7 ms·

> But Hillary wasn't a liberal. I don't know why you're bringing her up. You're using the term 'liberal', but I haven't got a clue what people mean when they

> But Hillary wasn't a liberal. I don't know why you're bringing her up. You're using the term 'liberal', but I haven't got a clue what people mean when they say that anymore. What's your definition? You say what Hillary is not, but you don't say what she is. I don't separate her in any way from the Democrats politically - at least those who hold power currently - not the rank-and-file of course. > We are now in the world perception of Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative and its just wrong. I disagree, you're just assuming everyone's stuck in old tribal thinking when there's so much evidence to the contrary. Haven't you noticed the tectonic shifts in media over the last 5 years? The boomers are starting to die off, their power is waning, and the younger generations are restless. #metoo works because the majority is disgusted by what they see. Look at how many congress-rats are jumping ship at the end of this cycle. The Republican party is dying for abandoning their base in order to cling to power, despite their fundraising. The Democrats are losing seats everywhere, have not been grooming enough replacements for the old-timers, and won't shake the loser 60's radical ideology - they might as well just die too. > Case in point: Increase the wages and benefits = less government funding. Why would you believe that taxes are a zero-sum game? Not that it always works out this way, because the economy has cycles, but you can stimulate economic activity by taxing less which does create growth that yields net increases in tax revenue. Ask yourself, could your "tax more == more revenue" mental model be too simplistic? Who put that assumption in your head, and why is that idea so powerful for them when you accept it? (My theory is: a human tendency to treat the top of one's conceptual hierarchy as god/religion and the desire to sacrifice to the gods. If government is at the top of your hierarchy, certainly taxes are a worthy sacrifice to the good!) I'll posit a related question; I don't know the answer because I'm not an economist, but I think it's a good one nonetheless: is there a scientifically/statistically optimal tax rate that we could tweak once a year based on forecasts and trends? Why have we not done this already if maximizing revenue is the goal? I go so far as to claim that for most people on the left (radical or not), maximizing tax revenue is never the goal, just a standard talking point when discussing tax cuts.

ABCLAW 9y ago
Are you perhaps looking for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve ?
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  I guess so. What would be critical to me is how the model is constructed. I want it to be formulaic, if possible, to come closest to optimal and without being subject to gaming by political parties in order to score political points. I want cold, scientific, numbers-based, optimized rate setting.
baldfat 9y ago
> I disagree, you're just assuming everyone's stuck in old tribal thinking when there's so much evidence to the contrary. I wish you were correct but what evidence? Facebook and the Internet has increased Tribalism to Yellow Journalism levels. We have Breitbart and MSNBC. People mostly just read news and opinions that they agree with and don't listen to the other side. http://fortune.com/2017/01/13/fake-news-tribalism/ http://fortune.com/2017/01/13/fake-news-tribalism/ > The Republican party is dying for abandoning their base in order to cling to power, despite their fundraising. The Democrats are losing seats everywhere, have not been grooming enough replacements for the old-timers, and won't shake the loser 60's radical ideology - they might as well just die too. Um not certain what your point is but the issue is the Gerrymandering and electoral college. This is the second president this century to win with a minority of votes. The issue is the unfair way voters votes are manipulated in states, i.e. Wisconsin. https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/5-things-know-about-wisconsin-partisan-gerrymandering-case https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/5-things-know-about-wisco... > could your "tax more == more revenue" mental model be too simplistic? Wait what? If you mean that if working poor made more money they would need less benifits???? > I don't know the answer because I'm not an economist, but I think it's a good one nonetheless: Your asking a political science question. Economist don't get to say what our tax rates are but our politicians and there isn't one economist in the bunch. Here is one article for you https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731166-house-republicans-have-written-bad-bill-it-could-be-made-better-how-make-republican?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0 https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731166-house-republ...
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  > Facebook Obama ran great campaigns, including social networks where his opponents did not -- won in landslides. Same with Trump and Hillary. Winners targeted, with laser focus, on individuals. The messages resonated; people DID listen to the other side! Meanwhile, especially in the last two years, traditional media has totally faltered. News agencies rocked by fake news scandals, Hollywood getting #metoo'd up the keister, Amazon acquiring WaPo. YouTube is TV for a lot of kids. It's a huge shakeup going on. > Gerrymandering Hillary was a terrible candidate. There's no excuse for losing some of the states she lost. I don't get the opposition to the Electoral College system, it's a check on large population cities/states running the board. Hillary would have creamed Trump if she had any substance. > Wait what? If you mean that if working poor made more money they would need less benifits???? No, I just took your "Case in point" about increased wages and benefits as equating to less tax revenues being collected (you had "less government spending" on the right, which I read as govt having less to spend.) Maybe I misread your point as it pertained to repubs, sorry if I did. I agree repubs are all talk on cutting spending. > Your asking a political science question. Economist don't get to say what our tax rates are but our politicians and there isn't one economist in the bunch. It really shakes my confidence, what are any of these numbers based on?? It's a miracle anything works at all.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Democrats are losing seats everywhere, have not been grooming enough replacements for the old-timers, and won't shake the loser 60's radical ideology Uh, the Democrats never, as a national party, had a “60s radical ideology”, and since the 1990s have been a solidly pro-big-business center-right neoliberal party barely distinguishable from late 1980s Republicans but for some equal rights stands; that's weakened a bit in the last few years, and may have hit a tipping point after the 2016 election, though its kind of hard to tell for sure with the Dems lacking any of the national power centers.
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  Black Lives Matter seems very throwback racial politics to me. Is that a DNC thing, specifically? No, but clearly there's an embrace of the movement in order to secure their votes and energy. So yes, as a national party, democrats are all about griping for oppressed minority groups. 60's radical ideology is what I understand stems from the Marxist shift from class struggle to oppressed identity groups in the 60's as a means of staying relevant. Here's a discussion about this phenomena on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left This is cultural Marxism. This brand of politics is pessimistic, negative, divisive and wicked by nature. It foments discontent. And notice that it only seeks to lift the oppressed minorities up by bringing the oppressive majority down! Sounds like typical democrat rhetoric to me. 60's boomers' clock is ticking, the radical ideas just fading away to obscurity now... Time for some fresh thinking on the left.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > This is cultural Marxism. No, it's actually Marxism losing relevance in favor of something radically different, but in any case it's fairly irrelevant to the Democratic Party which never generally adopted a ”New Left” position, following classical moderate, non-Marxist pro-labor focus into the 80s, then abandoning that and anything like the Left generally for the center-right neoliberalism of Clinton's “Third Way”.
    - EdSharkey 9y ago

ABCLAW 9y ago

Are you perhaps looking for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve ?

EdSharkey 9y ago
I guess so. What would be critical to me is how the model is constructed. I want it to be formulaic, if possible, to come closest to optimal and without being subject to gaming by political parties in order to score political points. I want cold, scientific, numbers-based, optimized rate setting.

baldfat 9y ago

> I disagree, you're just assuming everyone's stuck in old tribal thinking when there's so much evidence to the contrary. I wish you were correct but what evidence? Facebook and the Internet has increased Tribalism to Yellow Journalism levels. We have Breitbart and MSNBC. People mostly just read news and opinions that they agree with and don't listen to the other side. http://fortune.com/2017/01/13/fake-news-tribalism/ http://fortune.com/2017/01/13/fake-news-tribalism/ > The Republican party is dying for abandoning their base in order to cling to power, despite their fundraising. The Democrats are losing seats everywhere, have not been grooming enough replacements for the old-timers, and won't shake the loser 60's radical ideology - they might as well just die too. Um not certain what your point is but the issue is the Gerrymandering and electoral college. This is the second president this century to win with a minority of votes. The issue is the unfair way voters votes are manipulated in states, i.e. Wisconsin. https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/5-things-know-about-wisconsin-partisan-gerrymandering-case https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/5-things-know-about-wisco... > could your "tax more == more revenue" mental model be too simplistic? Wait what? If you mean that if working poor made more money they would need less benifits???? > I don't know the answer because I'm not an economist, but I think it's a good one nonetheless: Your asking a political science question. Economist don't get to say what our tax rates are but our politicians and there isn't one economist in the bunch. Here is one article for you https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731166-house-republicans-have-written-bad-bill-it-could-be-made-better-how-make-republican?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0 https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731166-house-republ...

EdSharkey 9y ago
> Facebook Obama ran great campaigns, including social networks where his opponents did not -- won in landslides. Same with Trump and Hillary. Winners targeted, with laser focus, on individuals. The messages resonated; people DID listen to the other side! Meanwhile, especially in the last two years, traditional media has totally faltered. News agencies rocked by fake news scandals, Hollywood getting #metoo'd up the keister, Amazon acquiring WaPo. YouTube is TV for a lot of kids. It's a huge shakeup going on. > Gerrymandering Hillary was a terrible candidate. There's no excuse for losing some of the states she lost. I don't get the opposition to the Electoral College system, it's a check on large population cities/states running the board. Hillary would have creamed Trump if she had any substance. > Wait what? If you mean that if working poor made more money they would need less benifits???? No, I just took your "Case in point" about increased wages and benefits as equating to less tax revenues being collected (you had "less government spending" on the right, which I read as govt having less to spend.) Maybe I misread your point as it pertained to repubs, sorry if I did. I agree repubs are all talk on cutting spending. > Your asking a political science question. Economist don't get to say what our tax rates are but our politicians and there isn't one economist in the bunch. It really shakes my confidence, what are any of these numbers based on?? It's a miracle anything works at all.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Democrats are losing seats everywhere, have not been grooming enough replacements for the old-timers, and won't shake the loser 60's radical ideology Uh, the Democrats never, as a national party, had a “60s radical ideology”, and since the 1990s have been a solidly pro-big-business center-right neoliberal party barely distinguishable from late 1980s Republicans but for some equal rights stands; that's weakened a bit in the last few years, and may have hit a tipping point after the 2016 election, though its kind of hard to tell for sure with the Dems lacking any of the national power centers.

EdSharkey 9y ago
Black Lives Matter seems very throwback racial politics to me. Is that a DNC thing, specifically? No, but clearly there's an embrace of the movement in order to secure their votes and energy. So yes, as a national party, democrats are all about griping for oppressed minority groups. 60's radical ideology is what I understand stems from the Marxist shift from class struggle to oppressed identity groups in the 60's as a means of staying relevant. Here's a discussion about this phenomena on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left This is cultural Marxism. This brand of politics is pessimistic, negative, divisive and wicked by nature. It foments discontent. And notice that it only seeks to lift the oppressed minorities up by bringing the oppressive majority down! Sounds like typical democrat rhetoric to me. 60's boomers' clock is ticking, the radical ideas just fading away to obscurity now... Time for some fresh thinking on the left.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > This is cultural Marxism. No, it's actually Marxism losing relevance in favor of something radically different, but in any case it's fairly irrelevant to the Democratic Party which never generally adopted a ”New Left” position, following classical moderate, non-Marxist pro-labor focus into the 80s, then abandoning that and anything like the Left generally for the center-right neoliberalism of Clinton's “Third Way”.
  - EdSharkey 9y ago