|
If you want to make the argument that Bush 2 only agreed to high levels of social services funding because the democrats made him do it, fine. But that sounds pretty bad for the neoliberalism narrative.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you want to make the argument that Bush 2 only agreed to high levels of social services funding because the democrats made him do it, fine. But that sounds pretty bad for the neoliberalism narrative. Characterizing that non discretionary spending as Bush's tacit approval of them is disingenuous at best, as touching medicare and social security payout levels is called the third rail of American politics for a reason...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you want to make the argument that Bush 2 only agreed to high levels of social services funding because the democrats made him do it, fine. But that sounds pretty bad for the neoliberalism narrative. Assuming your insane arguments are correct, what does it then say about Barack Obama that he was willing to cut social security spending as part of a grand bargain E: VVV I think Im conflating events :/ Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Assuming your insane arguments are correct, what does it then say about Barack Obama that he was willing to cut social security spending as part of a grand bargain but then Ted Cruz hosed it up? Or Bill Clinton and PRWORA for that matter. Also, Cruz wasn't in the Senate yet, it was tea party house members who threw a fit over token tax increases, but your point still stands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Assuming your insane arguments are correct, what does it then say about Barack Obama that he was willing to cut social security spending as part of a grand bargain but then Ted Cruz hosed it up? Sounds like he avoided doing the very bad thing that LBJ did. MooselanderII posted:Characterizing that non discretionary spending as Bush's tacit approval of them is disingenuous at best, as touching medicare and social security payout levels is called the third rail of American politics for a reason... Should we only give politicians credit for things they really wanted to do deep in their hearts, and not for things they did due to political reality?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think the amount of social services spending the president agrees to in a budget is relevant to that discussion, certainly. It's not the only factor. the president can't "agree" to any amount of non-discretionary spending. bush didn't agree to SS spending and if it was up to him he would've privatized it. it wasn't up to him so though so he doesn't get credit for that spending. the same goes for obama
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the president can't "agree" to any amount of non-discretionary spending. bush didn't agree to SS spending and if it was up to him he would've privatized it. it wasn't up to him so though so he doesn't get credit for that spending. Sounds like you're saying democrats saved social security a decade ago. I'm not sure how to square that with the neoliberalism narrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sounds like he avoided doing the very bad thing that LBJ did. LBJ did not cut social security but okay. Clinton did destroy welfare. So because LBJ finally agreed to $3 billion in welfare cuts one time in exchange for a tax raise after huge progressive congressional losses and the remaining conservative Democrats forced him to, now Democrats can keep cutting forever and can't be criticized for being too conservative. Maybe LBJ's cuts (that he didn't want to do) were bad, and conservative Democrats continuing to cut social programs and trying to cut social security was even worse, and didn't magically become progressive because LBJ did it too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the president can't "agree" to any amount of non-discretionary spending They should have a phrase that means 'can't decide whether or not to spend money'. Dunno what though. Un-choiced outlays? Can't-pick budgeting? Its a mystery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sounds like he avoided doing the very bad thing that LBJ did. Weren't you the one cautioning people about extrapolating about intent if we don't have intertemporal telepathy? And my point still stands, if you think that social service spending levels always and without fail evinces some sort of intent to preserve and expand the underlying programs rather than demonstrating adherence to political reality, then your analysis sucks and you should be ashamed of yourself. Paul Ryan and the house GOP have signed off on countless continuing resolutions to fund the government at current social service levels, do they deserve credit for that too even though they will destroy those programs at their first opportunity? Does it make them as leftist as LBJ until they commit the act of gutting those programs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:LBJ did not cut social security but okay. Clinton did destroy welfare. LBJ cuts benefits after democrats badly lose an election -- not his fault. Bill Clinton cuts benefits after democrats badly lose an election -- he wanted to destroy welfare. Hmm...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Weren't you the one cautioning people about extrapolating about intent if we don't have intertemporal telepathy? Yes, I don't think there's a good way to disentangle a politician's true intentions from the necessities of political reality. quote:And my point still stands, if you think that social service spending levels always and without fail evinces some sort of intent to preserve and expand the underlying programs rather than demonstrating adherence to political reality, then your analysis sucks and you should be ashamed of yourself. Paul Ryan and the house GOP have signed off on countless continuing resolutions to fund the government at current social service levels, do they deserve credit for that too even though they will destroy those programs at their first opportunity? Does it make them as leftist as LBJ until they commit the act of gutting those programs? If you believe that Republicans will destroy the welfare state the first chance they get: 1) I guess we'll see now that they control all 3 branches of government. 2) The democrats must have been actively thwarting their efforts to destroy the welfare state up to this point, which is totally inconsistent with the neoliberalism narrative that democrats are secretly trying to destroy the welfare state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:LBJ cuts benefits after democrats badly lose an election -- not his fault. Compare the opening negotiating positions of Clinton and Obama (with the grand bargain) to LBJ's. Clinton laid out his agreement to welfare cuts right from the getgo in his 1996 state of the union speech. And Obama was even willing to sign off on a grand bargain that didn't even include any tax increases until house Democrats threw a fit and only then were a few token increases were thrown in! MooselanderII fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sounds like you're saying democrats saved social security a decade ago. I'm not sure how to square that with the neoliberalism narrative. it's pretty easy to square it actually. the dems were playing politics. clinton tried to privatize social security and so did obama so it's a bit silly to try to pretend dems are not pro-privatization of social security. meanwhile it's insane to argue that bush was economically progressive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, I don't think there's a good way to disentangle a politician's true intentions from the necessities of political reality. Well that's great, but what does it say about Paul Ryan and the house GOP that they have signed off on continuing resolutions maintaining social service levels?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:LBJ cuts benefits after democrats badly lose an election -- not his fault. Maybe those things were both bad, and continuing to cut social programs and saying "it's not our fault we hosed you again" is why the Democratic establishment can't motivate anyone to vote for them. On the other hand, fighting tooth and nail for their (lovely) principles after badly losing an election got Republicans rewarded with six years of gains so might be there's something the DNC could learn from all this? Nah keep doubling down on centrism and marketing slower cuts than Republicans want as progressive it'll work eventually! E: actually I don't think you're arguing anything, you don't really have a coherent point except to contrarily dispute every possible point to derail any criticism of the status quo which is basically the only thing I've ever seen you do in every thread about economics. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Yeah, the bottom line here is that JeffersonClay can't accept that some of the blame for Hillary's defeat rests with Hillary herself and the Democratic establishment she helped cultivate. Why is that so controversial?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Yeah, the bottom line here is that JeffersonClay can't accept that some of the blame for Hillary's defeat rests with Hillary herself and the Democratic establishment she helped cultivate. Why is that so controversial? he's fessed up to it in the past, just doesn't want to admit the agenda behind hillary (whatever you want to call it) should go down in flames as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Cutting "entitlements" and giving sloppy blow jobs to the financial sector cannot fail, only be failed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sounds like he avoided doing the very bad thing that LBJ did. YES. Intent is everything. It's the reason Bernie's fans give him a pass on the crime bill he votes for because he spoke against it and only voted because of the other stuff attached to it. "Political reality" means that it was going to happen regardless of the person. So why would we blame a person for it? Obama is not being railed against because he didn't do anything, but because he wasn't seen to do anything. If ended his presidency with nothing to show for it but constantly championing good causes and fighting for change he'd have gone down as a hero to the left. If Obama said of the ACA that it was actually pretty bad but it's the best thing he could get through the House at the time and Democrats would need the help of voters to clear the way to improve it the left would have a much better view of ACA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Higsian posted:YES. Intent is everything. It's the reason Bernie's fans give him a pass on the crime bill he votes for because he spoke against it and only voted because of the other stuff attached to it. "Political reality" means that it was going to happen regardless of the person. So why would we blame a person for it? Obama is not being railed against because he didn't do anything, but because he wasn't seen to do anything. If ended his presidency with nothing to show for it but constantly championing good causes and fighting for change he'd have gone down as a hero to the left. If Obama said of the ACA that it was actually pretty bad but it's the best thing he could get through the House at the time and Democrats would need the help of voters to clear the way to improve it the left would have a much better view of ACA. I agree with this pretty much. It would be nice if the prevailing attitude was 'this was the best we could get, please help us get more' instead of 'take this and like it, any dissent means you hate freedom and don't understand pragmatism'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Pragmatism is for when you are negotiating once you are in power. Showing you are willing to give up what your base is pushing for even before the talks start lets others know you are fine with conceding more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Does the Constitution mention what should happen if the results of an election were illegally tampered with that affected the result? The US just kicked out a bunch of Russian "spies" so I'm wondering if it's actually possible that Russia tampered with the election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Does the Constitution mention what should happen if the results of an election were illegally tampered with that affected the result? The US just kicked out a bunch of Russian "spies" so I'm wondering if it's actually possible that Russia tampered with the election. At absolute worst Russia leaked a bunch of emails that wouldnt have mattered if those involved hadnt been scummy fucks. It was a peek inside the sausage factory. There was no vote tampering, it was a legitimate election that Clinton legitimately lost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:At absolute worst Russia leaked a bunch of emails that wouldnt have mattered if those involved hadnt been scummy fucks. It was a peek inside the sausage factory. There was no vote tampering, it was a legitimate election that Clinton legitimately lost. But what would happen if there was evidence of vote tampering?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
I'd like for Sanders to release all of his emails since January 2015, for comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:I'd like for Sanders to release all of his emails since January 2015, for comparison. But not any Republican emails! That wouldn't be in
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
qkkl posted:But what would happen if there was evidence of vote tampering? All hell would probably break loose. Good thing there isnt any of that, despite some high profile recount efforts. E: VideoTapir posted:I'd like for Sanders to release all of his emails since January 2015, for comparison. Well yeah, its well known that Benie Sanders won the Democratic Nomination for President, and therefore his email are highly relevant to the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. Also Bernie Sanders, in his capacity as distinguished Senator from the extremely important state of Vermont brokered hundreds of deals with international power players and was the face of US diplomacy for many years. (release the transcripts Hillary) Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:All hell would probably break loose. Good thing there isnt any of that, despite some high profile recount efforts. I was thinking more as salt for DNC's/Hillary's wounds. I don't think anyone has any doubts that Trump's campaign would have had far worse emails. That's why they're not interesting. The idea would be (I hope, assuming there aren't any big surprises...and they would be surprises) to see that there was in fact a candidate who was what Clinton was pretending to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:I was thinking more as salt for DNC's/Hillary's wounds. Bernie Sanders' emails are just his economic stump speech sent as a reply to every single message, regardless of context. Each email has different typos, indicating he typed it out by hand every time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
I could see that. Its a shame we probably wont since that would be seen (for good reason) as adversarial and opportunistic, and since Bernie is backing Ellison's run he has to consider what dems think of him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Bernie Sanders' emails are just his economic stump speech sent as a reply to every single message, regardless of context. Each email has different typos, indicating he typed it out by hand every time. Hah! logger posted:Pragmatism is for when you are negotiating once you are in power. Showing you are willing to give up what your base is pushing for even before the talks start lets others know you are fine with conceding more. Obama is the best president to ever completely waste 8 years in office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:I'd like for Sanders to release all of his emails since January 2015, for comparison. do you really think Bernie Sanders has written something damning in email format?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Bernie Sanders' emails are just his economic stump speech sent as a reply to every single message, regardless of context. Each email has different typos, indicating he typed it out by hand every time.  this is both true and why I have lived Bernie since he was a representative from Vermont.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Kilano posted:do you really think Bernie Sanders has written something damning in email format? Someone on his campaign? Absolutely. Remember nothing in the leaked emails was actually about what Hillary wrote, it was just stuff like random staffers bitching to each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Obama is the best president to ever completely waste 8 years in office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Kilano posted:do you really think Bernie Sanders has written something damning in email format? I think a lot of people would be saying he did even if it weren't strictly true. Unless that's a thing they only do to women. So far it consistently happens with Samantha Bee and HRC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
cheese posted:What? Obama accomplished a great deal. He managed to get the banks, wall street and the economy stabilized and then back on the track to record profits and stock prices, all without making any meaningful social/safety net concessions. A feat of wizardry, truly. he tried really hard tho
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think a lot of people would be saying he did even if it weren't strictly true. Unless that's a thing they only do to women. So far it consistently happens with Samantha Bee and HRC. Are you still salty about people criticizing Samantha bee for fighting against school integration because "my property values"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think a lot of people would be saying he did even if it weren't strictly true. Unless that's a thing they only do to women. So far it consistently happens with Samantha Bee and HRC. I think you're forgetting the Spirit Cook John Podesta
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 05:36
|
|
