Jump to content

U.S. Politics: 5.7 Billion Problems But The House Ain't One


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Triskele said:

Well, my main point in posting that was sort of just that I expect a lot more of this with someone like AOC getting a lot of attention in the US, and it seems like there will be plenty of Dems in the House that are in the same ballpark as her.  So the debate about what socialism even means will probably heat up, and "but Venezuala!" will be a common argument from the right.  What I wonder is did Stephens totally mislead in his article.  

You’re right. I remember watching this video from Infowars a year ago  where a lady was interviewing people. One of the questions she asked was “do you want Medicare for all” or something to that effect. Her response for when one actually said yes was basically  “But Venezuela eats rats”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Triskele said:

Does that line about "government spending on social programs" followed by "spending rose to 40% of GDP" not suggest that the whole 40% figure is purely referring to social programs?  Like, 40% of GDP spending on social programs alone not even counting spending on other things?  

Unless I missed something, it really means that total government spending rose to 40% of GDP.

And if I look at this chart from the OECD then 40% is a fairly pedestrian figure for overall spending as % of GDP.  It's high-ish, but it's nothing too unusual.  Seems like Stephens might have hoped that his readers thought otherwise.  

Probably. But whenever socialism is mentioned there are so many fallacies at work that one should barely bother. Good luck to AOC...

The first fallacy is to equate socialist programs with socialist regimes. The two are fairly different. Socialist programs work well throughout the world. Socialist regimes fail (I'm not certain why tbh, there are several possibilities, I'll try to figure it out some day).

Then there's spending. There's the idea that a socialized system equals a deficit. But no, it can involve individual contributions instead. Conservatives might see it as taxation, and thus theft, but such systems work. The French healthcare system is based on contributions and its current annual deficit is only about 300,000€ (close to 0 considering the French budget), and it's still one of the best in the world (we have no death panels, there are no huge waiting lines at the doctor's, and I've personally had great surgery for 0€... ).
But this thing about contributions is where socialism-haters do not want to go, because it reveals the genuine heart of the problem. It's not about socialism vs. capitalism. It's about solidarity v. individualism. Empathy v. greed. Close, but not quite the same as a matter of fact. In any non-deficit-funded socialized system the wealthy end up paying for the poor, the healthy for the sick... etc. Socialists like me see solidarity as the fundamental basis for civilization. Right-wingers think it's a mental disease and deep down despise the poor (and the sick, and the elderly, and women, and minorities... etc ^^).

Then there's what the analyses really say when you read between the lines...

Quote

 

Government overspending created catastrophic deficits when oil prices plummeted. Worker co-ops wound up in the hands of incompetent and corrupt political cronies. The government responded to its budgetary problems by printing money, leading to inflation. Inflation led to price controls, leading to shortages. Shortages led to protests, leading to repression and the destruction of democracy. Thence to widespread starvation, critical medical shortages, an explosion in crime, and a refugee crisis to rival Syria’s.

All of this used to be obvious enough, but in the age of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez it has to be explained all over again. Why does socialism never work? Because, as Margaret Thatcher explained, “eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

 

Except the conclusion does not match the story.
First, according to this analysis, socialism was working fine (or at least, ok-ish) as long as there was enough state revenue to finance it.
Second, when oil prices plummetted, Venezuela ran catastrophic deficits and ended up printing paper money... This suggests that it was not allowed to borrow money at a low interest rate on international financial markets. Said markets don't "have" money in the first place, they create it. Just like Venezuela's government as a matter of fact... The two aren't that different, it's just that for some reason  we have an international agreement to value money more when it is created to fuel investment in free-market-based socio-economic systems.

So the conclusion isn't that "you eventually run out of other people's money" because technically Venezeuela didn't even try that. And even if it did do that, individual contributions dont make one "run out of other people's money." The only way one could "run out of other people"s money" would be with taxation so progressive that it would strangle investment and business while destroying any incentive for hard work ; not sure *any* country has really done that, ever.

So it's a bullshit quote to support a bullshit analysis of the facts, overlooking what really went wrong. Then, what could one expect from an article that's not even 1,000 words long on what's really a complex issue? Funnily enough, if you read the first paragraph I quoted here, what it's really saying is that socialism works, and only fails because of the way the international financial system is set. I'm not sure it's the argument Stephens wanted to make, but it's the one socialism-haters usually end up making. And then, some wonder why there's a growing resentment against international institutions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rippounet said:

snip

The first rule in debating a conservative nincompoop whenever said conservative nincompoop wants to raise the specter of socialism is to make the conservative nincompoop commit to a definition of socialism and then hold them to it.

Whether they know it or not, they want to be very mealy mouthed with that term. 

Are we talking about eliminating the private ownership of capital? Or are we talking about there being a significant amount of government involvement in the economy?

On the first point, not even the more left of the democratic party is really advocating that. Not even AOC. Sure they think more government involvement is warranted. But there are a number of economies that have significant amount of government involvement and do just fine.

The game that conservatives want to play is pointing out the failures of states that adopted "socialism" in the sense eliminating the private ownership of capital and then using that to bash all government involvement in the economy. But that doesn't cut it. Certain sorts of government involvement may be bad. Others maybe good. It's not enough to just say socialism failed in such and such country and ergo any government involvement is bad. Each proposal needs to be evaluated on own merits, rather than being dismissed outright because such and such socialist country didn't do well.

I suspect all this socialism fear-mongering by conservatives is because conservative snowflakes just can't stand somebody like AOC unapologetically challenging a lot their assertions or sacred cows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Triskele said:

Well, my main point in posting that was sort of just that I expect a lot more of this with someone like AOC getting a lot of attention in the US, and it seems like there will be plenty of Dems in the House that are in the same ballpark as her.  So the debate about what socialism even means will probably heat up, and "but Venezuala!" will be a common argument from the right.  What I wonder is did Stephens totally mislead in his article.  

It's amazing how easy it is to identify these right wing canards. Two weeks ago a friend of mine posted something complimentary about AOC and one of her friends piped up with some comment like, "But she's a socialist and I don't want anyone to eat my dog!"

After a couple of posts to untangle the gibberish, it turned out that he'd heard that Venezuelans were eating dogs because of food shortages. So clearly this genius' thought process went AOC elected --> full bore Venezuelan socialism enacted --> food shortages --> people will eat my dog.

It appalls me that this guy gets a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I suspect all this socialism fear-mongering by conservatives is because conservative snowflakes just can't stand somebody like AOC unapologetically challenging a lot their assertions or sacred cows.

Socialist fear mongering has worked since approximately 1947.  Why mess with success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Socialist fear mongering has worked since approximately 1947.  Why mess with success?

Well you do have a good point.

Depending on how one defines socialism, I'd argue that in fact Americans like a bit of socialism. Just whatever you do,  don't call it socialism.

One a more serious note, I know that spending through the tax code isn't something you're a fan of and I'm inclined to agree it isn't a good way to spend money, largely because it largely lacks transparency on what we spend on . But you know, it can be couched as "tax cut" and not "socialism" when spending is done through the tax code. Perhaps, if we got over our "socialism" aversion, we might avoid social spending through the tax code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well you do have a good point.

Depending on how one defines socialism, I'd argue that in fact Americans like a bit of socialism. Just whatever you do,  don't call it socialism.

Oh indeed.  And they like it so long as it benefits them and their community, and not other people.  Those other people are lazy bums wasting taxpayer dollars.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Early support from deep-pocketed financial executives could give Democrats seeking to break out of the pack an important fundraising boost. But any association with bankers also opens presidential hopefuls to sharp attacks from an ascendant left.

And it’s left senior executives on Wall Street flailing over what to do.

“I’m a socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist who would love to vote for a rational Democrat and get Trump out of the White House,” said the CEO of one of the nation’s largest banks, who, like a dozen other executives interviewed for this story, declined to be identified by name for fear of angering a volatile president. “Personally, I’d love to see Bloomberg run and get the nomination. I’ve just never thought he could get the nomination the way the primary process works.”

 

Wall Street freaks out about 2020
Many of the nation’s top bankers want Trump gone, but they’re growing anxious about some Democratic presidential contenders.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/wall-street-2020-economy-taxes-1118065

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Wall Street freaks out about 2020
Many of the nation’s top bankers want Trump gone, but they’re growing anxious about some Democratic presidential contenders.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/wall-street-2020-economy-taxes-1118065

 

Quote

“ I’m a socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist who would love to vote for a rational Demo crat and get Trump out of the White House,” said the CEO of one of the nation’s large st b anks

I sport a mullet. I have a fiscally conservative business front end, but have a socially liberal party in the back!

This sort of clown would have us believe people like Jamie Dimon are spouting sensible policies. But, anybody, that remotely keeps up with the econ literature, knows they are largely spouting self serving nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

McCain did the right thing in that town hall meeting. The fact that simply standing up for the truth is regarded as a particular act of decency is more of an indictment on contemporary political discourse than that there was a base of decency in the Republican party pre-Trump. McCain also committed a gravely indecent act, by foisting Sarah Palin onto the national stage, as an act of political calculus to shore up the loony fringe of his party. He let her say all the indecent things he didn't want to say.

Not going to get dragged down that Palin path (legit criticism, I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume if he had a time machine and the chance to redo it, he would not pick her).

As for the bit standing up for the truth. Yes, like I said, it's a very low bar, but there was still a shred of decency left. And that bit has completely evaporated within the GOP. You have quite literally the birther in chief, who openly called Mexican rapists (and still does btw) to kickstart his campaign. Compared to all that stuff, McCain starts to look like a pillar of decency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fucking Howard Schultz...

He might not run in the end, and if he runs his campaign might not catch on, and if he does catch on he might draw equally from both parties (or even moreso from Republicans, they seem to like egomaniacal billionaires from New York). But just thought of some narcissistic asshole deciding to run an independent Presidential campaign to satisfy his own vanity and potentially causing Trump to get re-elected is making my blood boil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Fucking Howard Schultz...

He might not run in the end, and if he runs his campaign might not catch on, and if he does catch on he might draw equally from both parties (or even moreso from Republicans, they seem to like egomaniacal billionaires from New York). But just thought of some narcissistic asshole deciding to run an independent Presidential campaign to satisfy his own vanity and potentially causing Trump to get re-elected is making my blood boil.

Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist, but I don't think he's really going to run, I think he just wants attention.  Mounting a third party bid in all 50 states is both hard and expensive.  And America is far more polarized than it was in 1992 for Perot.  The most likely result is not only losing, but losing really badly, and just wasting a year of your life plus hundreds of millions of dollars and still not getting out of the single digits at the ballot box.

In addition, I do believe that if he really did this that Democrats would probably boycott Starbucks in anger.  I know I would (although I only go there once a year or so). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Oh indeed.  And they like it so long as it benefits them and their community, and not other people.  Those other people are lazy bums wasting taxpayer dollars.  

My favorite personal example of this is I used to argue online with the uber-conservative that had just moved to Alaska.  He refused to admit that its Permanent Fund was a socialist policy.  The discussion, summarized, went something like this:

Me - So you acknowledge the Fund's dividend distributes a certain amount of money to each resident equally?

Him - Sure.

Me - And you don't see how that's socialist?

Him- Nope.

Me - *Rethinks pursuing career directly in politics*

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

In addition, I do believe that if he really did this that Democrats would probably boycott Starbucks in anger.  I know I would (although I only go there once a year or so). 

Guess I better start going to Starbucks so I can boycott it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist, but I don't think he's really going to run, I think he just wants attention.  Mounting a third party bid in all 50 states is both hard and expensive.  And America is far more polarized than it was in 1992 for Perot.  The most likely result is not only losing, but losing really badly, and just wasting a year of your life plus hundreds of millions of dollars and still not getting out of the single digits at the ballot box.

In addition, I do believe that if he really did this that Democrats would probably boycott Starbucks in anger.  I know I would (although I only go there once a year or so). 

My concern is the large number of Republican presidential political consultants who do not like Trump, wouldn't have a job for 2020, and like money all lining up to edge Schultz on. Folks like Steve Schmidt, who is already advising him. 

And, unlike Bloomberg, I don't know if Schultz has any political instincts; he may think he has a real chance at winning; especially if all the "experts" he's paying are telling him he can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

 

In addition, I do believe that if he really did this that Democrats would probably boycott Starbucks in anger.  I know I would (although I only go there once a year or so). 

It will be a strange and disquieting thing for people of the world when the Starbucks' in every Barnes and Noble are burnt to ash but the books remain untouched by either smoke or heat.

This is my design...

(That's a fucking joke, chill out Mr. NSA guy. I have shit to do this week, don't come knocking on my door.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

My concern is the large number of Republican presidential political consultants who do not like Trump, wouldn't have a job for 2020, and like money all lining up to edge Schultz on. Folks like Steve Schmidt, who is already advising him.

I think Schultz hiring Schmidt was a horrible move that only serves to confirm Democratic suspicions that the run isn't really intended to appeal to their "moderates," but rather never-Trumpers.  This type of neophyte move is why I'm a very very long way from being in any way worried about Howard Schultz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist, but I don't think he's really going to run, I think he just wants attention.  Mounting a third party bid in all 50 states is both hard and expensive.  And America is far more polarized than it was in 1992 for Perot.  The most likely result is not only losing, but losing really badly, and just wasting a year of your life plus hundreds of millions of dollars and still not getting out of the single digits at the ballot box.

In addition, I do believe that if he really did this that Democrats would probably boycott Starbucks in anger.  I know I would (although I only go there once a year or so). 

The problem with political mullet wearers like Shultz is they think they are reasonable, but often very wrong on the technocratic merits.

Take Jamie Dimon. I know I've spent the last two years ranting about him, but he is one of those "reasonable centrist" that gets a lot of shit wrong and drives me crazy. And it isn't just a matter of ideology. He's been wrong about the "skills gap", made bad calls on monetary policy. has complained about equity capital requirements killing lending, when the evidence seems to point the other way, and was big fan of Trump's corporate tax cuts, which hasn't boosted business investment. He gets a lot of shit wrong, but then thinks of himself as being reasonable.

Just because somebody proclaims themselves a reasonable centrist doesn't mean they should believed necessarily. They may often spew nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think Schultz hiring Schmidt was a horrible move that only serves to confirm Democratic suspicions that the run isn't really intended to appeal to their "moderates," but rather never-Trumpers.  This type of neophyte move is why I'm a very very long way from being in any way worried about Howard Schultz.

True. But unless all the Obama-Trump voters switch back, and only some of them did in 2018, the Democratic nominee is probably going to need some of those never-Trumpers. For instance, there's conservatives in the Phoenix suburbs that voted for Sinema only because McSally was too tied to the Trump/Arpaio strain of Republicanism. The Democratic nominee is going to need them to win Arizona and the nominee is going to want to win Arizona; the Clinton states+PA+MI+WI path is way too narrow to be confident. Clinton didn't get their votes in 2016 and I don't want them having an excuse to not give them to the 2020 nominee.

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...