• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The 2nd Democratic National Primary Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
All I've heard from Glass-Steagal from Lib/Conservative economists is that in the grand scheme of things, it's not going to make enough of a difference to actually matter- the AIG example Clinton gave is why.

I honestly find the fixation on Glass-Steagal (in spite of widespread agreement by economists that it wouldn't actually do much of anything) pretty baffling considering how stringently "pro-facts" the American left otherwise tries too hard to be.

(Even more baffling that Clinton not wanting to reinstate it is seen as a negative, but Sanders' apparent ignorance of the aforementioned consensus isn't seen as the nakedly populist, bullshit pander that it is.)
 

AniHawk

Member
z8sksAF.png

frank miller is rolling in his grave
 

JustenP88

I earned 100 Gamerscore™ for collecting 300 widgets and thereby created Trump's America
Fuck... Called out live. Republicans better get this shit too.
 

Lumination

'enry 'ollins
That the concrete answer may well be 90%. And if it is, so what? This isn't a tagline, it's a question of how to fix a problem that is already unravelling our democracy.

1. economically, shit is fucked
2. we had sustained growth with a 90% upper tax bracket in the past
3. the president can't set exact tax rates anyway

I guess I don't see a problem? Just imagine it's 70%, that's probably the realistic upper bound.
Every time Bernie gets questioned about how he will pay for healthcare, college, etc. he gives a very broad answer without any numbers. I know it's not realistic to calculate exact numbers, but give a reasonable range. 40-90% is not that. Until he figures that out, it will always look like he's dodging scrutiny to his ideas.
 

kirblar

Member
I honestly find the fixation on Glass-Steagal (in spite of widespread agreement by economists that it wouldn't actually do much of anything) pretty baffling considering how stringently "pro-facts" the American left otherwise tries too hard to be.

(Even more baffling that Clinton not wanting to reinstate it is seen as a negative, but Sanders' apparent ignorance of the aforementioned consensus isn't seen as the nakedly populist, bullshit pander that it is.)
That's the rub- the left is broadly correct on a lot of issues, but populist liberal ideas are very often generally terrible ways of implementing solutions to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom