a solid blue state :) But I will vote for a candidate that can win or can't depending on how it all unfolds.
ApatheticNoMore
7-19-19, 2:18am
On the continuum from evil to awesome who gets to determine what’s midlevel evil and what’s merely slightly good but not awesome. Perhaps your lesser of two evils is another persons ‘the perfect is the enemy of the good’
the voter, I mean these are U.S. presidential candidates we are talking about, none of them are completely pure, the evil or not dichotomy doesn't work here. The closest you'd get to doing no evil would be a peace candidate (Gabbard?) but the thing is people want good done as well (maybe given the urgency of so much we really actually need good done as well, we have so many critical problems, and not doing what should be done is a form of doing harm as well), and also choose a candidate on the basis of who will do the most good (so maybe a candidate with great policies, maybe a candidate that can inspire a movement to change things etc..).
But even if absolute good does not exist for Presidential candidates, saintly people may exist but folks they aren't in politics, there is that which you can stomach. There is a REAL difference between "I don't agree with that person on some things" and "I loath almost all of their positions and I think electing them would be fairly disastrous, but they are 5% or maybe 10% less evil than the other person who would be even more disastrous" The lesser evilist would force us to vote on the second.
And btw NONE of this discussion applies to Dem primary voting almost at all! If you don't want to vote for someone polling 1% or 2% don't, they may drop out anyway, if you are in love with one of them and do want to vote for them then I don't have an issue with it. But of the leading candidates people are mostly just spewing hot air, noone actually knows who is mostly likely to win against Trump, they all have plusses and minuses in electability, at best we have polls which lately have seemed to be real inaccurate (remember Trump was not predicted to win). But most people aren't even basing their opinions on polls which at least have a methodology, even though it's really state polls not national polls that matter, but on pure whim. They think this person is more likely to win or that, but they really don't know. Someone here argued Warren is likely to win against Trump, shrug and to me she seems more likely to be a case of: all the smart people voted for her, she lost the election :) But I don't claim to know. So really why wouldn't someone just vote for who they like rather than based on a broken crystal ball?
Interesting post. In your opinion, who would be worse than Trump?
I think Harris would be worse. I can remember her trying to force donor lists from organizations she didn’t like back when she was a State AG. Her Robespierre shtick always nettled me. Her pronouncements about not taking PAC money ring hollow when you look at her pursuit of large donors. Her constantly changing health care positions bespeak a certain ethical fluidity.
I think Sanders would be worse in terms of long term damage to the economy.
I think Sanders would be worse in terms of long term damage to the economy.
Whose economy? If we were to implement his policies, it seems the economies of the struggling middle class families, debt-ridden students, and people who can't afford healthcare would improve tremendously.
And if we were to adjust the vast inequalities by taxing the VERY wealthy at a reasonable rate, is the economy going to fold? I doubt it. We are living in two Americas. One America wants to ignore the plight of the other America. There are some very respectable billionaires feel that they SHOULD be taxed more.
Ultralight
7-19-19, 10:23pm
Whose economy? If we were to implement his policies, it seems the economies of the struggling middle class families, debt-ridden students, and people who can't afford healthcare would improve tremendously.
And if we were to adjust the vast inequalities by taxing the VERY wealthy at a reasonable rate, is the economy going to fold? I doubt it. We are living in two Americas. One America wants to ignore the plight of the other America. There are some very respectable billionaires feel that they SHOULD be taxed more.
It is interesting how right-wingers think that a lefty like The Bern "rigging" the economy to help the working poor and to provide a universal healthcare system and affordable college education will destroy the economy. They call this social engineering and they act like rich people will be like: "Eff it all. With this tax rate I might as well go out of business and become homeless. It pays so much better with all the welfare!"
I mean: Crazy stuff. LOL
But they never talk about how rich people and Republican politicians rig the economy to benefit the wealthy and screw over working families. To them, that is not rigging. That is not social engineering to them. It is just "how things ought to be!" or "The only way to stop the economy from collapsing!" LOL
If rich people can rig and economy to benefit them, then working people can rig an economy to benefit them too.
The problem with Bernie’s (and his imitators) is that all his generous schemes tend to rely on the magic beans of “soak the rich”. Not decent, salt-of-the-earth millionaires like him, but those dastardly super-ultras that keep us all down. The problem is the inadequate supply of super-ultras for all his plans, and the likelihood that they and their financial and human capital will decamp to more welcoming climes.
If he wants a comprehensive Eurotopian welfare state, he should be honest about how comprehensively we all will need to be taxed and regulated; not just snarl about sticking it to the man.
Ultralight
7-20-19, 1:15pm
The problem with Bernie’s (and his imitators) is that all his generous schemes tend to rely on the magic beans of “soak the rich”. Not decent, salt-of-the-earth millionaires like him, but those dastardly super-ultras that keep us all down. The problem is the inadequate supply of super-ultras for all his plans, and the likelihood that they and their financial and human capital will decamp to more welcoming climes.
I actually think Bernie would be happy to pay higher taxes as long as everyone else in his bracket paid them too.
Right wingers are often like: "Hey Bern, why don't you just donate all your millions back to the government!"
To that I laugh.
Do you think Bern would be like this? "Everyone else in my wealth bracket must pay higher taxes except me.This is my new policy!" Come on. LOL
I think we ought to really tax the "super ultras." And we need to tax run-of-the-mill millionaires more too.
If he wants a comprehensive Eurotopian welfare state, he should be honest about how comprehensively we all will need to be taxed and regulated; not just snarl about sticking it to the man.
This all is a very typical right wing response.
It makes no real notice of how working folks are exploited and taken advantage of my the economic policies (rigging of the economy) by wealthy people.
It takes no notice of how huge corporations exploit working folks.
It is like, to the right wing mind, these are not problems. Perhaps right wingers think that this is the natural order of things. If so, why not just be like? "Yeah, rich people exploit working families. Nature and normal. Nothing to see here, folks."
And the idea that rich people will just leave the whole US and go somewhere else and exploit those people is a little far fetched. They could do it now in droves. But they haven't. They have done it a bit.
But my suggestion is that we follow them where ever they go -- we impede their ability to do business, we unionize the workers there, we put sanctions on them. We should denounce them as UnAmerican. And so forth.
Also something that annoy me about the typical right wing response is how it uses such black and white thinking. Like it is either Ayn Randville or Bernie's utopia.
Other countries still have capitalism -- Look at Canada or Germany or Sweden.
They have universal healthcare, better schools, better quality of life and so on. They weather economic storms much better.
Other countries still have capitalism -- Look at Canada or Germany or Sweden.
They have universal healthcare, better schools, better quality of life and so on. They weather economic storms much better.
The thing is, they also soak the middle and lower classes extravagantly in order to have those things. To LDAHL's point, they don't do it by soaking the rich or the corporations, if anything, they place a lower burden on corporations realizing they are the source of wealth and should be encouraged, which is foreign to Bernie and his followers economic view.
JP Morgan did a rather comprehensive analysis recently of Nordic economies and came up with findings our Democratic Socialists might find surprising: https://www.jpmorgan.com/jpmpdf/1320747403290.pdf
Some point to Nordic countries as democratic socialism in action, but some Nordics object to this, such as DanishPrime Minister Rasmussen: "Some in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore,I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is amarket economy"1. Our models back him up: while Nordic countries have higher taxes and greaterredistribution of wealth, Nordics are just as business-friendly as the US if not more so. Examples include greaterbusiness freedoms, freer trade, more oligopolies and less of an impact on competition from state control overthe economy. And as explained on page 6, while Nordics raise more taxes than the US, the gap usually resultsfrom regressive VAT/consumption taxes and Social Security taxes rather than from progressive income taxes.The bottom line: copy the Nordic model if you like, but understand that it entails a lot of capitalismand pro-business policies, a lot of taxation on middle class spending and wages, minimal reliance oncorporate taxation and plenty of co-pays and deductibles in its healthcare system.
With Nordic countries firmly rooted in capitalism and free markets, if I wanted to find examples of democraticsocialism in practice, I’d have to look elsewhere. I broadened my search and looked for countries that, relativeto the US, are characterized by2:• Higher personal and corporate tax rates, and higher government spending• More worker protections restricting the ability of companies to hire and fire, and less flexibility for companiesto set wages based on worker productivity and/or to hire foreign labor• More reliance on regulation, more constraints on real estate development, more anti-trust enforcement andmore state intervention in product markets; and a shift away from a shareholder-centric business model• More protections for workers and domestic industries through tariff and non-tariff barriers, and moreconstraints on capital inflows and outflowsI couldn’t find any country that ticked all these democratic socialist boxes, but I did find one that came close:Argentina, which has defaulted 7 times since its independence in 1816, which has seen the largest relativestandard of living decline in the world since 1900, and which is on the brink of political and economic chaosagain in 2019. Here my journey ended, halfway around the world from Scandinavia where it began. A real-lifeproof of concept for a successful democratic socialist society, like the Lost City of Atlantis, has yet to be found.
Some men look at things as they are, and ask “why?” I look at things as they could be and ask “how much?”
We could go the Euro route by doing as the Euros do: tax corporations a bit more lightly, tax the general citizenry a great deal more heavily and regulate, regulate, regulate. An honest Democratic Socialist who offered that proposition to the voters would have my respect if not my vote. Railing at riggers and praising beautiful breadlines won’t.
Punishing capital with the temerity to go where it’s appreciated hasn’t proven to be all that effective in the past.
Some men look at things as they are, and ask “why?” I look at things as they could be and ask “how much?”
Haha... I appreciate that, LDAHL. There is always a tension between idealism and realism, so I'll always be the yin to your yang. But I feel that we need to determine what's in the best interest of everyone and then figure out how to get it done. My mother's saying was always "God will handle the details." God... and people like you.
Haha... I appreciate that, LDAHL. There is always a tension between idealism and realism, so I'll always be the yin to your yang. But I feel that we need to determine what's in the best interest of everyone and then figure out how to get it done. My mother's saying was always "God will handle the details." God... and people like you.
I believe this would be a better country if we elected more accountants and fewer lawyers.
ApatheticNoMore
7-20-19, 3:02pm
What if the only actual realism for life on earth is radical ecological economics, because it's really the only one that adds up. It's the only one where the math makes sense. We can't use up natural resources at a rate above replacement as this just borrows from the future, and they will have less. And yes we also use natural resources as a sink for trash but they are about filled up there too (really are, ocean can't keep absorbing carbon for instance).
But this is a very long discussion and perhaps one might conclude hopeless, but so is the alternative and objectively so. It's just that what is presently being called realism is: :laff:
But more on topic and something with a lot more working examples: single payer healthcare costs less than what we have. By far. And covers everyone for that spending less. We have pretty much the most expensive system in the world. So it makes the most obvious economic sense that if we wanted to save money we'd go with single payer healthcare. Anything else is being unrealistic and a very odd form of idealism as in "let's spend more than everyone else just to make sure everyone isn't covered". A very odd impractical idealism that we can only do because we're rich enough to throw away money.
Ultralight
7-20-19, 3:15pm
What if the only actual realism for life on earth is radical ecological economics, because it's really the only one that adds up. It's the only one where the math makes sense. We can't use up natural resources at a rate above replacement as this just borrows from the future, and they will have less. And yes we also use natural resources as a sink for trash but they are about filled up there too (really are, ocean can't keep absorbing carbon for instance).
But this is a very long discussion and perhaps one might conclude hopeless, but so is the alternative and objectively so. It's just that what is presently being called realism is: :laff:
But more on topic and something with a lot more working examples: single payer healthcare costs less than what we have. By far. And covers everyone for that spending less. We have pretty much the most expensive system in the world. So it makes the most obvious economic sense that if we wanted to save money we'd go with single payer healthcare. Anything else is being unrealistic and a very odd form of idealism as in "let's spend more than everyone else just to make sure everyone isn't covered". A very odd impractical idealism that we can only do because we're rich enough to throw away money.
There is nothing that will change a right-winger's mind.
If trickle down economics actually worked kansas’s economy would be booming like there’s no tomorrow and california’s would be completely tanked.
I guarantee you that if you put more money in the pockets of the people in the bottom 50% economically the ‘job creators’ will be happy to hire more people and produce more product since more consumers will have more money to buy more stuff.
There is nothing that will change a right-winger's mind.
To paraphrase Barry (Goldwater,not Obama), in your heart you know I’m right.
And the inevitable response to that was "In your guts, you know he's nuts!"
But Goldwater--who lost in a landslide--is looking saner by comparison all the time.
If trickle down economics actually worked kansas’s economy would be booming like there’s no tomorrow and california’s would be completely tanked.
I guarantee you that if you put more money in the pockets of the people in the bottom 50% economically the ‘job creators’ will be happy to hire more people and produce more product since more consumers will have more money to buy more stuff.
So the problem with trickle down was that it lacked the secret ingredient of coerced redistribution?
So the problem with trickle down was that it lacked the secret ingredient of coerced redistribution?
No, the problem with trickle down is that it doesn't do what it's proponents claim it is supposed to do. But if conservatives were honest and said "we're passing this tax cut because we think rich people should pay less taxes" they might have as much difficulty selling the idea as trump would have if the government's lawyers had been honest about the reason he wanted a citizenship question on the census. The latest tax cuts didn't result in some magical dramatic increase in capital spending by corporations, unless by capital spending one means share buybacks. And most wealthy people are probably like me. They don't live paycheck to paycheck, so I doubt many of them went out and spent their tax cuts growing the economy. Their behavior was probably more like mine. Shovel the extra money into an index fund or some other investment that does nothing to grow the economy, only the stock market. But put the $3,000 or so that I got from the tax cut into the pockets of people living paycheck to paycheck and I guarantee that money would have been percolating through the economy buying stuff and services within weeks of its arrival.
ApatheticNoMore
7-21-19, 11:47am
maybe, I suspect much of it would go to debt, which would be trickling back into the hands of the rich pretty fast in that case. But for people without much debt maybe.
If you live life perpetually in debt then getting a windfall that reduces that debt just means an opportunity to spend money and build that debt level back up.
I'm baffled by why anyone thinks that the financially privileged parking more money in offshore hoards would be good for the economy. It really doesn't even do much for the hoarders, except--I guess--increasing their "score."
Teacher Terry
7-21-19, 12:25pm
Trickle down has never worked and that’s why the rich love it.
Trickle down has never worked and that’s why the rich love it.
When I think of trickle down economics I see proof of its efficacy by looking back at my life. Someone once said you can predict the future by looking at what the rich have today, the middle class will have something equivalent within 10 years and the poor will have a decade later. That's been my experience and that's also trickle down economics.
Those of you fixated on redistribution through government force (taxation) are missing the point. During the heyday of FDR's New Deal the top tax rates were 90+ percent and 85% of the population were subjected to paying some amount annually. Today the maximum tax rate is much lower, the number of citizens subjected to paying income tax is in the 50 to 55% range and the poor are better off than they've ever been.
Explain that.
When I think of trickle down economics I see proof of its efficacy by looking back at my life. Someone once said you can predict the future by looking at what the rich have today, the middle class will have something equivalent within 10 years and the poor will have a decade later. That's been my experience and that's also trickle down economics.
Those of you fixated on redistribution through government force (taxation) are missing the point.
I suppose that's why an older generation called it the "horse and sparrow theory" If you feed the horse enough oats some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.
I suppose that's why an older generation called it the "horse and sparrow theory" If you feed the horse enough oats some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.
Just remember that it's not the government providing those oats to the horse, it's the capitalist.
Just remember that it's not the government providing those oats to the horse, it's the capitalist.
I was thinking, not of the few grains of oats that hit the road for the sparrow, I was thinking of the s**t.
Just remember that it's not the government providing those oats to the horse, it's the capitalist.
You mean the capitalists that got bailed out by the government ten years ago?
You mean the capitalists that got bailed out by the government ten years ago?
The government bailed them out largely with funds taxed from capitalists or money borrowed from capitalists. Then the bailouts were repaid by the original capitalists.
Should more institutions have been allowed to fail? Perhaps, but President You-Didn’t-Build-That seemed to think it was necessary.
It's hardly capitalism if failure has no consequences.
It's a little deceiving to talk tax rates without considering the effective rates after various tax advantages.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
The fault of redistribution of income through taxes is that it goes the the inefficiency of the bureaucracy. The fault of trickle down economics where advantages are given to the wealthy and corporations is the element of greed, where the rich benefit the most and the profit motive gives little consideration for social welfare. I have always thought that trickle down economics doesn't work based on past history, but something seems to be working well with the economy now. I think the experts are slightly baffled. Maybe it's all the tax cuts at the expense of the National Debt.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.