|
joepinetree posted:Listen to the latest Pod Save America (starting around the 56 minute mark), where Duckworth claims that Democrats shouldn't propose their own tax plans because the people of Illinois want a compromise. And that as a centrist democrat she is willing to work with Republicans. And then in terms of the compromises that she is willing to make, she wants to extend the tax cuts to "mainstreet" (meaning small and medium businesses) and that she would be willing to cut the corporate tax rate even further to 15% if all the profits repatriated because of the cuts were used to improve infrastructure. Yeah, I wasn't particularly excited by her during PSA episode. With that said, I'm on the Bernie/Warren wing of the party, and I'd still vote for her over Trump obviously. (I did the same for Hillary.) I'm a VA goon who was very involved in the statewide elections we had earlier this month, and I was pretty happy with how a lot of my Bernie diehard friends were behaving. There was still a lot of open criticism of Northam (which was deserved), but they still showed up and pulled the lever for him. We also got a lot of pleasant surprises at the House of Delegates, with a bunch of strong progressives taking seats from conservative Republican incumbents. I really hope that the Democratic Party gets to a point where we welcome competitive primaries with progressive challengers but all get behind whoever the Democratic nominee is, because whoever they are, they're probably still better than the Republican.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
joepinetree posted:If the most you can say in the face of one of the most regressive tax bills in history is that you are willing to work to cut taxes for businesses even further, there is no progressiveness there. This isn't going to be a popular opinion (or maybe I'll be surprised) but the corporate taxation system does need an overhaul which includes cuts to the rates. Current corporate taxation advantages large and global corporations while placing smaller corporations at a disadvantage. A cut to the rate doesn't mean that corporations pay less, however, because a proper rebalancing includes the closing of tax advantage vehicles which large corporations use to pay low effective rates. That is, however, a piece of tax reform that should be included broadly with a rebalancing of personal and investment income taxation. Cap gains should be included as income for instance. And of course, the GOP doesn't want any of this, but if a Republican wants on board with this then it should be encouraged. Taxes are best thought of as an incentivization tool, and right now we encourage minimal investment into the US while investing or hoarding abroad. Boon fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Nov 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
B B posted:Yeah, I wasn't particularly excited by her during PSA episode. With that said, I'm on the Bernie/Warren wing of the party, and I'd still vote for her over Trump obviously. (I did the same for Hillary.) I mean, the list the people I would vote over Trump is pretty long. But the consequences for any Democrats even considering supporting anything close to the current tax proposal has to be immediate. Office Pig posted:Are there transcripts of these episodes? I can’t really listen to anything right now or in the near future, but I have to see this for myself. Not as far as I can tell. But here's the highlights (it's not very long and starts at the 56 minute mark if you want to listen to it later. Dan Pfeiffer asked if there should be an alternative Democratic proposal, and she said: "I don't think the people of Illinois want partisan fights. They want something that is a compromise and I know I'm willing to work on a compromise bill [talks a bit about how Republicans aren't allowing Democrats to participate]. I don't know that a purely democratic plan would be the right thing for the country, either... And it's unfortunate because there is quite a lot of us, centrist democrats, democrats from midwest states like and Illinois who are ready and willing [more talk about not being able to negotiate on the bill]. [Pfeiffer asks where she is willing to compromise] ... You can't cut the tax rate for large corporations from 35% to 20% but not do the same for mainstreet [her way of talking about small businesses]. I mean, I would be even willing to consider 15% if you would agree that all trillion dollars that would be repatriated would have to be put towards infrastructure."
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Duckworth isn't a socialist but if you're going to be part of the future Dem party, I feel saying we should spend over a trillion in infrastructure is an acceptable alternative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Yes, but repatriation holidays of any form are the absolute dumbest poo poo with zero practical benefit. https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/931937163566034947
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Duckworth isn't a socialist but if you're going to be part of the future Dem party, I feel saying we should spend over a trillion in infrastructure is an acceptable alternative. I don't think that entrenching a permanent oligarchy even further in exchange for a few road construction jobs is an acceptable alternative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I don't think that entrenching a permanent oligarchy even further in exchange for a few road construction jobs is an acceptable alternative. No I don't think so either, but at the moment I'm not throwing out anyone who's spending objectives don't hurt anyone and may infact help America. It just means when we get to the table to make such a thing happen the first thing out of our collective mouth needs to be "infrastructure? Great! We're raising taxes on the top 20% of Americans. Now what kind of things would you like to build?" Also I should note that infrastructure in general is way way more inclusive than just construction jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:No I don't think so either, but at the moment I'm not throwing out anyone who's spending objectives don't hurt anyone and may infact help America. What are you saying? That the US senator simply forgot to mention all the progressive things she'd demand as she was talking to it in a pre-scheduled interview with a liberal podcast? That if we assume that she would also ask for progressive things that she didn't mention while ignoring the further cuts that she did mention, she really is progressive?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:What are you saying? That the US senator simply forgot to mention all the progressive things she'd demand as she was talking to it in a pre-scheduled interview with a liberal podcast? That if we assume that she would also ask for progressive things that she didn't mention while ignoring the further cuts that she did mention, she really is progressive? No, that she has the right idea on what we should spend but her funding ideas are stupid. Establishment Dems in general still see the world as mostly working fine as it is, which means we just need to tweak the system a bit, like modifying the corporate tax rate. This is a dumb and wrong idea on how to pay for things because the math makes even less sense than proposals for UHC because at least UHC generally argues we need to raise funds for it. A lot of what we need to fix with the Dem party is not the policy proposals, its that they think theyre UK Torys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
B B posted:This is what they went with during her Senate campaign: Hahahahahahahahaha She has a prosthetic leg *inhale* HAHAHAHAHAH I would love for this to come up in a nationwide presidential election. Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Nov 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
B B posted:This is what they went with during her Senate campaign: Hey, loving over veterans works for John McCain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Duckworth has perfectly adequate progressive bona fides and has a pretty compelling life story. For me, she's more of a "I have no loving clue who's going to run but she's pretty charismatic, pretty ideologically acceptable, and generally has some good points and no obvious bad ones". Okay, so I think I'm understanding it like this (to give reasons a person might specifically prefer Duckworth over the following potential candidates): Gillibrand - history of being very centrist Harris - similar issue to Gillibrand, mixed history as Attorney General Sanders/Warren - too old Al Franken - sexual assault obviously Where does Ellison fit into this? Is he unlikely to run? I've gotten that impression for some reason, though I could be wrong. I guess I can understand why someone might think "at the present time she seems like possibly the best option," though I still can't really think of a good reason someone would be super enthusiastic and posting "DUCKWORTH!!!" in threads. RuanGacho posted:Establishment Dems in general still see the world as mostly working fine as it is, which means we just need to tweak the system a bit, like modifying the corporate tax rate. This is a dumb and wrong idea on how to pay for things because the math makes even less sense than proposals for UHC because at least UHC generally argues we need to raise funds for it. More specifically, they view their jobs as essentially being "managers" of the country. I think one big problem is that the years since the Great Recession have essentially seen a full recovery for the top ~20% of Americans (which naturally includes most people in the political/media spheres), so our politicians genuinely don't think we're facing any particularly urgent or serious problems (because there actually aren't any problems for all the people they know). There's probably a not-insignificant portion of Democratic politicians (and undeniably donors) who believe the current sentiment is something that has just been manufactured and riled up by people like Bernie Sanders. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Nov 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
I'm still rooting for Ellison. Trump losing to a black Muslim is poetic justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Okay, so I think I'm understanding it like this (to give reasons a person might specifically prefer Duckworth over the following potential candidates): I attended an Ellison discussion half a year ago and he didn't strike me as particularly interested in establishing himself as a candidate. That said another year and who knows
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I guess I can understand why someone might think "at the present time she seems like possibly the best option," though I still can't really think of a good reason someone would be super enthusiastic and posting "DUCKWORTH!!!" in threads. The Democratic Party has this weird idea that veteran candidates are unassailable from the right, despite the fact that Republicans do it all the time. There was also some race-baiting during her campaign from her Republican opponent: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/tammy-duckworth-mark-kirk-military-illinois-debate-senate/index.html With that said, Duckworth does have a really good personal story and the language that she uses would probably do a good job of appealing to independents. Democrats are loving retarded (yes, I know I could end the sentence right here) if they try a redo of the appeal to moderate Republican suburban voters that they did in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Okay, so I think I'm understanding it like this (to give reasons a person might specifically prefer Duckworth over the following potential candidates): Woman, minority, war hero, badly wounded in combat, continued to serve after being wounded, became a senator. It's an inspiring story and an amazing on-paper candidacy. It also, on paper, dispels common right-wing criticisms against Democrats - that they're coward sissy babies who don't support the troops. She also seems, in the liberal worldview, to be a slam-dunk candidate for first woman president, and she may well be. So, technocratic liberals see her as someone they badly want as a candidate as it checks all their boxes and, as such, they think she ticks everyone's boxes. Policy is the last thing they think of or care about - since most of America doesn't care or know about policy. (Hell, they think Onion Biden is actually Biden and they love him.) It doesn't hurt her with liberals that she's, I guess, not super progressive policy wise. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Nov 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Okay, so I think I'm understanding it like this (to give reasons a person might specifically prefer Duckworth over the following potential candidates): Yeah I agree with this and I actually came across a complimentary concept in a college course I recently took that expands on the discussion of leaders versus managers and how leaders are agents of change and administrators maintain the status quo. Because of their economic priviledge the democrats are largely a party of managers right now and in that context its no surprise they had no issue putting up the Ur-Manager as their candidate. Completely understandable but very much missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Listen to the latest Pod Save America (starting around the 56 minute mark), where Duckworth claims that Democrats shouldn't propose their own tax plans because the people of Illinois want a compromise. And that as a centrist democrat she is willing to work with Republicans. And then in terms of the compromises that she is willing to make, she wants to extend the tax cuts to "mainstreet" (meaning small and medium businesses) and that she would be willing to cut the corporate tax rate even further to 15% if all the profits repatriated because of the cuts were used to improve infrastructure. "Did not push back hard enough on the tax plan" is certainly a valid argument to make in principle and I hadn't heard the podcast until just now. I'm not the biggest fan of the small-business focus but "this bill is stupid and partisan" is essentially her message. Probably not a good sign for her ability to energize the left as a leadership figure, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:No, that she has the right idea on what we should spend but her funding ideas are stupid. But "we should spend more on infrastructure" is a meaningless platitude that both sides support in theory. The issue has always been related to how to fund that. Duckworth's idea reduces available funding even further by cutting more taxes, and all it does is earmark whatever profit repatriations for infrastructure. Which means deeper cuts elsewhere. Of course, the alternative is that she never thought that deeply about the issue and is just trying to paint herself as a centrist. Which is why Republicans know they can keep proposing absolutely repugnant poo poo, because they know there will always be a few democrats willing to "compromise." GreyjoyBastard posted:"Did not push back hard enough on the tax plan" is certainly a valid argument to make in principle and I hadn't heard the podcast until just now. I'm not the biggest fan of the small-business focus but "this bill is stupid and partisan" is essentially her message. Issue was less how weakly she pushed against the bill, and more what she actually proposed when asked what it would take to get her on board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Okay, so I think I'm understanding it like this (to give reasons a person might specifically prefer Duckworth over the following potential candidates): My gut suggests to me that his DNC bid means he doesn't feel like he has enough cred just yet to go for the Presidency. I'd be delighted if he did; if nothing else, I certainly hope he puts together a 2028 (or 2024 against Vice President Tulsi Gabbard  when Sanders declines to run for a second term) run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:But "we should spend more on infrastructure" is a meaningless platitude that both sides support in theory. The issue has always been related to how to fund that. Duckworth's idea reduces available funding even further by cutting more taxes, and all it does is earmark whatever profit repatriations for infrastructure. Which means deeper cuts elsewhere. Of course, the alternative is that she never thought that deeply about the issue and is just trying to paint herself as a centrist. Which is why Republicans know they can keep proposing absolutely repugnant poo poo, because they know there will always be a few democrats willing to "compromise." The difference is the Dems actually proposed an infrastructure bill that didn't have tax repatriation as a funding method whereas the party in control of the government right now is trying to cut corporate taxes with the foresight of a crack addled lab mouse. I'm not even pledging to vote for Duckworth any time soon, just that I can work with concept that doesn't seem to come out of a monster manual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
DONALD Trump Donald Duck Tammy DUCKworth connect the dots people, stay #woke
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:My gut suggests to me that his DNC bid means he doesn't feel like he has enough cred just yet to go for the Presidency. I'd be delighted if he did; if nothing else, I certainly hope he puts together a 2028 (or 2024 against Vice President Tulsi Gabbard Ellison I wish would run for Governor of my state. I would be fine with Walz or Tina Liebling. Both have helped my family out. But Ellison would really help turn Minnesota into the truly Nordic state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ellison I wish would run for Governor of my state. I would be fine with Walz or Tina Liebling. Both have helped my family out. But Ellison would really help turn Minnesota into the truly Nordic state. It would also help with his "I have basically no executive experience" thing, which I suspect may be a big reason he went for the DNC chairmanship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It would also help with his "I have basically no executive experience" thing, which I suspect may be a big reason he went for the DNC chairmanship. It occurs to me that this is a pretty capitalist framing and not at all your fault but dumb and bad. We should be grooming leaders and managers, not executives who are just really aristocrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:It occurs to me that this is a pretty capitalist framing and not at all your fault but dumb and bad. The DNC has a slavish devotion to managerial culture. But, you know that since you're the dude, I think, who posts snippets from Listen Liberal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:The DNC has a slavish devotion to managerial culture. But, you know that since you're the dude, I think, who posts snippets from Listen Liberal. Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how to boil that concept down to a usable thread because the first step to solidarity is everyone speaking the same language.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how to boil that concept down to a usable thread because the first step to solidarity is everyone speaking the same language. There were some really great articles I found years ago that do a good job of it but I can't find them. I may try again. I've said before one of the main problems liberals and leftists have to confront is segmentation of what I perceive to be working class - anyone who sells their labor to another who owns the means of production - through managerial culture and professional classifications. "I'm not that bad off! I'm a middle-manager! I have a little power and I make a little money!" This is also one of the drivers, I've read, of racism - "I'm not that bad off! At least I'm not black! But, if we give black people rights and opportunities then I can't say that!" I talk to a lot of people about politics and it's been easier for me to get someone to come half-way round on something like racism or sexism than to convince someone of the notion that it is unfair that they have to work to survive while there are those who never had to work and never will and that there are a lot more of them than you'd think. Their chief concern seems to be that they have someone, anyone, under them rather than be concerned about who is over them. It's also often been a little scary to me that people who start off intuitively understanding the unfairness of working for people who never have to, eventually come to love the system once they get a little money and a little power. Then, all they want is to preserve the system, because if it falls apart then they're just like everyone else again. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Nov 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:It occurs to me that this is a pretty capitalist framing and not at all your fault but dumb and bad. Maybe "manager" would have been a more appropriate term, yes. The general idea being that good experience for a Presidential candidate in terms of being able to A) get the job and B) do the job should, ideally, involve some amount of running a large-ish organization (like a state, or a political party), some ability to get elected by the general public and give rousing speeches and suchlike, and preferably some familiarity with the legislative process. This isn't exactly in dispute, but I'd argue that two of Obama's big weaknesses early on both had to do with his main prior applicable experience being a fairly short legislative career - he was a bit fuzzy on how to keep subordinates on task and so on (GEITHNER  ), and way too optimistic about bipartisanship as a way to get things done.Ellison's
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Obama thinking he could do the jobs of any of his subordinates better than they can was probably a sign we should have picked up on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/931577837378777088
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Obama thinking he could do the jobs of any of his subordinates better than they can was probably a sign we should have picked up on. I'm not sure he did, though? Do you have any particular examples in mind?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm not sure he did, though? Do you have any particular examples in mind? I'm having trouble finding the quote, but I believe it was in maybe Axelrod's book about the 2008 campaign, where early on there was a meeting where candidate Obama was wrestling between his desire to micro-manage because he knew he could do it better and the realization instead he needed to spend his time as a big picture leader and let people do their jobs even if he could do it better. Edit: it wasn't in Axelrod's book it would have been in Plouffe's Audacity to Win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Hahahahahahahahaha Two. She has two prosthetic legs
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Maybe "manager" would have been a more appropriate term, yes. While the stuff you mention is important, ideology is at least as important. I'd rather have someone who shares my general long-term goals as President than someone who has different goals and more managerial/executive experience. Like, taken to an extreme, I'd rather have Literally Some Random Left-wing Person Off The Street than a conservative with extensive managerial/government experience as President.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Nocartax posted:Two. She has two prosthetic legs  gently caress republicans
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BillinPortland/status/932013808209539072 This seems cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:https://twitter.com/BillinPortland/status/932013808209539072 rich people want their tax cut dammit
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:We should be grooming leaders and managers, not executives who are just really aristocrats. This is a larger problem widespread in society. They're very different skill sets, management and leadership. Management is a technical discipline. Choosing metrics and optimizing processes and systems. Leadership is about being for others and faith. There is low over lap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:https://twitter.com/BillinPortland/status/932013808209539072 ...so a normal sunday talk show panel then
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2017 01:01
|
|