Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
I've definitely said that in various ways at various points in the past, though it's very possible you never were around to see that. I think the same applies to the majority of the Sanders wing of the party; we're already more or less in agreement on social issues (with some unfortunate exceptions), the point of contention is economic, thus these debates are more often than not dominated by economic issues, or issues about how best to implement a progressive agenda in practice.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:26:20 PM by CaptainCapsase
re: Mad Skillz back in this post
:
You didn't actually address my point at all. My point is that if Obama (or Clinton, or whoever else) is in the pockets of monied interests, then you should be able to point out evidence of such. Quoting Aristotle and the Founding Fathers doesn't prove anything. "It's true because smart people said it" is not a valid argument. You're making specific claims about specific people. If you want them to be taken seriously, you have to offer specific evidence that supports those specific claims.
According to you, Obama is a tool of Wall Street. The only real support you've offered for this conclusion is that Dodd-Frank didn't go far enough. But Wall Street hated Dodd-Frank. If Obama was in their pocket, why did he push it at all? What you've been doing isn't presenting evidence and using it to support a conclusion (eg "Obama did these things that banks liked but were bad for everyone else, therefore he's governing on behalf of the banks, not the people"), it's assuming a conclusion and then explaining actions based on that assumption (eg, "Obama is a Wall Street shill, that's why Dodd-Frank wasn't strong enough").
This is thoroughly unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Here's a bit about continuing resolutions, since that is most likely to happen Friday
And here's information for a Virginia State House for district 13.
http://elections.flippable.org/elections?id=SVAH013
Because Trump is the world's biggest snowflake to ever live
edited 26th Apr '17 5:34:06 PM by megaeliz
No, no, I'm with Captain here.
Economic justice is just significantly lagging behind social justice 'causing a significant chunk of problems that is leading to an implosion.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:33:08 PM by MadSkillz
Trump's "VOICE" hotline is allegedly being overloaded with calls about... space aliens
.
Trump actually has his finger on the big red button. (His coke button that is)
"With the push of a red button placed on the Resolute Desk that presidents have used for decades, a White House butler soon arrived with a Coke for the president."
![]()
If it was being handled via the Internet, that's precisely what I'd expect to happen on a hotline about "illegal aliens".
Is there a more authoritative source on this than a twitter post btw? It's funny and plausible sounding, but not necessarily true just because it's the Trump administration.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:46:11 PM by CaptainCapsase
I don't think Obama was a Wall Street tool, though I was disappointed by his anemic foreign policy. Hillary wasn't really one either, though she was usually well toward the center
compared to Sanders on most economic issues, though there are some exceptions. Sanders was more willing than Clinton to tax the middle class
, for example. Sander's approach to wealth disparity was more aggressive
than Clinton's.
In terms of political ideology, this article
is interesting: "...On economic policy, contemporary establishment democrats have more in common with contemporary republicans than they do with the FDR/LBJ democrats. Carter and Clinton took the party away from economic progressives. The Democratic Party, which was once the party that saw economic inequality and poverty as the core causes of economic instability, now sees inequality and poverty as largely irrelevant.
Instead of eliminating inequality and poverty to fuel the capitalist system and produce strong economic growth, establishment democrats now largely agree with establishment republicans that the problem is a lack of support for business investment.
So Bernie Sanders is not merely running to attempt to implement a set of idealistic policies that a Republican-controlled Congress is likely to block. He is running to take the Democratic Party back from an establishment that ignores the fundamental systemic economic problems that lead to wage stagnation and economic crisis."
To be clear, none of this is an excuse to throw minorities or women under the bus. But there has to be a way to reconcile white and marginalized economic interests, or we are all doomed.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:46:56 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.![]()
There's at least one person pushing for it
. In hindsight, what counts as overloading a hotline anyway?
If there's some way of stimulating the economy without encouraging businesses to invest, you might as well post it now.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:50:21 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
The state can (and frequently does in fact) invest directly when businesses are unwilling or unable due to unfeasibly high startup costs or various other reasons why the free market may fail to produce satisfactory results. State investment and subsidies are critical in several sectors of the economy, and more or less were the driving force behind many major technological innovation of the past century, from the microprocessor and the internet to wireless communications and space travel.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:02:40 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Mad: Ok. But addressing the economic issues can't cut the business interests out entirely. This is not just a consequence of money influence, businesses and the people running them have some actual rights too and like it or not they are entitled to advocate for their interests, however much weight you think that advocacy ought to hold. If you and left-leaning politicians constantly assume bad faith of them—and I will say it sounds like you do, at least most of the time—they aren't going to be willing to negotiate. If you play too much hardball with them they will pick up their ball and go wherever is less hostile to them...or fund your political opponents.
A lot of politics is ultimately about incentives. It is not a zero sum game where if business wins, we lose. I think a lot of the economic Left's time would be better spent if they could make the argument to business why they should play ball with us (and there are supposedly people in Wall Street now arguing that economic inequality is getting bad enough that if they don't cede some advantage the instability will be painful for everyone.)
Because of who the reputation is and who is out to hurt your reputation/protect it. Obama and the Dems have to take the high road because even now we're dealing with an incredibly pro-Trump media, we have to not only do nothing wrong but also not give the impression that we even thought about doing anything wrong.
It's sucks, it's not fair, it's wrong and dirty, but it's also reality at the moment.
Because he's not an idiot and wanted to compromise, he wanted to work out a deal to rebuild the reputation of the banks, real them in slightly but also work with them to benefit them. He doesn't have to be in their pockets for that, he just has to care about them and want to help them.
Obama wanted to help Wall Street and the American public, he wasn't willing to make a serious blow against Wall Street so as to reign them in permanently, because he believes in compromise and working out a solution that benefit some both parties, even if one party is the only one that's done something wrong.
It's not that Obama was for the banks (by the banks I specifically mean the ones that caused the crash and their upper management and investors) and against the people, he was for both, for a compromise and a solution that helps both a little. Not everyone is okay with, not everyone thinks thinks after a person does something horrible they should simply be tidied up and helped out, some people belive that rehabilitation and justice require some form of punishment to teach a lesson.
Not everyone is okay with compramise when one side is right and the other is wrong, when one side has hurt people and the other has been hurt.
Direct state investment. Be it via government controlled companies, state spending on infestructure, state spending on technological research, providing money directly to people in society who lack it (increasing entitlements), or strait up printing money and handing it out. The government controls the supply of money, it can invest in the American people just as well as any company can.
That's a slogan for you guys.
[name] 2020 Investing in the American people/investing in tomorrow.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:00:20 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm pointing out the intent behind our government. A lot of evidence you'll find online factors down to because smart people that I trust said it which goes into your first point.
I mean how do you know an economist working for a right wing think tank isn't making shit up when he says something (especially if you're not an economist). I mean people could look at who is funding him. They see something like Heritage Foundation and then they write him off because they know he's compromised because Heritage Foundation has an agenda.
That's how you should view politicians because of the way our system works. They are all to some degree compromised because they are being funded by corporations with agendas. Always look at who finances their campaigns and then look at the bills they push and write and the rhetoric they use.
I have frequently pounded on the theme that Obama's campaign set records for Wall Street funding money. Wall Street wanted Obama to win over Mc Cain. Again, Wall Street has an agenda.
Do you remember the Occupy Wall Street Movement? That was partially fueled by Obama's actions. Like appointing some people responsible for the financial crisis into his government.
Do I think that Obama was Wall Street's sock puppet? No. But I think they had way too much influence.
Here's a link with some evidence.
Dodd-Frank is an under-written bill that has the finger prints of bank lobbyists over it. Not only that but it actually concentrated more power in the hands of Wall Street than before.
The biggest banks only owned 9 % of Wall Street before Dodd-Frank. Now they own 44 %.
Yeah, there are good and even great regulations in there but those are being chipped away year by year. The ones they don't like anyway.
But anyways, Dodd-Frank is why they pushed for Romney in 2012.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:04:21 PM by MadSkillz
For a lobbyist, what they say and what they do are pretty much inseparable. It is literally their job to say what their employers want. A politician is supposed to consider all of the interests involved. They do have to listen to the moneyed lobbyist but they're also supposed to listen to everyone else What they do is write laws and vote on them. Want to know how bought they are? Look at their voting record. And I would put that in 20 point font and underlined if I could. This is the point many of the economic centrists here want the economic leftists here to acknowledge. There is correlation between the two but it is not a complete 1:1 correlation.
Now, there is a legitimate complaint to be made here: money buys lobbyists. It is simply much easier to get your voice heard in Washington if you have money because you can hire people to do it full time. I don't have an answer to the problem but for the people who care about it it seems worth looking at.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:15:53 PM by Elle
For support of the idea that the US governance system is largely in the hands of a pro-corporate lobby, see see here
, and here
, and here
.
Frankly, the idea that anyone could challenge the idea that corporate lobbyists have a significant and disproportional influence in Washington strikes me as rather counter-intuitive.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:21:15 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.![]()
MadSkillz was arguing earlier that this isn't a problem with the people in government as much as it is a systemic and pervasive problem. You can't win without corporate money, which comes with certain strings attached, and the problem tends to become worse with time.
The only way to stop the funding arms race is to either enact some comprehensive reform in regards to campaign funding, or to prove the viability of alternative model of fundraising that is less dependent on large corporate donors. Had Sanders won the primaries and gone on to win the presidency relying exclusively on what essentially amounted to crowdfunding, that could have been groundbreaking in that regards, which is one of the reasons I was disappointing with the outcome of the primaries.
It certainly would've encouraged other politicians to explore the viability of alternate funding strategies.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:31:56 PM by CaptainCapsase
Some of the blow-back is "you're saying bad things about a politician I like", admittedly. Also, "we need every ally we can get to get out of our current mess and progressive purity tests will only divide us and bring about the Tea Party of the Left." (which I agree with).
I'm mostly arguing that it's counterproductive to push against business interests indiscriminately and that money is not the root of all evil. I think that unrestrained anti-business rhetoric is even a little dangerous. It seeks to assign blame and by extension, punishment, without allowing for the idea that some of that corporate power can be used for good.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:31:44 PM by Elle
It's merely one form of evidence, useful for generating questions, but not definitive in itself. The other problem is that voting records aren't much better. As one of the authors I reviewed pointed out, corruption takes many forms, and often its in the bills not proposed, the phone calls not taken, the constituents who are not represented. In other words, corruption is often a passive lack of support for under-privileged constituencies, not an obvious and explicit support of elite interests. That's hard to measure on a case by case basis, but the end result is all around us.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:30:56 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.@Snake The first thing you have to ask yourself is what was Wall Street's agenda for funding Obama? I mean I think it's obviously it's to buy influence.
Did they succeed? I say yes, you seem to think no.
Besides I call anyone that received the most Wall Street money during a campaign as Wall Street's candidate. I've said the same things about Hillary and Mitt.
I'm mostly arguing in the macrosense. It's systemic corruption.
Anyways I put some evidence down here.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:37:27 PM by MadSkillz
@De Marquis
Which says nothing about which politicians, if any, are actually on the payroll. Mad Skillz has been trying to claim that Obama was controlled by Wall Street, but has offered exactly zero evidence to back up that assertion.
Yet somehow, candidates that s/he likes aren't being held to the same scrutiny. Seriously, if Sanders or Warren or pick your progressive idol were placed under a microscope in the way that their fans place Clinton and Obama under a microscope you'd find just as much stuff to be "outraged" about. In Sanders' case, some of it might even be true, given his history of paying his family members off of his campaigns, Jane sitting on the board of the group that would have profited off his nuclear waste dump, the FEC charging him with numerous violations, and his refusal to release his taxes.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:37:39 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@Ambar Well someone already mentioned Sanders and Lockheed. The thing is that I'm not defending Sanders. Go ahead. Attack him. I could even agree with you.
People are defending Obama though so that leads to pages of discussion about it.
Also look at the link I posted above your post.
edited 26th Apr '17 6:41:13 PM by MadSkillz

Captain post 184957/961 just summed it up for me.
@Dingo: From your article:
"...The new idea that has won praise from members of the House Freedom Caucus involves allowing states to let insurers ignore essential health benefits guaranteed under Obamacare, as well as protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions.
Most Republicans in the Senate have said they want to keep Obamacare’s popular pre-existing condition rules. But perhaps more importantly, a half-dozen moderates were already on record opposing the earlier, less-extreme repeal bill that failed to get a vote in the House.
One key concern of theirs was cuts to Obamacare’s expanded Medicaid payments that have helped millions of Americans get health insurance."
It's crystal clear by this point that the conservatives can't win this fight. It's just political theater now.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:25:47 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.