Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

if joe biden wins the nomination, there will be a lot of sanders people blaming warren and warren people blaming sanders.  those two are pals, but i guarantee you their supporters will be doing a lot of bitching and finger-pointing if shit goes down that way.  you can't stop what's coming.

And this is where we, Republican shit libs swoop in, and welcome them in to our warm, loving, sponsored by Wal-Mart centrist embrace. 

It's working.

Who wants to talk about drug testing for welfare recipients?

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6655

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

if joe biden wins the nomination, there will be a lot of sanders people blaming warren and warren people blaming sanders.  those two are pals, but i guarantee you their supporters will be doing a lot of bitching and finger-pointing if shit goes down that way.  you can't stop what's coming.

It will be the candidates' fault for not offering enough differentiation from one another. Warren could have had the nomination had she found some middle ground on healthcare and courted some moderates. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86949

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

It will be the candidates' fault for not offering enough differentiation from one another. Warren could have had the nomination had she found some middle ground on healthcare and courted some moderates. 

Right? Liz could have carved out her own space if not for IM WITH BERNIE. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29223

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I'm blaming the Klobs and Bookers and Castro's and Harris' for not simply out-moderating Biden very early on.  I think that is what created this weird three way race with everyone in single digits and only Butt making a move. Just weird.

nobody - of the moderates or progressives - seems to be going after biden.  seriously, has anyone since kamala's little puppet show in the first debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 6th Street said:

It will be the candidates' fault for not offering enough differentiation from one another. Warren could have had the nomination had she found some middle ground on healthcare and courted some moderates. 

That’s precisely what Warren did with her two-step approach and it blew up in her face. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Fozzz said:

That’s precisely what Warren did with her two-step approach and it blew up in her face. 

Agree. The Sanders v. Warren battle has been a simmering rivalry. Warren moving every so slightly to the "delay M4A mode" made her a little suspect to progressives. That was too early for her. She is still criticized by the corporate Dems as too "liberal" - which is just silly. She is a center-right politician in Western Europe. The corporate Democrats are right wing in Europe. Trump is a populist in Europe (who has right and left populist candidates). 

Elizabeth just needs to commit to concrete timelines for implementation of her effort to modernize the United States. 

The progressive wing with Sanders and Warren have the majority. Warren needs to stay in that land  Warren and Sanders are not overattacking Biden. Maybe they want Biden to be the leading corporate Democrat candidate. Lump him in with the billionaires. They know will not win - that is hubris.

Yang might be a good candidate who will work with the corporations to reform their civic responsibilities (i.e., pay for the negative externalities of their businesses and respect the trusted American market). It has been squeezed to death with debt and austerity. Trickle down is not working. The roots need to be watered to restore some dignity. The neglected areas span the nation - including urban decay. I think Yang has some interesting proposals about the future and bridging that divide. Yang deserves more airtime. He is being cast off as a Republican by the corporate Democrats, who, at the top,  tend to project their own weaknesses.

The corporate lane has issues. Any battle with Trump by a corporate Democrat will be met with a "you are accusing me of something your party did as regular business."  The corrupt phase of the DNC is a liability. More of the same is not the correct path to beat Trump.

His popularity came from really not sounding like politicians. That made him interesting. Interesting led to news coverage - with major news broadcasting his speeches live, and mass media repeating his message because it sold advertising. Rather than focusing on the core principles in his speeches, which his supporters heard, the media focused on the clickbait he seeds in all his speeches.

The media is not going to cover more of the same from Democrats. The progressives sound different from the corporate Democrats because they have different policy priorities (people first) and  messages (sincerity, policy driven, optimistic). And they don't carry the baggage of the neoliberal phase in the US. I think most of the corporate lane (right Euro) will move to the center (progressive US/center Europe) when they learn progressives' priority is to lift people up, not to tear down. To corporate Democrats, that should be good news. They will be able to carry on usual, as the federal government prioritizes healing the goose that lays the golden egg for corporations. That should be interesting to the media but they are consumed with impeachment - a problem. 

Elizabeth and Bernie need stay on the same message (the future). The progressive sorting out can stay on the sidelines for now. Yang needs more coverage at this stage. Biden is just keeping a seat warm, which might not ever be filled.

And the media is covering impeachment. 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You're missing about 31%, though.

They will go to whomever the nominee is. 

The Biden chair is just waiting for someone to fill it. That chair will win SC, but lose IA and NH. 

IA is the big barometer and key to the region that swung to Trump and gave him the win. NH shows the enthusiasm level for the progressive v. neoliberal wings. SC is a red state that has no bearing on the general for the Dems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


No, not really

Yes, her backing down on M4A was a disaster.

Quote

Stuck between her $20.5 trillion plan and a hard place, Elizabeth Warren — after a declaration of “I’m with Bernie” bought the Democratic presidential candidate several months to construct a more comprehensive answer on health care — introduced in November her proposal to appease ardent supporters and skeptics alike: Yes to “Medicare for All,” but not quite yet.

In the days following the unveiling of her plan, Warren’s surge stalled and reversed, particularly among Democrats whose top priority heading to the polls is health care. And according to a new Morning Consult survey of 1,997 registered voters, the Massachusetts senator’s proposal to create a public option as a transition to Medicare for All is less popular among both Democrats and the full electorate than Medicare for All itself, suggesting she may be taking a risk in the primary without the promise of a more incremental approach giving her an edge come the general election.

https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/05/warrens-health-plan-sought-balance-but-voters-arent-moved-by-middle-ground/

For being so credentialed, Warren is such a fucking idiot.  I think the 23andme shit was dumber than this misstep, but it appears her waffling on M4A was the catalyst for ending her chances of winning the nomination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Biden/Buttigieg 40% > Sander/Warren 37%

Exactly. Then add in Klobuchar and all of the stupid idiot millionaire candidates polling at 1% and it's closer to 47-48% to 37%. 

And those numbers don't even consider the fact that there are a good amount of moderate Dems voting for Warren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21325

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Fozzz said:

That’s precisely what Warren did with her two-step approach and it blew up in her face. 

Really?

15 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


No, not really

^^^
She went out of her way to antagonize billionaires and it blew up badly.  She had staked out a good position w M4A then waffles too early - win the damn nomination then move towards the center.  
 

When are D’s gonna realize the avg voter is not BT?  You’re gonna have to play politics to win at...wait for it - politics!

Edited by ChiTownDoc
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Really?

^^^
She went out of her way to antagonize billionaires and it blew up badly.  She had staked out a good position w M4A then waffles too early - win the damn nomination then move towards the center.  
 

When are D’s gonna realize the avg voter is not BT?  You’re gonna have to play politics to win at...wait for it - politics!

Twitter and the general population of "always-online superwoke" folks is one of the most extreme cases of the minority with a megaphone I've ever seen. And it's hugely dangerous to the Democratic party. Even Hillary couldn't resist trying to be one of the cool kids, and it lost her voters.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Twitter and the general population of "always-online superwoke" folks is one of the most extreme cases of the minority with a megaphone I've ever seen. And it's hugely dangerous to the Democratic party. Even Hillary couldn't resist trying to be one of the cool kids, and it lost her voters.

I agree wokeness can be electorally poisonous but being "superwoke" has nothing to do with believing that the rich should be expropriated.  Even Trump found purchase among Republican voters by messaging what everyone knows to be true - our society is rigged in favor of the rich.  Superwokeness is a wedge that prevents the building of a coalition having the breadth necessary to really tackle those issues of economic unfairness within our society.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I agree wokeness can be electorally poisonous but being "superwoke" has nothing to do with believing that the rich should be expropriated.  Even Trump found purchase among Republican voters by messaging what everyone knows to be true - our society is rigged in favor of the rich.  Superwokeness is a wedge that prevents the building of a coalition having the breadth necessary to really tackle those issues of economic unfairness within our society.  

I agree.

You and I, and hell, even b_t are all on the same page when it comes to wealth inequality and eating the rich. That's a winning topic for everyone of either party. 

But the very loud on Twitter want to talk about the green new deal and reparations and identity politics, while Joe the farmer from Wisconsin could easily be won over by a candidate that makes a compelling case as to why Trump and the billionaire class are hurting him and his family.

It should be the only thing the Democrats talk about ever. But instead they take the bait and drive that wedge you mention further. The poor whites should be on our side, it's in their own self interest.

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19407

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Twitter and the general population of "always-online superwoke" folks is one of the most extreme cases of the minority with a megaphone I've ever seen. And it's hugely dangerous to the Democratic party. Even Hillary couldn't resist trying to be one of the cool kids, and it lost her voters.

The Tea Party says hi

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26773

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, BradInATX said:

The poor whites should be on our side, it's in their own self interest.

this right here. And they were, until we fucked it up. Organized working poor people literally sacrificed life and limb to build the American middle class. And if we aren't about that we aren't about anything. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26773

Posted
Posted
The two parties have the exact opposite economic policies that they should have based on who their actual voters are.

I disagree. Democratic economic policy positions represent a pretty tight continuum of mainstream ideas, even out to Warren, who is pretty much a normal 1960’s labor Democrat.

 

The GOP “economic policy,” if you can even call it that, is sheer quackery. It’s essentially MMT with a bunch of loony think tank magic beans for grins. It doesn’t have anything to do with a set of voters. It’s just bullshit. So I can’t say that it’s the “opposite” of anything because there’s no strategic thesis beyond value extraction.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12405

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Twitter and the general population of "always-online superwoke" folks is one of the most extreme cases of the minority with a megaphone I've ever seen. And it's hugely dangerous to the Democratic party. Even Hillary couldn't resist trying to be one of the cool kids, and it lost her voters.

Sounds like you don't have values or give a damn.

/AOC

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I disagree. Democratic economic policy positions represent a pretty tight continuum of mainstream ideas, even out to Warren, who is pretty much a normal 1960’s labor Democrat.

 

The GOP “economic policy,” if you can even call it that, is sheer quackery. It’s essentially MMT with a bunch of loony think tank magic beans for grins. It doesn’t have anything to do with a set of voters. It’s just bullshit. So I can’t say that it’s the “opposite” of anything because there’s no strategic thesis beyond value extraction.

 

No offense but a tad bit off the mark. 
 

MMT is agnostic to parties and the left-right continuum. So is neoliberal monetarism. 
 

MMT has ONLY been embraced by progressive Democrats this cycle. 
 

neoliberalism is the calling card of Trump, Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Steyer, Booker, . . . Everyone other than Sanders and Warren (although her economic team are neoliberals who understand there may be a better way). 
 

neoliberalism brought us the massive debt, trickle down, tax breaks for the wealthy, and asset inflation. And the massive and growing wealth gap with its negative externalities. 
 

MMT explains why that massive debt has not led to dangerous inflation. 

I hope that helps. Cheers. 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21325

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I disagree. Democratic economic policy positions represent a pretty tight continuum of mainstream ideas, even out to Warren, who is pretty much a normal 1960’s labor Democrat.

 

The GOP “economic policy,” if you can even call it that, is sheer quackery. It’s essentially MMT with a bunch of loony think tank magic beans for grins. It doesn’t have anything to do with a set of voters. It’s just bullshit. So I can’t say that it’s the “opposite” of anything because there’s no strategic thesis beyond value extraction.

 

Yeah but if you’re dumb enough to weigh ‘saving babies’ vs fucking your own wallet...rubes will rubes.  

Edited by ChiTownDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
StruggleBus

StruggleBus 3922

Posted
Posted
On 12/27/2019 at 1:43 AM, washparkhorn said:

Agree. The Sanders v. Warren battle has been a simmering rivalry. Warren moving every so slightly to the "delay M4A mode" made her a little suspect to progressives. That was too early for her. She is still criticized by the corporate Dems as too "liberal" - which is just silly. She is a center-right politician in Western Europe. The corporate Democrats are right wing in Europe. Trump is a populist in Europe (who has right and left populist candidates). 

Elizabeth just needs to commit to concrete timelines for implementation of her effort to modernize the United States. 

The progressive wing with Sanders and Warren have the majority. Warren needs to stay in that land  Warren and Sanders are not overattacking Biden. Maybe they want Biden to be the leading corporate Democrat candidate. Lump him in with the billionaires. They know will not win - that is hubris.

Yang might be a good candidate who will work with the corporations to reform their civic responsibilities (i.e., pay for the negative externalities of their businesses and respect the trusted American market). It has been squeezed to death with debt and austerity. Trickle down is not working. The roots need to be watered to restore some dignity. The neglected areas span the nation - including urban decay. I think Yang has some interesting proposals about the future and bridging that divide. Yang deserves more airtime. He is being cast off as a Republican by the corporate Democrats, who, at the top,  tend to project their own weaknesses.

The corporate lane has issues. Any battle with Trump by a corporate Democrat will be met with a "you are accusing me of something your party did as regular business."  The corrupt phase of the DNC is a liability. More of the same is not the correct path to beat Trump.

His popularity came from really not sounding like politicians. That made him interesting. Interesting led to news coverage - with major news broadcasting his speeches live, and mass media repeating his message because it sold advertising. Rather than focusing on the core principles in his speeches, which his supporters heard, the media focused on the clickbait he seeds in all his speeches.

The media is not going to cover more of the same from Democrats. The progressives sound different from the corporate Democrats because they have different policy priorities (people first) and  messages (sincerity, policy driven, optimistic). And they don't carry the baggage of the neoliberal phase in the US. I think most of the corporate lane (right Euro) will move to the center (progressive US/center Europe) when they learn progressives' priority is to lift people up, not to tear down. To corporate Democrats, that should be good news. They will be able to carry on usual, as the federal government prioritizes healing the goose that lays the golden egg for corporations. That should be interesting to the media but they are consumed with impeachment - a problem. 

Elizabeth and Bernie need stay on the same message (the future). The progressive sorting out can stay on the sidelines for now. Yang needs more coverage at this stage. Biden is just keeping a seat warm, which might not ever be filled.

And the media is covering impeachment. 

We’re not in Western Europe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26773

Posted
Posted
No offense but a tad bit off the mark. 

 

MMT is agnostic to parties and the left-right continuum. So is neoliberal monetarism. 

 

MMT has ONLY been embraced by progressive Democrats this cycle. 

 

neoliberalism is the calling card of Trump, Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Steyer, Booker, . . . Everyone other than Sanders and Warren (although her economic team are neoliberals who understand there may be a better way). 

 

neoliberalism brought us the massive debt, trickle down, tax breaks for the wealthy, and asset inflation. And the massive and growing wealth gap with its negative externalities. 

 

MMT explains why that massive debt has not led to dangerous inflation. 

I hope that helps. Cheers. 

Uh, no. Once again you’re peddling nonsense and I won’t insult you by suggesting you believe it.

 

Oh, and remember when you argued with me about the effect of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts? Well, I was right. Go sit with Tahoe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Uh, no. Once again you’re peddling nonsense and I won’t insult you by suggesting you believe it.

Let's stick with this decade for now. And, please, answer this question - which Republican is leaning on MMT, as you suggested?  

I don't know of any. 

Thanks!

 

ps - and if you need to catch up on MMT and partisan politics, here you go. We should be talking about facts rather than gut feelings.

https://theintercept.com/2018/10/02/modern-monetary-theory-conference/

Quote

WHEN DONALD TRUMP signed a huge corporate and upper-income tax cut into law in December, it seemed like there was one small bright spot. With the GOP-backed bill projected to increase the national deficit by $1.9 trillion over the first decade, at the very least the Democrats could finally quit saying that an increase to the national debt — the vice that trapped so much progressive legislation — was per se political suicide. 

In fact, as many Democrats reckoned at the time, if they reclaimed power, they could then repeal those Republican tax cuts and redirect the revenue to new social programs.

But this month, despite the sky decidedly not falling from the Trump tax cuts, Nancy Pelosi confirmed her intent to bringing back the “pay-go” rule, which requires all new spending to be offset with budget cuts or tax hikes. Pelosi first instituted the rule in 2007, effectively barring Congress from taking up progressive legislation that would increase the national debt.

This stark contrast between Republicans and Democrats was front-and-center at the second annual Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) conference, held last weekend at the New School in New York City. The MMT movement, started in the 1990s by a few heterodox economists, has since grown into a vocal and eclectic mix of academics and activists, trying to change the way we think about government spending.

In a nutshell: MMT proponents believe that the government can safely spend far more money than it currently does, and increasing the federal deficit is not a bad thing in and of itself — a public deficit is also a private-sector surplus, after all. 

While typically we hear rhetoric that our political leaders must first “find” money through new taxes or budget cuts in order to pay for new programs, MMT proponents say that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how money works. In so-called fiat currency systems (meaning societies in which money isn’t backed by physically valuable commodities like gold or silver) governments literally create the money and tax it later to control for inflation and keep it in demand. 

Inflation is still a risk, MMT advocates say, but it’s a much more remote risk than mainstream economists let on, and it’s one that can be addressed down the line if it arises, without so much pre-emptive austerity.

The first MMT conference was held a year ago at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, where Stephanie Kelton, one of the movement’s top economists, then worked. Kelton most famously served as the chief economic adviser for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, and before that as the chief economist on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, which was Sanders’s domain. (She now teaches at Stony Brook University in New York.) 

About 250 people registered for that first conference, compared to this year’s more than 430. The attendees, while hailing from diverse disciplines, were overwhelmingly white and male — something Lua Kamal Yuille, a law professor and one of the few African-American conference speakers, pointedly criticized during her panel remarks.

On Friday, Kelton gave a presentation titled “Mainstreaming MMT,” assessing how effective the movement has been in getting its ideas out to the public.

By many measures, they’re doing quite a good job. Just last week, NPR’s Planet Money featured a podcast episode on MMT, and Bloomberg ran a story titled: “Trillion-Dollar Deficit? Whatever, Says New Consensus.” Kelton recently appeared on Jon Favreau’s popular liberal podcast, The Wilderness, and in the past year-and-a half, there’s been other deep dives into MMT in The Nation, the Huffington Post, and VICE.

“First they don’t want to hear you,” said Kelton to her rapturous audience. “Then they ridicule you, then they attack you, and then you win.”

While Kelton acknowledged the growing attention she and her colleagues have been receiving from mainstream outlets, she spent much of her public remarks focused on how their ideas are still unfairly cast by policymakers and the media. Paul Krugman, the New York Times economist, was a top target of Kelton’s frustration. In 2011, he blogged several critical posts about MMT, including to say that its adherents believe “deficits never matter.”

“This became the way that many people, probably a million or more, were introduced to MMT for the first time,” said Kelton. She also pointed toVICE’s recent headline, “The Radical Theory That the Government Has Unlimited Money” as an example of being misrepresented as more extremist than they are.

Still, MMT advocates struggled to decide just how they would frame their own movement. Were they radical or mainstream? Fringe or conventional? Rohan Grey, the conference’s head convener and president of the student-driven Modern Money Network, told The Intercept that they worked hard to “make sure there were different disciplines represented at the conference, so this isn’t seen as just a bunch of heterodox economists.”  

 

 

 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted (edited)

Michael Moore on how to guarantee Trump wins in 2020 - nominate another Republican-lite Democratic Party nominee - just like they did in 2016.

Quote

What happened was, is that the Democratic Party didn’t stand up in the way that they should have for what the youth wanted, for what people of color needed.

And there were 90,000 people in Michigan, almost 90,000, who went to the polls, mostly Democrats, in very large numbers of them, in Detroit, Flint, Pontiac, Saginaw — these are all black cities, majority black. They stood in line in the cold for two to three hours to vote. They went in there, and they voted for state rep, state Senate, county commission. We don’t have dog catcher. We have drain commissioner, the person in charge of the sewage. That’s the lowest name on the ballot. They stood there. 90,000 voted for the Democrats all down ballot and left the top box blank. She only lost Michigan by 10,000, 11,000 votes. Ninety thousand wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party: “You forgot us a long time ago out here, and we will not put up with this anymore. We’re not going to vote for Trump, but we’re not going to tolerate you sending us another Republican-lite Democrat.”

If we go that route — if we go that route, it’s guaranteed we will lose the Electoral College.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/26/michael_moore_predicts_2020_trump_victory_trumps_level_of_support_has_not_gone_down_one_inch.html

 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

So his solution for poor black voter turnout in Michigan is Bernie Sanders lol. 

Not really. 

He was talking about the 90,000 black voters in Michigan who voted straight Democratic Party, but left the top spot open - refusing to vote for another Republican-lite Democratic Nominee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26773

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Let's stick with this decade for now. And, please, answer this question - which Republican is leaning on MMT, as you suggested?  

Lolz. What  the GOP (and you personally) has been "leaning on" since 2001 IS MMT, in deed if not word. What the likes of Sanders and AOC propose is the same thing, just using the proceeds on social programs instead of rent, which I guess is better but it's still garbage. Just because the DSA fringe buys into that bullshit doesn't mean I have to. 

Also, the choice between "neo-liberalism" and "MMT" is not a real choice, in part because "neo-liberalism" is some kind of bullshit ideological label that doesn't mean anything, as opposed to MMT, which is a quack monetary theory that has been retroactively applied to explain why chickens haven't yet come home to roost. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted

So what role does evidence play for you in a discussion on neoliberal economic policy and MMT?  

Do you care about austerity for the 99.9% and subsidies for the top.001%?

What have those subsidies and backstops for the top .001% shown you about the nature of monetary policy?  

Anything? Or has that light gone out for you?

The world is a vampire - regardless of whether or not we are paying attention. And there is certainly enough media to overwhelm even the most curious among us. But there are still people out there paying attention. Perhaps we should listen to them about the nature of monetary policy and its ability to raise all boats, not just the super-yachts of the top .001%. Not intended as an insult bc, the mind is obviously still there but perhaps the spirit may exhausted, which is understandable. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...