Support NeoGAF

[AndyD]

Putin wants way more than sanctions ended. He wants to destabilize the entire West. He wants NATO broken up, UK out of the EU, and for America to descend into total dysfunction so he can expand his organized crime network unfettered throughout the first world.

Trump is an agent of pure chaos and Putin saw way, way more value in him as a patsy that would do far more for him than drop the current sanctions. Putin's vision is far more grand.

Getting sanctions rolled back is square one.

Of note, they don't even need for sanctions to be rolled back if the West is in disarray and can't enforce current sanctions to begin with.

 

[a.wd]

Why is Tax the rich more such an unpopular message on this board? Whenever I say it I either get snark or no one wants to discuss income disparity as a major issue, we go after sociological subjects just fine, but as soon as someone mentions wealth inequality everyone goes silent.

 

[Fenderputty]

He's from the UK, it's their thing. Like French wine or German beer.

You forgot Indian food.

Why is Tax the rich more such an unpopular message on this board? Whenever I say it I either get snark or no one wants to discuss income disparity as a major issue, we go after sociological subjects just fine, but as soon as someone mentions wealth inequality everyone goes silent.

I have not experienced what you're experiencing on this board.

 

[PBY]

Why is Tax the rich more such an unpopular message on this board? Whenever I say it I either get snark or no one wants to discuss income disparity as a major issue, we go after sociological subjects just fine, but as soon as someone mentions wealth inequality everyone goes silent.

I really do believe income inequality is a key driver for how fucked up shit is. People leaned into Trump because they thought his shitty solutions tied to racism would fix it.

I've posted (what I believe to be) pretty interesting research here before about how income inequality could theoretically be tied to our increasingly polarized political climate, and its only going to get worse.

We should definitely tax the rich.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Why is Tax the rich more such an unpopular message on this board? Whenever I say it I either get snark or no one wants to discuss income disparity as a major issue, we go after sociological subjects just fine, but as soon as someone mentions wealth inequality everyone goes silent.

That's... not been my experience. At all.

If there is any sort of silence on the subject, it's one of consensus; everybody agrees that the rich are under-taxed, everybody agrees that wealth inequality must be addressed. There's just... not much discussion to be had there, since everyone seems to be on the same page. Social issues are much more-hot button, and have a much greater emotional impact, so they generate more discussion.

 

[PBY]

That's... not been my experience. At all.

If there is any sort of silence on the subject, it's one of consensus; everybody agrees that the rich are under-taxed, everybody agrees that wealth inequality must be addressed. There's just... not much discussion to be had there, since everyone seems to be on the same page. Social issues are much more-hot button, and have a much greater emotional impact, so they generate more discussion.

But Dems haven't really produced a plan that gets us there, would you agree?

 

[Blader]

Correct. Unfortunately, this is not the best option, it's been explained to you why this is not the best option, and you're ignoring the fact this is not the best option because ???.

Because I obviously disagree? I mean Jesus, is "focus on the quality of life in the U.S. to make Western ideals more desirable to Russians" a serious proposal?

 

[AndyD]

I have not seen that sentiment either.

As to how much we are moving towards curbing it, that's something else.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Because I obviously disagree? I mean Jesus, is "focus on the quality of life in the U.S. to make Western ideals more desirable to Russians" a serious proposal?

Don't worry, isolationism has produced such great results before.

 

[PBY]

Don't worry, isolationism has produced such great results before.

This is stupid and not in good faith and you know it. I agree with you, of course, but the opposite is also equally true.

 

[Poodlestrike]

But Dems haven't really produced a plan that gets us there, would you agree?

Not really, no. Democratic platforms for the last decade or so have had a lot to say on the subject of taxing the wealthier portions of the country. That we've been unable to implement such a plan due to Republican opposition in various branches of government doesn't mean that we don't have plans to do so. We've just been at the mercy of the pendulum since 2010.

Unless you're referring to a Democratic plan to get power to do something about inequality, in which case... yeah, clearly we've kind of fucked up on the "getting power" front.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Why is Tax the rich more such an unpopular message on this board? Whenever I say it I either get snark or no one wants to discuss income disparity as a major issue, we go after sociological subjects just fine, but as soon as someone mentions wealth inequality everyone goes silent.

Because of a ton deaf, heated primary every time you mention economic redistribution people thinking you are proposing it at the cost of something. Or that other issues aren't just as important. And the opinions of far left hypocritical partisans gets attached to you because you sound like them. Or something.

 

[kirblar]

There's a really good reason we didn't go in on tax increases in '09. Not that they aren't worth doing, but you don't do it in a once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis.

 

[Poodlestrike]

There's a really good reason we didn't go in on tax increases in '09. Not that they aren't worth doing, but you don't do it in a once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis.

While we didn't go all-in, we did do some stuff. ACA has a few provisions in it that amount to tax increases on the rich, albeit not ones that would roll out for a while. Cadillac tax and all that.

 

[habithipster]

This is stupid and not in good faith and you know it.

 

[VendettaRed07]

There's a really good reason we didn't go in on tax increases in '09. Not that they aren't worth doing, but you don't do it in a once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis.

Yeah it was probably the worst period of time for Obama to have full control of congress.

Had he regained the house in 2012 we would be so much better off rn because so much more would have been implemented because the economy had become more stable by then

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

This is stupid and not in good faith and you know it. I agree with you, of course, but the opposite is also equally true.

You seem to think that sanctions is on the path to military action. Sanctions and punitive diplomacy is part of engaging in world affairs without shooting at everything or ignoring it. Ideally we would be coordinating sanctions with Europe (see after the Crimean invasion), but as it stands the State Department is crippled and the Executive is unwilling to engage in the world for American interests. Right now these targeted sanctions are the best option right now.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Collins only has 33% approval with Republican primary voters.

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/m...oks-fights-to-stay-relevant-in-alabama-221762

Northam leads 42-37, Fairfax 43-38 for Lt. Gov, Herring 45-39 for Attorney General.

http://www.wilder.vcu.edu/news-and-...eads-in-all-three-upcoming-statewide-ele.html

And perennial loser Danny Tarkanian is challenging Dean Heller in the Republican primary

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/345697-dean-heller-draws-gop-challenger-in-nevada

 

[Blader]

Don't worry, isolationism has produced such great results before.

Sanctions seemed to help us get to a nuclear deal with Iran. Of course, maybe they were just jealous of our American way of life!

edit: wait, I'm confused. Was that meant to be in support of or opposition to sanctions?

 

[Cesare Borgia]

If your policy is to increase taxes on the wealthy significantly...good luck. One of the reasons I found it laughable that Sanders would easily beat Trump is specifically do to this. You're not winning on a platform of not only raising higher income taxes, but also middle class taxes.

Tax rates aren't in a terrible area right now as is. The problem is what we decide to spend money on, as a government, and what we allow individuals and corporations to avoid with tax loopholes.

 

[Fenderputty]

But Dems haven't really produced a plan that gets us there, would you agree?

Did you pay attention at all from 2008-2016?

There's a really good reason we didn't go in on tax increases in '09. Not that they aren't worth doing, but you don't do it in a once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis.

On top of the noted ACA increases on the rich, we let the Bush tax cuts expire.

 

[pigeon]

Honestly this is just another example of Europe expecting us to carry their tab, in this case their unwillingness to organize a proper federal system so that they could themselves subsidize the cost of heating for Eastern Europe. The EU's incapacity to organize fiscal transfers is going to kill a bunch of people.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Sidenote, there's kind of a strange rhetorical tendency for a lot of people on the left to blame the Dems for the inaction of the last 7 years. As if we weren't expanding the social safety net or fixing the tax system because we just didn't want to, and it had nothing to do with the power of the purse being in the hands of far-right fanatics.

Really odd.

 

[Fenderputty]

Sidenote, there's kind of a strange rhetorical tendency for a lot of people on the left to blame the Dems for the inaction of the last 7 years. As if we weren't expanding the social safety net or fixing the tax system because we just didn't want to, and it had nothing to do with the power of the purse being in the hands of far-right fanatics.

Really odd.

Nothing odd about it. People got narratives they need to justify. The Democratic Party can't be broken and rational incrementalism can't have failed if it's GOP obstruction that's to be mostly blamed.

Honestly this is just another example of Europe expecting us to carry their tab, in this case their unwillingness to organize a proper federal system so that they could themselves subsidize the cost of heating for Eastern Europe. The EU's incapacity to organize fiscal transfers is going to kill a bunch of people.

I agree with this.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Honestly this is just another example of Europe expecting us to carry their tab, in this case their unwillingness to organize a proper federal system so that they could themselves subsidize the cost of heating for Eastern Europe. The EU's incapacity to organize fiscal transfers is going to kill a bunch of people.

This, at least, we can agree on.

 

[kirblar]

Sidenote, there's kind of a strange rhetorical tendency for a lot of people on the left to blame the Dems for the inaction of the last 7 years. As if we weren't expanding the social safety net or fixing the tax system because we just didn't want to, and it had nothing to do with the power of the purse being in the hands of far-right fanatics.

Really odd.

gee i wonder what could be going on

almost like ... some sort of pendulum because people are stupid and think the president is a king?

 

[PBY]

Nothing odd about it. People got narratives they need to justify. The Democratic Party can't be broken and rational incrementalism can't have failed if it's GOP obstruction that's to be mostly blamed.
.

This is bullshit. I agree with you!

I also don't think that there was appetite from the Dems, if you look at Dodd Frank, if you look at the reaction to the fiscal crisis, if you look at anti-trust activity over the past 8 years - to implement the kind of fulsome, comprehensive reform that I'm talking about.

I'm open to reading / learning more, however.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Sidenote, there's kind of a strange rhetorical tendency for a lot of people on the left to blame the Dems for the inaction of the last 7 years. As if we weren't expanding the social safety net or fixing the tax system because we just didn't want to, and it had nothing to do with the power of the purse being in the hands of far-right fanatics.

Really odd.

I wouldn't expect absolutists to understand or care about details, incremental change, etc. The social safety net was expanded significantly , to the point it has seemingly become the new normal (see: a pretty sizable group of senate republicans being opposed to major cuts to Medicaid). Taxes were increased on multiple fronts (Bush taxes expired, ACA taxes).

The other factor...2016 brought a lot of people out the woodworks who paid zero attention to politics their entire lives and suddenly decided they were experts. They don't know how congress works, which means they don't know about the obstruction. You saw this a lot in healthcare threads with people saying weird shit about how republicans are definitely going to do xyz, all republicans are the same ideologically etc.

 

[Blader]

Sidenote, there's kind of a strange rhetorical tendency for a lot of people on the left to blame the Dems for the inaction of the last 7 years. As if we weren't expanding the social safety net or fixing the tax system because we just didn't want to, and it had nothing to do with the power of the purse being in the hands of far-right fanatics.

Really odd.

It's almost as annoying as the tendency of the right to complain about how dysfunctional Washington is, only to then elect senators and congresspeople who deliberately make Washington more dysfunctional.

THINGS ARE BROKEN BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE ARE BREAKING THEM

 

[Abinash117]

Not really, no. Democratic platforms for the last decade or so have had a lot to say on the subject of taxing the wealthier portions of the country. That we've been unable to implement such a plan due to Republican opposition in various branches of government doesn't mean that we don't have plans to do so. We've just been at the mercy of the pendulum since 2010.

Unless you're referring to a Democratic plan to get power to do something about inequality, in which case... yeah, clearly we've kind of fucked up on the "getting power" front.

They aren't really talking about it now for some reason. The Democratic message now seems to focus on corporations.

 

[chadskin]

In fact, even worse, they strengthen Putin's position, since they make America the antagonist. Putin can point at America and say - look, they're ruining your lives. They're making your bread more expensive, making your company fail. I can deal with that. They make the American model less appealing - why do you want to be like the country that is determinedly screwing you over? So in fact: sanctions make the Putin regime stronger. They entrench it. To a certain extent, Putin actively enjoys sanctions - the post-Crimean sanctions caused a sharp spike in his approval ratings.

Putin's approval ratings rose because he made Russia great again, by returning Crimea to its rightful owner and by trying to protect the ethnic Russians threatened by the Kiev Nazi junta (or so the Russian state media said). The sanctions solidified his approval, sure, but they were far from being the sole contributor. And as with most temporary boosts to popularity caused by foreign interventions, it eventually cools off again considerably:

On the one issue Putin can't reasonably blame on outside actors -- corruption -- he has in fact fallen below 50% approval and it's an issue people can actually rally around, as evidenced by the comparatively large protests in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities this year. A further squeeze on the Russian economy by sanctions will only exacerbate this issue.

None of this will threaten Putin directly because there's no viable opposition, which is why his overall approval ratings remain high, but it will lead to growing unrest. I mean, I know we live in instant gratification times but it's worth to sometimes take a longer term view!

 

[NeoXChaos]

I wouldn't expect absolutists to understand or care about details, incremental change, etc. The social safety net was expanded significantly , to the point it has seemingly become the new normal (see: a pretty sizable group of senate republicans being opposed to major cuts to Medicaid). Taxes were increased on multiple fronts (Bush taxes expired, ACA taxes).

The other factor...2016 brought a lot of people out the woodworks who paid zero attention to politics their entire lives and suddenly decided they were experts. They don't know how congress works, which means they don't know about the obstruction. You saw this a lot in healthcare threads with people saying weird shit about how republicans are definitely going to do xyz, all republicans are the same ideologically etc.

Schools don't teach this stuff about how our government works. All you are told verbatim is Congress pass laws, President signs laws and Supreme Court enforces/interprets the law.

"President Obama Signed the Affordable Health Care Act in 2010" Nowhere in a school social studies book will they mention his party, that he was obstructed by Republicans, town halls, death panels etc

They sugar coat everything for school kids to easier grasp the material. No inept real life analysis.

 

[PBY]

Let me frame this another way, so I don't appear to be a lefty bashing the party.

What do the Dems INTEND to do to fix our country's issues relating to income inequality?

 

[Owzers]

We're going to handle North Korea, we will handle them they will be handled.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Putin's approval ratings rose because he made Russia great again, by returning Crimea to its rightful owner and by trying to protect the ethnic Russians threatened by the Kiev Nazi junta (or so the Russian state media said). The sanctions solidified his approval, sure, but they were far from being the sole contributor.

...I don't think we disagree about any of this? Obviously there were impacts other than sanctions which also helped him solidify control further, although I'm glad you agree that the sanctions played a part in his approval boost.

On the one issue Putin can't reasonably blame on outside actors -- corruption -- he has in fact fallen below 50% approval and it's an issue people can actually rally around, as evidenced by the comparatively large protests in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities this year. A further squeeze on the Russian economy by sanctions will only exacerbate this issue.

This, on the other hand, makes no sense. Above, you concede my point that when fresh sanctions were placed, Putin's approval ratings rose. Over time, as the number of new sanctions placed dropped, Putin's approval ratings fell. Yet, despite both of these observations, you're trying to convince me that a second round of fresh sanctions will make Putin's approval ratings fall again, when this goes directly against all previous precedent? Pull the other one.

None of this will threaten Putin directly because there's no viable opposition, which is why his overall approval ratings remain high, but it will lead to growing unrest. I mean, I know we live in instant gratification times but it's worth to sometimes take a longer term view!

I agree, which is why I'm pointing out that ultimately the best long-run policy against Russia is simply for the West to be an attractive and appealing alternative. The better the American model seems compared to the Russian model, the harder it is for Putin to justify his continued hold.

Of course, allowing the West to be in that position obviously requires preventing Russian interference, which means investments in cybersecurity, defense, and reliable channels of information!

 

[Beer Monkey]

Schools don't teach this stuff about how our government works. All you are told verbatim is Congress pass laws, President signs laws and Supreme Court enforces/interprets the law.

"President Obama Signed the Affordable Health Care Act in 2010" Nowhere in a school social studies book will they mention his party, that he was obstructed by Republicans, town halls, death panels etc

They sugar coat everything for school kids to easier grasp the material. No inept real life analysis.

Now try teaching these kids that Putin is an oligarch gangster that runs his country, and the region, like the mafia. That the wealth in Russia is held by mobbed up oligarchs and if they keep giving Putin 50% he doesn't kill them and take their operations. If they do pay their 50% they can stay in business and can act above the law in all ways. That he murders his political opponents and journalists, That destabilizing the rest of the world is his goal so he can do the same thing everywhere else.

If you can make it that far ask them how they think the rest of the world should negotiate in good faith with Russia AKA Putin?

Ask them if they think it's OK that our president wants to do Putin's bidding.

 

[habithipster]

Let me frame this another way, so I don't appear to be a lefty bashing the party.

What do the Dems INTEND to do to fix our country's issues relating to income inequality?

Shutting down the criminal empire of the richest man in the world could be a start.

 

[habithipster]

When fresh sanctions were placed, Putin's approval ratings rose. Over time, as the number of new sanctions placed dropped, Putin's approval ratings fell. Yet, despite both of these observations, you're trying to convince me that a second round of fresh sanctions will make Putin's approval ratings fall again, when this goes directly against all previous precedent?

You should really contact Congress about this, looks like they're making a huge mistake!!

 

[Fenderputty]

Let me frame this another way, so I don't appear to be a lefty bashing the party.

What do the Dems INTEND to do to fix our country's issues relating to income inequality?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Click economy and then education.

EDIT:

additionally

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

 

[PBY]

Now try teaching these kids that Putin is an oligarch gangster that runs his country, and the region, like the mafia. That the wealth in Russia is held by mobbed up oligarchs and if they keep giving Putin 50% he doesn't kill them and take their operations. If they do pay their 50% they can stay in business and can act above the law in all ways. That he murders his political opponents and journalists, That destabilizing the rest of the world is his goal so he can do the same thing everywhere else.

If you can make it that far ask them how they think the rest of the world should negotiate in good faith with Russia AKA Putin?

Ask them if they think it's OK that our president wants to do Putin's bidding.

I actually agree with this. Russia is not nearly the only country that is run like this though, and we negotiate in GREAT faith with many other equally violent nations.

 

[habithipster]

Russia is not nearly the only country that is run like this though

What's the name of that term again.. 🤔

 

[DonShula]

Collins only has 33% approval with Republican primary voters.

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/m...oks-fights-to-stay-relevant-in-alabama-221762

Northam leads 42-37, Fairfax 43-38 for Lt. Gov, Herring 45-39 for Attorney General.

http://www.wilder.vcu.edu/news-and-...eads-in-all-three-upcoming-statewide-ele.html

And perennial loser Danny Tarkanian is challenging Dean Heller in the Republican primary

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/345697-dean-heller-draws-gop-challenger-in-nevada

So, me being a bit simple, am I to read this as GOP health care bill opponents being punished for their opposition?

 

[PBY]

What's the name of that term again.. 🤔

You missed the back half of my post...

 

[chadskin]

...I don't think we disagree about any of this? Obviously there were impacts other than sanctions which also helped him solidify control further, although I'm glad you agree that the sanctions played a part in his approval boost.

the post-Crimean sanctions caused a sharp spike in his approval ratings.

...is what I was responding to. They contributed but were not the cause.

Similarly, European or US military intervention in Ukraine would've contributed to Putin's approval rating, too, arguably much more so than sanctions. So then, don't respond at all for fear of making Putin more popular?

This, on the other hand, makes no sense. Above, you concede my point that when fresh sanctions were placed, Putin's approval ratings rose. Over time, as the number of new sanctions placed dropped, Putin's approval ratings fell. Yet, despite both of these observations, you're trying to convince me that a second round of fresh sanctions will make Putin's approval ratings fall again, when this goes directly against all previous precedent? Pull the other one.

It's a lot easier for ordinary citizens to swallow corruption when you're reasonably well off.

I agree, which is why I'm pointing out that ultimately the best long-run policy against Russia is simply for the West to be an attractive and appealing alternative. The better the American model seems compared to the Russian model, the harder it is for Putin to justify his continued hold.

Of course, allowing the West to be in that position obviously requires preventing Russian interference, which means investments in cybersecurity, defense, and reliable channels of information!

I mean I agree but it's not a particularly inspired proposal.

 

[pigeon]

I'm unsure where you're getting your statistics from. The export value of Russia to the whole of Europe is $172B, from a GDP of $1,283B, or 13.4% of GDP. This is larger than Venezuela, but at the same time, Russia has significantly more capacity to reduce exposure than Venezuela does, since there are many more regional players who could be convinced to sanction Venezuela than applies to Russia.

More importantly, though, the extent to which a country is amenable to sanctions is not reducible to simply how much it trades on the open market. The theory behind sanctions is that:

1. They make the lives of ordinary people worse.
2. Ordinary people, wishing to remove these sanctions, place pressure on the political elite to change policy.
3. The political elite, fearing a loss of power, change policy accordingly.

I've bolded the critical part of 3. Maduro's position in Venezuela is significantly less secure than Putin's is in Russia, and accordingly Maduro has more reason to fear significant popular opposition and accordingly greater exposure to sanctions. Nevertheless, I've cited an expert stating that sanctions won't work. Well, why?

Because before you even get to 3., 2. doesn't work. Here's what actually happens:

1. They make the lives of ordinary people worse.
2. Ordinary people come to resent foreign powers making their lives worse and rally round their leader since at least he's one of them/will stand up to foreign powers.
3. The political elite are bolstered and are given reason to redouble their current policy.

This is exactly what happened to both Maduro and Putin - their approval ratings rose, and significantly so, after sanctions efforts. In other words: sanctions are wildly counterproductive. They actually achieve the opposite of their intended goals. This is pointed out in the article I cited.

So I've heard this argument before and I do think it's worth considering, although I think you leave out a pretty relevant aspect of the argument, which is that these countries also don't actually have democratic franchise with which to express dissatisfaction with the regime.

The problem is, even accepting the possibility that sanctions are ineffective, it's not clear what the next best policy tool is.

I think our goal is pretty clear -- this is an iterative game, we want to make sure Putin's payoff from his choice is sufficiently negative to deter not just him but all other actors from interfering with American elections in the future. Traditionally we've done this by launching unnecessary wars on third parties. Sanctions are a nice step upwards from that strategy. If they're not effective, where do we go from there? I don't consider "just hope it doesn't happen again" to be a real answer.

One possible consideration, from my perspective, is to look at the Magnitsky Act more carefully. That clearly seemed to excite a meaningful response from Putin, possibly because it wasn't a sanction on Russia but a sanction directly on Putin and the oligarchs that run Russia. Maybe we need more targeted efforts to accomplish our goal, since Putin is not really answerable to Russia.

Shutting down the criminal empire of the richest man in the world could be a start.

Wait, you can't do that. I use Amazon all the time.

 

[Poodlestrike]

So, me being a bit simple, am I to read this as GOP health care bill opponents being punished for their opposition?

This is why they were so reluctant to speak out in the first place. The healthcare efforts may have polled at <20%, but those 20% are the hardest of the hardcore Republicans, the ones who dominate a lot of primary discussions.

 

[habithipster]

You missed the back half of my post...

(I didn't.)

 

[Fenderputty]

So, me being a bit simple, am I to read this as GOP health care bill opponents being punished for their opposition?

Heller wasn't an opponent.

 

[whyamihere]

Imagine if we get Tark v Rosen again. lolololol

Fuck you McConnell

 

[Poodlestrike]

Heller wasn't an opponent.

Eh, he was before he wasn't.