Support NeoGAF

[Mr.Mike]

When it comes to making people less racist? The only thing that I've seen that seems to really work is "living around more diverse people", which means getting people into cities, which means investing in helping people in dying rural communities relocate. That's an angle I'd like to see

The easiest way to do this, politically and policy wise, would be to go really hard on making housing affordable. It's something that'd probably kill a lot of birds with one stone.

 

[whyamihere]

But you're just proving my point. The Nordic countries don't believe in limiting capitalism. As I said, they believe in harnessing and capitalizing (hah hah) upon it to fortify their welfare state and expand opportunity. If democratic socialists in American want European-style social democracy, then they've predicated their goals upon misunderstandings.

One of my biggest beefs with Bernie Sanders was his constant mislabeling of himself.

I consider higher taxes on corporations and the nationalization of some services ala healthcare to be limiting capitalization.

 

[ugaboga232]

Everyone knows the true enemy is cars.

To throw in my two cents from my own educational background, one area where capitalism rises into possible "enemy" is that it tends to cause positive feed back cycles and distorted incentives that happen to align with some of human's problem areas that involve their own positive feed back cycles such as motivation/addiction/etc. This is generally not a winning strategy.

Making people less racist is easier if you are willing to do morally ambiguous things like putting drugs in the water supply (fluoride is unfortunately not as strong as people like to believe).

 

[kirblar]

And what being proposed currently is trash economics

Also what is the Kiblar agenda. You have super majorities in both houses. What legislation do you pass? You have to actually propose an alternative platform if you are going to knock other ideas all day

EITC reform so that it covers everyone.

Obamacare reform w/ a public option (medicare or medicaid, I don't care which as long as you can pass it) and universal coverage. If you're going to get to single payer, it's going to be through insurers pulling out and leaving the government as the de facto one.

Sentencing reform.

Decriminallizing Marijuana at the federal level.

Empowering the civil rights division to take on problem PDs.

Help w/ getting people moved out of dying areas. Help for Millenials and homeowners struggling w/ debt.

The easiest way to do this, politically and policy wise, would be to go really hard on making housing affordable. It's something that'd probably kill a lot of birds with one stone.

The problem is that this is a state-level issue, unfortunately. It's very difficult to deal with NIMBYism w/ the feds. You have to override it w/ states because it's local populations causing the issue.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

How does the US military-Trump-Russia triangle work out?

Because Trump loves the US military and Russia... And the US military is currently at war with Russia.

I mean... something has to give eventually right? Russia will probably shoot down one of our planes in the next two months and then Trump will have to make a decision on how this will resolve, right?

Oh, and centrist economists like breaking up the monopolies.

 

[kirblar]

Kirblar would probably abolish all zoning regulations and tax luxury homes by $100B more per year to pay for a higher EITC. Also, amnesty and higher immigration limits.

But beyond those four things, centrist economists are very divided on major economic policies.

Zoning regs you can't do at the federal level effectively. Would have no problem taxing second homes though!

 

[Valhelm]

I would say most American democratic socialists view European-style social democracies as an incremental step and also an improved material reality.

Of course, the key to success there is not "taxed private sector with larger welfare state", since the United States has a far smaller public sector than any of these countries. Ultimately I'd say the goal of American democratic socialists is to nationalize a lot of stuff and also turn the stuff that isn't nationalized into coops. There's a lot more to the socialist vision of the future than an expanded welfare state.

Right, this is exactly why I like Bernie. I think his decision to call himself a socialist without mentioning socialism was disingenuous at best, but the word "socialism" isn't why he developed such a rabid following among young voters. Bernie, like Corbyn and Melenchon, offered proactive and constructive solutions to the problems wrought by austerity.

A Bernie presidency would have been great because it, with a hypothetically cooperative legislation, would have substantially relieved the suffering of low-income communities and prevented the rise of far-right demagogues who capitalize off of these woes. His election would have also allowed the radical left to grow and prosper, allowing for more critical questions about our economy to be asked at a later date.

 

[GrapeApes]

I mean... something has to give eventually right? Russia will probably shoot down one of our planes in the next two months and then Trump will have to make a decision on how this will resolve, right?

Still BFFs. Turkey shoots down a Russian plane and they're cool now. If anything Trump will clown the pilot. I don't like pilots who got shot down.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Oh, and centrist economists like breaking up the monopolies.

More broadly, I'd argue a good centrist wouldn't want any one group/institution becoming too powerful, lest they implement policies that benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

My biggest disagreement with the left is the idea that the government could become so large and powerful without being corrupted.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Zoning regs you can't do at the federal level effectively. Would have no problem taxing second homes though!

Bernie might not like that second part.

 

[kirblar]

Right, this is exactly why I like Bernie. I think his decision to call himself a socialist without mentioning socialism was disingenuous at best, but the word "socialism" isn't why he developed such a rabid following among young voters. Bernie, like Corbyn and Melenchon, offered proactive and constructive solutions to the problems wrought by austerity.

A Bernie presidency would have been great because it, with a hypothetically cooperative legislation, would have substantially relieved the suffering of low-income communities and prevented the rise of far-right demagogues who capitalize off of these woes. His election would have also allowed the radical left to grow and prosper, allowing for more critical questions about our economy to be asked at a later date.

The US did not practice Austerity in the wake of the Great Recession.

 

[Mr.Mike]

The US did not practice Austerity in the wake of the Great Recession.

Hell, one of Bernie's points is all the money that was spent stimulating and saving the economy that he felt unfairly benefited a small group.

 

[Autodidact]

But the word "socialism" isn't why he developed such a rabid following among young voters.

Actually, I attribute his following partly to his misuse of the word. Young voters, like Americans in general, have a poor understanding of economics in general and socialism in particular. To older voters it connotes the gulags and collective farms and punishing taxes; to young voters it connotes a paradise of free college, free health care, free everything even with no feasible way to pay for it. Both groups misunderstood, but the young flocked to Bernie partially for that reason.

 

[Mr.Mike]

The problem is that this is a state-level issue, unfortunately. It's very difficult to deal with NIMBYism w/ the feds. You have to override it w/ states because it's local populations causing the issue.

The Democratic party runs in state elections, no?

It would be difficult but perhaps the most worthwhile effort besides healthcare.

 

[kirblar]

The Democratic party runs in state elections, no?

It would be difficult but perhaps the most worthwhile effort besides healthcare.

Sure, it's just that because reps are local, unless you had state-level regulation from the start (like I believe Washington State does) its really difficult to get people to go along with removing power from local residents, because the sorts of people who have the time and resources to sit on local boards and lobby them are the sort of people who have the time and resources to make your life as a politician very unfun.

It's a "we can see the solution... but we have no idea how on earth to actually get it implemented because it involves making a lot of people very mad" issue. Like a lot of economic fixes.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Who cares about the exact real word definition of socialism

In the US expanding the social safety net, single payer healthcare and other regulations and reforms to reel in corporations is considered socialism. Literally any shift in that direction is considered that. Good luck getting people to think it isn't

So why make an effort to keep the word considered dirty? Just embrace it

 

[tuxfool]

My biggest disagreement with the left is the idea that the government could become so large and powerful without being corrupted.

Well, atm in the US the government is becoming so small and weak that it is subsumed by corrupting forces.

 

[pigeon]

ITT Americans demonstrating that socialism was so unsuccessful in America that they literally don't understand what the word means

 

[kirblar]

Who cares about the exact real word definition of socialism

In the US expanding the social safety net, single payer healthcare and other regulations and reforms to reel in corporations is considered socialism. Literally any shift in that direction is considered that. Good luck getting people to think it isn't

So why make an effort to keep the word considered dirty? Just embrace it

Because words have meanings?

 

[Autodidact]

Who cares about the exact real word definition of socialism

In the US expanding the social safety net, single payer healthcare and other regulations and reforms to reel in corporations is considered socialism. Literally any shift in that direction is considered that. Good luck getting people to think it isn't

So why make an effort to keep the word considered dirty? Just embrace it

#reclaimtheword

#nomorehatespeech

 

[The Technomancer]

ITT Americans demonstrating that socialism was so unsuccessful in America that they literally don't understand what the word means

I mean its more of a microcosm of the entire left infighting right now. You broadly have three camps; current "centrist" liberals, aggressive scandanavian state style welfare expansionists, and true blue "labor controls all capital" socialists. And each of the three has people in it who will loudly claim that the other two are ideologically compromised.

 

[pigeon]

Because words have meanings?

ITT kirblar reveals that the real horror of neoliberalism is that it makes you a linguistic prescriptivist

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

ITT kirblar reveals that the real horror of neoliberalism is that it makes you a linguistic prescriptivist

You say horror, I say benefit. :smirkface:

 

[Mr.Mike]

I mean its more of a microcosm of the entire left infighting right now. You broadly have three camps; current "centrist" liberals, aggressive scandanavian state style welfare expansionists, and true blue "labor controls all capital" socialists. And each of the three has people in it who will loudly claim that the other two are ideologically compromised.

Yes and it becomes harder to have a meaningful and fruitful discussion when everyone is using the same word in different ways and with wildly different understandings.

 

[Y2Kev]

AHHHHHH OSSOFF AHHH VOTECASTR

 

[kirblar]

ITT kirblar reveals that the real horror of neoliberalism is that it makes you a linguistic prescriptivist

"I was speaking figuratively" has become the lamest excuse for someone not knowing what the fuck they or you are talking about when called on it.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Because words have meanings?

And words mean different things to different people who live in different places.

I hear they call soccer something crazy like football over in europe

 

[The Technomancer]

(I'm broadly an aggressive scandanavian state style welfare expansionist. The country has never been wealthier. Tax the shit out of it and give it to people. Full blown traditional socialism has issues I worry about but its also such a non-starter that its really only able to be discussed theoretically)

 

[Autodidact]

And words mean different things to different people who live in different places.

I hear they call soccer something crazy like football over in europe

But they refer to the same thing. Americans' boogeyman "socialism" (really social democracy) and actual socialism do not.

 

[Gruco]

The government spending money isn't socialism. Although to be honest I have no idea what socialist, liberal and conservative even mean to most people in the US nowadays.

Same. Discussions about socialism always drive me up the wall because most of the time it just ends up being about things the activist Democratic base has been fighting for and making progress on since 2005, only covered in a veneer of "but fuck those guys"

Like, if the discussion is about where exactly marginal tax rates should be that's not really about fundamentally up-ending the system.

Socialist and Neoliberal and basically every label under the sun have become a nonsense pile of projection and confirmation bias.

There's an easy solution to this though. Fuck weird obsessions over labels. Just talk policy.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Anyway, NIMBYism is a really hard problem, but I think it's really important we figure it out. It's also something Democrats could make progress on at the state level while the Republicans fuck around in D.C.

Stop pretending you're not rich.

The rhetoric of ”We are the 99 percent" has in fact been dangerously self-serving, allowing people with healthy six-figure incomes to convince themselves that they are somehow in the same economic boat as ordinary Americans, and that it is just the so-called super rich who are to blame for inequality.

...

Things turn ugly, however, when the upper middle class starts to rig markets in its own favor, to the detriment of others. Take housing, perhaps the most significant example. Exclusionary zoning practices allow the upper middle class to live in enclaves. Gated communities, in effect, even if the gates are not visible. Since schools typically draw from their surrounding area, the physical separation of upper-middle-class neighborhoods is replicated in the classroom. Good schools make the area more desirable, further inflating the value of our houses. The federal tax system gives us a handout, through the mortgage-interest deduction, to help us purchase these pricey homes. For the upper middle classes, regardless of their professed political preferences, zoning, wealth, tax deductions and educational opportunity reinforce one another in a virtuous cycle.

It takes a brave politician to question the privileges enjoyed by the upper middle class. Recently, there have been failed attempts to make zoning laws more inclusive in supposedly liberal cities like Seattle and states like California and Massachusetts. The handout on mortgage interest appears to be an indestructible deduction (unlike in Britain, where the equivalent tax break was phased out under both Conservative and Labour governments by 2000).

 

[BlastProcessing]

Why do you guys's think that Brian Schweitzer, John Tester, and Steve Bullock failed to achieve Quist's level of success in Montana?

Most of it has to do with the specific situations behind each election. Schweitzer was running against an incumbent governor (Judy Martz) who ran the state's budget into the ground, not quite Kansas-bad, but pretty bad. She tried to stimulate the state's economy through massive tax cuts. It didn't work. She also got caught up in a pay for play scandal.

And then there was a bizarre situation where one of her advisors (Shane Hedges) was involved in a drunk hit and run that killed the State House Majority leader. I know that sounds crazy but it happened. Martz then took part in an attempted cover up. She went as far as to wash Hedges clothes the night of the incident to destroy evidence. Hedges eventually pled guilty to manslaughter and the obstruction case against Martz fizzled.

Suffice to say, when Schweitzer ran against her she was wildly unpopular.

Martz fucked things so badly that Bullock was able to come in right behind Schweitzer and win as well. Martz's fuck up was bad enough to put people off of the idea of a Republican governor for a half a generation at least.

Tester ran against Conrad Burns, who was at the time, up to his tits in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Remember that one?

So yeah, those aren't exactly repeatable situations.

 

[The Technomancer]

Anyway, NIMBYism is a really hard problem, but I think it's really important we figure it out. It's also something Democrats could make progress on at the state level while the Republicans fuck around in D.C.

Stop pretending you're not rich.

I think I was like 19 when I did the math and figured out how high up the ladder my parents $100k (roughly) income and house value put us up the ladder and said "wait what the fuck"

Which is weird, because looking back my best friends in high-school were poor. Like "living in a literal trailer park" poor. But I didn't grasp the actual financial gulf

 

[Blader]

But why flip. Hold steady and take whatever comes to you. Then have Trump pardon you and you're all good. Why not?

Flynn can be charged in Virginia, which would be beyond the scope of Trump's pardon.

 

[pigeon]

I mean its more of a microcosm of the entire left infighting right now. You broadly have three camps; current "centrist" liberals, aggressive scandanavian state style welfare expansionists, and true blue "labor controls all capital" socialists. And each of the three has people in it who will loudly claim that the other two are ideologically compromised.

I'm not sure I agree with this breakdown. The welfare state people are social democrats, and social democrats want to bring about socialism through incremental democratic reforms to capitalism. That's the whole point of those social programs, to give wealth back to the proletariat, who ultimately produce that wealth. This is not a meaningfully different position from, say, Jeremy Corbyn -- we just have different starting points and problems to grapple with, but the same ultimate goals and tools to achieve those goals.

Now, sure, you might be able to produce some real hardcore communists who would argue that we need to expropriate all the rich people, but, I mean, I'm a neoliberal shill and I also think we need to expropriate all the rich people. Our disagreement is really just on implementation details.

(This is unrelated to the real problem I have with some leftists which is that they are basically okay with white supremacy to the point that they sit around on Twitter approvingly quoting Breitbart commenters, no names please.)

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm not sure I agree with this breakdown. The welfare state people are social democrats, and social democrats want to bring about socialism through incremental democratic reforms to capitalism. That's the whole point of those social programs, to give wealth back to the proletariat, who ultimately produce that wealth. This is not a meaningfully different position from, say, Jeremy Corbyn -- we just have different starting points and problems to grapple with, but the same ultimate goals and tools to achieve those goals.

Now, sure, you might be able to produce some real hardcore communists who would argue that we need to expropriate all the rich people, but, I mean, I'm a neoliberal shill and I also think we need to expropriate all the rich people. Our disagreement is really just on implementation details.

I'd say the breakdown is usually differentiated by matter of timeline. I read (this could be wrong) that there are people who want to expand the welfare state and social services so that we can accomplish something like public control of capital (state or stateless) in the next fifty or so years, and that there are people who want to seize the means of production by 2030

With that said, I think there are things beyond timeline that further differentiate the groups. Again this is a very loose read but I think people who support long term welfare expansionism as a means to public control of capital still are on board with the idea of markets in which things are transacted (but not food, housing, education, medicine), whereas the revolutionaries are seriously interested in transactionless communism

 

[kirblar]

I think I was like 19 when I did the math and figured out how high up the ladder my parents $100k (roughly) income and house value put us up the ladder and said "wait what the fuck"

Which is weird, because looking back my best friends in high-school were poor. Like "living in a literal trailer park" poor. But I didn't grasp the actual financial gulf

See also- the lasting effects of the FHA being really racist in its implementation:

 

[Roland_Gunner]

I mean its more of a microcosm of the entire left infighting right now. You broadly have three camps; current "centrist" liberals, aggressive scandanavian state style welfare expansionists, and true blue "labor controls all capital" socialists. And each of the three has people in it who will loudly claim that the other two are ideologically compromised.

The number of people in the US who want labor control of capital is basically a rounding error. There isn't one elected official beyond a couple of city councillors that call for it. That type of socialism isn't even dominant on sites like the Jacobin.

 

[Autodidact]

Rachel Maddow reporting that the Eastern District of Virginia has issued a subpoena. I haven't seen this mentioned in OT or here. Did I just miss it?

That Claude Taylor person, whom I consider a trimmed pubic hair more reliable than Mensch, has mentioned that court many times.

 

[The Technomancer]

The number of people in the US who want labor control of capital is basically a rounding error. There isn't one elected official beyond a couple of city councillors that call for it. That type of socialism isn't even dominant on sites like the Jacobin.

That's sort of the point I was making earlier though also, those people don't really have political power but they do speak enough online to at least seem part of the discourse. Like I've been hanging around two other left-leaning message boards and a couple of leftist Discords and they're definitely in the conversation

 

[Mr.Mike]

Also should there maybe be separate threads for policy and politics?

 

[Diablos]

Topher Spiro‏ @TopherSpiro 10m10 minutes ago
5: We can win this! Please know that pressure is making a big difference—and double down. Now's the time.

Topher Spiro‏ @TopherSpiro 15m15 minutes ago
4: I'm hearing the holdouts as of right now are CAPITO, FLAKE, COLLINS, MURKOWSKI, and HELLER. They need to hear from you!

Topher Spiro @TopherSpiro 16m16 minutes ago
3: As of right now the bill isn't 100% finished and the votes are not there. They're still trying to lock down the holdouts.

Topher Spiro @TopherSpiro 19m19 minutes ago
2: Everyone says McConnell will force a vote with or without having the votes. They need finality to move on.

Topher Spiro @TopherSpiro 21m21 minutes ago
1: Based on what I'm hearing, I'd wager a 55% chance we defeat Trumpcare. Razor close but winnable.

Welp

Also fuck Cassidy

 

[Fuchsdh]

Sure, it's just that because reps are local, unless you had state-level regulation from the start (like I believe Washington State does) its really difficult to get people to go along with removing power from local residents, because the sorts of people who have the time and resources to sit on local boards and lobby them are the sort of people who have the time and resources to make your life as a politician very unfun.

It's a "we can see the solution... but we have no idea how on earth to actually get it implemented because it involves making a lot of people very mad" issue. Like a lot of economic fixes.

I think the bigger issue here is that there's no incentive for a lot of people to vote for affordable housing because it usually means shitty-looking buildings cheaply made, and because housing is basically the only good investment a lot of people have (since they don't save money otherwise.) if you drop housing prices everywhere you put a lot of people close to retirement underwater. Of course they're going to vote against that.

 

[Blader]

Flake is a holdout, but not Portman?

 

[Grexeno]

Flake is a holdout, but not Portman?

Flake is up for re-election next year, Portman is good until 2022.

 

[Mr.Mike]

I think the bigger issue here is that there's no incentive for a lot of people to vote for affordable housing because it usually means shitty-looking buildings cheaply made, and because housing is basically the only good investment a lot of people have (since they don't save money otherwise.) if you drop housing prices everywhere you put a lot of people close to retirement underwater. Of course they're going to vote against that.

Who needs a house when you can have a well-diversified portfolio of index funds?

That's one of the reasons it'll be really hard. But relying on your house as a sole investment is a terrible idea already anyway. We might start by encourage people to save more responsibly and turning Social Security into something more like the CPP.

 

[pigeon]

I think the bigger issue here is that there's no incentive for a lot of people to vote for affordable housing because it usually means shitty-looking buildings cheaply made,

Because homeless people make the street look so much nicer by comparison.

and because housing is basically the only good investment a lot of people have (since they don't save money otherwise.) if you drop housing prices everywhere you put a lot of people close to retirement underwater. Of course they're going to vote against that.

Housing is not an investment and has never been an investment. People who retire aren't going to retire on the back of their investment in housing. They're going to live in their house, which prevents them from benefiting from its appreciation.

When people go to these neighborhood board meeting they're often pretty explicit that they want to keep poor people and people of color out of their communities. As a society I don't really see what we get out of giving them that option, and it's very easy to identify the problems that result from having it.

 

[Autodidact]

Hush little mod'rates, don't say a word

Mitch is gonna make you vote on a turd

And if that shitty bill doth sing,

You'll no longer be a mod'rate darling


Okay, Rachel Maddow cited a WaPo report when she said that EDVA had issued subpoenas, but I can't find any such article on their website.

 

[Diablos]

So the Senate has not been so secretive since before WW1?

This is another reason why I think something will pass and it won't be good at all. Mitch isn't dumb enough to resort to such secrecy only to come up short.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Welp

Also fuck Cassidy

55% chance it doesn't pass?

That's... actually pretty good odds all things considered

So the Senate has not been so secretive since before WW1?

This is another reason why I think something will pass and it won't be good at all. Mitch isn't dumb enough to resort to such secrecy only to come up short.

Or they don't really have anything worth showing but like to play pretend like they do