|
DemeaninDemon posted:Hi Rand Paul. I'm asking whether a policy can be sold to lawmakers in a manner which resonates with them, while you're standing in your ideological world afraid to face the reality of policy work in America. Which one of those is closer to Paul's framework, you idealogue? You hit policy makers with an economic argument, and THEN you follow it up with a moral argument. You don't play Horatio Hornblower and scream into the wind about the morality of a policy when your morality is so Nelsonian when theirs is modern. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Apr 7, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Welcome to policy work, hope you don't share your opinions in public because you'll get nowhere, do nothing, and be nobody. Directly no. Indirectly they prevent the poor from rioting and potentially overthrowing the government while killing all the rich people when they can't eat so yes... EBT is absofuckinglutelly revenue-generating as it lets the rich actually keep their money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Directly no. Ah yes, EBT is the price we pay the masses to keep them in check  EBT is the opiate of the masses!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Directly no. Moral argument. "There'll be a revolution! I swear!" No there won't, there'll be a buncha Fergusons all over the nation, and brother, Ferguson gets doubletime and tripletime authorized. Doubletime+tripletime is good for the middle class AND revenue-generating in a manner acceptable to the general public. EBT? Nope, not gonna win you votes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'm asking whether a policy can be sold to lawmakers in a manner which resonates with them, while you're standing in your ideological world afraid to face the reality of policy work in America. What the gently caress are you talking about here? Metaphors that confuse me aside the argument about policy isn't my goal or whatever. It's to highlight the GOP runs on spite and contempt for poor people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ah yes, EBT is the price we pay the masses to keep them in check It's one of the prices, yes. If there were no assistance, people would starve and die by the thousands in this country. And before that, there would be food riots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:What the gently caress are you talking about here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'm asking whether a policy can be sold to lawmakers in a manner which resonates with them, while you're standing in your ideological world afraid to face the reality of policy work in America. You convince the middle class that it will no longer exist without welfare programs, tax credits, and other government expenditures that go directly into their pockets. Invoke the crab mentality and tell them they can give up their mortgage deductions if they want to tell the power how to eat. Political expediency doesn't hold a candle to the reality that inequality in the US is getting so bad that people who typically have indifferent attitudes about it are now taking a stance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:He's asking how exactly do you go about selling programs like EBT to lawmakers, who first and foremost care about doing things they can put on campaign ads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:You convince the middle class that it will no longer exist without welfare programs, tax credits, and other government expenditures that go directly into their pockets. Invoke the crab mentality and tell them they can give up their mortgage deductions if they want to tell the power how to eat. Political expediency doesn't hold a candle to the reality that inequality in the US is getting so bad that people who typically have indifferent attitudes about it are now taking a stance. Yeah, they're taking a stance. They're tweeting in the twittersphere. They aren't voting, and they aren't making sufficient campaign contributions. Translation: They're powerless, and unwilling to have their views represented. Everblight posted:"Hmm, what looks good on a campaign ad? Maybe me literally feeding the destitute, giving back to my community or even a smiling child with a full belly?.... nah" Where'd you get the money to feed 'em, pal? MY pocket? You're taking my money to give to those people? Get the gently caress outta here, pal. I'm gonna run against you in the primaries and beat you with a stick over your tax and spend policies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Everblight posted:"Hmm, what looks good on a campaign ad? Maybe me literally feeding the destitute, giving back to my community or even a smiling child with a full belly?.... nah" Just make sure none of them are black and you're probably golden
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Everblight posted:"Hmm, what looks good on a campaign ad? Maybe me literally feeding the destitute, giving back to my community or even a smiling child with a full belly?.... nah" I like MIGF more when he's doing this because he is regrettably right about how a lot of domestic politics works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Quote of the day, "I say respectfully to this woman, I don't know who she is." ~ Harry Reid, on being asked about criticism from Rep. Lynn Jenkins on the Senate not taking up House bills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Surely there's got to be a point of diminishing returns for EBT, right? Clearly right now it's a big return on investment, but I wonder if it'd continue with the same ratio with more funds poured into it. I mean if you hit a point at which we give people more money than they can reasonably spend immediately, yeah the returns start diminishing. The thing is that people around the poverty line have so many immediate purchase they need or want to make, but can't, that it would require a lot of funds being poured in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ah yes, EBT is the price we pay the masses to keep them in check Consider when the last time there was a strong rise of support for socialism in this country was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yeah, they're taking a stance. They're tweeting in the twittersphere. "By giving the less fortunate full bellies we are allowing them freedom. Freedom to take the money they would have spent at Walmart on food and instead shop at your niche small business."
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:You can pretend to do that without actually enacting any laws. Come on, give me facts, numbers, figures that politicians could use to sell welfare programs in ads. I say I'm giving the poor an opportunity which they would otherwise not have by lowering taxes, while getting you back some of your hard-earned money, and they say I'm a poopoo head. Guess the truth is in the middle, huh? I like SA. Its got a left slant, much better than the reality of policy work. Unfortunately, SA is a bit disconnected from the reality, that legislators are elected officials. SA is more Obama than Biden, while you really need men like Emanuel in order to win your midterms and allow legislators to gently caress around inbetween redistricting sessions. The impact of specific policies rarely matters; what matters is the perception of policy implementation. DemeaninDemon posted:"By giving the less fortunate full bellies we are allowing them freedom. Freedom to take the money they would have spent at Walmart on food and instead shop at your niche small business." You still don't get it, do you? For 90% of America, a full bellie means a man deprived of the opportunity for motivation. America prefers the hungry, the ambitious, to the fatcats and welfare queens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Oh no I do get it but I sure as hell don't like it. Though I would like to know what sort of tax cuts would help the poor person succeed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Basically, what needs to happen is someone needs to fund a study that proves that food stamps and programs like it lower the unemployment rate, or otherwise positively impacts one of the other economic indicators that are simple to understand and sound important to the majority of people. And then every Democratic policymaker should trumpet the fact that these programs lower unemployment, and if you are against them, you're for a weaker, less productive nation. The fact that people aren't starving is just a neat side-effect. It's disingenuous as hell, but that's how things work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Oh no I do get it but I sure as hell don't like it. Tax cuts that go negative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Though I would like to know what sort of tax cuts would help the poor person succeed. Tax cuts to job creators, duh. That's an easy question whose answer was found in 1982.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Tax cuts to job creators, duh. That's an easy question whose answer was found in 1982. Job Creator, noun. Term used in political discussion to signify the person using it is full of poo poo. The correct answer to my question is an honest progressive tax rate that focuses on income not consumption.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Basically, what needs to happen is someone needs to fund a study that proves that food stamps and programs like it lower the unemployment rate, or otherwise positively impacts one of the other economic indicators that are simple to understand and sound important to the majority of people. And then every Democratic policymaker should trumpet the fact that these programs lower unemployment, and if you are against them, you're for a weaker, less productive nation. The fact that people aren't starving is just a neat side-effect. It's disingenuous as hell, but that's how things work. I see you've been reading from the Environmental Advocacy playbook.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Jonathan Chait points out that Rand promised today that his Presidency would be full of illegal actions.quote:In his speech today announcing his presidential campaign, Rand Paul defended his controversial-for-a-Republican foreign policy views through the time-tested method of Reaganing. “I believe in applying Reagan’s approach to foreign policy to the Iran issue,” explained Paul. “Successful negotiations with untrustworthy adversaries are only achieved from a position of strength.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I see you've been reading from the Environmental Advocacy playbook. That's everyone's playbook. Its policy 101. DemeaninDemon posted:Job Creator, noun. Term used in political discussion to signify the person using it is full of poo poo. There is no correct answer to your question. There are plenty of answers, all with different impacts. Which answer will win you re-election? Not yours, my friend, not yours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Jonathan Chait points out that Rand promised today that his Presidency would be full of illegal actions. Happy Easter USPol. Jesus died so we can have the 2016 GOP primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Quote of the afternoon - "Rand Paul has been mugged by reality, and he’s adjusting a bit — but only a bit. From my point of view, he’s not really come to grips with the world as it is.” ~Bill Kristol Great, now Rand Paul is going to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Basically, what needs to happen is someone needs to fund a study that proves that food stamps and programs like it lower the unemployment rate, or otherwise positively impacts one of the other economic indicators that are simple to understand and sound important to the majority of people. And then every Democratic policymaker should trumpet the fact that these programs lower unemployment, and if you are against them, you're for a weaker, less productive nation. The fact that people aren't starving is just a neat side-effect. It's disingenuous as hell, but that's how things work. You mean something like this. quote:Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That's everyone's playbook. Its policy 101. I don't understand how the "simple economics" playbook didn't end up working with Obamacare/Medicaid expansion. "The Republicans literally want you to pay more for insurance. A vote against Medicaid is a vote for higher premiums."
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
radical meme posted:You mean something like this. That's such a naughty aughties consideration. Times have changed. Politics have moved on from GDP and landed at revenue. Does $1 in food stamps bring in >$1 in revenue to the state? If no, then its not worth funding. Hell, even leftie rhetoric will tell you GDP measurements have no impact upon income inequality, so how can you use GDP to sell a policy when both left and right agree that GDP is a meaningless measure for selling the economics of policy implementation to their base back home?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That's such a naughty aughties consideration. Times have changed. Politics have moved on from GDP and landed at revenue. Does $1 in food stamps bring in >$1 in revenue to the state? If no, then its not worth funding. This was Rick Perry's argument for attempting to gut the UT System and trying to turn every state university into a glorified Community College. By these metrics, we need to scrap defense spending completely. I get that you're being facetious; at least I hope you are; hard to tell some times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Wait, did you seriously just use the word "aughties"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Actually there's been some actual studies on SNAP in relation to unemployment, basically any cuts to SNAP adversely affect small business owners in lower income neighborhoods who's main income is through selling to SNAP customers. When > 50% of all of your patrons use SNAP , any adverse affect on their income lowers yours. A similar situation can be seen with Walmart and other large chain stores, there's been a few studies on how SNAP relates to unemployment directly. Interestingly this is why you can see growth after a Hurricane or Power Outage in New Orleans, because emergency Snap benefits are issued. The stores have to hire more temporary workers to deal with the influx of customers. I'll dig around I actually think I have a study on my computer related to this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Presenting: the Charlie Rangel Cookbook.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
I wonder if food stamps reduce medical spending and reduce crime? If so, "Food stamps cut costs!," would be fun to break out. And, regarding the above post, "Food stamps create jobs," is always a fun one. "It's a cost-cutting, job-creating program that increases small-business revenues and profits."
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
radical meme posted:This was Rick Perry's argument for attempting to gut the UT System and trying to turn every state university into a glorified Community College. By these metrics, we need to scrap defense spending completely. The only Moral Spending is Defense Spending.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Job Creator, noun. Term used in political discussion to signify the person using it is full of poo poo. Correctness matters less than effectiveness of communication. "Job Creator" is more effectively communicated than "an honest progressive tax rate that focuses on income not consumption"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Presenting: the Charlie Rangel Cookbook. The man sure loves himself a smoothie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Great, now Rand Paul is going to win. I'm a little worried because Bill Kristol appears to have said something that will not turn out to have been wrong. My world is crumbling. Bring me the latest tweet of Dick Morris, that I may be soothed again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
JT Jag posted:I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Walker's government was instructed to deliberately bankrupt his state government, and they never expected his reforms to produce any revenue. It only strengthens the Republican message of 'government is ineffective and wasteful, this can all be done better by private enterprise'. Your giving the guy way to much credit. He just doesn't care what the fallout is al long as it gets him to the white house. I'll enjoy the last year of his term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 23:29
|
|