We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I think there is some truth to this. Sadly, I think it's all a game to them. New representatives get elected with good ideas/intentions, but are immediately "advised" that party comes before constituents, and that beating the other side is all that matters.

2. The system is terminally dysfunctional as a result of the influence of corporate money and corporate regulatory and legislative capture.

Democrats once believed that govt was a necessary check on corporate power. Now they seem to believe that govt should serve corporate interests first, but just make sure to give some charity to the people getting screwed as a result of the imbalance.

Modern Democrats seem to be fine with gross inequality as long as they're allowed to administer charity to those on the losing end. Yes, in the short term, this is better than Republican policies, which are cruel. But over the long term, it doesn't fix the problem. It only treats the symptoms.

GGG rightly notes that the Democrats support higher wages. That's true, and that's laudable. But you don't see them moving the ball on that issue at the national level, even when they're in charge. They don't dare even raise the prospect of doing what Seattle did across the country because their corporate benefactors would kill them if they did. Sure, maybe Booker and Warren and Bernie do it. But even they know, a bill to radically raise minimum wage will never happen, so demanding one is cheap and easy political points with the left, with little downside.

Term limits are the only cure. And the downsides to that fix are problematic for other reasons.

The agency problem in govt is simply not fixable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That neither party has truly transformative solutions that are necessary, and that Democratic solutions, while more inclusive, are just fiddling at the margins.

Half of the Democrats think things are basically OK and just need fiddling at the margins, and the other half think we need transformative solutions that they'll never have the votes to adopt.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

GGG rightly notes that the Democrats support higher wages. That's true, and that's laudable. But you don't see them moving the ball on that issue at the national level, even when they're in charge. They don't dare even raise the prospect of doing what Seattle did across the country because their corporate benefactors would kill them if they did. Sure, maybe Booker and Warren and Bernie do it. But even they know, a bill to radically raise minimum wage will never happen, so demanding one is cheap and easy political points with the left, with little downside.

Obama worked to have his lasting legacy be healthcare, which against a lot of bad faith obstruction was very difficult. That actually had a very substantial impact on real incomes for a large swath of people, and created a large number of good jobs dispersed across the country in healthcare.

My suspicion is the next Democrat trying to find a legacy is going to focus either on wages or education.

Dems won't get more than one big move per president unless they get a much larger portion of the house and senate than I think is possible in the next decade and a half.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Half of the Democrats think things are basically OK and just need fiddling at the margins, and the other half think we need transformative solutions that they'll never have the votes to adopt.

The second half, when asked to identify transformative solutions, generally can't come up with anything that isn't on the agenda of the first half; the differences are usually more about presentation than substance.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We seem to live in a world where people are more interested in arguing over whether reality is relevant rather than over what it is, and as long as that is the case, we are Wiemar.

Yup. And while you're throwing out truth, put knowledge in the garbage bin as well.

Remember when knowledge, literacy, was something worth pursuing for it's own sake? So you could be more interesting than an orthodontist talking about his investments at the local coffee klatch or cocktail party?

Yeah, well, the only knowledge worth having now is that which Can Be Monetized. Have you noticed almost all discussions of politics and world events inevitably turn into conversations about how to play them for investment or business advantage?

Junior isn't reading the classics to broaden his mind. He's reading them because he'll be tested on them at some point. He's reading them only as much as he needs to in order to get through the essay portion of the exam. And when he's done reading them, he's off to his Kaplan SAT course, to learn how to game the test so he can go to some college where he'll take adderall and obsess over getting from 3.5 to 3.7. Get credentialed, get the job, and then get on the hamster wheel. Feed that corporate Borg with labor so it can use its profits to grow its stranglehold around yours and everyone else's necks.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

2. The system is terminally dysfunctional as a result of the influence of corporate money and corporate regulatory and legislative capture.

Democrats once believed that govt was a necessary check on corporate power. Now they seem to believe that govt should serve corporate interests first, but just make sure to give some charity to the people getting screwed as a result of the imbalance.

Modern Democrats seem to be fine with gross inequality as long as they're allowed to administer charity to those on the losing end. Yes, in the short term, this is better than Republican policies, which are cruel. But over the long term, it doesn't fix the problem. It only treats the symptoms.

GGG rightly notes that the Democrats support higher wages. That's true, and that's laudable. But you don't see them moving the ball on that issue at the national level, even when they're in charge. They don't dare even raise the prospect of doing what Seattle did across the country because their corporate benefactors would kill them if they did. Sure, maybe Booker and Warren and Bernie do it. But even they know, a bill to radically raise minimum wage will never happen, so demanding one is cheap and easy political points with the left, with little downside.

Term limits are the only cure. And the downsides to that fix are problematic for other reasons.

The agency problem in govt is simply not fixable.

You're really not on top of the curve on these things, which are changing rapidly. For example, Minneapolis adopted a phased-in $15 minimum wage last year. St. Paul is considering one right now, and will probably adopt one. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the suburbs do too.

Which is to say Dems do not currently have the power to do anything nationally, and may not for awhile. But things are taking significant leftward turns locally where they do have the power to make change. The smart money should expect that to flow onto the national stage if Dems get the chance.

Watch the positions that Gillibrand is taking these days - Medicare for all, "jobs guarantee," etc. She's probably running for president, but to do it, she's moving to the left side of the party.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Helpful context, but do you think they believed that?

seriously?

The biggest fiction the R voters believe is that they are all smart and the D voters are either dumb, or of ill-intent.

The biggest fiction the D voters believe is that they are all smart and the R voters are either dumb, or of ill-intent. The average IQ of D voters is probably right close to the average IQ of R voters.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Obama worked to have his lasting legacy be healthcare, which against a lot of bad faith obstruction was very difficult. That actually had a very substantial impact on real incomes for a large swath of people, and created a large number of good jobs dispersed across the country in healthcare.

My suspicion is the next Democrat trying to find a legacy is going to focus either on wages or education.

Dems won't get more than one big move per president unless they get a much larger portion of the house and senate than I think is possible in the next decade and a half.

That's true. Obamacare was a Big Idea. And it did create a number of jobs. That was a very "old school Democrat" move on his part.

But he had to get the support of the insurance industry to get it done. He preferred single payer, but that debate had to be avoided. Couldn't fight the insurers. So, despite there being numerous good economic arguments for single payer (far more than for Obamacare), and everyone knowing we will eventually have single payer and so might as well get it done sooner rather than later, we have the half-step of Obamacare.

I get it. Politics is the art of the possible.

And I understand we can't just launch into bold things because of the law of unintended consequences. But the corporate strangleholds on both parties are so strong that even a master advocate like Obama understood he couldn't engage the debate we should have had:

"HC is taking too much out of the economy and not giving enough back. As a sector, it's too large, too inefficient, and it starves other sectors to our detriment. It's time consider a single payer system."

You might say Obamacare was an incremental step toward single payer, a trojan horse bringing "socialized medicine," as the right called it. Maybe that's true. Maybe that was brilliance on Obama's part. Maybe the public is too stupid to have the frank arguments put before it.

Or maybe we can't do anything on a reasonable time table in this country because sclerotic corporations spend ungodly sums of money to protect their revenue streams, inhibiting good policy and innovation in almost every area except tech.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

seriously?

The biggest fiction the R voters believe is that they are all smart and the D voters are either dumb, or of ill-intent.

The biggest fiction the D voters believe is that they are all smart and the R voters are either dumb, or of ill-intent. The average IQ of D voters is probably right close to the average IQ of R voters.

You were talking about the things that Dem politicians said. Things that were pretty obvious lies.

ETA: I realize that the predicate for "they" in my post was ambiguous. I meant do you think that the politicians who were promising to bring back manufacturing jobs believed they could do that. I do not. I think they knew what voters wanted to hear and were willing to say it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Dems won't get more than one big move per president unless they get a much larger portion of the house and senate than I think is possible in the next decade and a half.

This makes sense in a world in which a lot of centrist Democrats are worried about what moderates think. But are those days passing? Increasingly Democrats are not interested in compromise, because Republicans don't do it and so it's a one-way street. And there don't seem to be many moderate voters anymore. So it might not take as big a margin in either chamber than it would have in the past.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Have you noticed almost all discussions of politics and world events inevitably turn into conversations about how to play them for investment or business advantage?

Find some new friends.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But he had to get the support of the insurance industry to get it done. He preferred single payer, but that debate had to be avoided. Couldn't fight the insurers. So, despite there being numerous good economic arguments for single payer (far more than for Obamacare), and everyone knowing we will eventually have single payer and so might as well get it done sooner rather than later, we have the half-step of Obamacare.

Actually, the plan was to include a public option, which could be used to demonstrate the efficacy of government-provided insurance (for people not eligible for Medicare). Joe Lieberman, being the marginal required vote, said no.

Was it the insurers that made him do it? Dunno.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You were talking about the things that Dem politicians said. Things that were pretty obvious lies.

Umm, well obvious lies might not be obvious to the dumb and hopeful. Just like "i'm going to return coal to the top" requires dumb + hopeful to believe. I can't say how many Dem voters believe the particular promise, but it has been the lead promise here for decades. If no dem voters believe it, wouldn't there be some feedback from media consultants?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's true. Obamacare was a Big Idea. And it did create a number of jobs. That was a very "old school Democrat" move on his part.

But he had to get the support of the insurance industry to get it done. He preferred single payer, but that debate had to be avoided. Couldn't fight the insurers. So, despite there being numerous good economic arguments for single payer (far more than for Obamacare), and everyone knowing we will eventually have single payer and so might as well get it done sooner rather than later, we have the half-step of Obamacare.

I get it. Politics is the art of the possible.

And I understand we can't just launch into bold things because of the law of unintended consequences. But the corporate strangleholds on both parties are so strong that even a master advocate like Obama understood he couldn't engage the debate we should have had:

"HC is taking too much out of the economy and not giving enough back. As a sector, it's too large, too inefficient, and it starves other sectors to our detriment. It's time consider a single payer system."

You might say Obamacare was an incremental step toward single payer, a trojan horse bringing "socialized medicine," as the right called it. Maybe that's true. Maybe that was brilliance on Obama's part. Maybe the public is too stupid to have the frank arguments put before it.

Or maybe we can't do anything on a reasonable time table in this country because sclerotic corporations spend ungodly sums of money to protect their revenue streams, inhibiting good policy and innovation in almost every area except tech.

The biggest weakness with the ACA is that Republicans hate it for political reasons. Even so, we have a GOP controlled government that hasn't been able to kill it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

You're really not on top of the curve on these things, which are changing rapidly. For example, Minneapolis adopted a phased-in $15 minimum wage last year. St. Paul is considering one right now, and will probably adopt one. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the suburbs do too.

Which is to say Dems do not currently have the power to do anything nationally, and may not for awhile. But things are taking significant leftward turns locally where they do have the power to make change. The smart money should expect that to flow onto the national stage if Dems get the chance.

Watch the positions that Gillibrand is taking these days - Medicare for all, "jobs guarantee," etc. She's probably running for president, but to do it, she's moving to the left side of the party.

I wish I could find the article, but a few years ago, I read something compelling about the cities across the country picking up where the dysfunctional state and federal governments could not. And in Texas at least, there's been some state backlash on that with the state reacting poorly to local efforts to reduce fracking, or impose plastic bag bans, or put restrictions on car sharing services.