Interim DNC chair admits Hilldog rigged the primaries in new article.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

aegix drakan:

Maybe you should ask why the Rust Belt that voted SOLIDLY for Obama twice flipped for trump.

Is it because they suddenly all became neo-nazis and virulant racists? Or maybe it's because it's full of failed factory towns with no jobs because of trade deals, and one guy was like "Ahma brug ur jobs back belibe me!!" and the other said "everything is perfectly fine!" and they went "Well, one guy is at least pretending he's going to bring our jobs back...Yeah, he's an asshole but he can't REALLY do those racist things, right?". And then Hillary didn't even bother to go campaign in those states to even try to win them over.

They may have voted for the con-man in chief, but that doesn't mean they are unreachable. An entire room of trump voters gave sanders a standing ovation when he said "I want to give people a living wage and healthcare". Those are people who can be won over. They're people who HAVE to be won over to stop trump getting a second term.

Yes, there's a good half or so of trump voters who voted for him because of his horrendous policies and discrimination. But the other half are not your enemy. They're people that need to be won over if you want to stop him.

And here's the thing, yeah, I agree that Trump needs to be fought tooth and nail. But that's also why I'm critical of your Democrats. Because they are ENABLING HIM. There are people in the Democrat party who are voting in favor of his stuff and his people. There are people there who normalize war criminals like Bush Jr in comparison to him. There are people there that continue to shut out the voices of the people who area shouting "WE ARE NOT DOING OK, HELP US", and pushing them away, driving them to either not vote because "Well, why bother voting when no one is going to help us", or vote third party because "We need a new party who will actually help us", or even worse, driving them towards trump.

You speak like you can only fight trump OR the establishment democrats. Well no. you can fight both. In fact, you have to fight both.

Because one side is welcoming neo-nazis, and the other is enabling them.

Your drowning analogy is wrong, BTW. It's more like someone is drowning their kid, and the only two people who can stop him are a) A guy going "Drown him faster yeaaaah!" and b) someone going "I'm not going to wade in there and save him! Why don't we just talk about it and see what happens!". In which case, neither of them is doing shit to save the drowning kid. Some of them are obviously worse people that others, but none of them are helping.

Then again, I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears. And I understand why. You're in one of the groups currently being shat on by the con-man in chief. You do what you think needs to be done to protect yourself. But unless the guys who are enabling the trump administration and sticking to finger-wagging as their main form of retaliation are replaced with people who will actually fight him, nothing will change and he'll stand a really good chance of getting a second term which I think we can both agree would be catastrophic.

Hillary failed on her own rights. She made her platform clear that "I'm a woman. Vote for me as a woman. Women, come to me so we can form the mighty Volheron!". She played it too safe and went to places that she already had the vote and didn't do enough to sway the Republicans and the Independents. Being a New Yorker and voting for Bernie here, I personally became disgusted when we saw that A plethora of Bernie Votes suddenly Disappeared. And we weren't the only ones who lost votes.

She believed she had it in the bag (as honestly, so did I) because she was a democrat and most people in her circles showed that people were happy with Obama. She did nothing to listen to any other voices that might contradict that, and did even less to go and try to say she was listening. And even if she thinks she did, the election proved differently.

Truth Be Told. Trump is a con man, a liar, Stupid in some ways and ignorant in others, and the worst choice we had... He didn't appear to be actively trying to undermine the American People on the Surface (Although plent of us wondered why he would call out Russian Hackers and swore he would have evidence about Hillary back in 2016). Keeping an eye out on both sides, Hillary seemed to be more two faced, which turned a lot of people off.

And yes, I still voted for her. I literally went for the lesser of two evils, and Trump's every move have shown that I made a great choice.

But why do we have democrats still messing up? The same reason why Republicans in Power will condemn military actions when Obama was in power, but then praise Trump for having the guts to do something that Obama should have done years ago. The same people who would blame an oil platform being damaged and leaking oil into the Gulf Cost, labeling Obama's Spill (Although he took credit for mishandling it).The same reason why EA still has the management they do, thinking they can get away with more shady business deals and we'll be ok.

No one learns in the higher levels. They are very slow to change their gears. They see failures and outrages as new speeches and promises to quiet the masses before they go do whatever they want to keep in power. That is is most political parties. The most these democrats will do is blame mishandling the people and the fall out and go to scheme what else to do than to actually bring about change that people want.

This is why I'm for the Justice Democratic Platform. I believe enough politicians have been bought on both sides that I don't trust any of them. I want transparency, and I want to see these people actually fight for issues that matter to me. And if Justice Democrats are voted in to replace the old guard, they realize they can't copy any of that because we'll vote them right out. Because we're fucking tired of all this crap.

I urge republicans to do the same. We already see you have it in you with Trump, but it was a complete misfire. I don't want the Republican party to go away. Although I agree with Justice Democrats and the ideas of unity as a whole, I realize that it simply can't fit all people, so I want a responsible and fair Republican Party to Counterbalance us and keep us honest. I mean this. I don't agree with many of your ideas, but I see worth in some of them and I know others do. we both need to step up and get rid of these power hungry, corporate sycophants so we can do some real work for this nation.

Silvanus:

The Clinton campaign was shite, but people are just mis-characterising it in some respects, and the "ignoring the jobs issue, while Trump didn't" notion is one such mis-characterisation.

I'd say you're downplaying just how bad the campaign was, she didn't even bother to make a presence in the rust belt and doubled down in Blue States, didn't discuss her clear advantages in the debates (job programs, environment just to name a few). She sank to Trump's level with the tax returns rather than try to sell herself and banked on momentum from Obama's term while recycling the scaremongering from the 2012 elections.

The challenge from Bernie wasn't just a slapfight, it was a warning on what the DNC needed to change. Even then, they didn't need to change much.

Silvanus:

aegix drakan:

Maybe you should ask WHY they splintered.

Maybe you should ask why the Rust Belt that voted SOLIDLY for Obama twice flipped for trump.

Is it because they suddenly all became neo-nazis and virulant racists? Or maybe it's because it's full of failed factory towns with no jobs because of trade deals, and one guy was like "Ahma brug ur jobs back belibe me!!" and the other said "everything is perfectly fine!" and they went "Well, one guy is at least pretending he's going to bring our jobs back...Yeah, he's an asshole but he can't REALLY do those racist things, right?". And then Hillary didn't even bother to go campaign in those states to even try to win them over.

In truth, Hillary Clinton's platform actually did include promises for wider investment and job growth. She didn't campaign on it enough, sure, but she put more detail into the proposals than Trump ever did.

She just wasn't as bombastic about it, that's all. And because she wasn't as loud, people don't remember, and then come up with this idea that she said everything was fine as it was, which she never did.

The Clinton campaign was shite, but people are just mis-characterising it in some respects, and the "ignoring the jobs issue, while Trump didn't" notion is one such mis-characterisation.

The problem is in order of priorities as it seems the american left currently values minorities over the poor, and if you aren't in the the top spot of the list chances are you'll ever see a positive change is slim. Plus, I'm pretty sure 8 years of Obama didn't help sell the matter.

Ninjamedic:

I'd say you're downplaying just how bad the campaign was, she didn't even bother to make a presence in the rust belt and doubled down in Blue States, didn't discuss her clear advantages in the debates (job programs, environment just to name a few). She sank to Trump's level with the tax returns rather than try to sell herself and banked on momentum from Obama's term while recycling the scaremongering from the 2012 elections.

The challenge from Bernie wasn't just a slapfight, it was a warning on what the DNC needed to change. Even then, they didn't need to change much.

I'm not downplaying it; it just wasn't terribly relevant to that point.

People seem to have got it into their heads that Trump discussed the right things and addressed voter concerns (like jobs, health, wage stagnation), while Clinton didn't, and that as a result people punted on Trump.

The fact is that Clinton talked about all those things, too, and did it in more detail than Trump ever did. Trump just stuck in peoples' minds when he talked about them, because he was loud and obnoxious about it all.

That's all. Then, afterwards, people just forgot that the other candidate talked about them at all. In truth, Trump put less thought and less effort into all of those areas of voter concern, and won despite that. People taking the message from the election that you must address voter concerns are not paying close attention to what the candidates actually did or said, because the one who did that less was the winner.

inu-kun:

The problem is in order of priorities as it seems the american left currently values minorities over the poor, and if you aren't in the the top spot of the list chances are you'll ever see a positive change is slim. Plus, I'm pretty sure 8 years of Obama didn't help sell the matter.

Drivel. The Democratic Party doesn't do nearly enough to address poverty or wage issues-- but the Republican Party does far, far less, and actively makes them worse.

There is no "prioritisation of minorities over the poor"; that's a false dilemma, designed to pit one area of concern against another, when there doesn't need to be any conflict.

There's no reason whatsoever that addressing minority issues should negatively impact the poor. In fact, various minority groups are disproportionately affected by poverty and related issues, so there's a lot of overlap, and programs to address one area can help the other at the same time.

Silvanus:

The fact is that Clinton talked about all those things, too, and did it in more detail than Trump ever did. Trump just stuck in peoples' minds when he talked about them, because he was loud and obnoxious about it all.

I'm not sure how you can say Hilary ran a shite campaign if you're just going to turn around say she was better than Trump in how she presented herself in every aspect.

I'm going to have to ask you where you think her failings were.

Ninjamedic:

I'm not sure how you can say Hilary ran a shite campaign if you're just going to turn around say she was better than Trump in how she presented herself in every aspect.

Why are you unsure how I can say that? There's no contradiction whatsoever between those two statements. One was terrible; the other was far worse.

Ninjamedic:
I'm going to have to ask you where you think her failings were.

Why is this relevant? Must I demonstrate my dislike of Hillary Clinton before I can discuss other things?

Silvanus:

Why is this relevant? Must I demonstrate my dislike of Hillary Clinton before I can discuss other things?

You came in rebuking what I thought were Hilary's failings in the election while still maintaining her campaign was bad. I'm interested in what you think were her drawbacks.

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

The problem is in order of priorities as it seems the american left currently values minorities over the poor, and if you aren't in the the top spot of the list chances are you'll ever see a positive change is slim. Plus, I'm pretty sure 8 years of Obama didn't help sell the matter.

Drivel. The Democratic Party doesn't do nearly enough to address poverty or wage issues-- but the Republican Party does far, far less, and actively makes them worse.

There is no "prioritisation of minorities over the poor"; that's a false dilemma, designed to pit one area of concern against another, when there doesn't need to be any conflict.

There's no reason whatsoever that addressing minority issues should negatively impact the poor. In fact, various minority groups are disproportionately affected by poverty and related issues, so there's a lot of overlap, and programs to address one area can help the other at the same time.

Debatable how much Trickle-down economics is correct, there are plenty of proof from both sides.

It is a very real dillema, the world doesn't run on hope and there's not enough budget so everyone will be happy.

I'm pretty sure poor white people in the USA wouldn't see this as well as you do, if anything as more sign of favourism against them.

ObsidianJones:
*snip*

I feel like you meant to quote someone else. I'm 100% on board with all that. Also, props to you for being on board with Justice Democrats. If I was in the US, I'd be banking on that too. It's the thing with the best possible chances of working, I think.

And yeah, I'd enjoy having a halfway reasonable conservative counterweight that isn't full of religious nuts or ayn rand devotees and definitely no one who takes corporate money.

I miss the days when Canada had an apparently halfway respectable conservative party before the Reform Party hijacked it and installed a guy whose church denomination practically worships money. >_>

Silvanus:

In truth, Hillary Clinton's platform actually did include promises for wider investment and job growth. She didn't campaign on it enough, sure, but she put more detail into the proposals than Trump ever did.

Well, maybe if she said any of that in her ads or debates I'd remember it, and maybe if she campaigned on it in the Rust Belt they wouldn't have flipped. :(

:s But I don't remember much of any of that, unfortunately. The main thing I remember is "Break down the barriers, we're stronger together".

aegix drakan:

Silvanus:

In truth, Hillary Clinton's platform actually did include promises for wider investment and job growth. She didn't campaign on it enough, sure, but she put more detail into the proposals than Trump ever did.

Well, maybe if she said any of that in her ads or debates I'd remember it, and maybe if she campaigned on it in the Rust Belt they wouldn't have flipped. :(

:s But I don't remember much of any of that, unfortunately. The main thing I remember is "Break down the barriers, we're stronger together".

Don't forget "America's already great!"

Pretty on the nose.

Ninjamedic:

You came in rebuking what I thought were Hilary's failings in the election while still maintaining her campaign was bad. I'm interested in what you think were her drawbacks.

No, I didn't. My first post on this topic was replying to aegix drakan, and was quite specifically in response to the claim that Trump promised jobs, while Clinton said everything was fine. That's a specific, refutable claim.

inu-kun:

Debatable how much Trickle-down economics is correct, there are plenty of proof from both sides.

It is a very real dillema, the world doesn't run on hope and there's not enough budget so everyone will be happy.

There is no evidence at all that when the Republicans slash corporation tax, or tax for the highest earners, as well as cutting social projects and investment directed towards those on lower incomes, it has any positive impact at all. Poverty rises, and the wealth gap rises alongside it, at a greater rate.

It's not a real dilemma at all. Focusing all your budget towards helping the richest and largest corporations does fuck-all for poorer workers.

inu-kun:

I'm pretty sure poor white people in the USA wouldn't see this as well as you do, if anything as more sign of favourism against them.

Do you have any evidence at all that projects to address inequalities in our society somehow disadvantage "the poor"?

There's no reason for this claim at all. It doesn't make an iota of sense; the very worst kind of identity politics, creating a phantasm-- a complete false dilemma-- that would pit disadvantaged groups against one another.

aegix drakan:

Well, maybe if she said any of that in her ads or debates I'd remember it, and maybe if she campaigned on it in the Rust Belt they wouldn't have flipped. :(

:s But I don't remember much of any of that, unfortunately. The main thing I remember is "Break down the barriers, we're stronger together".

Yep, she performed very badly. This is again an argument of style, rather than content, though.

aegix drakan:

ObsidianJones:
*snip*

I feel like you meant to quote someone else. I'm 100% on board with all that. Also, props to you for being on board with Justice Democrats. If I was in the US, I'd be banking on that too. It's the thing with the best possible chances of working, I think.

And yeah, I'd enjoy having a halfway reasonable conservative counterweight that isn't full of religious nuts or ayn rand devotees and definitely no one who takes corporate money.

I miss the days when Canada had an apparently halfway respectable conservative party before the Reform Party hijacked it and installed a guy whose church denomination practically worships money. >_>

No, I meant to quote you.

The first half was in support of what you were saying. When you asked why people flipped to Trump after voting for Obama. I was citing the Perception of Hillary and the acts she done to lose so many votes.

Then the Democrat part was to say why they are continue to mess it up. For the same reason Republicans are mucking up this Country. They gave the good lip service to be voted in, and then spent the rest of their terms in devotion of the corporations, who are their true bosses.

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

Debatable how much Trickle-down economics is correct, there are plenty of proof from both sides.

It is a very real dillema, the world doesn't run on hope and there's not enough budget so everyone will be happy.

There is no evidence at all that when the Republicans slash corporation tax, or tax for the highest earners, as well as cutting social projects and investment directed towards those on lower incomes, it has any positive impact at all. Poverty rises, and the wealth gap rises alongside it, at a greater rate.

It's not a real dilemma at all. Focusing all your budget towards helping the richest and largest corporations does fuck-all for poorer workers.

inu-kun:

I'm pretty sure poor white people in the USA wouldn't see this as well as you do, if anything as more sign of favourism against them.

Do you have any evidence at all that projects to address inequalities in our society somehow disadvantage "the poor"?

There's no reason for this claim at all. It doesn't make an iota of sense; the very worst kind of identity politics, creating a phantasm-- a complete false dilemma-- that would pit disadvantaged groups against one another.

In terms of economic theory-it should encourage creating more jobs for people and thus reduce poverty as well as increse growth. You can argue how right it is but it exists as a model.

We are not talking about the rich, we are talking about who to help with the rest of the pie.

When it's for poor minorities then it gives the notion of disadvantage the poor majority. And for good reason since why the hell should we differentiate poor minorities by race or ethinicity? And the fact that it is brought up really does the notion of identity politics.
Edit: to make it more clear, if you would have wrote "There's no reason whatsoever that addressing the poor should negatively impact minorities." I would have had no problem. But you wrote the exact opposite and that makes no sense, how is helping a middle income black households help the poor? Or helping poor asian households help the poor? It reeks of using the poor as an excuse to help minorities.

inu-kun:

In terms of economic theory-it should encourage creating more jobs for people and thus reduce poverty as well as increse growth. You can argue how right it is but it exists as a model.

I'm aware of the theory. I'm also aware it rests wholly on these "wealth creators" reinvesting their profit to grow the company and expand the workerbase, and that in reality, corporations often simply keep watching the profits rise and rise, alongside rising wages for those at the very top.

It doesn't reduce poverty. We've watched it fail to reduce poverty for decades (even centuries).

inu-kun:

When it's for poor minorities then it gives the notion of disadvantage the poor majority. And for good reason since why the hell should we differentiate poor minorities by race or ethinicity?

How does it disadvantage them? You can't just say that it does and leave it at that.

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

In terms of economic theory-it should encourage creating more jobs for people and thus reduce poverty as well as increse growth. You can argue how right it is but it exists as a model.

I'm aware of the theory. I'm also aware it rests wholly on these "wealth creators" reinvesting their profit to grow the company and expand the workerbase, and that in reality, corporations often simply keep watching the profits rise and rise, alongside rising wages for those at the very top.

It doesn't reduce poverty. We've watched it fail to reduce poverty for decades (even centuries).

inu-kun:

When it's for poor minorities then it gives the notion of disadvantage the poor majority. And for good reason since why the hell should we differentiate poor minorities by race or ethinicity?

How does it disadvantage them? You can't just say that it does and leave it at that.

Yeah, because this days all the advanced countries have all their factories and fields controlled by the government and are also absolutely without poverty...

See the edit

inu-kun:
Yeah, because this days all the advanced countries have all their factories and fields controlled by the government and are also absolutely without poverty...

No-one's saying complete nationalisation of the economy is the solution. The fact is that supply-side economics - which has been the gospel of the global right-wing ever since the 80s - does not do what it purports to do.

In the 1980s, Reagan cut taxes and there was an economic boom. In the 90s, Clinton raised taxes and there was...another economic boom. In the 2000s, Bush cut taxes and there was a global recession. In the 2010s, Obama raised taxes and there was a slow but steady period of economic recovery. Go all the way back to the 1950s - the golden age of the US, if you listen to Trump - and the corporate tax rates were twice what they are now, yet the US economy was in an unprecedented boom.

The fact is that economics is more complicated than that. It doesn't boil down to "cut taxes and everyone prospers." Prosperity also depends upon government services that need taxes to function - it doesn't matter how little a household is taxed if the town they live in doesn't have decent roads. In order for poor and middle-class people to have a shot at getting rich, they need government assistance in a spread of other public institutions - healthcare, infrastructure, education, law enforcement. Those institutions must be funded by taxation.

And too often, cutting taxes on the richest people does not lead to the promised wage increases (because why would it?). Corporations will not raise wages unless they have to - because they cannot attract good employees, because they need to compete with other companies offering higher wages, or because the government institutes regulations such as a minimum wage. Without those incentives, all these tax cuts accomplish is to make rich people richer.

These people do not reinvest their money as much as we need them to. For people to make money, wealth needs to circulate - it needs to be spent, allowing local businesses to profit and allowing them to hire more workers who then have more money that they will spend. But billionaires hoard money like greedy dragons. It doesn't circulate. A billionaire spends a certain amount of money on personal luxuries and real estate and then keeps the vast majority sitting in a bank account doing nothing. If we took a billion dollars from Donald Trump and made millionaires out of one thousand poor people, then that money would circulate more because unlike Trump, those people would spend it. And once it circulates, other businesses prosper from the economic activity, and then you get the economic upturn that supply-side/trickle-down economics promises. But for that to happen, the money has to leave the hands of billionaires and re-enter the economy.

A serious tax plan aimed at revitalising the US middle class would lower taxes on the middle class, raise taxes on the highest income earners, and use the revenue to support the social programs that the very poorest people need in order to get back on their feet - healthcare, infrastructure, job training, addiction therapy, yada yada yada. And if we're being ambitious, we'd put a universal basic income in there too - an annual paycheck that every low-income citizen gets, able to cover the barest necessities of life, and which will always end up being spent and cycled back into the economy, because the people receiving it cannot afford to hold onto it.

But the GOP isn't focused on revitalising the middle class. They're focused on fulfilling promises they made to their wealthiest donors, like the Koch brothers, who are themselves focused on reducing their own personal tax burden. That's why the GOP made such a heroic(?) push to repeal Obamacare despite their replacement law having public approval ratings from 10-20%; Obamacare was funded with taxes on rich people, and therefore rich people hated it. And it's why they're insisting point-blank that their new tax plan isn't a tax cut for corporations, despite the fact that they're reducing the statutory corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% without closing any of the loopholes that corporations used to avoid paying the statutory rate. Because it is a tax cut for corporations. That's all the GOP cares about any more. They fool themselves with the glittering, unreachable jewel that is supply-side economics, but in practice they're just cowards beholden to wealthy donors.

Look at Kansas. They cut taxes massively over there, telling everyone it would unleash unprecedented economic growth, and what happened? The resulting deficit crumpled the government like paper. Supply-side economics doesn't work as advertised.

inu-kun:

Yeah, because this days all the advanced countries have all their factories and fields controlled by the government and are also absolutely without poverty...

See the edit

Address the actual argument. Don't just conjure up the extreme from the other side of the political spectrum as if that somehow vindicates trickle-down economics.

Do you seriously see economics as a binary choice between "all factories and fields owned by the state" and trickle-down?

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

It's kinda pointless to argue since every side can claim that the reason it works/doesn't work that time was because of outside influence. Basically the "not real communism" opinion. My own thoughts on the matter that it exists but like everything it needs regulations and has an upper limit to when it is effective.

But completely removing the idea that the government should encourage investors is ludicrous since those guys create the job market. I mean, wasn't the whole economic explanation against Brexit about companies leaving the UK once they'd need to pay more taxes to export/import merchandise to Europe? Why not just pay all the money given to the EU directly to UK citizens then?

inu-kun:

It's kinda pointless to argue since every side can claim that the reason it works/doesn't work that time was because of outside influence. Basically the "not real communism" opinion. My own thoughts on the matter that it exists but like everything it needs regulations and has an upper limit to when it is effective.

But completely removing the idea that the government should encourage investors is ludicrous since those guys create the job market. I mean, wasn't the whole economic explanation against Brexit about companies leaving the UK once they'd need to pay more taxes to export/import merchandise to Europe? Why not just pay all the money given to the EU directly to UK citizens then?

You can stimulate investment through targeted tax reductions. There is a relationship there. But it's not nearly as potent as supply-side economics says it is. The strong supply-side theory argues that all tax cuts pay for themselves through increased economic growth, and that just flat-out is not true, as the Kansas state government learned.

The deception at the heart of trickle-down economic theory is the idea that if you make rich people richer, then they will circulate that extra wealth through investments and expenditures, creating jobs and raising wages. But that just doesn't happen. The rich become super-rich and the money never circulates. You can stimulate economic growth through tax reduction, but it depends on what taxes you cut. And the taxes that Republicans want to cut are things like the estate tax (which taxes multi-million-dollar inheritances), the alternative minimum tax (a targeted high-income tax that accounted for over 90% of Trump's personal tax burden in 2005) and the pass-through tax (a tax on what's called a pass-through business, which was intended to benefit small business owners but in practice was abused by the extremely wealthy - Trump's hundreds of businesses are all organised as pass-throughs, making the billionaire president a "small business owner"). These are tax cuts designed to help rich people make more money and give more of it to their children. They won't stimulate the economy at all, much less to a degree sufficient enough to pay for the two trillion dollars they'll add to the deficit. If you wanted to stimulate the economy, you'd encourage spending by cutting taxes that hurt the vast majority of Americans who live in the middle income brackets.

The GOP could do that, but they won't, because that doesn't serve the interests of their donors. All Trump and the GOP are trying to do is scramble through a cash grab disguised as tax reform - one that will put the government deeply in debt and leave a huge mess for the next administration to clean up. It's not a long-term economic strategy. It isn't good politics and it isn't good policy. The US middle class will never prosper if the country's wealth continues to flow into an increasingly small number of increasingly influential hands.

inu-kun:
But completely removing the idea that the government should encourage investors is ludicrous since those guys create the job market.

Demand for goods and services creates the demand for employees which creates the job market, and entrepreneurship can exist wherever there is credit (and credit exists wherever there are banks or credit unions with access to savers). People don't need to have money to spare to start or expand a business, they just need to have an idea which they can convince banks, credit unions, or other such investors (which can be aggregated from many savers) is the least risky use of their investment for the greatest return.

There is a much greater amount of savings in the United States currently than is being loaned to businesses. How do I know this? Because consumer debt exists and has been growing larger, of course. Why would you invest in a business when you can get extortionate returns from payday lending? If you want to make more money available for businesses to use, get money to consumers who are drowning in debt-- and they increasingly are, because late capitalism performs awfully for anyone not at the top. That way they can either drive up demand for goods and services or pay off their debts and free up savings for someone else to use in whatever fashion (if consumer debt becomes a lesser share of the economy, businesses would have easier access to loans).

The one thing her revelations told me that I didn't know already was that the Clinton camp was allowed to drain the DNC of funds meant for other lower offices. The Democrats were wiped out in 2016: they lost state houses and Governorships. They lost so badly that the Republican party has almost but not quite enough power to re-write the US Constitution. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/republicans-and-the-constitution

This loss may be less about a rejection of their ideas but a lack of funds with which to express them.

I do not know where the rank and file go from here. This is like a consumer thing. We need strong competitors to give us choice. On the other hand, Republicans are having their own melt down. Republican ruling elite appear to despise their voters. So, there's that.

Silentpony:
Everyone who suffers is at yours, and everyone who voted for Hilary's feet. And your response is 'Hey don't blame me, I took the moral stand of voting for the woman who cheated and had no chance of winning. My conscience is clear'

Clinton was predicted to win, and came very close to doing so.

Now, sure, maybe if Sanders won the primary and everyone got behind him, he'd have won. But if people had been a little more solidly behind Clinton, she'd have won. Personally, I'd have preferred Clinton to Sanders, but I think the primaries are a terrible idea, you should pick one candidate and the party gets right behind them, because otherwise, well, this happens.

Silentpony:
And you're not the one fighting Trump, we are. You were the ones holding the door open for him, asking for him to come in, make yourself at home, we won't stop you, yes help yourself to my freedoms.

Saelune is arguing against Trump, you are arguing against a woman who did (and still does) everything she can to fight Trump. It looks like one of you is more opposed to Trump than another.

(I disagree with Saelune over the use of nuclear weapons on Japan and the US response to the USSR, though, but that's getting off-topic)

EDIT: However, all this is academic. The Dems need to pick a decent candidate and get squarely behind them pretty quick. Other considerations secondary, because they can't do much without that one.

bastardofmelbourne:

You can stimulate investment through targeted tax reductions. There is a relationship there. But it's not nearly as potent as supply-side economics says it is. The strong supply-side theory argues that all tax cuts pay for themselves through increased economic growth, and that just flat-out is not true, as the Kansas state government learned.

The deception at the heart of trickle-down economic theory is the idea that if you make rich people richer, then they will circulate that extra wealth through investments and expenditures, creating jobs and raising wages. But that just doesn't happen. The rich become super-rich and the money never circulates. You can stimulate economic growth through tax reduction, but it depends on what taxes you cut. And the taxes that Republicans want to cut are things like the estate tax (which taxes multi-million-dollar inheritances), the alternative minimum tax (a targeted high-income tax that accounted for over 90% of Trump's personal tax burden in 2005) and the pass-through tax (a tax on what's called a pass-through business, which was intended to benefit small business owners but in practice was abused by the extremely wealthy - Trump's hundreds of businesses are all organised as pass-throughs, making the billionaire president a "small business owner"). These are tax cuts designed to help rich people make more money and give more of it to their children. They won't stimulate the economy at all, much less to a degree sufficient enough to pay for the two trillion dollars they'll add to the deficit. If you wanted to stimulate the economy, you'd encourage spending by cutting taxes that hurt the vast majority of Americans who live in the middle income brackets.

The GOP could do that, but they won't, because that doesn't serve the interests of their donors. All Trump and the GOP are trying to do is scramble through a cash grab disguised as tax reform - one that will put the government deeply in debt and leave a huge mess for the next administration to clean up. It's not a long-term economic strategy. It isn't good politics and it isn't good policy. The US middle class will never prosper if the country's wealth continues to flow into an increasingly small number of increasingly influential hands.

I'm only going for the existence of a correclation as showing that it does exist in some manner because the idea that "trickle down economics failed" is about as correct as "socialism failed" (which I've done, but to be fair "trickle down" can be described to just every level of tax cut, while Socialism is defined by the extreme of "government owns all"). I don't really have the mental power or will to start researching the subject.

As for Republicans, it's very likely it doesn't really matter in practical terms as both the parties would have screwed the poor due to a conflict of interests with lobbying organizations.

Silvanus:

Do you seriously see economics as a binary choice between "all factories and fields owned by the state" and trickle-down?

See above to my main gripe with what you said.

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:
But completely removing the idea that the government should encourage investors is ludicrous since those guys create the job market.

Demand for goods and services creates the demand for employees which creates the job market, and entrepreneurship can exist wherever there is credit (and credit exists wherever there are banks or credit unions with access to savers). People don't need to have money to spare to start or expand a business, they just need to have an idea which they can convince banks, credit unions, or other such investors (which can be aggregated from many savers) is the least risky use of their investment for the greatest return.

There is a much greater amount of savings in the United States currently than is being loaned to businesses. How do I know this? Because consumer debt exists and has been growing larger, of course. Why would you invest in a business when you can get extortionate returns from payday lending? If you want to make more money available for businesses to use, get money to consumers who are drowning in debt-- and they increasingly are, because late capitalism performs awfully for anyone not at the top. That way they can either drive up demand for goods and services or pay off their debts and free up savings for someone else to use in whatever fashion (if consumer debt becomes a lesser share of the economy, businesses would have easier access to loans).

Wasn't the whole collapse of 2008 caused by banks giving loans to just about anyone?

inu-kun:

I'm only going for the existence of a correclation as showing that it does exist in some manner because the idea that "trickle down economics failed" is about as correct as "socialism failed" (which I've done, but to be fair "trickle down" can be described to just every level of tax cut, while Socialism is defined by the extreme of "government owns all"). I don't really have the mental power or will to start researching the subject.

Clearly. No, "socialism" does not refer solely to the extreme form in which the government owns all enterprise; in fact, most forms of socialism, today and throughout its history, have not been that.

On the other hand, "trickle-down" does not simply refer to "any tax cut". It refers specifically to the belief that catering to the wealthiest in society is the most effective method of helping the poor. That's a specific, refutable claim, with very little evidence behind it.

Refusing to engage with the criticism of trickle-down economics by merely condemning the opposite extreme doesn't demonstrate a damn thing, and does nothing to vindicate trickle-down economics.

inu-kun:

In terms of economic theory-it should encourage creating more jobs for people and thus reduce poverty as well as increse growth. You can argue how right it is but it exists as a model.

Piketty has already shown that the "trickle down"-theory is bullshit. It turns out that when you give big tax breaks to people who already make a lot of money they start putting that money away for a rainy day, not decide to spend it in erstwhile and earnest pursuit of more job creation. You can argue theoretical application all day long, or you can look at what these people have actually done with their money when they have gotten tax breaks, and the latter overwhelmingly shows that the money they "save" is not being poured back into the economy. Not even as private luxury expenditure.

In fact, Piketty makes the rather poignant observation that you get much more out of increasing the income of low income households, because they save almost nothing and put almost all of that income back into the economy. For the low income households it is a significant quality of life increase and for the economy it is a boost, as that quality of life comes from increased consumption.

Which also highlights one of Piketty's main criticisms of modern Capitalism, in that what benefits society the most (more equal wealth distribution) is directly opposite of what the people with economic power wants (high income inequality, so they can keep making money instead of losing money to taxes).

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

I'm only going for the existence of a correclation as showing that it does exist in some manner because the idea that "trickle down economics failed" is about as correct as "socialism failed" (which I've done, but to be fair "trickle down" can be described to just every level of tax cut, while Socialism is defined by the extreme of "government owns all"). I don't really have the mental power or will to start researching the subject.

Clearly. No, "socialism" does not refer solely to the extreme form in which the government owns all enterprise; in fact, most forms of socialism, today and throughout its history, have not been that.

On the other hand, "trickle-down" does not simply refer to "any tax cut". It refers specifically to the belief that catering to the wealthiest in society is the most effective method of helping the poor. That's a specific, refutable claim, with very little evidence behind it.

Refusing to engage with the criticism of trickle-down economics by merely condemning the opposite extreme doesn't demonstrate a damn thing, and does nothing to vindicate trickle-down economics.

Except for the dictionary defition of it...

And that doesn't entail a full tax exemption, just lowering some of the taxes.

So I guess that you believe higher taxes created by Brexit will have no effect on UK economy?

Gethsemani:

inu-kun:

In terms of economic theory-it should encourage creating more jobs for people and thus reduce poverty as well as increse growth. You can argue how right it is but it exists as a model.

Piketty has already shown that the "trickle down"-theory is bullshit. It turns out that when you give big tax breaks to people who already make a lot of money they start putting that money away for a rainy day, not decide to spend it in erstwhile and earnest pursuit of more job creation. You can argue theoretical application all day long, or you can look at what these people have actually done with their money when they have gotten tax breaks, and the latter overwhelmingly shows that the money they "save" is not being poured back into the economy. Not even as private luxury expenditure.

In fact, Piketty makes the rather poignant observation that you get much more out of increasing the income of low income households, because they save almost nothing and put almost all of that income back into the economy. For the low income households it is a significant quality of life increase and for the economy it is a boost, as that quality of life comes from increased consumption.

Which also highlights one of Piketty's main criticisms of modern Capitalism, in that what benefits society the most (more equal wealth distribution) is directly opposite of what the people with economic power wants (high income inequality, so they can keep making money instead of losing money to taxes).

If there really isn't any "trickle down" then shouldn't companies don't care about taxation rates when creating a new factories?

inu-kun:

If there really isn't any "trickle down" then shouldn't companies don't care about taxation rates when creating a new factories?

Companies care about profit, obviously. But there's a difference between "we want to expand our business and need new factories" and "We'll build more factories if taxes are slashed". When a company decides to expand it will obviously look at locations that suit their expansion needs (taxes, availability of labor, land/rent prices, construction costs etc.), but that's not what trickle down economics refer to.

Trickle Down economics refer specifically to the idea that lower taxation of companies and the richest people in society will make these companies and people more prone to invest in company expansion or new companies. As Piketty shows, that simply doesn't happen. Companies instead keep their profit or distribute it to their owners and shareholders and rich people sit on the money instead. It turns out that if a company doesn't intend to expand its' business, keeping more of its' profits won't suddenly make the board change its' mind, but it will make the company more prone to pay out to its' top management.

Thaluikhain:
I think the primaries are a terrible idea, you should pick one candidate and the party gets right behind them, because otherwise, well, this happens.

Uhh...So you want a China-type system, where the rich elites pick who you are "Allowed" to vote for? In this case, why on god's green earth would they ever even try to put someone up who has any chance of serving anyone but their own interests?

A system like that basically ensures that every election is more or less Mitt Romney versus Tim Kaine.

The primaries are supposed to be there to determine which candidate has the most popular support, and is thus the most likely to win the election. They also exist as a way to kind of "keep 'em honest" as they have to appeal to their own party, meaning they have to at least somewhat promise things that their base wants.

Without primaries, there's no incentive to cater to the needs of their party, because the parties will be able to go "This is our choice for candidate, fuck you, deal with it" and put up people who openly have no interest in helping the average person.

Which, of course, will just drive up voter apathy as people feel that their vote doesn't matter, whoever is elected will just serve the elites and donors over them anyway, or it'll drive them to a third party that will just split the vote all over the place.

aegix drakan:
Uhh...So you want a China-type system, where the rich elites pick who you are "Allowed" to vote for?

Except the parties already have this power, they've just never utilized it. There's nothing that says the parties must hold primaries to choose their nominee, they could simply say "This is our nominee" and that would be the end of it. It would honestly have been preferable for the DNC to simply appoint Hillary as the Democratic nominee instead of giving us the illusion of choice by conducting the primary. Sure, you'd piss people off because that takes the choice out of the hands of the people, but at least you're not telling them "Choose the candidate you want to represent you!" while working behind the scenes to ensure that only one candidate is capable of winning. Now you've pissed off more people, lost their support, and likely turned them into voters for the opposition or non-voters.

If the DNC had actually done this, I would squarely be in the "pissed off" camp, because Hillary was - and still is - not the person I felt would represent me, but I'd be less pissed off than I am now. Even though my family's votes didn't matter in my state, it was incredibly tempting to simply stay home on election day thanks to what the DNC and Hillary's camp did.

inu-kun:

If there really isn't any "trickle down" then shouldn't companies don't care about taxation rates when creating a new factories?

The thing is, this is less about taxing companies less and having them re-invest what they saved from those tax cuts and more about companies diverting the money they wanted to invest anyway to the most profitable location. And the problem with the latter is that the effect is entirely dependent on the reaction of other countries. Nowadays there seems to be a race to the bottom which will solely benefit companies. Trump wants to reduce corporate taxes, the Netherlands, France, Belgium and probably others i'm unaware of. And everyone does it for the same reason, to be more competitive. But as some nations become more others become less and will adapt as well. The question is than, do companies end up investing more than they would have if the race to the bottom hadn't occur? We often hear about hundreds of billions that big companies have stashed. Surely that proves they don't need tax cuts to invest. The tax cuts merely make companies invest in your nation instead of an other. So nothing trickled down, it trickled horizontally from point A to B on the world map.

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:
But completely removing the idea that the government should encourage investors is ludicrous since those guys create the job market.

Demand for goods and services creates the demand for employees which creates the job market, and entrepreneurship can exist wherever there is credit (and credit exists wherever there are banks or credit unions with access to savers). People don't need to have money to spare to start or expand a business, they just need to have an idea which they can convince banks, credit unions, or other such investors (which can be aggregated from many savers) is the least risky use of their investment for the greatest return.

There is a much greater amount of savings in the United States currently than is being loaned to businesses. How do I know this? Because consumer debt exists and has been growing larger, of course. Why would you invest in a business when you can get extortionate returns from payday lending? If you want to make more money available for businesses to use, get money to consumers who are drowning in debt-- and they increasingly are, because late capitalism performs awfully for anyone not at the top. That way they can either drive up demand for goods and services or pay off their debts and free up savings for someone else to use in whatever fashion (if consumer debt becomes a lesser share of the economy, businesses would have easier access to loans).

Wasn't the whole collapse of 2008 caused by banks giving loans to just about anyone?

Not precisely. It was caused by deregulation of the financial sector, which allowed the bundling of mortgage-backed securities into packages with inaccurate risk assessments as well as fostered a market in financial instruments called derivatives (credit default swaps being the specific kind of derivative that was highlighted in 2008 as problematic).

Banks liked that derivative market, but it was dependent on there being mortgages (which they wouldn't mind failing because they would buy swaps on those failures-- indeed, they were hoping they'd fail). They made their money selling the bundles of mortgages (mortgage-backed securities) to their clients while also betting on their default with swaps. Goldman Sachs, for example, did exactly this and later paid an inconsequential fine for the privilege. Because of aforementioned financial deregulation (as well as lax enforcement of existing, more general laws about fraud) these banks and hedge funds were allowed to market their mortgage-backed securities as AAA rated (not risky) because ratings agencies had no particular reason to be truthful in their assessments and they had the rationale that the mortgages weren't likely to default all at the same time.

Of course, that's ignoring the elephant in the room: the housing market itself. For reasons related to banks and hedge funds being able to make lots of money on mortgages, mortgage-backed securities, and credit default swaps on mortgages, the housing market had been experiencing a bubble for awhile based on a massive expansion of (yes) consumer debt. If capitalism weren't atrocious at distributing profits, it would have been a simple expansion of demand for housing due to rising incomes rather than a debt-financed bubble. What made it a bubble was not that people were buying houses, it was that banks were making money from entering into mortgage agreements with them and then betting on them to fail, which gave them no particular reason to care whether people could pay off their mortgages-- the bank can win either way.

The scheme works well enough and is profitable for those involved (well, the powerful ones, anyway) until such time as the bubble bursts collapsing the price of houses, and a bank/hedge fund even momentarily doesn't have the cash on hand to play its part. Then all of a sudden people are walking away from mortgages, over-leveraged banks with assets and balance sheets definitely in the positive are going into default (because those assets aren't liquid and they have obligations which require liquid assets) and, notably, this is all happening at the same time rather than due to individual circumstances: it's a clear systemic issue that is all swinging in one direction all at once. Assets that were previously uncorrelated become correlated because it's not about the individual circumstances of those assets but the direction of something big like the housing market as a whole. At that point it falls over like a house of cards, or it would if the government hadn't stepped in to prop it up (at which point it should have nationalized the banks and hedge funds and put the managers and owners before a firing squad).

So you're about 10% right. The other 90% is a distinct lack of regulation and oversight along with banks being released from their obligation to care whether people can actually pay off their mortgage so long as they can buy the appropriate credit default swap on it.

However, that 10% that you're right about nicely dovetails with my point that money in the hands of the poorer consumers is a good thing, because that 10% is all about them not having the money to afford to live in any approximation of comfort without massive household debt. It's not a scarcity problem, it's a distribution problem.

Huh. So now Donna Brazile is saying that the DNC primaries weren't rigged.

Now I'm not sure what to think.

bastardofmelbourne:
Huh. So now Donna Brazile is saying that the DNC primaries weren't rigged.

Now I'm not sure what to think.

Can only take so much "Donna Brazile just ended her career" from the likes of Howard Dean?

What she described falls somewhere between rigging and unethically biasing. It's splitting hairs whether you want to call it "rigged" or just unacceptably (and extraordinarily) biased.

Center Twitter is out of control with the misinformation, though.

Also, Third Way is still on its bullshit.

Silvanus:

No, I didn't. My first post on this topic was replying to aegix drakan, and was quite specifically in response to the claim that Trump promised jobs, while Clinton said everything was fine. That's a specific, refutable claim.

Fair enough on my misreading then, my apologies.

I don't really have anything else to add otherwise currently.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here