Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Here come the millennial socialists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/opinion/democratic-socialists-progressive-democratic-party-trump.html

  Reveal hidden contents
Edited by Anastasis
Posted

I'm not surprised that socialism is losing its stigma in America, after 8 years of the right associating the term with everything Obama did.  It really seems to have taken the edge off, the more people look back fondly on his presidency. 

  • Like 2
Posted

Don't see how creating less losers in the United States could be a bad thing.

http://fortune.com/2018/06/04/trump-policies-u-n-report-u-s-poverty/

 

UN Report on US poverty:

40 million Americans live in poverty; 18.5 million live in extreme poverty; and 5.3 million Americans live in “Third World conditions of absolute poverty.”

In 2016, 18 per cent of children (13.3 million) were living in poverty, and children comprised 32.6 per cent of all people in poverty.

On a given night in 2017, about 21 per cent (or 114,829) of homeless individuals were children.

In terms of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states, the U.S. has the highest youth poverty rate and the highest infant mortality rate.

The report also focuses on the consolidation of wealth in the U.S.:

“The share of the top 1% of the population in the United States has grown steadily in recent years. In 2016 they owned 38.6 per cent of total wealth.”

Overall, the report highlights how Americans view wealth and poverty through the lens of the American dream — with hard work, anyone can succeed — and worries that it’s not a reality.

“High child and youth poverty rates perpetuate the intergenerational transmission of poverty very effectively, and ensure that the American dream is rapidly becoming the American illusion,” the report states. “The equality of opportunity, which is so prized in theory, is in practice a myth, especially for minorities and women, but also for many middle-class White workers.”

Posted

If Republicans really love capitalism vs. socialism, they need to make sure capitalism wins for everyone.  The genius of FDR is that he saved capitalism by bringing in some socialistic programs.  You can't have a democracy where everyone is poor except for the extremely rich.  

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 2:41 AM, Dropout said:

Damn right millennial socialism is coming

Expand  

Yeah, this.  

 

They've been told capitalism is great but they have huge student loan bills and mediocre job prospects.  You can argue the details all you want but that's how they see it.  Boomer Steve had a high school diploma but still had a solid life so of course he thinks capitalism is great.  Never mind that Steve benefited from socialistic things like public education, high marginal tax rates, and massive government infrastructure programs.

  • Like 6
Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 2:51 AM, Aqua Buddha said:

Yeah, this.  

 

They've been told capitalism is great but they have huge student loan bills and mediocre job prospects.  You can argue the details all you want but that's how they see it.  Boomer Steve had a high school diploma but still had a solid life so of course he thinks capitalism is great.  Never mind that Steve benefited from socialistic things like public education, high marginal tax rates, and massive government infrastructure programs.

Expand  

Never, ever, ever bring up history.

Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 2:51 AM, Aqua Buddha said:

Yeah, this.  

 

They've been told capitalism is great but they have huge student loan bills and mediocre job prospects.  You can argue the details all you want but that's how they see it.  Boomer Steve had a high school diploma but still had a solid life so of course he thinks capitalism is great.  Never mind that Steve benefited from socialistic things like public education, high marginal tax rates, and massive government infrastructure programs.

Expand  

Don't forget healthcare. It's been my view for some time that the agent for socialism is going to be frustration with how healthcare is handled in the US. Millennials are still young, but they have older family members, and can recognize that at this rate healthcare will be a huge crisis once they age. 

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 2:51 AM, Aqua Buddha said:

Yeah, this.  

 

They've been told capitalism is great but they have huge student loan bills and mediocre job prospects.  You can argue the details all you want but that's how they see it.  Boomer Steve had a high school diploma but still had a solid life so of course he thinks capitalism is great.  Never mind that Steve benefited from socialistic things like public education, high marginal tax rates, and massive government infrastructure programs.

Expand  

The high dollar student loans complaint never really resonated with me. If you make a rational decision as to where to go to school and for what kind of degree in order to pursue a certain profession then the amount of student loans and job prospects is not a reflection of capitalism, but a result  of the career you choose.

If people are mad that college is expensive then I agree. It should only be for those who a) can afford it before they attend or b) students that are pursuing a degree that will result in a job after getting a degree that can pay off those student loans. Graduates should not be mad that they chose a degree with no job prospects, rack up mammoth student loans, and then extra expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Personally I would rather us focus on improving and making trade schools more prevalent for those that can’t or shouldn’t attend University.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 1:50 AM, Mojo Hand said:
I'm not surprised that socialism is losing its stigma in America, after 8 years of the right associating the term with everything Obama did.  It really seems to have taken the edge off, the more people look back fondly on his presidency. 
Agreed. The right-wing media has probably inadvertently promoted socialism through its monotonous histrioncs whenever discussing the issue. Paying for healthcare and higher education through progressive taxation sounds less and less scary when it becomes increasingly evident the right is void of alternatives. In their purest states, both capitalism and socialism consume and destroy themselves. By being hell-bent on opposing even a little socialism in the capitalist gene pool, the right has endangered the very thing it wants to protect.
Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 12:04 PM, Enchubben said:

The high dollar student loans complaint never really resonated with me. If you make a rational decision as to where to go to school and for what kind of degree in order to pursue a certain profession then the amount of student loans and job prospects is not a reflection of capitalism, but a result  of the career you choose.

Expand  

You're talking about 17 and 18 year olds.. making a rational decision when deciding what school, what degree and what future career.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Some of them might be capable of that, but that's also a big ask for a senior in college. Decide what future career you want, when you haven't really explored what it takes to get there. There's a lot of blame to hand out in this one, it aint just the student but the parents, colleges, guidance office, student loan providers, etc.

  • Like 4
Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 12:04 PM, Enchubben said:

The high dollar student loans complaint never really resonated with me. If you make a rational decision as to where to go to school and for what kind of degree in order to pursue a certain profession then the amount of student loans and job prospects is not a reflection of capitalism, but a result  of the career you choose.

If people are mad that college is expensive then I agree. It should only be for those who a) can afford it before they attend or b) students that are pursuing a degree that will result in a job after getting a degree that can pay off those student loans. Graduates should not be mad that they chose a degree with no job prospects, rack up mammoth student loans, and then extra expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Personally I would rather us focus on improving and making trade schools more prevalent for those that can’t or shouldn’t attend University.

Expand  

The issues with what you're proposing is that only the rich could afford college. Grants help a lot of students from lower SES as well as minorities get a chance at college. Not all of them graduate, but making higher education more attainable is necessary if you want people to have some mobility. If you limited college to only those who could afford to pay for it before beginning, you're narrowing the pool by an immense factor.

As for your second point, I'd argue that you're asking 17-18 year olds to make a prediction on the job market 4-8 years in advance for whatever degree they end up getting. Graduates have a right to be upset if they work towards a degree only to have it not be used like they imagined, or have the job market become extremely tight. Frankly, getting a good paying job as a young graduate is becoming increasingly difficult. 

I'd agree with a focus on trade schools, but I think more students should be pushed towards community colleges as they aren't as expensive to attend so they can lessen the burden for the future. 

Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 12:04 PM, Enchubben said:

The high dollar student loans complaint never really resonated with me. If you make a rational decision as to where to go to school and for what kind of degree in order to pursue a certain profession then the amount of student loans and job prospects is not a reflection of capitalism, but a result  of the career you choose.

If people are mad that college is expensive then I agree. It should only be for those who a) can afford it before they attend or b) students that are pursuing a degree that will result in a job after getting a degree that can pay off those student loans. Graduates should not be mad that they chose a degree with no job prospects, rack up mammoth student loans, and then extra expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Personally I would rather us focus on improving and making trade schools more prevalent for those that can’t or shouldn’t attend University.

Expand  

1234

I attended a wedding a few weeks ago and was seated with fairly recent graduates (3-4 years post). I was surprised by their frustration at the job market and opportunities as most went to good to great schools (e.g. Berkeley, UC systems) and had quality degrees (e.g. economics, engineering). They all attended coding bootcamp and now are programmers in the bay area. They had to pay for coding bootcamp after graduating from a quality university with a respectable degree. While the job is way better and pay decent, it is ridiculous to blame the youth as the decent pay jobs are few and far between at the lower level.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 7:34 PM, relapse98 said:

You're talking about 17 and 18 year olds.. making a rational decision when deciding what school, what degree and what future career.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Some of them might be capable of that, but that's also a big ask for a senior in college. Decide what future career you want, when you haven't really explored what it takes to get there. There's a lot of blame to hand out in this one, it aint just the student but the parents, colleges, guidance office, student loan providers, etc.

Expand  

Can't say I disagree with anything you posted here - plenty of blame to go around; not just the students. I also don't think that means we need to crowdfund bad choices or experimentation in college degree programs with tax dollars because a bunch of recent graduates are upset with student loans and think post secondary education should be free or a burden on the collective. 

Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 7:49 PM, Skyline said:

The issues with what you're proposing is that only the rich could afford college. Grants help a lot of students from lower SES as well as minorities get a chance at college. Not all of them graduate, but making higher education more attainable is necessary if you want people to have some mobility. If you limited college to only those who could afford to pay for it before beginning, you're narrowing the pool by an immense factor.

As for your second point, I'd argue that you're asking 17-18 year olds to make a prediction on the job market 4-8 years in advance for whatever degree they end up getting. Graduates have a right to be upset if they work towards a degree only to have it not be used like they imagined, or have the job market become extremely tight. Frankly, getting a good paying job as a young graduate is becoming increasingly difficult. 

I'd agree with a focus on trade schools, but I think more students should be pushed towards community colleges as they aren't as expensive to attend so they can lessen the burden for the future. 

Expand  

Probably should start a whole new thread on education costs etc since this has little to do with an election., but I disagree with the second part there. If they chose a degree plan that doesn't result in the career they imagined upon graduation, or have trouble getting a job with that degree at all, they must have chosen their degree poorly, or performed poorly while at university. That is on the student, and yes maybe their parents, guidance counselors etc. Yes, sometimes a cyclical downturn in the economy or a particular industry may be at fault at the particular time of graduation, but that impact isn't solely felt by recent graduates - that's all workers.  

In regards to the high paying - I find that a lot of recent graduates these days, at least from the major Texas public universities my firm recruits at, expect to make salary commensurate with mid level management right out of school and to live a lifestyle closer to their parents at the end of their careers rather than their peers. These lifestyle expectations and choices often make student loan repayment a distant priority and thus the burden of never ending student loan repayment and outrage about the cost of university.  

The students that mike educated decisions on their degree plan and career path, and make sound financial decisions both during college and thereafter shouldn't be punished with the burden of those that make unwise decisions. 

Posted

Micro solutions are great for micro problems. And people can address mostly any of their problems as micro problems. But societally we have to look at macro problems and those require macro solutions.

  • Like 1
Posted

Eventually the solution to the wealth inequality problem will be make the wealthy very unhappy.  If they were smart, they would embrace small changes now in the hopes of preventing the massive wealth confiscation that will eventually occur.   Wealth just won’t be more even on its own.  And the wealthy might be able to contribute enough political donations to hold it off but they won’t be able to stop it once the lower and middle class start to account for 90-95% of the population.  At that point, even the gop will have to adopt socialist policies to stay relevant.

  • Like 1
Posted

It would seem to me that today's liberal is most concerned with what government can give them.  Today's conservative is most concerned with what government can take from them.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
  On 7/9/2018 at 7:49 PM, Skyline said:

The issues with what you're proposing is that only the rich could afford college. Grants help a lot of students from lower SES as well as minorities get a chance at college. Not all of them graduate, but making higher education more attainable is necessary if you want people to have some mobility. If you limited college to only those who could afford to pay for it before beginning, you're narrowing the pool by an immense factor.

As for your second point, I'd argue that you're asking 17-18 year olds to make a prediction on the job market 4-8 years in advance for whatever degree they end up getting. Graduates have a right to be upset if they work towards a degree only to have it not be used like they imagined, or have the job market become extremely tight. Frankly, getting a good paying job as a young graduate is becoming increasingly difficult. 

I'd agree with a focus on trade schools, but I think more students should be pushed towards community colleges as they aren't as expensive to attend so they can lessen the burden for the future. 

Expand  

A liberal arts education still provides a good platform for future earning.  Student loans force the focus on entry level jobs.  In reality, entry level jobs are always going to suck unless they require specific technical skillsets.  The real problem with student loans is that they don't allow graduates much time to move past entry level.  Instead, they are forced to let their loans capitalize interest which snowballs to a point where it will never be affordable.  So they can work through the entry level job and default on the loans, or they can forgo a job with a career track and do something like tend bar which will forever cap their earning potential at slightly better than white collar entry level.  While grants and state funding would certainly be helpful, a 5 or 10 year interest free grace period would perhaps be more helpful.  

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 5:45 PM, EMAWesome said:

It would seem to me that today's liberal is most concerned with what government can give them.  Today's conservative is most concerned with what government can take from them.

Expand  

Today's conservative is just as concerned with what the government can give them. Conservatives love big government as long as it's spending money on them.

Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 5:55 PM, David Dennison said:

Today's conservative is just as concerned with what the government can give them. Conservatives love big government as long as it's spending money on them.

Expand  

Prime examples are corporate welfare and subsidies. Speaking of which I’ve seen some of the conservative farmers starting to ask for more subsidies to offset their losses due to the new foreign tariffs. 

Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 5:45 PM, EMAWesome said:
It would seem to me that today's liberal is most concerned with what government can give them.  Today's conservative is most concerned with what government can take from them.

And folks, there are millions of folks simple-minded enough to believe this.

Kind of like how Emory told us for years that the GOP was going to save us from the looming deficit...and instead, they’ve accelerated it. Up is down, every accusation is a confession.
Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 5:55 PM, David Dennison said:

Today's conservative is just as concerned with what the government can give them. Conservatives love big government as long as it's spending money on them.

Expand  

No doubt.  

 

I’ll share this with the caveat that 2016 showed polling is flawed and that I think Dems will outperform polls in midterms. 

https://www.axios.com/poll-democrats-2018-midterms-senate-5eb4075f-4325-46aa-bda5-699b814d9dd7.html

Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 6:35 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

This is just amazing. 

 

Expand  

He's sort of right. Today's "conservative" is worried about government taking away their subsidies, taking away their tax breaks, taking away their ability to make private behaviors illegal. There's a lot to consider.

Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 6:30 PM, GRHorn said:

No doubt.  

 

I’ll share this with the caveat that 2016 showed polling is flawed and that I think Dems will outperform polls in midterms. 

https://www.axios.com/poll-democrats-2018-midterms-senate-5eb4075f-4325-46aa-bda5-699b814d9dd7.html

Expand  

So they are using SurveyMonkey.  Where have I heard of that company...oh yeah.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/surveymonkey-shows-hillary-clinton-likely-victor-2016-election-democrat-advantages-across-battlegrounds-final-hours/

  Quote

SurveyMonkey Shows Hillary Clinton as Likely Victor for 2016 Election, the Democrat Has Advantages Across All Battlegrounds in Final Hours

Unprecedented Polling Effort Across 97 Races Shows Democrats Also Poised to Take Senate

Palo Alto, California, November 7, 2016 — Today, SurveyMonkey, the world’s leading online survey platform, released final polling estimates for the 2016 presidential, U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections. Just ahead of tomorrow’s election, SurveyMonkey and NBC News showed Hillary Clinton with a clear and consistent national lead, beating Donald Trump 47 to 41 percent, with 6 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 3 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

“Our polls have shown Clinton’s lead in the national popular vote to be remarkably stable despite the many apparent twists and turns in the campaign,” said Jon Cohen, SurveyMonkey’s Chief Research Officer. “All fall, Clinton has maintained a lead over Trump, with her margin hovering in a narrow band between 4 and 6 percentage points.”

Expand  

Which proves your point.  

Although I think Axios is playing up clickbait as well.

Posted

Every poll that I read shows an extremely narrow path, if any, for the Dems to take the Senate.   Too many incumbent Dems are running this election cycle.  That flips in 2020.   2020 will be the interesting election.  I imagine we will see record turnouts.

Posted (edited)
  On 7/10/2018 at 6:45 PM, atomheartbevo said:

So they are using SurveyMonkey.  Where have I heard of that company...oh yeah.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/surveymonkey-shows-hillary-clinton-likely-victor-2016-election-democrat-advantages-across-battlegrounds-final-hours/

Which proves your point.  

Although I think Axios is playing up clickbait as well.

Expand  

Axios was tweeting it as a BOMBSHELL!

First off, they get a D- by 538. Terrible. Remember when they showed Hillary only down by 2 in Mississippi? LOL. An entire month of polling? We've already gone through 69 major political bombshells in the past month.

Secondly, a net loss of 1 seat by the Dems in 2018 Senate would be EXCEEDING expectations. Picking off 2 R-held seats and only losing 3 of the 6 vulnerable seats (MO, ND, IN, FL, WV, MT) with all 3 of the "losses" within the MOE.  Also, these same BOMBSHELL numbers also show them doing exceedingly better in most matchups than they did in the spring polls:

March -> July

Tester losing by 13 to generic R --> Tester +8
Manchin losing by 9 to generic R --> Manchin +13
McCaskill losing by 8 to Hawley --> McCaskill +2
Donnelly losing by 6 to generic R --> Donnelly -2
Baldwin leading generic R by 3 --> Baldwin +13-16
Stabenow leading generic R by 4 --> Stabenow +12
Brown leading Renacci by 5 --> Brown + 8
Casey leading Barletta by 9 --> Casey + 14

The only matchups that got worse were Heitkamp (-2 to -5), Nelson (+10 to -3 but this has been the swingiest Senate polling all cycle) and Bredesen (+1 in April, now -14 but this looks wrong compared to what's been released).  Still has Sinema and Rosen leading in AZ and NV.

Edited by Js1
  • Like 1
Posted

The map for both the House and Senate are bad for the Dems, but the Senate map is atrocious. It's going to take a blue wave to retake the House, but would take a blue tsunami to retake the Senate. Anyone setting that as the expectation is likely to be disappointed. I hope it happens, but it's really unlikely. 

Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 7:30 PM, Pods said:

The map for both the House and Senate are bad for the Dems, but the Senate map is atrocious. It's going to take a blue wave to retake the House, but would take a blue tsunami to retake the Senate. Anyone setting that as the expectation is likely to be disappointed. I hope it happens, but it's really unlikely. 

Expand  

Like I said, if the Dems. somehow picked off 2 and only lost 3 of their own, that would be very much exceeding expectations.

Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 7:31 PM, Js1 said:

Like I said, if the Dems. somehow picked off 2 and only lost 3 of their own, that would be very much exceeding expectations.

Expand  

Completely agree. That would be a major victory. 

 

Posted

I don't think SurveyMonkey tries to be a scientific poll - like with respect to managing demographics and such.  Could be wrong, but it's a feedback marketing company first.

Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 10:03 PM, JBJ said:

I don't think SurveyMonkey tries to be a scientific poll - like with respect to managing demographics and such.  Could be wrong, but it's a feedback marketing company first.

Expand  

This. It’s not a great polling company. I think anyone can sign up and they ask you age, race, etc. Seems unscientific and totally prone to manipulation. 

 

Posted

Axios has he scoop on the upcoming Larry Saboto Crystal Ball showing where voter registration is stacking up.  In the 31 states where you register by party, 19 have more Ds registered, 12 have more Rs.

 

By my count, that number includes more Ds than Rs in 6 states won by Trump, and more Rs than Ds in only one state won by Hillary, New Hampshire.  If we were looking at a presidential election, those 7 states would represent a swing toward the democrats of 81 electoral votes.

 

https://www.axios.com/democrats-crush-republican-party-registration-2018-midterms-872f7ad2-7a3b-4f7c-97b0-8070448e2df4.html

 

 

Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 7:30 PM, Pods said:

The map for both the House and Senate are bad for the Dems, but the Senate map is atrocious. It's going to take a blue wave to retake the House, but would take a blue tsunami to retake the Senate. Anyone setting that as the expectation is likely to be disappointed. I hope it happens, but it's really unlikely. 

Expand  

The House is going to be a bloodbath. The Republicans are going to get slaughtered.

Posted
  On 7/10/2018 at 10:55 PM, Skyline said:

DhxoalqXkAA8ZEe.jpg:large

 

 

Expand  

It's funny--I was coming to post about that before I even say Silver's tweets.  Those two lines have been diverging with some consistency for weeks--going back to mid-May.  

And to Nate's point--it coincides with a news-y period (including news on North Korea that most pundits thought was favorable to the Republicans).  And this is supposed to be a non-newsy period.  The middle of summer is when it's supposed to be quiet in DC.  If there's this much going on now, it's going to be even more intense in October.



×
×
  • Create New...