US Politics: Serenity Now

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

That doesn't hold water when you start seeing Republicans start proposing the same thing that Jayapal was trying to get into the reliefe bill.

Sure it does, because it depends heavily on the Republican. Some can do it because they're safe. Some cannot. 

4 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

And I'm not talking about her being unseated, as much as I want to see Shahid Buttar knock her off, odds are she is going to hold the seat until she decides she is done. Hiding behind protecting seat right now is ridiculous, by taking strong action now, we can point to the ways that  people keep talking about how the Dems have a +8 nation wide, all the momentum is in their favor and we're still pussyfooting around? I think there has to be something more going on behind the scenes. 

I guess you can think what you want, but having a  +8 nationwide doesn't last if they keep going more and more progressive.

 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

but fuck billionaires, no one needs that much.

what is the point at which quantity transforms into quality, however?  we can make the case that any particular threshold is arbitrary beyond the point of bare survival. 

the far left analysis must likely be that capitalism does not permit the transformation to occur--that no hoarded quantity produces a qualitative shift to a belief in enough (or too much). every single capitalist whom i've known always already believed that they are losing their ass no matter what happens, including persons in receipt of five-figures USD per month. this is structural to the system, which permits no rest and requires all market participants to accumulate assets as though the apocalypse were imminent, in part because of the cyclic and non-cyclic downturns and in part further because of ongoing upheaval of the means of production that could cast down each and every  cappy through market mechanism alone. (perhaps DJT will be proletarianized and working at w-mart in his post-presidential dotage.)

I'd have to go look it up, but I believe there is some behavioural economics research on this where participants were asked to define what was 'enough' in terms of having a comfortable income, and pretty consistently they defined it as basically just a bit more than they were making now - no matter how much they were making now. Right the way up to the top 5%.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Not from them, no, I bought an audio tape about the Book of the Tao.

 

About 15 years ago I bought a US book called The Number: What Do You Need for the Rest of Your Life and What Will it Cost? People were asked how much money they had to have before they felt comfortable. The number of people who said "It used to be $25 M but now I realize it has to be $75 M" honestly shocked me. Those folks probably think the number is $500 M by now. I would bring back the tax rates of the 50s, or at least the 60s, if I had the power. And maybe they will have to come back, to pay for Covid-19. You'd better not hope the US decides to welch on their debt instead ("Make China pay!").

That cell phone story was from the early 90s, not really the early years, lol. One of my early work colleagues was a lawyer who drafted many of the first cell phone tower agreements, in the mid 1970s. Those were the early users! My boss loved to talk about his first cell phone, which was the size of a shoe. He still had it, as a souvenir. 

I had one just like it. 

The original Gameboy I got at around the same time works, though. 
 

Quote

Nah, my cell phone was all about equality with the men in the office, all of whom had phones. That the woman didn't was kinda telling.

Most telling. I'd trust women with corporate phones more than men anyways. 

[Zorral]

They are banging about returning Cuba to the state sponsors of terrorism list, the bastards.  Cuba, whose doctors saved how many lives in Italy alone?

They are the state sponsors of terrorism against the states here in the United States and all of us who live in them.

Somebody created a virus to turn a vast number of the people who live in the US insane. There simply is no other explanation (and yes, the virus is named variously Fox News, Murdoch, Kochs, Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell etc.). 

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I saw "trickle down economics" mentioned somewhere, and I find it strange that the Democratic voting base lambastes the Republican voters for believing in trickle down economics. Dems are so busy pointing at other's problems that they can't see the problems in this party. Such as trickle down politics--where slowly, the Dems promise, to trickle down beneficial policies to us...but not right now. You can't have it all now, so let the elite slowly drip it into your mouth. Don't worry, someday you might, too, have universal healthcare. 

Considering the context of the discussion concerns congressional/interbranch bargaining, this is absolute drivel.

17 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Wait. how is that trickle down? Businesses would only be getting this funding if they are still employing their workers, this is exactly the same as what a bunch of European counties who we should be emulating have been doing. This is not just giving them money and hoping that they actually spend it on payroll, this is money specifically allocated for companies to be able to pay their workers. Also this isn't just going to go to big businesses, this is going to small businesses, who may be able to make enough to stay open if they don't have to pay their staffs wages for a time because the government is giving them the funds to do so. Would I rather that we just paid people directly rather than making it contingent on being employed? Yeah, but if you want to talk about shit that isn't going to get passed, there you go. I haven't looked at what Hawley and Gardner are saying in their bill, but there is some common ground there that could be used to build a bipartisan agreement.

I'm not opposed to the proposal in a vacuum, and even in negotiations I think it should be an important part of comprehensive stimulus.  But just a part.  Let's say Pelosi and Schumer whipped their caucuses' to get on board with this proposal.  I bet you could get enough Republican support for it to pass.  Great!  Then what? 

First, it's a tactical mistake because the GOP will then crow about how stimulus should emphasize subsidizing private business to stabilize the economy which, ideologically, I'd think any leftist would have reservations about.  Second, from a policy implementation perspective I'm inherently suspicious this money and "investment" would not only be directed more so to larger businesses that don't really need it, but also employers that engage in myriad other ways to circumvent the letter of the law and exploit their employees without granting them their due benefits. 

Third, and most importantly, it'd be a strategical mistake because then all Pelosi's Dem House got out of an agreement is this.  The GOP could say "well, we agreed with the Dems on providing relief, how much else do you want?" serving to cover their ass against allowing anything further.  The focus should (and thankfully is) on a more comprehensive approach in which the Dems are pushing for more assistance to state/local governments, another round of direct payments, and fortifying unemployment insurance as we continue to navigate the greatest worker crisis since the great depression.  Pelosi signing onto Hawley and Gardner's bill would be the best Christmas present McConnell could ever receive other than, I dunno, a new shell.  You may be fatalistic about the possibility of the Dems getting through another round of direct payments, or further assistance to state/local governments, but I bet a dollar both will be included in whatever agreement Pelosi, McConnell, and Mnuchin come to.  That's because Pelosi knows what she's doing, and is experienced enough at dealing with these fucks to see the forest for the trees.

50 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

but also challenges in the primary, something that I don't think the party and party leadership should take an role in.

The idea Pelosi is concerned about primary challengers in these negotiations is rather absurd.  She's already committed to stepping down in 2022, and the primary challenges from this cycle have pretty much already been dealt with.  Even if she wasn't, whenever GOP MCs position-take in favor of a Dem-led proposal, it's almost always a tactic they have no intention of following through on rather than a genuine olive branch.  Especially these days.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

Considering the context of the discussion concerns congressional/interbranch bargaining, this is absolute drivel.

 

Well, I didn't quote you for a reason--because I wasn't interested in your point of view or that discussion. I'm sorry I offended you! Have a great day!

[Darth Richard II]

13 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Well, I didn't quote you for a reason--because I wasn't interested in your point of view or that discussion. I'm sorry I offended you! Have a great day!

Don't post in a thread if you don't want people reading and replying to the things you say in a thread.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Well, I didn't quote you for a reason--because I wasn't interested in your point of view or that discussion. I'm sorry I offended you! Have a great day!

Well, then maybe don't base such discussion by taking what I said drastically out of context.  Have a Nice Day!

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

if someone is having a discussion (amid the many discussions had in a single thread), and they reference something that I want to take in another direction, even if I don't @ them, or I don't quote them, I shouldn't talk about that subject...until when? I just want to hammer out your ground rules for discussion boards in general. Thanks! Have a great day!

I don't give a shit if you @ me, quote me, allude to me, or imply what I'm saying through genius subtext.  Just don't be surprised if I clarify my own arguments when you take them out of context.  Have a Nice Day as well, and stop stealing Mick Foley's gimmick.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't give a shit if you @ me, quote me, allude to me, or imply what I'm saying through genius subtext.  Just don't be surprised if I clarify my own arguments when you take them out of context.  Have a Nice Day as well, and stop stealing Mick Foley's gimmick.

Watch out for that sock man. Dear god watch out for that sock.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't give a shit if you @ me, quote me, allude to me, or imply what I'm saying through genius subtext.  Just don't be surprised if I clarify my own arguments when you take them out of context.  Have a Nice Day as well, and stop stealing Mick Foley's gimmick.

I didn't say a damned thing about you or your arguments. You did not create "trickle down economics," jeez bro, everything doesn't revolve around you. To be clear, I saw, in passing, someone mention "trickle down economics" which apparently was an argument that I mangled out of context? Okay. Either way, have a great day! 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

everything doesn't revolve around you.

Never said it did.  I responded to clarify that you applying my reference to trickle down economics - which you specifically alluded to - was absolutely nonsensical within the context of my use of the term.  Since you're so hung up on forum etiquette, are you saying I'm not allowed to do so?  Have a Nice Day! 

[Week]

Serenity now. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Serenity now. 

I'm feeling pretty good, myself.

[Darth Richard II]

I seriously have no idea what the FUCK is going on. Have a nice day?

[Darth Richard II]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm feeling pretty good, myself.

HOW DARE YOU JUMP INTO THIS DISCUSSION WITHOUT PERMISSION!

(am I doing it right?)

[Paladin of Ice]

6 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I seriously have no idea what the FUCK is going on. Have a nice day?

Seems like a pretty standard left of center circular firing squad. Must be Thursday.

[Week]

As King of this iteration of this US politics thread, I'll allow it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

As King of this iteration of this US politics thread, I'll allow it.

Many years ago we established that you're history's greatest monster.
 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Seems like a pretty standard left of center circular firing squad. Must be Thursday.

There's nothing else to do!  I'm currently down to playing NBA Live 2007 on an original X-box or trying to get interested in Korean baseball.  Like Jace said, this is much more enjoyable.