Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Pinned
    • Discussion
    The War Room III: From British Invasion to British Implosion
    • Pietro wrote:

      Why is it that the left has to campaign on gradualism while the same is never expected of the right? No one ever mentions gradualism in regards to right wing proposals. The left is expected to be weak and meek accepting the crumbs, while the right is expected to take out their sledgehammer and baseball bat. Well its about time the left starts getting some barbed wire to wrap around their bats metaphorically speaking of course and join the fray.
      Unfortunately, when you see the left try to do the things like you've said they get antagonized to hell and back by being called "babies" and "libtards", etc. Making it seem like the left really is the opposition that needs to be snuffed out at all costs. But when the right do it, like they have been, they see it they're doing a righteous thing. This, in turn, seems to embolden then and makes them fight harder.

      It's a bullshit double-standard.

      I've been thinking about this for a while as well. Sometimes it seems like the Civil War really never ended. Just transformed over time.
    • I think the best example is Obamacare which was a half-baked step forward towards Medicare for all, which is probably going to be struck down by the now conservative Supreme Court soon enough.

      Compromise doesn't work. They'll just pull us further to the right because they can and we'll let them, lol.

      Incrementalism doesn't work, because in the next cycle everything you've done will be undone and then they'll go further because they can.


      Ask me for the clan test!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by goronmario ().

    • goronmario wrote:

      I think the best example is Obamacare which was a half-baked step forward towards Medicare for all, which is probably going to be struck down by the now conservative Supreme Court soon enough.

      Compromise doesn't work. They'll just pull us further to the right because they can and we'll let them, lol.

      Incrementalism doesn't work, because in the next cycle everything you've done will be undone and then they'll go further because they can.
      From the legal experts I been following it is unlikely going to get struck down.

      Your reasoning for why incrementalism doesn’t work doesn’t make sense to me.
      If they would had somehow passed MFA the GOP would had still worked to undo it.

      Personally I believe when a political party pushes their extreme beliefs into policy, it causes more of a reaction from the opposite party. Look at Trump’s alt right policies now. He caused the biggest blue wave since Nixon. In fact, it would had been even bigger without gerrymandering.
    • Here's a very recent example of Democrats crippling themselves needlessly:

      theintercept.com/2019/01/02/nancy-pelosi-pay-go-rule/

      The worst part is that only two progressive representatives (Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna) have explicitly said they will oppose PAYGO, the other members in the progressive caucus have indicated they will vote in favor of the rules change, which will institute austerity and pre-emptively destroy progressive policy proposals for the forseeable future. Austerity economics have been thoroughly discredited yet here are Democrats embracing failed economic theory.

      Republicans never intentionally kneecap themselves, stop punching yourselves democrats.
    • Bowsette wrote:

      Republicans never intentionally kneecap themselves, stop punching yourselves democrats.

      Never heard of "trickle-down"/"supply-side" economics that the GOP tends to embrace including the constituents? They love to vote in favor of said economic policy, despite it being proven to never work.


      [FONT="Arial"][SIZE="4"]
      Hosting a vanilla server at: direct.kylemc.net
      Dynmap at: kylemc.net/map[/SIZE][/FONT]
    • The point I was making in that quote was not about policy issues but rather tactics - Republicans when in power never made rules changes that made it more difficult to pass their tax cuts, they did the opposite and bypassed statutory PAYGO law put in place by the Obama administration (which would have triggered automatic sequestration for entitlement programs if they hadn't).



      The post was edited 1 time, last by Viajero de la Galaxia ().

    • I'm not a fan of the "Austerity doesn't work" byline because since 2012 it's been increasingly easy for *any* economic pundit, on the left or the right, to label a policy they don't like as austere and so dismiss it with no actual work done.

      A responsible fiscal policy should either increase taxes or decrease spending (or both) during periods of stable economic growth and a responsible monetary policy should increase interest rates in the same period. The two biggest reasons for this are to apply counter-cyclical pressure to the current growth (preventing it from spinning out of control and generating bubbles) and to prepare "ammunition" for the next recession (when taxes can be lowered, stimulus provided, and interest rate dropped in order to "rescue" the economy and, more importantly, keep people alive).

      If we establish a paradigm where all tax hikes, all reductions in spending, and all attempts to constrain the money supply are "austere" and we all accept that "austerity doesn't work" then things are going to get really bad long term. Really, really bad.

      When people justifiably say "Austerity doesn't work" they mean something very precise.

      Specifically
      Let's say you're a government over a country experiencing economic growth but your spending is high and your tax revenue is low and you have little to no monetary ammunition. Maybe you're Greece five years ago and (a) you're overspending ridiculously on your military, (b) your citizenry is corrupt and avoids all taxation as a matter of course, and (c) the European central bank control your monetary policy and your particular concerns don't really register for them. Then a recession hits. Uh-oh. What should you do?

      One suggestion is to attempt to court new business and international investment at low rates - that is, take a bail-out and refinance your entire country. But how do you court international investment when your economy is an untrustworthy mess that no one credits? Well, you might try to signal new-found financial responsibility by balancing your budget. Decrease your spending and increase your tax rates and try to take your deficit to zero.

      *This* is the austerity that "doesn't work". It doesn't work because without stimulus in a recession the rate of all taxable interactions continues to fall and increased tax rates don't lead to increased tax revenue, so the deficit isn't actually reduced AND it doesn't work because without government spending programs income inequality rises which exacerbates corruption problems and causes destabilizing popular discontent. All of this was observed in Greece, and in similar cases around the world, at a time when it was easy to compare the results of austerity to the results of monetary and financial stimulus applied in the wake of the 2008 crash. Which is when "Austerity doesn't work" really caught on as a popular slogan.


      A better popular conclusion then "Austerity doesn't work" would've been "Counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policies *do* work". It's a much more useful result for someone trying to actually understand the economy... less useful for pundits with points to win though.
      ~~~
      Although postsocratics like St. Augustine and Judith Butler explored a diverse set of ethical and metaphysical ideas, their unifying feature as a movement was a principled refusal to speculate upon which of the four elements the world was made out of.
      ~~~


      boxes is the best human and I am going to get her a kitten or 2 kittens
    • Paygo doesn't kneecap anything, its still a stupid policy because it puts arbitrary restrictions on lawmakers for no legitimate reason. But how do you respond as a left winger simply cut spending on the military and raise taxes on corporations and the rich to pay for your proposals, what you were planning to do anyway and which isn't restricted by paygo.

      Also





      She's so fucking good, this is the future of the Democratic party right here, get used to it.
    • "At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier"

      When did this request happen? I must've been in a coma for the past year, apparently the issue Democrats had with the wall wasn't the concept of a wall, it was the material composition of the wall... I've been seeing this talking point just pop up for the past few days, who came up with this nonsense?

      One of Trump's friends must run a company that makes steel slats or something.
    • Wow, big things are happening for the NDP and this might become interesting.

      About a year ago Jagmeet Singh won the leadership of the NDP, I found him to be the most vacuous candidate and marked him last on my leadership ballot. But he won, largely I believe because the media was anointing him the winner and the Trudeau beater before he even announced his candidacy. In any case over the past year I have been proven right about Singh and he has been receiving lower results in the polls and by-elections than even Mulcair in his time as lame duck leader, he has seen his fundraising numbers drop pretty badly (which is especially important since public financing of elections was removed) and he has made no impression on the policy front.

      Singh has finally decided to run himself in a by-election in Burnaby South and is in 3rd place in the riding that the NDP holds (to be fair though the poll is 3 months old.) And last weekend there was word that the caucus was already discussing what would happen if he loses, which is a pretty bad sign for Singh, as it shows how little confidence they have in his abilities. They plan on replacing him with Nathan Cullen (who I supported in the 2012 leadership race over Mulcair) or Guy Caron on an interim basis for the election.

      I might in the end vote for the NDP after all, because those are 2 excellent choices.