2018 Democrats thread

[Balta1701]

Anyone want to see a random Texas Politician who happens to be running for the state board of Education who has a hobby of going around on Twitter, finding black kids bragging about getting into good schools, and then accusing them of only getting in by quotas because the blacks are never good enough?

[caulfield12]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/opinion/big-economic-ideas.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times

Fortunately, policy experts have begun working on those solutions. One possibility is a federal jobs program, putting people to work earning $15 an hour on vital projects like infrastructure and child care. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who seems to be eyeing a presidential run, favors an ambitious version called a federal jobs guarantee.

Another option is a strong response to growing corporate power and consolidation. The Open Markets Institute and Roosevelt Institute have sketched out new antimonopoly policies. Other economists are talking about something called wage boards, where companies and workers would negotiate over industrywide pay. Such boards already exist in New York, California and Australia.

On health care, there are proposals to open Medicare to people younger than 65 (which could also reduce health spending). On child poverty, two senators have proposed a $3,600-a-year annual allowance for children under 6. On education, states and cities have created free pre-K or community college. And to help pay for it all, experts are studying how best to raise taxes on the wealthy — who can certainly afford to pay more.

The details will be important. Done wrong, any of these ideas could fizzle. They could make people lose even more faith in government. Done right, though, the ideas could mimic the grand successes of government: Social Security, Medicare, the military, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the highway system, public universities, medical research and a Defense Department project that became the internet.

It’s time to dream big again.

 

[Dam8610]

12 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/opinion/big-economic-ideas.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times

Fortunately, policy experts have begun working on those solutions. One possibility is a federal jobs program, putting people to work earning $15 an hour on vital projects like infrastructure and child care. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who seems to be eyeing a presidential run, favors an ambitious version called a federal jobs guarantee.

Another option is a strong response to growing corporate power and consolidation. The Open Markets Institute and Roosevelt Institute have sketched out new antimonopoly policies. Other economists are talking about something called wage boards, where companies and workers would negotiate over industrywide pay. Such boards already exist in New York, California and Australia.

On health care, there are proposals to open Medicare to people younger than 65 (which could also reduce health spending). On child poverty, two senators have proposed a $3,600-a-year annual allowance for children under 6. On education, states and cities have created free pre-K or community college. And to help pay for it all, experts are studying how best to raise taxes on the wealthy — who can certainly afford to pay more.

The details will be important. Done wrong, any of these ideas could fizzle. They could make people lose even more faith in government. Done right, though, the ideas could mimic the grand successes of government: Social Security, Medicare, the military, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the highway system, public universities, medical research and a Defense Department project that became the internet.

It’s time to dream big again.

 

Why? None of those things will happen as long as the "pragmatists" prioritize control of the chairs over good policy. You'll never get a Manchin, Donnelly, or Heitkamp to vote for any of that (using the turncoats of the most recent vote for this example), and the Democratic party has decided that they're content to not have learned anything from their 2016 trouncing and actually redefine themselves in any meaningful way. "Big tent" theory will carry the day and nothing will get done, even if the Democrats get supermajorities in both chambers, because the Democrats don't want to force someone with a (D) behind their name to actually take a liberal position. That Democrats are STILL confused as to how Trump's message of an outsider bringing change sold better to the middle class than Clinton's message of an insider bringing the status quo in an election year where the discontent of the electorate was palpable is baffling to me. I can't understand if they're just stubbornly refusing to see the plain answer staring them in the face or they actually can't understand how disconnected their message was from the average American (perhaps you can shed some light, there, Reddy)? They need a Conor Lamb in every red state race, but they don't seem to be interested in finding those candidates or moving toward those policies. Give them their candy on social issues and win on economic issues. Lamb didn't even say he would vote conservative on those issues, just that he held the conservative viewpoint personally. In fact, he outright said on abortion that he was personally pro-life, but would vote pro-choice because he understands the need for abortion as a right, which politically means he has the right position, but didn't get dinged for it by conservatives. I'd take a majority of Conor Lambs in both chambers over a supermajority which includes members like Donnelly, Manchin, etc. The former would get more done.

[Jack Parkman]

I don't like the use of the term "social issues" or "economic issues" because they're intertwined. They should be socioeconomic issues.  You can change all of the social attitudes in the world but if it doesn't help the person become more economically empowered, it really doesn't do much to help the community you're assisting. Privilege is a thing, whether you want to admit it or not. Also, you don't have to be a racial minority or a woman in order to be oppressed and marginalized. There are plenty of white, male disabled people out there. (I'm one of them) If you're going to help out a community, you have to a) change attitudes about the negative stereotypes about the community you are attempting to assist and b) Step #1 is helping them get a job that pays a living wage.  These things are intertwined, and you can't uplift a minority community properly without both helping others to understand why that group is marginalized AND economically empowering them. A lot of people who claim to "help" an economically marginalized community are actually exploiting their labor for peanuts. IT DOESN'T HELP IF THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION CAN'T BE INDEPENDENT. (or as independent as possible for disabled people)  Whether that means being on government assistance or being supported by  family members.

Government assistance isn't a handout to lazy people who don't want to work. It is a subsidy to the economic elites that choose to exploit laborers. Instead of complaining about high taxes to the "lazy moochers" instead complain to the CEO of your company. We're paying taxes to subsidize profits. Government assistance is also used unscrupulously by the economic elites to marginalize groups of people. If you don't know how government assistance works, you get the same amount of money whether you work part time or not. So really it makes no sense to work, unless you can make enough to afford to pay your own way for everything. The economic elites set it up this way so they can point the finger at those on assistance while continuing to rake in the cash. Most people who are on assistance are on it because they are "undesirables" who nobody wants to give a job to for one lame reason or another. I believe that everyone has the right to work.  What I mean by that is that they have the right to have a job that pays a living wage.......I just don't buy into the idea that there are human beings that are worthless to society.(other than murderers and sex offenders) That is one of the most dangerous tenets of Nazi ideology. Everyone can positively contribute to society in a major way. Unfortunately, American society has subscribed to the Gordon Gecko philosophy that greed is good, and most people really don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves. 

On to the social aspect now: Without an understanding of the disadvantages marginalized groups have to deal with, you can't help a person succeed economically. A person has to be willing to open their mind to different ideas. Until that happens, nothing will change on either front. I have a lot of personal experience with being both socially and economically marginalized. There has been a lot of progress on the social front in my personal experiences, but nada on the economic front. In my book all of the progress made on the social front means nothing without being afforded the opportunity to earn a living, hence the blending of the term to "socioeconomic".

 

It is time to realize FDR's dream of an economic bill of rights. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
. 

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Elgin Slim

[caulfield12]

The universal basic income argument's going to come up a lot...robot taxes in California, etc., over the next couple of decades.

Of course, corporations will never want to assume responsibility for the welfare of any displaced workers.

This is the issue that none of the Dems (except the progressive left) want to fight...the Occupy Wall Street one, about corporate welfare (and how we respect the rich for taking advantage of the system).  Trump has bragged about it over and over again, how the system was tilted in his favor and against the little man, of course, he has no desire to actually CHANGE that system until he's finally backed into a corner and his feet are held to the fire.

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/opinions/sean-hannity-is-a-welfare-queen-begala/index.html

Sean Hannity is a (hypocritical) WELFARE QUEEN

Hannity issued a statement Monday: "It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly need such investment and in which, I am sure, those attacking me have not invested their money," he said. "The fact is, these are investments that I do not individually select, control, or know the details about; except that obviously I believe in putting my money to work in communities that otherwise struggle to receive such support."

 

Yes, Sean, I'm sure it's your own money. But it's being guaranteed with taxpayers' money. That's a government subsidy. And my guess is you used shell corporations to keep your name out of the documents because you didn't want your hypocrisy exposed.

 

Sean Hannity is a lot of things. Needy isn't one of them. Greedy, in President Reagan's framing, seems more like it. Perhaps the program that guarantees Hannity's investments is a wise one. Perhaps, on the other hand, it is a wasteful welfare program. That's not the point. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

 

Hannity is a very wealthy man. So is Donald Trump. It appears that part of the way they became rich was by decrying welfare for poor folks, then grabbing it for themselves. They view their voters, their viewers, as saps. Stooges. Suckers. As another great huckster said, there's one born every minute. And Hannity is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

 

AP-NORC Poll: Amid strikes, Americans back teacher raises

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans overwhelmingly believe teachers don't make enough money, and half say they'd support paying higher taxes to give educators a raise.

The findings of the new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research come amid recent teacher strikes and other protests over low pay, tough classroom conditions and the amount of money allocated to public schools in several Republican-led states.

Tens of thousands of Arizona teachers voted last week to strike after rejecting an offer of a 20-percent raise, because it didn't include a vow from state lawmakers not to further cut taxes before providing more money for the state's schools.

"To educate children and barely get a living is obnoxious," said Elaine Penman, a company manager in Tucson, Arizona, who added she and others went outside to cheer on protesting teachers who were marching by.

She's among the 50 percent of Americas who say they'd pay a higher tax bill if it meant more money for teachers.

"I'm a parent and I benefit directly from what teachers do," said Penman, who has two children in traditional public schools and one in a charter school.

In 2016-2017, the average salary for a public school teacher was $58,950, down slightly from the previous year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

Overall, 78 percent of Americans said that's not enough. Just 15 percent think teachers are paid the right amount, while 6 percent think they're paid too much. In a 2010 AP-Stanford poll, 57 percent of Americans said they thought teachers are paid too little.

Americans in states with the lowest average teacher salaries — less than $50,000 a year — were slightly more likely to think teachers were paid too little and that the national average should be an important factor in determining salaries.

The AP-NORC poll found that parents and those without children are about equally likely to think teachers are paid too little. It's a sentiment that crosses party lines, too. Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats, 78 percent of independents and 66 percent of Republicans think teacher salaries are too low.

Slightly more than half of Americans — 52 percent — also approve of teachers leaving the classroom to strike in their search for higher pay, while 25 percent disapprove. Among those who say they've heard about the recent teacher protests, 80 percent say they approve of such tactics.

[Balta1701]

Oh S*** now he can copy and paste the photos from articles by accident?

[StrangeSox]

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Oh S*** now he can copy and paste the photos from articles by accident?

Since (young) people today hate reading so much, perhaps pictures-only would be more palatable for some...but no, I was not deliberately trying to include the pictures, per se.  That said, it also takes more time to go back in and edit/clean up everything that gets pulled from a page when you copy and paste using this updated site platform.

[Reddy]

How do y'all embed tweets? I did 30 seconds of skimming and figured I'd just ask.

[Balta1701]

With this software, just copy the link to the tweet into the post box, and I've seen it require you to hit the space bar or start typing, and the software should load the tweet embed automatically.

 

[Reddy]

Thanks Balta. You're going to regret giving me that info in 3...2...1...

(Got to see her speak today at an event at Georgetown, and I guess they liked my tweets lol ?)

 

[Reddy]

Also, in honor of my day, I think this is a pretty important read for all Dems and progressives. It's pretty surprising to me after hearing her speak on the issues today that anyone on the left dislikes her. But hey. Such is life. (Click the headline for the full article. I decided not to post the whole thing because it seemed obnoxious.)

The Nancy Pelosi Problem

The first female speaker of the House has become the most effec­tive congressional leader of modern times—and, not coinciden­tally, the most vilified.

Ryan Melgar

 

[caulfield12]

Reddy, nobody HATES Pelosi or Harry Reid or Schumer or whoever.

However, if they can be effectively targeted by the right to mobilize voters and win elections simply by brandishing their names to the base, then that's something of a problem, isn't it?

It's the same thing as your political strategy in all races being centered around attacking Trump without any substantive policy platform for the middle class to back it up.

In general, we NEED NEW BLOOD.  Warren, Sanders, Pelosi, Reid (now gone), Feinstein...all of them are to be respected for their contributions, but their time has come and gone.

 

[Reddy]

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

Reddy, nobody HATES Pelosi or Harry Reid or Schumer or whoever.

However, if they can be effectively targeted by the right to mobilize voters and win elections simply by brandishing their names to the base, then that's something of a problem, isn't it?

It's the same thing as your political strategy in all races being centered around attacking Trump without any substantive policy platform for the middle class to back it up.

In general, we NEED NEW BLOOD.  Warren, Sanders, Pelosi, Reid (now gone), Feinstein...all of them are to be respected for their contributions, but their time has come and gone.

 

 

I don't think anyone should focus their campaign around attacking Trump.

[StrangeSox]

 

[caulfield12]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/lesko-wins-but-not-good-gop/index.html

Lesko wins by +5, but not good omen for GOP

[Reddy]

13 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/lesko-wins-but-not-good-gop/index.html

Lesko wins by +5, but not good omen for GOP

You mean Dems are going to take the House despite Pelosi being in charge? 

Great. Then let's keep the most effective legislator and caucus leader we've damn near ever had right where she is for 2019. I'm all for new blood if they can do the job as well as her and take away the GOPs talking points, but who is that person? He or she hasn't stepped up to the plate yet, and until they do, I'd like to celebrate our effective female leaders instead of let the GOP dictate our decisions with their sexism. Cool? 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Reddy

[caulfield12]

I’m not sure what we are arguing here. Tip O’Neill vs. Pelosi?

In the end, distaste for Trump is going to drive the Dems as much as any single factor.  Moreso than anyone on the right will get worked up over Pelosi and Schumer, since both are essentially powerless at the moment...at least until the day AFTER the first Tuesday in November.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-slogans.html

We also don’t need to spends tens of millions of dollars sorting through 85 possible campaign themes.

A Better Deal hasn’t resonated, either.  Unless you’re a relative of FDR or LBJ.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/david-whitley/os-sp-finland-universal-income-0424-story.html

Finland’s Failed Attempt At Universal Basic Income

 

As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money.

In the U.S., a universal basic income would be funded by eliminating the existing social safety nets (unemployment, Medicare, Social Security) and using that money to pay everyone.

The figures vary, but $10,000 to $15,000 a year per person is ballpark, more if you have kids.

There are practical problems, like whether there would be enough money to cover the plan (doubtful), and how big a border wall would we need once the government start giving money away (I recommend 50 feet with machine gun nests at the top).

But the biggest problem is one of principle.

A guaranteed government income takes away the incentive to work, and work is more than just an economic factor.

It’s a vital part of what makes a society work. It teaches responsibility, self-reliance, industriousness.

I realize all that sounds very 1950ish, like Ward Cleaver explaining to Beaver why he should open a lemonade stand if he wants to buy a new BB gun. But those traits are fundamentals for success in life.

Instead of encouraging them, modern culture is diminishing their value. It’s more important to find yourself.

As Nancy Pelosi said in pitching Obamacare, it would create “an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”

Yeah, those darned day jobs.

Look, I hate getting out of bed at 5 a.m. to report to coal mine as much as the next guy, but there’s something to be said for busting your butt to provide for yourself, your family and future generations.

Taking an entry-level job used to be considered getting your foot on the ladder of success. Sure, you were at the bottom, but with hard work you could climb to the top.

Now too many people consider it beneath them to work at a convenience store or fast food joint when they should be painting or taking pictures of whippoorwills in the forest.

As Finland was discovering, a universal basic income may sound like a great idea. The only thing it guarantees, however, is that it will bring more problems than it’s worth.

[Jerksticks]

11 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/david-whitley/os-sp-finland-universal-income-0424-story.html

Finland’s Failed Attempt At Universal Basic Income

 

As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money.

In the U.S., a universal basic income would be funded by eliminating the existing social safety nets (unemployment, Medicare, Social Security) and using that money to pay everyone.

The figures vary, but $10,000 to $15,000 a year per person is ballpark, more if you have kids.

There are practical problems, like whether there would be enough money to cover the plan (doubtful), and how big a border wall would we need once the government start giving money away (I recommend 50 feet with machine gun nests at the top).

But the biggest problem is one of principle.

A guaranteed government income takes away the incentive to work, and work is more than just an economic factor.

It’s a vital part of what makes a society work. It teaches responsibility, self-reliance, industriousness.

I realize all that sounds very 1950ish, like Ward Cleaver explaining to Beaver why he should open a lemonade stand if he wants to buy a new BB gun. But those traits are fundamentals for success in life.

Instead of encouraging them, modern culture is diminishing their value. It’s more important to find yourself.

As Nancy Pelosi said in pitching Obamacare, it would create “an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”

Yeah, those darned day jobs.

Look, I hate getting out of bed at 5 a.m. to report to coal mine as much as the next guy, but there’s something to be said for busting your butt to provide for yourself, your family and future generations.

Taking an entry-level job used to be considered getting your foot on the ladder of success. Sure, you were at the bottom, but with hard work you could climb to the top.

Now too many people consider it beneath them to work at a convenience store or fast food joint when they should be painting or taking pictures of whippoorwills in the forest.

As Finland was discovering, a universal basic income may sound like a great idea. The only thing it guarantees, however, is that it will bring more problems than it’s worth.

That’s about as nailed as a nail gets nailed.  

[StrangeSox]

it's the "Old Economy Steve" meme come to life

 

e: if you look at the actual reasons given by both the Finnish government and the OECD, which that author just dismissed as "boring," they recommend replacing the trial universal basic income with a universal credit system instead. it's sort of the opposite of that guy's hilariously out of touch claims.

https://oecdecoscope.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/why-would-a-universal-credit-be-better-than-a-basic-income-for-finland/

 

e2: "look I hate getting up to work hard in the coal mines!" :is a sports writer: lol

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by StrangeSox

[GoSox05]

27 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/david-whitley/os-sp-finland-universal-income-0424-story.html

Finland’s Failed Attempt At Universal Basic Income

 

As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money.

In the U.S., a universal basic income would be funded by eliminating the existing social safety nets (unemployment, Medicare, Social Security) and using that money to pay everyone.

The figures vary, but $10,000 to $15,000 a year per person is ballpark, more if you have kids.

There are practical problems, like whether there would be enough money to cover the plan (doubtful), and how big a border wall would we need once the government start giving money away (I recommend 50 feet with machine gun nests at the top).

But the biggest problem is one of principle.

A guaranteed government income takes away the incentive to work, and work is more than just an economic factor.

It’s a vital part of what makes a society work. It teaches responsibility, self-reliance, industriousness.

I realize all that sounds very 1950ish, like Ward Cleaver explaining to Beaver why he should open a lemonade stand if he wants to buy a new BB gun. But those traits are fundamentals for success in life.

Instead of encouraging them, modern culture is diminishing their value. It’s more important to find yourself.

As Nancy Pelosi said in pitching Obamacare, it would create “an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”

Yeah, those darned day jobs.

Look, I hate getting out of bed at 5 a.m. to report to coal mine as much as the next guy, but there’s something to be said for busting your butt to provide for yourself, your family and future generations.

Taking an entry-level job used to be considered getting your foot on the ladder of success. Sure, you were at the bottom, but with hard work you could climb to the top.

Now too many people consider it beneath them to work at a convenience store or fast food joint when they should be painting or taking pictures of whippoorwills in the forest.

As Finland was discovering, a universal basic income may sound like a great idea. The only thing it guarantees, however, is that it will bring more problems than it’s worth.

This article has it all.  That wonderful quote from the very good person, Margaret Thatcher.  Machine guns on top of a border wall to kill people trying to enter the country. 

Also, UBI is not socialist.

[caulfield12]

If you owned a company that delivered products more efficiently and more cheaply for the same or better quality...using robotics and automation, would you feel responsible for taking care of your displaced human wokers for the remainder of their lives?

Or should consumers pay 25-50% more for goods to subsidize those laborers lacking in education or training to adapt to rapidly-changing work environments?

Neither solutions seems particularly fair, does it?

[caulfield12]

22 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

it's the "Old Economy Steve" meme come to life

 

e: if you look at the actual reasons given by both the Finnish government and the OECD, which that author just dismissed as "boring," they recommend replacing the trial universal basic income with a universal credit system instead. it's sort of the opposite of that guy's hilariously out of touch claims.

https://oecdecoscope.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/why-would-a-universal-credit-be-better-than-a-basic-income-for-finland/

 

e2: "look I hate getting up to work hard in the coal mines!" :is a sports writer: lol

So the subsidy should be financed by corporations that said employ workers, the government and/or higher indirect taxes/VAT, etc., on consumers? Or a combination of all three?