Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

Recommended Posts

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I would like it to be false too, but as we both know, it's not how things work.

Obviously, as a technocratic matter I think something like single payer could work just fine. But, even the best designed system will get nowhere unless there is political support for it first. Somebody needs to talk about it and get support for it.

Another big barrier I've seen brought up recently is that the filibuster would have to go to make it happen. And it's doubtful all Democratic Senators would do that. However, a massive expansion of existing programs could be done through reconciliation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Evidently they don't. How else did Trump win?

Ds would be dumb as rocks to base their strategy on the idea that some voters bought building a wall that Mexico will pay for means that this will always work. Good luck with that. Especially counting on the special circumstances which helped Trump will automatically be around to help Ds. 

And Trump's big overall message was tearing it all down. Not the same thing at all as major healthcare and education reform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Martell Spy said:

Another big barrier I've seen brought up recently is that the filibuster would have to go to make it happen. And it's doubtful all Democratic Senators would do that. However, a massive expansion of existing programs could be done through reconciliation. 

Personally, I think it's something that will take sometime to achieve. That said, its a good goal to have and Democrats should continue to set as goal. In the meantime, they can work on expanding coverage and finding ways lower the cost of our bloated healthcare system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about the debt/deficit fearmongering is that right-wing governments have spent so much on cutting taxes for the rich that everyone is starting to realize that economics doesn't exactly work as they say it does.

Of course, debts/deficits are still problematic if they mean a country loses the confidence of financial markets. But people are also starting to realize that said financial markets are the problem, not the solution.

The right has been so greedy... Many voices on the left are saying that if money creation and corresponding interest rates were controled by governments again (directly through public central banking, or indirectly through regulation), perhaps debts/deficits would be far less of a problem, and social reforms would magically become perfectly possible. For now, this is viewed as "far-left/socialist" rhetoric. But it could take just another major financial crisis for such views to become far more acceptable. In fact, as inequalities keep increasing, the divide between those willing to protect the status quo (not just the 1%, but also those who've drunk the neo-liberal koolaid) and those who embrace radical solutions keeps growing. Add fears about climate change in the mix and perhaps neo-liberalism becomes far more fragile than it seems at a glance.

Or perhaps I'm being optimistic tonight, I dunno. But there seems to be some who say that neo-liberalism has already failed, and that even the relentless propaganda isn't quite working as well as it used to. At some point "there is no alternative" becomes far less credible than "an alternative must be found," at least if it looks like the absence of an alternative means the end of civilization in the next few decades. There certainly is a case to be made that the greed and blindness of the neo-liberals is likely to cause their downfall. The counter-argument to that would be that right-wing populisms distract people from socio-economic upheaval. And certainoly, people in the West are worried that brown people will cross the border to steal their jobs and what's left of their welfare. Yet, it could be that extreme climactic events eventually trump (ha ha) nativism.

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that note, there's a thought-provoking post here on how the Dem candidates should debate the merit of the filibuster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Ds would be dumb as rocks to base their strategy on the idea that some voters bought building a wall that Mexico will pay for means that this will always work. Good luck with that. Especially counting on the special circumstances which helped Trump will automatically be around to help Ds. 

And Trump's big overall message was tearing it all down. Not the same thing at all as major healthcare and education reform. 

Well except promised to do a lot more than just build wall. He talked about healthcare reform, talked about making America Great Again, whatever, that meant,  and seemingly got some people to vote for him because of his awesome business man experience. You know the whole "run the country like business" shtick that some people always fall for.

I'm not really buying what your selling here. Trump pretty much proved you can get elected by having a program that has no basis in reality or where you have no idea what you are doing.

Given this, I'm not sure why Democrats would feel the need to write about 50 white papers concerning their plans, to allay the fears of "centrist", who seemingly didn't ask a lot of penetrating questions when Trump ran for president.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:
1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

I'm not going to go into whether this is correct or not because I don't have a clue. Advanced economics isn't my wheelhouse as is the case with most voters. 

Well sure. That's what allows people like Carly Fiorina to confidently and wrongly assert back in 2012 or so that "everybody agrees the deficit is our biggest issue".

 

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Thank you for handling that one.  Most voters can't be bothered with learning the details of policy. 

No, they don't. 

Whether they understand the details or not, they do notice if a candidate put in the effort to construct something and they notice whether it took a lot of effort or not. And they notice when that plan stands up to criticism. A lot of the vote isn't about finding someone who agrees with your exact policy, it's about finding someone who looks like they'll handle that responsibility seriously and with deliberation. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Triskele said:

On that note, there's a thought-provoking post here on how the Dem candidates should debate the merit of the filibuster.

Yeah, I couldn't disagree more with what Sanders said in that article. We really should debate how we are going to pass things, not just what we are going to pass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

 

 

Whether they understand the details or not, they do notice if a candidate put in the effort to construct something and they notice whether it took a lot of effort or not. And they notice when that plan stands up to criticism. A lot of the vote isn't about finding someone who agrees with your exact policy, it's about finding someone who looks like they'll handle that responsibility seriously and with deliberation. 

Across state lines. It will be something wonderful. Yeah, a lot details in those.

I'll make American Great Again. I'm sure lot of deep though went into that too.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, anyone who tells people he just grabs women by the pussy is obviously the most serious and most deliberate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Across state lines. It will be something wonderful. Yeah, a lot details in those.

I'll make American Great Again. I'm sure lot of deep though went into that too.

Well, it was going to be something wonderful to replace Obamacare after he repealed it. But Trump is a huge loser and failed to do that. So the result I guess is Lollygag just has to live with all the socialism and us becoming like Venezuela. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Trump pretty much proved you can get elected by having a program that has no basis in reality or where you have no idea what you are doing.

Yes, but only when running against somebody who claimed to have distinct public and private positions. If you have to choose between two people who will almost certainly not do what they told you they will do (or perhaps do it, but with caveats that make you wish they hadn't), why not go with the more entertaining one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The right has been so greedy... Many voices on the left are saying that if money creation and corresponding interest rates were controled by governments again (directly through public central banking, or indirectly through regulation), perhaps debts/deficits would be far less of a problem, and social reforms would magically become perfectly possible. For now, this is viewed as "far-left/socialist" rhetoric. But it could take just another major financial crisis for such views to become far more acceptable. In fact, as inequalities keep increasing, the divide between those willing to protect the status quo (not just the 1%, but also those who've drunk the neo-liberal koolaid) and those who embrace radical solutions keeps growing. Add fears about climate change in the mix and perhaps neo-liberalism becomes far more fragile than it seems at a glance.

In Europe, there are voices on the left and well on the right too, that don't like the Euro. And on that issue I'm with them. The disasters in Greece and in Spain largely happened because neither of those countries controlled their own currency. Europe isn't what is called an optimal currency area.

Here in the US at least, the dispute is between more traditional Keynesians, like me, and the MMTers. Now I've written about my basic disagreement with them. But, they have illuminated some key things about monetary economics like: money is really a creation of the state that gets its value from taxes, and really when it comes down too it there is no difference between money finance and bond finance, the difference being one of institutional arrangements. And while I wouldn't take the MMT logic with deficits to its full extent, I would agree with them that to a large extent their has been too much deficit hysteria.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well except promised to do a lot more than just build wall. He talked about healthcare reform, talked about making America Great Again, whatever, that meant,  and seemingly got some people to vote for him because of his awesome business man experience. You know the whole "run the country like business" shtick that some people always fall for.

I'm not really buying what your selling here. Trump pretty much proved you can get elected by having a program that has no basis in reality or where you have no idea what you are doing.

Given this, I'm not sure why Democrats would feel the need to write about 50 white papers concerning their plans, to allay the fears of "centrist", who seemingly didn't ask a lot of penetrating questions when Trump ran for president.

Honestly, people casting their vote with a lack of information has always been a major criticism of Democracy. People will vote irrationally for those that promise them the most and not take steps to inform themselves on the issues. It’s not especially hard to find voters backing someone who’d eventually just become a tyrant or proved to not be able to deliver upon their promises and never could. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Altherion said:

Yes, but only when running against somebody who claimed to have distinct public and private positions. If you have to choose between two people who will almost certainly not do what they told you they will do (or perhaps do it, but with caveats that make you wish they hadn't), why not go with the more entertaining one?

Eh. The real notion is that this has been the general rule in politics forever. Kennedy was far less clear than Nixon. Reagan less clear than Carter. Clinton less clear than Bush. Obama was far more aspirational. People say they care, but reagans voodoo economics won the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Or perhaps I'm being optimistic tonight, I dunno. But there seems to be some who say that neo-liberalism has already failed, and that even the relentless propaganda isn't quite working as well as it used to. 

Neoliberalism died in 2009. The Global Financial Crisis wrecked it in the same way the oil shocks wrecked Keynesianism in the 1970s. The difference is that, unlike the 1970s, there wasn't an alternative system waiting in the wings - so the world has reverted to the 1930s scenario whereby liberalism gets challenged from the populist Right.

(I also can't be the only one to have noticed that the populist Right is able to get away with attacks on neoliberalism in a way the Left never could. Almost as though the Establishment is willing to live with the nutters, so long as they're not Reds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Honestly, lack of information has always been a major criticism of Democracy. People will vote irrationally for those that promise them the most and not take steps to inform themselves on the issues. It’s not especially hard to find voters backing someone who’d eventually just become a tyrant or proved to not be able to deliver upon their promises and never could.

Name the alternative then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Yes, but only when running against somebody who claimed to have distinct public and private positions. If you have to choose between two people who will almost certainly not do what they told you they will do (or perhaps do it, but with caveats that make you wish they hadn't), why not go with the more entertaining one?

Because one was a flaming idiot who had no idea what he was doing.

The other was just doing typical politician stuff. But, at least she understood policy and just wasn't randomly pulling stuff out of her ass with no basis in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Eh. The real notion is that this has been the general rule in politics forever. Kennedy was far less clear than Nixon. Reagan less clear than Carter. Clinton less clear than Bush. Obama was far more aspirational. People say they care, but reagans voodoo economics won the day. 

Well, it swings back and forth is the thing. Which is extremely disturbing. It means if the Republicans were to put forward a literal pile of shit 3 times, they will probably win at least once. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×