General politics

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I think MMT might be predicated on the optics over "more taxes" are necessary to fund a welfare state; but now that Democrats aren't frightened about suing the T-word, I don't know that MMT has as much cache.  Bruening fills this out a bit in his discussion at the second link. 

 

That said, if the left does get on board with MMT, I'd be really worried about the optics.  I think the optics of more taxes is less bad than the optics of MMT.

Agree. I’m not sure what the hell this is or where it came from, and not sure I want to spend another minute finding out.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You could even take your last sentence a step further, and ask if this is a Republican false flag operation designed to lure the AOC wing of the party into a PR roach motel detour en route to 2020. Or the happier version; that it's a Dem policy trojan horse designed to cause Republicans to believe there's no need to even raise funds for a 2020 campaign.

 

In any case, it's interesting to see someone take Krugman's tax-and-spend dogma a step further so soon after a wave of articles noted that the annual debt payment is trending toward a trillion dollars by then end of the next decade.

 

Right, it feeds into the false narrative the Republicans have already spun.  Liberals want to spend your money and they don't care about being responsible about it.

 

It doesn't have to be true, to be an effective attack.  And, with MMT, it has the double whammy of being partially true.  

 

Plus...the downside if they're wrong?  Scary.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think MMT might be predicated on the optics over "more taxes" are necessary to fund a welfare state; but now that Democrats aren't frightened about suing the T-word, I don't know that MMT has as much cache.  Bruening fills this out a bit in his discussion at the second link. 

 

That said, if the left does get on board with MMT, I'd be really worried about the optics.  I think the optics of more taxes is less bad than the optics of MMT.

 

I think the shift on the left to be less scared of the word taxes is a good thing.  I also think it might take a little while, and some good salesmanship, to make it effective.

 

MMT?  I don't have a great grip on it, but it's easy to see how the boogeyman of that theory would be almost too easy for Republicans to weaponize.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think the shift on the left to be less scared of the word taxes is a good thing.  I also think it might take a little while, and some good salesmanship, to make it effective.

Damn it, you just beat me to the punch.

 

Democrats shouldn't be the least bit scared of the word taxes; if anything, they should embrace it. TAX TAX TAX.

 

And they should be couching this argument 100% of the time in the fact that Donald Trump, under the mantle of the so-called fiscal wizardry of the Republican Party, is driving this country into a deficit hole.

 

Turn the argument back on the GOP. Make the public painfully aware that they are NOT fiscal conservatives. And then come back with a heavily-progressive tax plan that keeps the middle class neutral, helps the poor, and absolutely tears apart the upper classes (well, relatively speaking... more like "return them back to where they were 40 years ago").

 

Become the party of fiscal "responsibility" (term used loosely because no party is actually responsible, only that some are worse than others). The door hasn't only been unlocked to do it, the bloody thing is wide open for anyone to walk through who cares to.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Damn it, you just beat me to the punch.

 

Democrats shouldn't be the least bit scared of the word taxes; if anything, they should embrace it. TAX TAX TAX.

 

And they should be couching this argument 100% of the time in the fact that Donald Trump, under the mantle of the so-called fiscal wizardry of the Republican Party, is driving this country into a deficit hole.

 

Turn the argument back on the GOP. Make the public painfully aware that they are NOT fiscal conservatives. And then come back with a heavily-progressive tax plan that keeps the middle class neutral, helps the poor, and absolutely tears apart the upper classes (well, relatively speaking... more like "return them back to where they were 40 years ago").

 

Become the party of fiscal "responsibility" (term used loosely because no party is actually responsible, only that some are worse than others). The door hasn't only been unlocked to do it, the bloody thing is wide open for anyone to walk through who cares to.

 

There are so many positive angles the Dems can take when they aren't afraid to say "Yeah, taxes are going up....and here's how it will effect you'  I've said before, the Dems have an opportunity to make the case that universal health care can be a break even, or cost cut for many Americans.  In rural america it's almost certainly a cost cut.

 

Or knock off the nonsense about free college and do this: remove the Trump tax cuts, close loopholes, install a tax break on small businesses, and then something much better than free college - remove all existing federal student loans. 

 

The money that would be available to flood the economy would be enormous.   I don't like free college, that's one of those liberal ideas where we'll rue the unintended consequences for decades.  Like, you know, right now.  But a policy based on tax increases and targeted, specific benefits to those that need it?  Hell yeah.  People will eat it up, it will actually work, and it gives you a better basis to rethink the entire loan/college system.  

 

Now...can you sell platforms like that?  I don't know.  Takes courage and persistance, but I think it can be done.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Or knock off the nonsense about free college and do this: remove the Trump tax cuts, close loopholes, install a tax break on small businesses, and then something much better than free college - remove all existing federal student loans. 

 

The money that would be available to flood the economy would be enormous.   I don't like free college, that's one of those liberal ideas where we'll rue the unintended consequences for decades.  Like, you know, right now.  But a policy based on tax increases and targeted, specific benefits to those that need it?  Hell yeah.  People will eat it up, it will actually work, and it gives you a better basis to rethink the entire loan/college system.  

 

Now...can you sell platforms like that?  I don't know.  Takes courage and persistance, but I think it can be done.

I don't see how you can forgive student debt without having another revenue stream for students to pay for college.  I personally think that making college "free" will make schools more selective in admission and create demand for vocational schools; and I think it will result in driving costs down as there won't be this endless bucket of funds to get students to borrow.  The pay and number of administrators is absurd; the salary of university presidents is also absurd.  Honestly, there's need to be an outside commission/an enormous audit on university spending. 

 

I have yet to hear anything close to a real plan on higher education from any candidate, beyond Bernie's aspirations. 

[TheLeviathan]

There does need to be a replacement but the entire system needs to be smashed.  You're right that the colleges have feasted on the program and preyed on 18 year olds to fill their coffers.  I'm game for free tech schools and community colleges, but the major universities need to radically adjust their tuition rates or they shouldn't get another dime of funding.

[MMMordabito]

The invalidity of attacks on Klobuchar aside, that AOC wants to pay her staffers 50K is commendable. I'm interested in how she manages to swing that, if it comes out of her travel budget or what. We'll see if the market attracts her some talent, which it should.

She's going to like do it by like capping her chief at like 80k. The talent like might be attracted, but then they will like leave when they like realize that their peers are able to like realize like twice their salary.

 

Her staff salary plan is a microcosm of why her ideas (well actually just regurgitated idealistic ideas of the last 70 years) are doomed.

 

She wants utopia. Most humans don't. Unless you get a ridiculous majority buy in, it won't work.

 

Is greed involved in the outcome? Of course, but it isn't always that evil. Most people by nature are going to value those closest to them at a much higher level than those who are out of sight/out of mind.

 

To be raw, seeing a picture of a child's body face down on the coast of the Mediterranean isn't going to make me decide to tell my son that he can't have his Buck Hill pass because that money could be used for the basic needs of a bunch of people we don't know. Call me horrible, but millions of people make those same kinds of decisions every day. Just replace Buck Hill pass with cabin up north, or Twins Season tickets or vacation home in Belize.

[Badsmerf]

She's going to like do it by like capping her chief at like 80k. The talent like might be attracted, but then they will like leave when they like realize that their peers are able to like realize like twice their salary.

 

Her staff salary plan is a microcosm of why her ideas (well actually just regurgitated idealistic ideas of the last 70 years) are doomed.

 

She wants utopia. Most humans don't. Unless you get a ridiculous majority buy in, it won't work.

 

Is greed involved in the outcome? Of course, but it isn't always that evil. Most people by nature are going to value those closest to them at a much higher level than those who are out of sight/out of mind.

 

To be raw, seeing a picture of a child's body face down on the coast of the Mediterranean isn't going to make me decide to tell my son that he can't have his Buck Hill pass because that money could be used for the basic needs of a bunch of people we don't know. Call me horrible, but millions of people make those same kinds of decisions every day. Just replace Buck Hill pass with cabin up north, or Twins Season tickets or vacation home in Belize.

So you don't think members of her staff that work full time deserve 50k? It was hard to tell through the condescending foam...

 

You're right, these 'idealistic ideas' have been around a while. However, they aren't utopia, or a perfect world scenario. They are being used in every other Western country in the world. Our refusal to adopt any of these policies is a failure of our government to do its job and make decisions for what is best for the people.

 

I work for a German country, and have spent time in Munich. There are things about Germany and their government that bug me, but I much prefer it to our system. I'll take AOC as a congresswoman all day compared to the Mitch McConnells in DC.

[MMMordabito]

So you don't think members of her staff that work full time deserve 50k? It was hard to tell through the condescending foam...

Nobody deserves anything. It's up to them to earn it. Capping the high end where people who have actually earned value tend to be, so that the new person with no experience and only hope of earning value can immediately realize a higher quality of life is just promoting entitlement. Live in an efficiency, eat your ramen, do your job well, and you can be the person interviewing for the $150k chief job in a few years.

 

The government is here to provide infrastructure not take care of people.

[Craig Arko]

 

Nobody deserves anything. It's up to them to earn it. Capping the high end where people who have actually earned value tend to be, so that the new person with no experience and only hope of earning value can immediately realize a higher quality of life is just promoting entitlement. Live in an efficiency, eat your ramen, do your job well, and you can be the person interviewing for the $150k chief job in a few years.

The government is here to provide infrastructure not take care of people.

 

Those commemorated by Mount Rushmore might disagree.

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

"... and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth..."

[MMMordabito]

Those commemorated by Mount Rushmore might disagree.

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

"... and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth..."

Not handing someone $50k at their first job doesn't take away any of those things ... Providing infrastructure is for the people ... Just remember, it's the pursuit of happiness, not just happiness ... Capping income does encroach on the pursuit

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not handing someone $50k at their first job doesn't take away any of those things ... Providing infrastructure is for the people ... Just remember, it's the pursuit of happiness, not just happiness ... Capping income does encroach on the pursuit

 

I'm not one to agree with caps, I think that's not in line with our ideals either.  However, the government absolutely does care for it's citizens.  We do so with the military as an easy example.  We also know that if you allow desperation and need to fester, it endangers the society as a whole.

 

I think AOC is largely grandstanding (or, if not, she's a bit naive) but the idea that we need to look at how we care for people and provide for a society of opportunity is much needed.  We've spent about 25 years catering to those already comfortably pursuing their happiness.  And doing so at the expense of so many other people.

 

Economics is about balance, we need to start correcting some of the overshift towards the wealthy and entitled.  They can't be allowed to buy their immediate happiness through politicians at the expense of the happiness of others.

[Craig Arko]

 

Not handing someone $50k at their first job doesn't take away any of those things ... Providing infrastructure is for the people ... Just remember, it's the pursuit of happiness, not just happiness ... Capping income does encroach on the pursuit

So, which is it: paying out too much money or capping the ability to pay out more?

 

And I don't find unlimited wealth a requirement for my pursuit of happiness at all.

[MMMordabito]

So, which is it: paying out too much money or capping the ability to pay out more?

 

And I don't find unlimited wealth a requirement for my pursuit of happiness at all.

I don't need unlimited wealth either to be happy, but I sure as hell don't need the government telling me what the limit is.

[Craig Arko]

 

I don't need unlimited wealth either to be happy, but I sure as hell don't need the government telling me what the limit is.

Even if the government is the actual employer in the situation in question? Who does set the limits, then?

[MMMordabito]

Even if the government is the actual employer in the situation in question? Who does set the limits, then?

You're missing the point. Of course the budget isn't infinite, but she's capping at almost half the going rate so that the people on the low end get her version of livable after having done nothing to earn it. She isn't going to have the best people at the top, because they will all leave. Sure she might retain a bleeding heart here and there, but the pool is going to be much smaller for her.

[Mike Sixel]

Why do people need to work to eat or have medicine, in the world we live in now, or soon will, where robots do more and more work? Why is work a necessary thing? I don't actually know if it is, or isn't, but why do we assumee it is?

 

Why can't people who work for themselves get healthcare as good, or cheap, as those that work for others?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Why do people need to work to eat or have medicine, in the world we live in now, or soon will, where robots do more and more work? Why is work a necessary thing? I don't actually know if it is, or isn't, but why do we assumee it is?

Why can't people who work for themselves get healthcare as good, or cheap, as those that work for others?

 

Work is more than output.  If you reduce it to that I think it complicates the discussion.

 

One of the reasons we call work an "occupation" I think is pretty telling.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Work is more than output.  If you reduce it to that I think it complicates the discussion.

 

One of the reasons we call work an "occupation" I think is pretty telling.

 

That truly avoided the point....why do people need to do something that pays them enough money to live, in a world where robots will do most of the work?

 

There are lots of ways to occupy your time that don't involve working for someone else 50 hours a week.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That truly avoided the point....why do people need to do something that pays them enough money to live, in a world where robots will do most of the work?

 

There are lots of ways to occupy your time that don't involve working for someone else 50 hours a week.

 

Is there?  Now, whether it pays them enough to live or something is a layered question, I'm singling out the assumption you seem to be making.

 

I don't buy that statement.  Not even for a second.  And without that, I'm not sure the other questions matter.

[Badsmerf]

Is there? Now, whether it pays them enough to live or something is a layered question, I'm singling out the assumption you seem to be making.

 

I don't buy that statement. Not even for a second. And without that, I'm not sure the other questions matter.

You need to be more specific, I'm not sure what point you're making.

 

What Mike is talking about, is why work has to be done in order to have a place to live, food to eat, and medical care. We've built this economy based on man power. The economy doesn't run that way anymore. Computers, technology and automation have made production cheaper, faster and more profitable.

 

The longer we allow corporations and the 1% to absorb all the new profits, the faster we turn into China.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You need to be more specific, I'm not sure what point you're making.

What Mike is talking about, is why work has to be done in order to have a place to live, food to eat, and medical care. We've built this economy based on man power. The economy doesn't run that way anymore. Computers, technology and automation have made production cheaper, faster and more profitable.

The longer we allow corporations and the 1% to absorb all the new profits, the faster we turn into China.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the last point, but part of makes society work is collective buy-in.  Work is considered valuable, in part, because it does help the collective good.  Now, if suddenly no one had to work (a claim I also find dubious) what keep society together if we aren't finding ways to contribute to the lives of others?

 

And that's where my question comes in - what are 7 billion people going to do with their time?  And, if you have an answer for that, is it a sustainable foundation for society?  Or do we go WALL-E?  Or worse?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Nobody deserves anything. It's up to them to earn it. Capping the high end where people who have actually earned value tend to be, so that the new person with no experience and only hope of earning value can immediately realize a higher quality of life is just promoting entitlement. Live in an efficiency, eat your ramen, do your job well, and you can be the person interviewing for the $150k chief job in a few years.

The government is here to provide infrastructure not take care of people.

So you must be a huge fan of a higher estate tax.

 

The notion that the market pays people according to how much they deserve or put another way their worth to society is an absurdity, an example of free market idealism that is divorced from reality.

[PseudoSABR]

 

She's going to like do it by like capping her chief at like 80k. The talent like might be attracted, but then they will like leave when they like realize that their peers are able to like realize like twice their salary.

You can disagree without resorting to this kind of rude tripe.  Evidently, Congresspersons are given close to a million in appropriations for staff, travel, office needs; so she going to pay her staff more, travel less and have less nice furniture (I've seen nothing that she's going to cap her chief of staff's pay, but I wouldn't be against that either, though clearly, that will hurt in attracting talent if it's not comparable to what others make).   That you're construing paying her staff a livable wage (50K isn't that much), as a handout seems pretty radical.  You have no idea how hard these people work or what and how much they deserve.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Nobody deserves anything. It's up to them to earn it.

Yup—glad to have you on board!

[MMMordabito]

 

You can disagree without resorting to this kind of rude tripe.  

 

So slightly adding to the number of "likes" that are often found in statements by this person is not OK, but you click "Like This" on a satirical post called "Trumpty Dumpty".  Which rude tripe is allowed and which isn't? Oh wait, it's only the rude tripe that you agree with.

[PseudoSABR]

 

So slightly adding to the number of "likes" that are often found in statements by this person is not OK, but you click "Like This" on a satirical post called "Trumpty Dumpty".  Which rude tripe is allowed and which isn't? Oh wait, it's only the rude tripe that you agree with.

If I directed rudeness at another poster, I should be called out for it.  And so should you.  It wasn't at all clear if you were making fun of AOC, or me, or anyone who supports her.   My "liking" something is not an affirmative step to insult someone, although, I'll admit I've insulted Trump plenty of times, but I hope I've rarely if ever insulted another poster here.

 

But seriously, both-sides-ism is how you deflect?  And thanks for addressing the issues on the merits.   Big fan of an estate tax, then? Or do only the poor get what that deserve?

[MMMordabito]

 

So you must be a huge fan of a higher estate tax.

 

The notion that the market pays people according to how much they deserve or put another way their worth to society is an absurdity, an example of free market idealism that is divorced from reality.

 

I'm not going down the birth lottery hole .... This is always a foul that the have-nots cry.

 

 

[ashbury]

I'm not going down the birth lottery hole .... This is always a foul that the have-nots cry.

...and that the haves take for granted.