|
rscott posted:Budget surpluses are bad when the economy is in the doldrums due to a lack of consumer demand and buys into right wing economic ideology Re: governments Your understanding of history is flawed if you think the suprlus in the 90s took place during an economic downturn.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Your understanding of history is flawed if you think the suprlus in the 90s took place during an economic downturn. The 90s were a credit-driven cocaine binge by the nation at large after the Reagan administration removed all government limbs from the economy's steering wheel and managed to convince everyone that two-income households not making a lot more money than the one-income ones of the previous generation was okay, rather than a loving outrage. Fundamentally the 90s are only seen as prosperous because nobody had maxed their credit limits quite yet and two-income households were still somewhat ahead of the curve since wages had not been stagnating as long as they have now. I mean I'm not saying rscott is totally right but the Clinton surplus was achieved partially on the back of reduction of government services (welfare, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Your understanding of history is flawed if you think the suprlus in the 90s took place during an economic downturn. Yes, inflating a bubble and cutting social welfare spending with a meaningless tax increase on wage earners while cutting taxes on capital gains sure is progressive policy guys might as well bring up how tough on crime Clinton will be, that was a big thing back in the 90s too
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
rscott posted:Yes, inflating a bubble and cutting social welfare spending with a meaningless tax increase on wage earners while cutting taxes on capital gains sure is progressive policy guys That's just deflecting. The point I was making is that your understanding of history is flawed in this post. The Clinton surplus, as bad as you claim it was, didn't take place during economic "doldrums." rscott posted:Budget surpluses are bad when the economy is in the doldrums due to a lack of consumer demand and buys into right wing economic ideology Re: governments But since you're trying to pretend that Hillary in 2016 is Bill in 1996, doesn't surprise me you're not actually interested in an honest conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's just deflecting. The Post I quoted is literally making the argument to advertise on the legacy of the first Clinton administration, do you even know how to read?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
rscott posted:Yes, inflating a bubble and cutting social welfare spending with a meaningless tax increase on wage earners while cutting taxes on capital gains sure is progressive policy guys Pro tip: most people under 40 remember the 90s really really positively and being a huge stick in the mud about how gross and problematic they were is a really terrible way to get support for FULL COMMUNISM NOW or whatever
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Pro tip: most people under 40 remember the 90s really really positively and being a huge stick in the mud about how gross and problematic they were is a really terrible way to get support for FULL COMMUNISM NOW or whatever lol there's never a good time to criticize Democrats to keep them honest, gotta go full on yaaaaaaaaasssss queen or the fascists win e: most people being your middle class peers or what? rscott fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
rscott posted:The Post I quoted is literally making the argument to advertise on the legacy of the first Clinton administration, do you even know how to read? Yes and you trying to discredit that post by saying "surpluses during economic downturns are bad" isn't responsive because the 90s surplus wasn't during a downturn. Dr.Zeppelin posted:Pro tip: most people under 40 remember the 90s really really positively and being a huge stick in the mud about how gross and problematic they were is a really terrible way to get support for FULL COMMUNISM NOW or whatever That and this absurd idea that we judge past leaders based on their ability to achieve current progressive goals is idiotic. Sure FDR and JFK did little for LBGT rights, but I still think they were good Democratic presidents. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
rscott posted:lol there's never a good time to criticize Democrats to keep them honest, gotta go full on yaaaaaaaaasssss queen or the fascists win
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
rscott posted:
Minorities too, which is why a little known candidate named Hillary Clinton made lots of inroads this year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes and you trying to discredit that post by saying "surpluses during economic downturns are bad" isn't responsive because the 90s surplus wasn't during a downturn. Why drag out the rhetoric in the first place except to remind people that you're committed to small government principles and all that other dare I say, neoliberal rubbish. Why are democrats still so fundamentally attached to lovely policies like balancing the federal budget when running a 1-2% gdp deficit is perfectly acceptable and is actually a stimulus to the private sector? Get that poo poo out of here, it's trash, it's dumb and it should never be drug out like it's some kind of accomplishment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Oh great Bernie / BoB chat Please just tell them to return to Your Candidate Sucked
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
rscott posted:Why drag out the rhetoric in the first place except to remind people that you're committed to small government principles and all that other dare I say, neoliberal rubbish. Why are democrats still so fundamentally attached to lovely policies like balancing the federal budget when running a 1-2% gdp deficit is perfectly acceptable and is actually a stimulus to the private sector? Get that poo poo out of here, it's trash, it's dumb and it should never be drug out like it's some kind of accomplishment. You realize the Democratic Party platform doesn't mention a balanced federal budget at all? What proof do you have that Democrats are "still so fundamentally attached to lovely policies like balancing the federal budget" besides in your mind?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
rscott posted:Why drag out the rhetoric in the first place except to remind people that you're committed to small government principles and all that other dare I say, neoliberal rubbish. Why are democrats still so fundamentally attached to lovely policies like balancing the federal budget when running a 1-2% gdp deficit is perfectly acceptable and is actually a stimulus to the private sector? Get that poo poo out of here, it's trash, it's dumb and it should never be drug out like it's some kind of accomplishment. It is the eternal Democratic spinelessness on economic issues, which Hillary has less of than any recent candidate but more than anybody really wants. This kind of thing enables Trump because the Democrats aren't committed to dismantling the status quo, which has been fundamentally on Republican terms since 1980, and while Trump supporters are largely racist and dumb they aren't wrong that the status quo is poo poo. I'm happily voting for Hillary but there are a lot of other Democrats who seem hesitant to break from the 90s third way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:Most of us see what happened to Muslims after 9/11 and know that could have been us. cough cough WW2 and Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion act, freaking food racism over Monosodium glutamate/MSG and chinese food. Also pretty sure that studies/data also show that younger Asians trend D. Also Also more reminders of Bachman being a giant POS. Her district had one of the highest rates of (LGBT) teen suicide. Can't help them because Fundie Jeeezus says it's my right to say the f-word and stuff. edit: typos, delicious food additives not videogame PhazonLink fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:It is the eternal Democratic spinelessness on economic issues, which Hillary has less of than any recent candidate but more than anybody really wants. This kind of thing enables Trump because the Democrats aren't committed to dismantling the status quo, which has been fundamentally on Republican terms since 1980, and while Trump supporters are largely racist and dumb they aren't wrong that the status quo is poo poo. Yeah it's funny how some Democrats hear "dismantling the status quo" and think you mean "undo all the good work thus far" rather than "wave a magic wand and make things perfect. Presumably when you said you wanted to dismantle the status quo you didn't mean the EPA, ACA or SSA, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize the Democratic Party platform doesn't mention a balanced federal budget at all? because neoliberal neoliberal neoliberal neoliberal neoliberal neoliberal neoliberal why did bernie do so good huh neoliberal neoliberal neoliberal third way neoliberal neoliberal neoliberal robbed neoliberal neoliberal clinton wikileaks murder emailghazi
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize the Democratic Party platform doesn't mention a balanced federal budget at all? If he has to accept that things are different outside of his hellhole state's ineffective party, it would really upset him. You'll find that a lot of people in general who're all "oh no the Democrats really want to be exactly a 1995 blue dog" are living i terrible places like Texas or Kansas or North Dakota where that really is an accurate description of state level Dems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Quorum posted:"If Clinton wins in a landslide, it'll mean she doesn't have a mandate!" If the GOP were to hold on to the Senate, no matter how big or small an EV victory Clinton has "we're in power here so you don't have a mandate" is going to be their line of attack for the next 2-4 years. Especially for the SCOTUS fight. PhazonLink posted:cough cough WW2 and Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion act, freaking food racism over MGS and chinese food. What does Metal Gear Solid have to do with Chinese food?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:08
|
|
forever.
|
SocketWrench posted:Eh, I'm '77 and even I don't remember the Cold War. All I remember about it from the time is the news showing the Berlin Wall coming down and the commentators saying we won the war. I was like "we were at war?" Then along came Desert Shield/Storm, a vigil in town, and watching us kick the poo poo out of everything on the news I'm '82 and also vividly remember watching the news about the wall coming down. It was a major deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize the Democratic Party platform doesn't mention a balanced federal budget at all? Yes I am aware of that fact, trying to run a "positive campaign for Hillary" by mentioning how her husband balanced the budget is backsliding on the message of economic justice in the platform. It's buying into republican framing which has been a problem for the Democrats for 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
rscott posted:Yes I am aware of that fact, trying to run a "positive campaign for Hillary" by mentioning how her husband balanced the budget is backsliding on the message of economic justice in the platform. It's buying into republican framing which has been a problem for the Democrats for 40 years. The issue with "balancing the budget" is it being used as an excuse to cut programs. Like, Democrats saying "I love America" is not buying into the GOP's framing of an issue and you'd be a moron to say "America sucks" and expect to win (which is why Trump is losing).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, you don't have to convince all the white people, just the ones running for office. It's not like there isn't precedence. Polish, Germans, Italians, Irish, etc. I think it would be foolish of us to assume they couldn't do it given enough time. Yes, but a good chunk of that comes from finding another convenient Other to sic the hordes on. Not to mention the fact that the various European groups were conveniently not obviously visually distinct from those who were considered "white" at the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If he has to accept that things are different outside of his hellhole state's ineffective party, it would really upset him. You'll find that a lot of people in general who're all "oh no the Democrats really want to be exactly a 1995 blue dog" are living i terrible places like Texas or Kansas or North Dakota where that really is an accurate description of state level Dems. Republicans control 2/3rds of state legislatures, it's not exactly like it's just a few states with historical reasons like Kansas as to why the democrats are awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize the Democratic Party platform doesn't mention a balanced federal budget at all? http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Clinton/?on=federal-budget
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
rscott posted:Republicans control 2/3rds of state legislatures, it's not exactly like it's just a few states with historical reasons like Kansas as to why the democrats are awful. Maybe you should run for state-level office then, instead of just whining about how bad both parties are
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
most states are p bad tbqh
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The issue with "balancing the budget" is it being used as an excuse to cut programs. Even if the budget was currently balanced exclusively through tax increases on people so wealthy that it would not decrease their marginal propensity to consume a single bit, it would still be sub optimal. Government deficits by their very nature are private sector surpluses, not to mention the crucial role United States debt plays in the global finance system. Any rhetoric or ideology advocating for a balanced budget fundamentally misunderstands the role and purpose the government plays in a modern progressive liberal society and should be dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
rscott posted:Even if the budget was currently balanced exclusively through tax increases on people so wealthy that it would not decrease their marginal propensity to consume a single bit, it would still be sub optimal. Oh no, not sub-optimalness. How will we ever survive? Like really, if the most you can complain about is "people don't mind paying higher taxes, BUT" then you really are bitching about nothing. computer parts fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Minorities too, which is why a little known candidate named Hillary Clinton made lots of inroads this year. Like, hey, remember "Blackhawk Down"? Remember when our national touchstone for a problematic military endeavor was one bad day in Mogadishu, and not a fifteen year long forever-war that enveloped multiple continents? Fuckin' 90's, man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
rscott posted:Even if the budget was currently balanced exclusively through tax increases on people so wealthy that it would not decrease their marginal propensity to consume a single bit, it would still be sub optimal. Government deficits by their very nature are private sector surpluses, not to mention the crucial role United States debt plays in the global finance system. Any rhetoric or ideology advocating for a balanced budget fundamentally misunderstands the role and purpose the government plays in a modern progressive liberal society and should be dismissed. Yes, but the average voter can't understand something like that. They do, kind of, understand the small scale idea of budget balancing and think it'll apply to a larger system, which is what has been exploited by Republicans for decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Also all white people over the age of 30. Yeah but like, Gore wasn't a perfect candidate, so what can ya do
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:Most of us see what happened to Muslims after 9/11 and know that could have been us. aside from those in our communities chasing the carrot of whiteness, anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Yes, but a good chunk of that comes from finding another convenient Other to sic the hordes on. Not to mention the fact that the various European groups were conveniently not obviously visually distinct from those who were considered "white" at the time. That's fair. I'm just saying, we shouldn't underestimate the ever popular "scapegoat the black people" strategy from the Republicans, with regards to appealing to other minorities. People are all too quick to poo poo on others just so they aren't the bottom rung of the ladder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
rscott posted:Republicans control 2/3rds of state legislatures, it's not exactly like it's just a few states with historical reasons like Kansas as to why the democrats are awful. And that has what to do with the point that you're assuming all Democrats nationwide are the sad-sack who runs for the Democrats out in Oklahoma or wherever you are?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Yeah but like, Gore wasn't a perfect candidate, so what can ya do His VP candidate murdered the public option and is considering endorsing Trump, please keep making my points for me
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
rscott posted:His VP candidate murdered the public option and is considering endorsing Trump, please keep making my points for me Amazing, all in 2000? You whine an awful lot but how would you actually fix anything?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
fishmech posted:And that has what to do with the point that you're assuming all Democrats nationwide are the sad-sack who runs for the Democrats out in Oklahoma or wherever you are? Known bluedog Hillary Clinton really wants to go back to the days of her husband's administration where there was a budget surplus Unless she's gone and repudiated that particular position, I really do hope she's come to her senses like she has many other economic issues
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 20:37
|
|