Jump to content

U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

The Lily Leadbetter Fair Pay Act does not qualify? And I believe they also expanded SCHiP, enacted the Credit Card Act, and some other stuff I can't now remember. And let's not forget the PPACA, the largest transfer of wealth in recent history. None of that addresses inequality in the slightest?

The laws you mention do affect inequality (as does practically every other federal law whether it is intended to or not) and some of them are even marketed as such for the more foolish, naive and inexperienced members of the electorate. However, we are now 7 years from 2009 and it can clearly be seen in hindsight that they did nothing to reverse the increase in inequality or the stagnation of real wages. If you look in detail what these laws do, for the most part they redistribute resources within the middle and lower classes: sometimes from the middle to the lower, sometimes from the lower to the middle, sometimes within both (e.g. from the young to the middle-aged) and so on. Every once in a while, there is one which does act to the detriment of the upper class, but in a very limited way. This was obvious to most people even without the benefit of hindsight which is part of the reason for the Democrats' crushing defeat in 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Seems like it. We've already forgotten that Bush had terrible job creation numbers throughout his presidency. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/08/guess-what-barack-obama-has-been-a-great-president-for-job-creation/

Obama has been great at creating part time jobs.  Of course, when you drive the unemployment rate up to 10% it's not hard to claim credit for 'creating jobs' when unemployment returns to its typical 4-5%.  Now if only the jobs he created paid as much as they did before the recession we'd be all set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alguien said:

Try considering the possibility that Clinton isn't just a lying liar who lies. I mean, it's fine if you disagree with her platforms, but to just refuse to even consider examining them because you will believe nothing she says, especially while defending a candidate who, by all metrics available, is objectively, a a lot more dishonest and racist, is just odd to me. 

Once again with the straw men. I don't defend Trump, I've stated repeatedly he's despicable, un Presidential etc etc. You get hyper sensitive because I dislike your girl as well and project that as Trump support. I mean really, how can anyone not agree with you? Your arrogance is exceedingly boring. I also didn't claim I'm voting 3rd party, actually I said I'm likely not voting at all, in my state the outcome is pre ordained so its really a waste of time, unless there's some worthwhile local stuff on the ballot, it's pointless. I would vote 3rd party if a viable candidate existed, but that's not happening any time soon.

Hillary Clinton has been lying and pandering since Bill's 1st campaign. She changed her look a half dozen times while Bill was first running just to conform to public opinion. She's likely always pandered and lied, but who knew her back in the Arkansas days. But she's certainly been doing it ever since, and her recent record has done nothing to dissuade that feeling. How many versions of the email debacle and Benghazi did we get before she settled on the truth. She should thank her lucky stars she's matched up with such an unelectable boob like Trump, her warts get masked by his buffoonery and you guys get to pound your chests for winning a one person race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

The laws you mention do affect inequality (as does practically every other federal law whether it is intended to or not) and some of them are even marketed as such for the more foolish, naive and inexperienced members of the electorate. However, we are now 7 years from 2009 and it can clearly be seen in hindsight that they did nothing to reverse the increase in inequality or the stagnation of real wages. If you look in detail what these laws do, for the most part they redistribute resources within the middle and lower classes: sometimes from the middle to the lower, sometimes from the lower to the middle, sometimes within both (e.g. from the young to the middle-aged) and so on. Every once in a while, there is one which does act to the detriment of the upper class, but in a very limited way. This was obvious to most people even without the benefit of hindsight which is part of the reason for the Democrats' crushing defeat in 2010.

So because the democrats didn't pass enough legislation that would distribute wealth from the top to the rest, the voters elected people who ran on policy to end regulations and give more tax breaks to the wealthy?  Is that really the logic you're trying to pass off here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

She changed her look a half dozen times while Bill was first running just to conform to public opinion. 

good to know that there'll be no scurrilous & irrelevant commentary about the candidate's aesthetic presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

If the Democrats truly wanted to address inequality and stagnant or falling median income, they can hardly have asked for a better chance than they had in 2009. They had the Presidency, substantial majorities in both houses of Congress and all of the anger of a public suffering from a severe economic downturn. We could have had a new Hundred Days, but instead we got bailouts and legislation written with input and consent from the corporate world. I am reasonably certain that no solution to this will come from the Democrats -- at least not in their current incarnation.

I said that they noticed and talked about the problems, not that they solved them. Hell, you admitted just a few pages back that you didn't know any solution either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Triskan said:

This shooting situation in Munich is of course tragic, but I find it very frustrating that all of the news stations are showing nothing else.  No coverage of Trump's speech or his freak-out about Cruz.  Donald fucking Trump just gave a speech as the nominee of a major America party, and it is receiving no coverage.  Absolutely unacceptable. 

It's obviously huge news because "these things don't happen in other industrialized nations."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Obama has been great at creating part time jobs.  Of course, when you drive the unemployment rate up to 10% it's not hard to claim credit for 'creating jobs' when unemployment returns to its typical 4-5%.  Now if only the jobs he created paid as much as they did before the recession we'd be all set.

Presidents do not create jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aceluby said:

So because the democrats didn't pass enough legislation that would distribute wealth from the top to the rest, the voters elected people who ran on policy to end regulations and give more tax breaks to the wealthy?  Is that really the logic you're trying to pass off here?

You speak as though taxes on the wealthy will automatically lead to lower inequality. This is not the case: the implementation matters and what almost always happens is that they either get their money back in some way or never part with it in the first place by exploiting some loophole. The same goes for regulations -- at best, they amount to a victory of one part of the elites over another, but usually they a disadvantage for smaller corporations which lack the resources to adapt. Furthermore, the people you mention also ran on "small government" policies which many people found attractive because all of those redistributions within the lower and middle classess are not lossless: the ruling class always takes a cut.

20 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Would income inequality still be a problem if real wages were rising across the board?

This was effectively the situation in the US during the first couple of decades after WWII and the answer is: not at the time, but the situation is unstable and does not last. As long as inequality is increasing, the ruling elites get more and more power which eventually allows them to rig the rules both within corporations and in the government to squeeze everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Can I just remind people that those "60 Democrats" in 2009 included both Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson?

(I do blame Harry Reid to some extent. He should have been more aggressive in calling the Republican bluff, and getting them to actually filibuster).

I'm not sure forcing Republicans to get up and talk would have dissuaded them. It was in the GOP's best interests to waste the Senate's time, so I am sure they would have gotten up and read from a cookbook or whatever else Reid forced them to do.

What I think is that Reid should have eliminated the filibuster entirely, and then we would have seen a much more robust ACA, plus EFCA, the DREAM Act, and maybe a federal minimum wage increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Would income inequality still be a problem if real wages were rising across the board?

Yes. Because ultimately humans innately and instinctively value fairness, and inequality is negative human moral that makes people angry - especially if said inequality is perceived not to come from the person's innate qualities but instead is in a system. 

This video is brilliant in demonstrating this

Quote

Hillary Clinton has been lying and pandering since Bill's 1st campaign. She changed her look a half dozen times while Bill was first running just to conform to public opinion. She's likely always pandered and lied, but who knew her back in the Arkansas days. But she's certainly been doing it ever since, and her recent record has done nothing to dissuade that feeling. How many versions of the email debacle and Benghazi did we get before she settled on the truth. She should thank her lucky stars she's matched up with such an unelectable boob like Trump, her warts get masked by his buffoonery and you guys get to pound your chests for winning a one person race.

Here's the problem with all of this: it's just not true. You can assert it over and over again, but it remains actually false data. She's had one version of the email scandal. She's had one version of Benghazi. She's lied no more than any other politician. She's  pandered even less - she was supporting things like women's rights and universal healthcare when both were barely dents in people's viewpoints. 

The reason people are taking umbrage with you is that none of your conclusions about Clinton are backed in anything resembling fact. And similarly, none of your views about Trump - that he means well and genuinely wants what is best for the country - is even close to backed in fact. Both are entirely projections of your desires onto candidates. This is far less about you supporting Trump over Clinton and you simply buying into random narratives that back your existing prejudices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Can't say off the top of my head. I just had to add that caveat because it drives me nuts when people act like the Democrats had 60 Senators for two years, when in fact, it was for less than 50 days. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the Senate is usually only in session for a couple of days a week, that Kennedy was by and large absent during that time, the August recess cuts that time in half and that there were a half dozen or so Democratic Senators that were actively working against the party. 

Even without a filibuster proof majority, how many significant pieces of legislation related to income inequality did the Democrats try to advance but were shut down by filibuster when they had the majority?  Nothing comes to mind, but I could have just forgotten.  The argument that Democrats didn't accomplish much because they didn't have a filibuster proof majority is only convincing to me if the Republicans actually blocked a bunch of legislation by filibuster during this time.  If the Democrats just didn't try advancing much of significance, then that's the fault of the Democrats.

ETA:  I just read a few more posts after the one I quoted and looks like Altherion made the same point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The laws you mention do affect inequality (as does practically every other federal law whether it is intended to or not) and some of them are even marketed as such for the more foolish, naive and inexperienced members of the electorate. However, we are now 7 years from 2009 and it can clearly be seen in hindsight that they did nothing to reverse the increase in inequality or the stagnation of real wages. If you look in detail what these laws do, for the most part they redistribute resources within the middle and lower classes: sometimes from the middle to the lower, sometimes from the lower to the middle, sometimes within both (e.g. from the young to the middle-aged) and so on. Every once in a while, there is one which does act to the detriment of the upper class, but in a very limited way. This was obvious to most people even without the benefit of hindsight which is part of the reason for the Democrats' crushing defeat in 2010.

Actually, they did. They might not do as much as you want them to, but wage growth did increase from 2009 to 2015. It isn't back to 2000 standards, but it did increase. It also was significantly better than Bush, even when you factor out 2008. 

As to assuming this was the reason there was a 'crushing defeat' of the dems in 2010, you're entirely projecting what you want to see. The primary reasons that most studies indicate were that, as usual, democrats turn out in shitty amounts in midterm elections and that was combined with anger towards the ACA's passing, along with real anger at Obama actually winning anything at all. What you said is akin to saying that the reason that the Democrats lost congress in the Clinton years was because the populace was angry about inequality despite it being the single best period for overall wage growth for the US in 50 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rory Snow said:

Once again with the straw men. I don't defend Trump, I've stated repeatedly he's despicable, un Presidential etc etc. You get hyper sensitive because I dislike your girl as well and project that as Trump support. I mean really, how can anyone not agree with you? Your arrogance is exceedingly boring. I also didn't claim I'm voting 3rd party, actually I said I'm likely not voting at all, in my state the outcome is pre ordained so its really a waste of time, unless there's some worthwhile local stuff on the ballot, it's pointless. I would vote 3rd party if a viable candidate existed, but that's not happening any time soon.

Hillary Clinton has been lying and pandering since Bill's 1st campaign. She changed her look a half dozen times while Bill was first running just to conform to public opinion. She's likely always pandered and lied, but who knew her back in the Arkansas days. But she's certainly been doing it ever since, and her recent record has done nothing to dissuade that feeling. How many versions of the email debacle and Benghazi did we get before she settled on the truth.

I'm not hypersensitive about anything, frankly. Your opinion of Clinton means little to me. I merely attempted to point out that while accusing others of wearing blinders you were exhibiting some pretty blindered thinking yourself, refusing to do any research or provide any links to back up your opinions, not stating which of Clinton's policies you disagreed with or why. Whereas I can point to places like politifact to show Clinton's honesty graded by her statements, even above, in your second paragraph, all you're doing is repeating yourself to the point where it's tiresome. 

When I read comments like this:

Quote

She should thank her lucky stars she's matched up with such an unelectable boob like Trump, her warts get masked by his buffoonery and you guys get to pound your chests for winning a one person race.

I don't see a reasoned-out argument against Clinton; I see hyperbolic ad hominen fueled by emotional bias. 

ETA: edited for tone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Even without a filibuster proof majority, how many significant pieces of legislation related to income inequality did the Democrats try to advance but were shut down by filibuster when they had the majority?  Nothing comes to mind, but I could have just forgotten.  

Well it all depends on how you want to define legislation that address income inequality. But yes, there were numerous laws passed that had a net positive effect on the average person as well as communities that were experiencing disproportionate income inequality. The ACA alone is a perfect example.

8 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

The argument that Democrats didn't accomplish much because they didn't have a filibuster proof majority is only convincing to me if the Republicans actually blocked a bunch of legislation by filibuster during this time.  If the Democrats just didn't try advancing much of significance, then that's the fault of the Democrats.

550px-US_Senate_cloture_since_1917.png

The use of the filibuster spiked under Obama, with the largest spike occurring during his first two years in office. So my guess is that if that doesn't convince you, nothing ever will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

The Lily Leadbetter Fair Pay Act does not qualify? And I believe they also expanded SCHiP, enacted the Credit Card Act, and some other stuff I can't now remember. And let's not forget the PPACA, the largest transfer of wealth in recent history. None of that addresses inequality in the slightest?

Those are at best very tangentially related to income inequality. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act simply resets the statute of limitations for filing a claim of wage discrimination with each paycheck.  That will help a small number of people, but overall, it will not move the needle.  Also, the act benefits people of all income levels, not just the poor.

The ACA goal is to increase health insurance coverage and not to address income inequality, and as Altherion points out, the wealth transfers are not just to the poor.  Overall, for health insurance to work, you need lots of young and healthy people to participate, and these people tend to be relatively poor, in order to subsidize the elderly sick, who tend to be relatively wealthy.  How this balances with the increase in Medicaid, which helps the poor, and subsidies to offset to cost of purchasing insurance for the poor is not clear.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...