|
Hellblazer187 posted:He said not a huge difference, he didn't say no meaningful difference. Huge is a vague term, but overall he's right that the party has moved left and moved closer together. The most conservative candidate for 2020 is farther left than any other candidate in the last 40 years besides Sanders in 2016. Yeah. The distinction being drawn, before he responded, was not so much one of policy differences as it was one of rhetorical approach. There's a really clear division in the party right now between people who are making pitches to voters -- Sanders, AOC -- and people making pitches to, well, it sounds like other lobbyists (Booker, Harris). They may all be aiming at similar policy goals but the approaches they're using are very different.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:He said not a huge difference, he didn't say no meaningful difference. Huge is a vague term, but overall he's right that the party has moved left and moved closer together. The most conservative candidate for 2020 is farther left than any other candidate in the last 40 years besides Sanders in 2016. He referred to any distinguishing features of the candidates as Let's follow that link. The only one that isn't a spurious analogy with ethnic strife is: Wikipedia posted:In terms of postmodernity, Clive Hazell argues that consumer culture has been seen as predicated on the narcissism of small differences to achieve a superficial sense of one's own uniqueness, an ersatz sense of otherness which is only a mask for an underlying uniformity and sameness. The differences between the candidates are superficial and ersatz which are only a mask for underlying uniformity and sameness, that was the claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Have some wonky skewering of Kamala's LIFT proposal lol, this guy is an idiot. Anyone who acts like being fully paid-for is some prerequisite for spending like this doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. The cost of programs is a consideration, and needs to be offset enough to avoid any inflation that could outweigh their benefits, but there is no need to offset every dollar spent. This Vox article does a better job of articulating the proposal's actual shortcomings, in my opinion (the "must be working" one seems to be the biggest issue, if I'm understanding it correctly) - https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/19/17995374/kamala-harris-lift-act-basic-income-cash-eitc edit: Like the Vox article puts it, it is frustratingly close to actually being pretty good Hieronymous Alloy posted:They're a bunch of poli-sci "wonks" trying to wonk up a frankenwonk in a wonkery instead of just asking actual people what they actually want then promising to give it to them It seems like a lot "wonkery" fundamentally stems from the axiom that government spending must be off-set (because it basically inserts this unnecessary layer of complexity where you must generate revenue equal to any large spending). Hellblazer187 posted:LT2012 is a troll about 1/4 of the time. This is not one of those times. Do you really think the difference between Biden and Sanders is wider than the difference between Lieberman and Dean? In terms of "the net impact on people of the things they support," of course it's wider. Especially when you consider the broader ideological alignment and long-term goals of the politicians in question (in other words, where will Sanders go if he manages to achieve MfA or whatever, and how reliable will he be as an advocate for it). Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Or if we are using the 2004 example, Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich. The huge difference here is that Bernie Sanders is actually a series contender in 2020, while Kucinich never was. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That was not the claim, the claim was that there was "not a huge difference between the potential candidates" Look at the post you were quoting and read the actual context. Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich have huge differences. Debating whether the Iraq War was a great idea or whether we should end all foreign interventions, close down all military bases, and create a Department of Peace are hugely different positions. Booker, Bernie, Harris, Gillibrand, Biden, and Warren all support a $15 minimum wage. Some of them think we should start at $12 and phase it in over 5 years. Some of them think we should phase it in over 3 years. Some of them think we should phase it in over 7 years. Those are not hugely different positions. It's the same scenario with almost all of the big issues: Judges, regulations, abortion, climate change, gay rights, marijuana, the drug war, guns, trade, immigration, the environment, etc. They are all on same page. The only significant differences are differences of degrees. The biggest difference is that every potential candidate except for Biden (so far) has endorsed Medicare for All and Biden has only said that the government should provide healthcare for everyone by expanding Medicaid and Medicare. It's like the Obama/Clinton healthcare debate in 2008. They had literally the same plan, except Obama said he wouldn't have a mandate, and they just argued over that for 5 months. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
I feel like many older and middle-aged voters worn down by life and age (and years of propaganda about Reaganomics and St. Milton Friedman) would definitely feel more enthused about concepts like "Medicare for All" when there seems to be a concrete or close-to-concrete plan to implement it. Maybe it's Dems letting conservatives frame the issue as a distraction from the moral imperative to have a society where people don't die from lack of health care, but I do see some value is being able to say a proposal is not just "pie in the sky" promises that will come with an uncertain price tag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's like Obama/Clinton healthcare debate in 2008. They had literally the same plan, except Obama said he wouldn't have a mandate, and they just argued over that for 5 months. A difference that turned out to be critically important for the popularity of the plan and midterm electoral prospects lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:A difference that turned out to be critically important for the popularity of the plan and midterm electoral prospects lol So... you agree that the substance of the actual plan was not hugely different? If you want to make an argument that one candidate has a smarter way of selling their policies politically, that's fine. I wouldn't disagree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:So... you agree that the substance of the actual plan was not hugely different? If you ignore the substantive differences, then you agree the substance was not different?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Booker, Bernie, Harris, Gillibrand, Biden, and Warren all support a $15 minimum wage. Some of them think we should start at $12 and phase it in over 5 years. Some of them think we should phase it in over 3 years. Some of them think we should phase it in over 7 years. Those are not hugely different positions. It's a huge difference if you're currently making less than $15/hour and want to make that much money as soon as possible, but why would I possibly expect D&D to feel empathy for poor people? Particularly a Holocaust denying troll like yourself, you loving shitstain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
They had the same exact plan it's just that Obama lied about one part of it to win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I feel like many older and middle-aged voters worn down by life and age (and years of propaganda about Reaganomics and St. Milton Friedman) would definitely feel more enthused about concepts like "Medicare for All" when there seems to be a concrete or close-to-concrete plan to implement it. Sure, but there's also a big difference between, say, "universal basic income" on the one hand and "supplementary income for qualifying enrollees" or whatever term we see in Harris's plan. That's the thing with these plans from Booker and Harris: they don't make immediate, specific, generally-applicable promises that would then have to be fullfilled. "Ok, eighteen years from now your kid, if you have kids, will get some financial help, which may be enough, but might not, if the program survives that long" is just empty bullshit. "Fifteen dollars an hour in your pocket tomorrow" is a specific actionable promise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
It's been a long time since 2008, but Paul Krugman thought the differences went beyond the mandate (he argues that Clinton's was more progressive in other ways which would make the mandate less hated, and he predicted that Obama would find his plan needed a mandate anyway)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's a huge difference if you're currently making less than $15/hour and want to make that much money as soon as possible, but why would I possibly expect D&D to feel empathy for poor people? I just looked it up to double check and Biden actually supported a $15 minimum wage by 2020 in September 2015. So, the differences in policy are actually between 3 years for full implementation and 4 1/2 years for full implementation. Interesting that you cut out the rest of that post and didn't seem to want to address it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but there's also a big difference between, say, "universal basic income" on the one hand and "supplementary income for qualifying enrollees" or whatever term we see in Harris's plan. Harris's plan is immediate, it's just too small. It's a million times better than Booker Bux.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's been a long time since 2008, but Paul Krugman thought the differences went beyond the mandate (he argues that Clinton's was more progressive in other ways which would make the mandate less hated, and he predicted that Obama would find his plan needed a mandate anyway) Heh, interesting flashback. I'd argue that the error Krugman was making there is the same one I'm talking about above; the failure to realize that policy needs a sales pitch and a salesman more than it needs a white paper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Any delay in implementation is effectively an anti-$15 position, because $15 in 2018 won't be $15 in 2023. "Oh let's just let inflation eat at it a little longer" is an anti-$15 position, just a subtler more dishonest one
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Heh, interesting flashback. I'd argue that the error Krugman was making there is the same one I'm talking about above; the failure to realize that policy needs a sales pitch and a salesman more than it needs a white paper. Except he was right that Obama would piss people off by flipflopping, and the 2010 election was an important one. Although his main criticism wasn't "Obama should have a mandate" it was "Obama's subsidies aren't generous enough and he lacks the affordability guarantees to actually get everyone insured, and he will try to patch it by reneging on his no-mandate promise" and that turned out to be 100% correct, PPACA was not affordable, and many people got pissed that they had to choose between paying a penalty or paying out even more to nominally buy insurance that is effectively worthless because they can't afford to use it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Harris's plan is immediate, it's just too small. It's a million times better than Booker Bux. Oh yeah, it's better than Booker's, it's just dinky with too many carveouts. Universal income is the pitch. Not means-tested, employment-tested, too-small programs. Why do Medicare and Medicaid survive? Because they're broad programs with huge constituencies. The more carveouts there are the more ways there are to attack the programs. It's the opposite of "skin in the game" : you want everybody to have something to lose if the program is cut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Any delay in implementation is effectively an anti-$15 position, because $15 in 2018 won't be $15 in 2023. Your position is that literally nobody is in favor of a $15 minimum wage? If that is the case, then Bernie is in favor of a $14.26 minimum wage and Biden is in favor of a $14.12 minimum wage. A 121% increase in real dollars vs. a 114% increase in real dollars compared to current law. I still don't see how this is fitting into your idea that there are huge differences in these plans. Especially, compared to historical ideological differences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
I feel like most of the party has come to grips with $15/hr minimum wage (though I don't trust them to not water it down once elected, plus the whole "it's effectively lower if phased in over a long time due to inflation" issue), but there is a very big difference between the sort of candidate who isn't willing to openly support MfA in our current political climate and one who is (and also a difference between the sort of candidate who was willing to support that sort of thing years prior, which only applies to Sanders). Even if they reach a point where they might look similar in November of 2018 or whatever, something like an unwillingness to openly support MfA says something about a candidate's ideology and how they're likely to behave in the future as new issues come up. I trust Sanders to keep pushing left if these current goals were accomplished, because he has spent his entire political career doing this. I don't trust any of the other potential nominees to do this, because they only recently moved left on most of these things (and often have some pretty nasty things in their histories, like Biden). So even if other candidates manage to start supporting the current major planks, there are other important things that need to be accomplished and I don't trust someone as much if they were only very recently willing to support some of the current platform. Hellblazer187 posted:Harris's plan is immediate, it's just too small. It's a million times better than Booker Bux. I would go as far as to say that it would even be flat-out good if not for the working requirement (or specifically the need to have earned $3000, apparently), which manages to single-handedly gently caress up the entire proposal (I could overlook the other issues with it if not for that, but that's a biiig problem). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Except he was right that Obama would piss people off by flipflopping, and the 2010 election was an important one. Sure, but there's wrong about the facts and there's wrong about the frame. Krugman wasn't wrong about the facts he was analyzing (he rarely if ever is). But he was wrong about the larger frame of "who can win the nomination and then get a health care law passed." Hillary couldn't actually get it done, Obama could.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
I agree. Make it universal and claw back the difference with tax increases if you have to. A guy making $100k nets out the same but still gets those checks and supports the program. It's bullshit accounting but smart politics. Seems like a no brainer to me, but you're right they're trying to sell to some weird wonky dork people (us) instead of the real general public. As an opening salvo (when combined with M4A, $15min wage, free Uni, etc) it's a dent in making our society more decent but not enough. This is the kind of thing I was talking about before - if we had 40 years of implementing programs like this instead or insane Reagan/Bush/Trump years and middling Clinton/Obama years, we'd really have somehting resembling a decent country. But because we have had all those insane and/or weak and/or evil people running things for so long we really need bigger changes now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Why don't the dems just make a UBI and call it SS4A? It's the same exact messaging as M4A and it would work for the same reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I trust Sanders to keep pushing left if these current goals were accomplished, because he has spent his entire political career doing this. I don't trust any of the other potential nominees to do this, because they only recently moved left on most of these things (and often have some pretty nasty things in their histories, like Biden). Bingo. But for some reason (the reason is centrism) a lot of people in this subforum extend far too much benefit of the doubt to people who have just recently come around on those positions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Bingo. Are there really no younger Bernies in the Dem ranks? Is it basically him and Pow-wow Chow Warren and then just generations of Clintonian triangulators?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Your position is that literally nobody is in favor of a $15 minimum wage? Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:If that is the case, then Bernie is in favor of a $14.26 minimum wage and Biden is in favor of a $14.12 minimum wage. That's not a trivial difference. That's money in people's pockets who need it most. The larger difference is trust, $15 in three years is already a compromise on a $15 wage in 2016, which is already a compromise of the $21 the wage should be adjusted for inflation and productivity since its high-water mark in 1965. Someone who takes an already-inadequate proposal of $15 in three years and says "let's make it worse for no reason how about four-and-a-half" can't be trusted to even deliver that. If someone is already saying "let's take this guy's plan, but worse" it's reasonable to be concerned that he's not all that enthusiastic about it, and is less likely to deliver on promises to implement it. E: Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think that is a legit concern and criticism. But it seems to be selectively applied. Nobody who applies it for certain issues or candidates applies it to the fact that Sanders was anti-immigration, pro-legal immunity for gun manufacturers, had no major opinion on criminal justice reform, supported three strike laws, was pro-NRA (A+ rating), and pro-tariffs until he ran in a Democratic Presidential Primary and Trump proposed tariffs. Yes it impacts his trustworthiness on those positions. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Bingo. I think that is a legit concern and criticism. But it seems to be selectively applied. Nobody who applies it for certain issues or candidates applies it to the fact that Sanders was anti-immigration, pro-legal immunity for gun manufacturers, had no major opinion on criminal justice reform, supported three strike laws, was pro-NRA (A+ rating), and pro-tariffs until he ran in a Democratic Presidential Primary and Trump proposed tariffs. Does it impact his trustworthiness that he reversed positions he held for 30+ years over the course of 2 months? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but there's wrong about the facts and there's wrong about the frame. That wasn't his argument. A valid counter-argument to Krugman might be "even if her plan is better, she will lose the election whereas the better salesman will win and actually write policy" sure, but the counter-argument there is "even if that's true, Obama should still be pressured to adopt her more generous subsidy model and stronger affordability guarantees, even if he has to lie about the mandate to win"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think that is a legit concern and criticism. But it seems to be selectively applied. Nobody who applies it for certain issues or candidates applies it to the fact that Sanders was anti-immigration, pro-legal immunity for gun manufacturers, had no major opinion on criminal justice reform, supported three strike laws, was pro-NRA (A+ rating), and pro-tariffs until he ran in a Democratic Presidential Primary and Trump proposed tariffs. Lol, Bernie has never had an A+ rating from the NRA you loving liar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's not a trivial difference. I feel like defining "huge differences" down to "14 cents in inflation-adjusted dollars" just means that there is essentially no meaningful distinction between any distinction at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I feel like defining "huge differences" down to "14 cents in inflation-adjusted dollars" just means that there is essentially no meaningful distinction between any distinction at all. What does that math out to in terms of yearly income for the individual minimum wage worker when your salary is only 15 grand a year, an extra $500 over the course of the year is lifesaving
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I feel like defining "huge differences" down to "14 cents in inflation-adjusted dollars" just means that there is essentially no meaningful distinction between any distinction at all. If you're going to selectively quote me and ignore the thrust of my argument to respond in bad faith, then gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Lol, Bernie has never had an A+ rating from the NRA you loving liar. Interesting that you are basing this on data that stops at 1992. quote:How the National Rifle Association helped get Bernie Sanders elected
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you're going to selectively quote me and ignore the thrust of my argument to respond in bad faith, then gently caress off That's what you've been doing to him, though. He's an rear end a lot of the time but his point about how much closer the Dem party is now compared to the past is a legit point and you just seem to be picking a fight because you don't like LT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What does that math out to in terms of yearly income for the individual minimum wage worker Do you see how this kind of supports my original point? The fact that we are arguing over how meaningful 14 cents per hour in inflation-adjusted dollars is and not whether the Iraq War is a moral imperative or whether we should ban video games shows that the ideological gap in 2020 is going to be smaller than it has ever been.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Interesting that you are basing this on data that stops at 1992. Interesting that you're using a one-off from nineteen loving ninety to illustrate what you describe as "positions he held for 30+ years" despite the fact that in every instance since he's consistently rated much, much worse, you disingenuous toad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Lt2012 is the last Hillary man on Earth, fighting to the bitter end
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Lt2012 is the last Hillary man on Earth, fighting to the bitter end I voted Clark in '04, Obama in '08, and Chafee in '16.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:That's what you've been doing to him, though. He's an rear end a lot of the time but his point about how much closer the Dem party is now compared to the past is a legit point and you just seem to be picking a fight because you don't like LT. I already showed you that wasn't his point. He fishmeched to that when he couldn't support his original point, so he could strawman everyone who says "actually there are important differences between the candidates" as denying that the Dem party is any more ideologically unified than in the past. VitalSigns posted:
Not only are you lying about his original claim for god knows what reason, but in the post I responded to he argued it doesn't matter if you let inflation eat away at the living wage for an extra 18 months
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Whether you want it to happen or not, forcing an immediate minimum wage rise will give employers an excuse to fire people. A delayed introduction helps mitigate that. How long you wait is up to debate I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:57
|
|