US Politics: The Accountability Problem

[Cas Stark]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, the link Thinker provided only mentioned the embargoed version as an issue, and that's all I had read on it.  Looking at the Drudge link to a site whining about this, yeah, it does appear they're whining about more than that.  Some takeaways:

First, yes, there does appear to be three things going on here - an embargoed backgrounder, doctored versions going around, AND indeed AOC putting up an unfinished draft on her website then taking it down.  And that is literally what AOC said when she responded to this yesterday:  "There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around. There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there."

Second, Bitchface McGee (Carlson) appears to be right that the "unwilling to work" thing was in the backgrounder that was supposed to be embargoed when he's talking to Hockett, who is mistaken.  This goes back to my so fucking what question.

Third, the whiny website article includes a tweet from this guy who admits to doctoring a draft and adding "Free massage chair" to the list of rights the GND would guarantee.  He says this is obviously a joke, and while you or I probably would have the same impression, I guarantee you there are plenty out there that read such a thing and interpret it as fact, then go out and repeat the falsehood.  And it's almost certain that was his intent. 

So, this example from the exact same write up whining about AOC lying provides clear proof that AOC is not lying when she says there are doctored versions out there.  And, that doctored version actually raises the question of who's gaslighting whom?  (BTW, I really hate the overuse of that term.)

This is quite obviously the right trying to create a story that doesn't exist mostly based on someone going on Bitchface McGee's show and making a mistake/not realizing that an unfinished draft was accidentally both posted on AOC's website and published by the press.  Which brings me back to, again, so fucking what?

Not just climate change.  Like I said when Schultz made that ridiculous statement, the obvious biggest economic crisis isn't debt but the constantly rising inequality.  And anyone not running on that - left, right, or center - is very stupid politically.

It's kind of a big mistake, no?  That doesn't speak too well of AOC or even Markey, whose been in Congress since the 1500s.  This is her signature thing, the 'green new deal'....and forgetting that IMO calling it aspirational is much more positive a description than it deserves, but this is your idea to galvanize the nation toward a green revolution and you can't even do your own roll out without totally fucking it up and then lying about it?  And this doesn't even get into the issue of AOC, apparently not having a problem in theory with the idea of taking money from working people and giving it to those who are 'unwilling to work'...elsewise that language would not have made it to any draft.  But, I get it, she's the future.... social media star, with no idea or and not even trying on execution.  And yes I know it's a non binding resolution. 

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, The guy from the Vale said:

@OldGimletEye   They have  given their answer already. If you missed it, it's because there is no answer. I  think "conservative" is a misnomer. They don't want to conserve  our world. They just want to see it burn. "Arsonists" would be a better description  of their MO.

 

4 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

They will do nothing. They're all climate change deniers beholden to the fossil fuel industry.

So then all this stuff about AOC and her alleged gaslighting is really about trying to change our attention to something else.

Well, I think we all know the answer to that.

Still, I think, it's sometimes useful to keep pressing one's opponent on a question, until they come out with it. 

If conservatives were really genuine about this, they would offer up their own alternative. But, as we all know, they have none.

In fact, it would seem they have no plan with well just about anything, except maybe a tax cut.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It's kind of a big mistake, no?  That doesn't speak too well of AOC or even Markey, whose been in Congress since the 1500s.  This is her signature thing, the 'green new deal'....and forgetting that IMO calling it aspirational is much more positive a description than it deserves, but this is your idea to galvanize the nation toward a green revolution and you can't even do your own roll out without totally fucking it up and then lying about it?  And this doesn't even get into the issue of AOC, apparently not having a problem in theory with the idea of taking money from working people and giving it to those who are 'unwilling to work'...elsewise that language would not have made it to any draft.  But, I get it, she's the future.... social media star, with no idea or and not even trying on execution.  And yes I know it's a non binding resolution. 

Still a hell of lot more than what conservatives have done. And some of them have been around a lot longer and have had plenty of time to brush up on the issue.

And I'll say this once more, because it is worth repeating I think. By dragging and delaying on this issue, conservatives make it more likely there will have to be heavy handed government influence. Had we started on this issue earlier, then I should think, we could have had a more "market oriented solution" to conservatives likeing. When it does come, conservatives will largely have themselves to blame.

And maybe she did make a bit of gaffe with this. Still, it's relatively small potatoes compared to the massive conservative fuck ups we have had as of late.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

It's kind of a big mistake, no?

No.  News outlets posting an embargoed draft is not a mistake.  Accidentally posting the wrong draft (of the FAQs on it, BTW, not the actual GND) on her site, yes, but it seemed to be rectified quick enough the trolls had to use screenshots to prove it.  That isn't "totally fucking up" the rollout, and that is not lying about it.  You're lying about her lying about it.  You could argued Hockett lied, I suppose, but seems pretty clear he just wasn't aware.  To each his own though, if you wanna eviscerate some college professor that made the fatal mistake of agreeing to go on Carlson's show, have at it.

6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

And this doesn't even get into the issue of AOC, apparently not having a problem in theory with the idea of taking money from working people and giving it to those who are 'unwilling to work'...elsewise that language would not have made it to any draft.

The fact her and Markey clearly did not want that language in the final draft directly contradicts the idea that she doesn't have a problem with it.

[Cas Stark]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Still a hell of lot more than what conservatives have done. And some of them have been around a lot longer and have had plenty of time to brush up on the issue.

Eh, this is why I say that the GOP is passively destructive [doing nothing], while progressives are actively destructive [policies to bring us up to the standard of living from 1820].  My friend's teenager wants to live in a world with no petroleum based products, when told that would eliminate the i-phone: confusion.  

[Martell Spy]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Still a hell of lot more than what conservatives have done. And some of them have been around a lot longer and have had plenty of time to brush up on the issue.

Well seriously, there can not be conservative plan. A plan would require admitting there is a problem.

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Eh, this is why I say that the GOP is passively destructive [doing nothing], while progressives are actively destructive [policies to bring us up to the standard of living from 1820].  My friend's teenager wants to live in a world with no petroleum based products, when told that would eliminate the i-phone: confusion.  

That is a load of horseshit on your part. Passive destruction as you like to frame it, in this case, is certainly like to fuck us all. 

And tell us about all these huge conservative successes as of late? The Brownback Boom perhaps? Or Trump's corporate tax cuts?

And I'll just point out that one of the biggest conservative fuck ups this century, the invasion of Iraq, was hardly an exercise in passivity. Conservatives actively pursued it and actively fucked it up, after being warned how not to fuck it up.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well seriously, there can not be conservative plan. A plan would require admitting there is a problem.

Well of course. And conservatives would like to distract us, with a bunch of flim flam.

[Cas Stark]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

That is a load of horseshit on your part. Passive destruction as you like to frame it, in this case, is certainly like to fuck us all. 

And tell us about all these huge conservative successes as of late? The Brownback Boom perhaps? Or Trump's corporate tax cuts?

And I'll just point out that one of the biggest conservative fuck ups this century, the invasion of Iraq, was hardly an exercise in passivity. Conservatives actively pursued it.

But I already told you that I recognize the GOP doesn't wish to govern and are hypocrites, so why would you look to me to proffer a list of their successes?  I did and do support the tax cut, but I have no doubt a better tax cut could have been crafted by people who weren't dumb hypocrites with no desire to make policy, but again, letting me keep more of my own money [conservatives] will always be better than wishing to take my money and give it to someone else, possibly even someone unwilling to work [progressives].  

 

[Week]

23 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Eh, this is why I say that the GOP is passively destructive [doing nothing], while progressives are actively destructive [policies to bring us up to the standard of living from 1820].  My friend's teenager wants to live in a world with no petroleum based products, when told that would eliminate the i-phone: confusion.  

Wow, you really owned that teenager. Don't dislocate your arm patting yourself on the back. 

The absurdity of alleging the GOP is passively destructive is hilarious. 

[Rippounet]

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

 letting me keep more of my own money [conservatives] will always be better than wishing to take my money and give it to someone else, possibly even someone unwilling to work in need [progressives]. 

First level of reality: people "unwilling to work" are a minority, and they barely cost anything.

Second level of reality; giving money to the military industrial-complex and large corporations [conservatives] will always be far dumber than giving money to people in need [progressives].

Third level of reality: taxes are the price of civilization.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

But I already told you that I recognize the GOP doesn't wish to govern and are hypocrites, so why would you look to me to proffer a list of their successes?  I did and do support the tax cut, but I have no doubt a better tax cut could have been crafted by people who weren't dumb hypocrites with no desire to make policy, but again, letting me keep more of my own money [conservatives] will always be better than wishing to take my money and give it to someone else, possibly even someone unwilling to work [progressives].  

 

Okay, a few things here:

1. Maybe you made a ton of money from the latest corporate tax cut, but that would make you a big outlier among most people. Perhaps you are extremely wealthy and own lots of stock.

2. The corporate tax cut, like most Republican tax cuts, are sold on the idea of bringing extra growth and hence higher income. You know, the same old conservative horseshit, we have heard for years. But, there is virtually no evidence that the latest corporate tax cut has significantly boosted investment which in turn is supposed to raise wages.

3. If Republicans were really interested in helping out the average person, they could have chosen a different route than the corporate tax cut.

4. For all the conservative belly aching about progressives making it possible for lazy people not to work, it's interesting the United States has one of the lowest employment participation rates among developed nations. Even among perhaps "socialist" countries.

5. For what it's worth, I don't agree with the idea of letting people not to work (who are capable of course) . I'm a full employment Democrat after all, something I've hammered home repeatedly on these threads. Of course, I'm not the only lefty who thinks this way, as full employment has always been there in left wing politics, and unfortunately it gotten taken out of the Democratic Party plank 1992, when certain Democrats thought it would be wise to "triangulate". Thankfully it got put back in 2016. And of course, it is the reason I was frustrated by the years of conservative dipshittery during the GFC, with it's gold buggism,inflationista fear mongering, deficit hysteria,- and so forth.

[Cas Stark]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

First level of reality: people "unwilling to work" are a minority, and they barely cost anything.

Second level of reality; giving money to the military industrial-complex and large corporations [conservatives] will always be far dumber than giving money to people in need [progressives].

Third level of reality: taxes are the price of civilization.

Wouldn't it follow human nature that if you can have the same income at a low wage job or can get it by not working, that you wouldn't work? Why would you?  

True, we waste untold billions on the military, but neither party has seen fit to do anything about it.  As far as 'giving money' to large corporations, it depends on what we're talking about, low taxes is not giving them money, it is letting them keep their profits, tax abatement and subsidies are closer to 'giving them money' but this is a very complicated issue that can't really be boiled down into a single talking point.  

Sure, taxes are the price of civilization but it has to be a balancing act.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I still want to know from conservative sorts of people what they are going to do about climate change.

Climate change doesn't exist so they aren't wasting their time with it.  Anyway it's the government's fault because taxes and Hillary and they are taking my guns away.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

Wouldn't it follow human nature that if you can have the same income at a low wage job or can get it by not working, that you wouldn't work? Why would you?  

Well you might not work at the low wage job. But, whether you'd stop working, I think might be a different question. You might look to do work you actually enjoy or pays better compensation.

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well you might not work at the low wage job. But, whether you'd stop working, I think might be a different question. You might look to do work you actually enjoy or pays better compensation.

Don't something like 50% of people make $30K or less?  So, if you can get a guaranteed income of $30K unless you are in some type of job that has a legitimate opportunity in terms of career ladder, why would you work?  So, I'd say are not talking about any negligible number of a few people so it doesn't matter, but we'd be talking about tens of millions of people.

[Martell Spy]

14 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Wouldn't it follow human nature that if you can have the same income at a low wage job or can get it by not working, that you wouldn't work? Why would you?  

Sure, taxes are the price of civilization but it has to be a balancing act.

If we want to encourage work, we should raise the minimum wage.

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Don't something like 50% of people make $30K or less?  So, if you can get a guaranteed income of $30K unless you are in some type of job that has a legitimate opportunity in terms of career ladder, why would you work?  So, I'd say are not talking about any negligible number of a few people so it doesn't matter, but we'd be talking about tens of millions of people.

Well for one I'm not sure where you got 30K at, in so far as somebody is suggesting that we set a universal basic income at 30K.

But yeah, sure, if you get 30K as a UBI, you're probably not going to take some shit job for that much. You might however look for something more to your liking or with better compensation or both.

And for it is worth, I'm really not that high on the UBI at this time. For me it's something to be put on the back burner, in the event AI really takes off, leaving many people unemployed.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

if you can have the same income at a low wage job or can get it by not working,

First that's a pretty big "if."

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Wouldn't it follow human nature that if you can have the same income at a low wage job or can get it by not working, that you wouldn't work? Why would you? 

Maybe it follows your nature but it doesn't follow mine.
Why? First because I'm smart enough to know that if everyone reasoned like that we'd all end up dead rather soon, second because I get bored easily so would always end up doing some kind of work after a few weeks.

The idea that everyone is only following their financial self-interest is very popular with conservatives when discussing socio-economics (far less so when discussing other issues). Fun fact: it absolutely doesn't add up in purely mathematical terms. If we were all the super-selfish bitches that rational-actor theory says we are we couldn't have a civilization, because contrary to conversative belief, most of us make a lot of efforts (at work and elsewhere) that do not translate into any kind of direct economic benefit. Shocking, I know. I'm sure @OldGimletEye could say a few things about the literature. In the meantime here's two links about this topic:

A NYT article by Robert Frank that I find amusing: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/business/the-theory-that-selfinterest-is-the-sole-motivator-is.html

An interesting paper attempting to tackle the issue of self-interest in economics and psychology through what seems to be a pretty solid bibliography:
https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/953219/6293155/Radoc_PG_First+Place.pdf/17ff9932-7dd4-4f71-a204-c270974acf92

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Sure, taxes are the price of civilization but it has to be a balancing act.

We actually agree on that one.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well for one I'm not sure where you got 30K at, in so far as somebody is suggesting that we set a universal basic income at 30K.

But yeah, sure, if you get 30K as a UBI, you're probably not going to take some shit job for that much. You might however look for something more to your liking or with better compensation or both.

And for it is worth, I'm really not that high on the UBI at this time. For me it's something to be put on the back burner, in the event AI really takes off, leaving many people unemployed.

$15 an hour works out to $30K a year, approximately.  I would assume since this is viewed as the minimum 'living wage' in many circles, that any guaranteed income would have to be at least this amount.