4 ms·

Yes, you can try to bend that reed in the wind, but mass welfare and social assistance is fundamentally, straight up socialism. There is a completely unambiguo

by jariel 6y ago

Yes, you can try to bend that reed in the wind, but mass welfare and social assistance is fundamentally, straight up socialism. There is a completely unambiguous divide on that issue in the regular political context - Democrats are 100% on the side of more personal stimulus, and Republicans entirely on the other side. That war plays out like clock work every budgetary period. Trump's last minute monkey-wrench was really interesting for a whole slew of reasons beyond the scope of this, the flip-flop was crystal clear among the commenting proles. The evidence, is of course that 'large stimulus checks' had been pushed by the Dems for months (!) leading up to the final negotiations, and nobody thought they were a good idea until 'Trump Said It'.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
But that's really just the other members of the coalition fighting over the pie. If you send people checks, the money comes from somewhere. The somewhere is more taxes or less military spending or something like that. So they fight sending people money primarily because they want to use the money for something else. The opponents aren't the anti-socialist crowd, they're the pro-defense spending crowd. Also: > There is a completely unambiguous divide on that issue in the regular political context - Democrats are 100% on the side of more personal stimulus, and Republicans entirely on the other side. Keep in mind that "tax cut" and "giving people money" are economically equivalent. EITC was created and expanded under Republican administrations.
- jariel 6y ago
  Yes, but: Both of your comments are out of sync with crude, real-time populism. $2K checks means "MONEY FOR ME NOW" to the proles, ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. Most people are not. You're also missing the fact that it's a very poignant 'flip flop' in that for months, the 'Evil Nancy Pelosi and AOC' had been pushing for exactly that, and were ridiculed for it. Trump's move was savvy: he wanted to put Mitch McConnel in a corner and he really did, and he was smart enough to know that his followers are not ideological and will get riled up and support pretty much whatever he says. Especially if it's 'free money'. It's a really crystal clear example of flip flopping among the proles, in this case, purely on the basis of individual populism. And again I'm not taking sides here, I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad idea etc. just realpolitik populist observation.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. But those people (i.e. McConnel) are the ones opposing the $2000. Sending the money is hugely popular with the public, including Republicans. Also: > 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich) The top marginal rate has been in the 35-39.6% range since 1993. And before then it was lower.
    - jariel 6y ago
      Yes, McConnell and most Republicans want to avoid the $2K spend which is consistent with their ideology. Trump's support of $2K checks is completely against policy instinct of his side. It's purely populist. The fact so many Trump supporters support these $2K checks now that they are proposed by him, and not 'the other side' - is the clear indication of the policy flip flop among the proles.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > Yes, McConnell and most Republicans want to avoid the $2K spend which is consistent with their ideology. It's consistent with their politics, for the reasons already mentioned. The major US political parties don't have any consistent ideology. > Trump's support of $2K checks is completely against policy instinct of his side. It's purely populist. Explain why Milton Friedman and others like him on "their side" supported a negative income tax, which is effectively the same thing as sending the checks.
        jariel 6y ago
        ". The major US political parties don't have any consistent ideology." Yes they do. You are missing the point with Milton Friedman. This is not about 'what works and what doesn't work. This isn't about ideas or their validity. This is about populism and opinions. The 'Right' consistently, ideologically wants 'Restrained spending, balanced budgets, possibly military spending and supply-side economics, Constitutional Originalism, fairly free markets, limited social spending. The 'Left' wants deficit spending, demand side economics (i.e. stimulus cheques) etc. etc.. This is very, very consistent throughout the last many decades. Donald Trump flipped the narrative by pushing for 'free money' for people, which is something 'the Left' has been pushing for hard since the start of the pandemic, and which was consistently rebuffed by the GOP - both sides consistent with their ideology. Because Trump followers support him and don't even understand their own ideology, they think anything he says is 'Conservative' even when it's not. So commenters in Fox News are all huff and puff about 'hard working people need that money' the day Trump made the claim, even though for months, 'the Left' had been pushing that only to rebuked by Fox News readers as being 'socialism'. The plebes are often dumb, and believe whatever their populist leaders tell them, even if it's directly against their own supposed ideologies. This basically the nature of the article.

by jariel 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

But that's really just the other members of the coalition fighting over the pie. If you send people checks, the money comes from somewhere. The somewhere is more taxes or less military spending or something like that. So they fight sending people money primarily because they want to use the money for something else. The opponents aren't the anti-socialist crowd, they're the pro-defense spending crowd. Also: > There is a completely unambiguous divide on that issue in the regular political context - Democrats are 100% on the side of more personal stimulus, and Republicans entirely on the other side. Keep in mind that "tax cut" and "giving people money" are economically equivalent. EITC was created and expanded under Republican administrations.

jariel 6y ago
Yes, but: Both of your comments are out of sync with crude, real-time populism. $2K checks means "MONEY FOR ME NOW" to the proles, ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. Most people are not. You're also missing the fact that it's a very poignant 'flip flop' in that for months, the 'Evil Nancy Pelosi and AOC' had been pushing for exactly that, and were ridiculed for it. Trump's move was savvy: he wanted to put Mitch McConnel in a corner and he really did, and he was smart enough to know that his followers are not ideological and will get riled up and support pretty much whatever he says. Especially if it's 'free money'. It's a really crystal clear example of flip flopping among the proles, in this case, purely on the basis of individual populism. And again I'm not taking sides here, I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad idea etc. just realpolitik populist observation.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. But those people (i.e. McConnel) are the ones opposing the $2000. Sending the money is hugely popular with the public, including Republicans. Also: > 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich) The top marginal rate has been in the 35-39.6% range since 1993. And before then it was lower.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Yes, McConnell and most Republicans want to avoid the $2K spend which is consistent with their ideology. Trump's support of $2K checks is completely against policy instinct of his side. It's purely populist. The fact so many Trump supporters support these $2K checks now that they are proposed by him, and not 'the other side' - is the clear indication of the policy flip flop among the proles.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > Yes, McConnell and most Republicans want to avoid the $2K spend which is consistent with their ideology. It's consistent with their politics, for the reasons already mentioned. The major US political parties don't have any consistent ideology. > Trump's support of $2K checks is completely against policy instinct of his side. It's purely populist. Explain why Milton Friedman and others like him on "their side" supported a negative income tax, which is effectively the same thing as sending the checks.
      - jariel 6y ago
        ". The major US political parties don't have any consistent ideology." Yes they do. You are missing the point with Milton Friedman. This is not about 'what works and what doesn't work. This isn't about ideas or their validity. This is about populism and opinions. The 'Right' consistently, ideologically wants 'Restrained spending, balanced budgets, possibly military spending and supply-side economics, Constitutional Originalism, fairly free markets, limited social spending. The 'Left' wants deficit spending, demand side economics (i.e. stimulus cheques) etc. etc.. This is very, very consistent throughout the last many decades. Donald Trump flipped the narrative by pushing for 'free money' for people, which is something 'the Left' has been pushing for hard since the start of the pandemic, and which was consistently rebuffed by the GOP - both sides consistent with their ideology. Because Trump followers support him and don't even understand their own ideology, they think anything he says is 'Conservative' even when it's not. So commenters in Fox News are all huff and puff about 'hard working people need that money' the day Trump made the claim, even though for months, 'the Left' had been pushing that only to rebuked by Fox News readers as being 'socialism'. The plebes are often dumb, and believe whatever their populist leaders tell them, even if it's directly against their own supposed ideologies. This basically the nature of the article.