US Politics Megathread

[fightinfrenchman]

Republicans have won the popular vote in just one presidential election in the last 30 years

Based and play-to-win-pilled.

Just use normal words

[fightinfrenchman]

[Jam]

Republicans have won the popular vote in just one presidential election in the last 30 years

Based and play-to-win-pilled.

Just use normal words

superdreadnaughtrailcanoongustavmaxsandliebewildwood

[bittersalt123]

Cool i'll just go work at McDonalds and just expect a $100,000+ guaranteed salary. People on the left always never fail to fascinate me.

[n0el]

Welcome to the socialist left John.

[Amsel_]

Cool i'll just go work at McDonalds and just expect a $100,000+ guaranteed salary. People on the left always never fail to fascinate me.

We'd probably get to the point where that's viable rather quickly if we stopped relying on borderline slave-labor overseas, stopped undercutting our workforce with immigrants, and had effective, apolitical collective bargaining. If you look at how much more efficient things have gotten, I see no reason the bottom of the barrel fastfood jobs can't pay like 30k a year. People with degrees should be getting closer to 60k-70k a year. We could even get down to like a 30 hour work week.

It's really hard to comprehend how much the amount of goods and services has grown, yet the purchasing power of the average citizen hasn't remarkably changed to coincide with that. Ideally, in time we would probably reach the point where fastfood workers are earning the equivalent of 100k today. But don't worry, the pro-working class politicians in D.C. will make it up to you by cutting your taxes by a whole $200 a year, or maybe they'll raise your taxes and use that to give non-workers welfare. Yay!

[bittersalt123]

Cool i'll just go work at McDonalds and just expect a $100,000+ guaranteed salary. People on the left always never fail to fascinate me.

We'd probably get to the point where that's viable rather quickly if we stopped relying on borderline slave-labor overseas, stopped undercutting our workforce with immigrants, and had effective, apolitical collective bargaining. If you look at how much more efficient things have gotten, I see no reason the bottom of the barrel fastfood jobs can't pay like 30k a year. People with degrees should be getting closer to 60k-70k a year. We could even get down to like a 30 hour work week.

It's really hard to comprehend how much the amount of goods and services has grown, yet the purchasing power of the average citizen hasn't remarkably changed to coincide with that. Ideally, in time we would probably reach the point where fastfood workers are earning the equivalent of 100k today. But don't worry, the pro-working class politicians in D.C. will make it up to you by cutting your taxes by a whole $200 a year, or maybe they'll raise your taxes and use that to give non-workers welfare. Yay!

Capitalism is the best system out there and no matter how great things could be it just will not work. Employers will always try to get away with paying workers the lowest possible amount to maximize profits and if taxes and laws regarding minimum wages become too high for employers then they'll adapt and move somewhere else where they can pay little to no taxes and slave wages like they did in the past and will keep on doing.

A good example of this would be AOC trying to fight for the ideas you laid out but in reality it just will not work. I view a lot of the ideas here as good but more like "pie in the sky" ... really nm to add here other than what works well on paper will not work well in real life.

- source about my AOC claim - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/nyre ... ueens.html

[Goodspeed]

What happened to "discussing politics is pointless"?

[fightinfrenchman]

What happened to "discussing politics is pointless"?

He actually said that discussing politics leads to violence, which I have to assume means he intends to kill everyone in this thread.

[Amsel_]

Cool i'll just go work at McDonalds and just expect a $100,000+ guaranteed salary. People on the left always never fail to fascinate me.

We'd probably get to the point where that's viable rather quickly if we stopped relying on borderline slave-labor overseas, stopped undercutting our workforce with immigrants, and had effective, apolitical collective bargaining. If you look at how much more efficient things have gotten, I see no reason the bottom of the barrel fastfood jobs can't pay like 30k a year. People with degrees should be getting closer to 60k-70k a year. We could even get down to like a 30 hour work week.

It's really hard to comprehend how much the amount of goods and services has grown, yet the purchasing power of the average citizen hasn't remarkably changed to coincide with that. Ideally, in time we would probably reach the point where fastfood workers are earning the equivalent of 100k today. But don't worry, the pro-working class politicians in D.C. will make it up to you by cutting your taxes by a whole $200 a year, or maybe they'll raise your taxes and use that to give non-workers welfare. Yay!

Capitalism is the best system out there and no matter how great things could be it just will not work. Employers will always try to get away with paying workers the lowest possible amount to maximize profits and if taxes and laws regarding minimum wages become too high for employers then they'll adapt and move somewhere else where they can pay little to no taxes and slave wages like they did in the past and will keep on doing.

A good example of this would be AOC trying to fight for the ideas you laid out but in reality it just will not work. I view a lot of the ideas here as good but more like "pie in the sky" ... really nm to add here other than what works well on paper will not work well in real life.

- source about my AOC claim - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/nyre ... ueens.html

We do not need to rely on international finance for capital. They can leave if they so desire. But they should not expect the right to invest or deal with American markets in the future. We can invest in ourselves, and it will be satisfactory. It will be far preferable to the current system which people defend rabidly as the most efficient, yet the rewards of that efficiency help neither the state, nor the people, nor even most business owners. I assure you that they need us a lot more than we need them.

[fightinfrenchman]

[bittersalt123]

What happened to "discussing politics is pointless"?

It is pointless but fun. I know how to have a good time on the weekend.

[spanky4ever]

@bittersalt123 says

Employers will always try to get away with paying workers the lowest possible amount to maximize profits and if taxes and laws regarding minimum wages become too high for employers then they'll adapt and move somewhere else where they can pay little to no taxes and slave wages like they did in the past and will keep on doing.

This is true, and it constitutes the Marxism criticism of Capitalism. Without this predatory capitalist system, there would not be any Marxism

A more modern model of Marxism is for the government to encourage, and help finance more worker cooperatives. For instance, if the subsidies that are currently going from government/taxpayers to the fossil fuel industry, were to be distributed to ppl who would like to make their own businesses/cooperatives - that could be one way of doing it. In addition to change regulations, so that it would be easier for cooperatives to form.
I really do not see any other model being sustainable, going into the future.

Meanwhile, there should be fair taxes, so that the rich pay their fair share, and IMO that would accomplish a lot.

Capitalism is undermining its own existence, by taking all the profit for themself, and not giving the consumers, consuming power. That is why there very little incentive for Corporations to expand. Instead, they buy back their own stocks and stack trillions of dollars in tax-havens. This all shows us, that the form of Capitalism that we have now, is not sustainable, both for the capitalist themself and for the exploited workers AND the environment.

In the USA you have only 2 parties, who in most instances have voted for the laws that have empowered the system as it is now.
GOP is in big trouble, and if it were not for Trump and his Fazist-light demagoguing, they probably would not have won back in 2016. In the future, the GOP will struggle very hard to get into office again (I think, and hope).
So the issue, in my view, is what kind of Democratic party we will see, going forward. Will it be a party that more represent the voters?
That is my hope anyway.

[Dolan]

I think, going forward, things will get worse in the USA in terms of social cohesion.
I don't see the current level of social and political polarisation simply going away. And that will be reflected in what kind of politicians they elect.
People hoping for some kind of "return to normal" don't understand that this is just the beginning of more changes to come, since people's anger has just been unleashed through Trump's election. And you can't put that anger back in the box.

[n0el]

Correct @Dolan

[RefluxSemantic]

I think, going forward, things will get worse in the USA in terms of social cohesion.
I don't see the current level of social and political polarisation simply going away. And that will be reflected in what kind of politicians they elect.
People hoping for some kind of "return to normal" don't understand that this is just the beginning of more changes to come, since people's anger has just been unleashed through Trump's election. And you can't put that anger back in the box.

Are you suggesting some sort of revolution caused by dissatisfaction of the current system? This sounds familiar, where did I hear this before?

[Amsel_]

@bittersalt123 says

Employers will always try to get away with paying workers the lowest possible amount to maximize profits and if taxes and laws regarding minimum wages become too high for employers then they'll adapt and move somewhere else where they can pay little to no taxes and slave wages like they did in the past and will keep on doing.

This is true, and it constitutes the Marxism criticism of Capitalism. Without this predatory capitalist system, there would not be any Marxism

A more modern model of Marxism is for the government to encourage, and help finance more worker cooperatives. For instance, if the subsidies that are currently going from government/taxpayers to the fossil fuel industry, were to be distributed to ppl who would like to make their own businesses/cooperatives - that could be one way of doing it. In addition to change regulations, so that it would be easier for cooperatives to form.
I really do not see any other model being sustainable, going into the future.

Meanwhile, there should be fair taxes, so that the rich pay their fair share, and IMO that would accomplish a lot.

Capitalism is undermining its own existence, by taking all the profit for themself, and not giving the consumers, consuming power. That is why there very little incentive for Corporations to expand. Instead, they buy back their own stocks and stack trillions of dollars in tax-havens. This all shows us, that the form of Capitalism that we have now, is not sustainable, both for the capitalist themself and for the exploited workers AND the environment.

In the USA you have only 2 parties, who in most instances have voted for the laws that have empowered the system as it is now.
GOP is in big trouble, and if it were not for Trump and his Fazist-light demagoguing, they probably would not have won back in 2016. In the future, the GOP will struggle very hard to get into office again (I think, and hope).
So the issue, in my view, is what kind of Democratic party we will see, going forward. Will it be a party that more represent the voters?
That is my hope anyway.

I agree with you about increasing consumption power, which would help the economy. But I don't really see the need for systematic anti-capitalist changes. Monetary policy is enough to extend purchasing power to the point that demand can match supply.

I think, going forward, things will get worse in the USA in terms of social cohesion.
I don't see the current level of social and political polarisation simply going away. And that will be reflected in what kind of politicians they elect.
People hoping for some kind of "return to normal" don't understand that this is just the beginning of more changes to come, since people's anger has just been unleashed through Trump's election. And you can't put that anger back in the box.

Are you suggesting some sort of revolution caused by dissatisfaction of the current system? This sounds familiar, where did I hear this before?

You probably read it in my letter to Santa.

[Dolan]

I think, going forward, things will get worse in the USA in terms of social cohesion.
I don't see the current level of social and political polarisation simply going away. And that will be reflected in what kind of politicians they elect.
People hoping for some kind of "return to normal" don't understand that this is just the beginning of more changes to come, since people's anger has just been unleashed through Trump's election. And you can't put that anger back in the box.

Are you suggesting some sort of revolution caused by dissatisfaction of the current system? This sounds familiar, where did I hear this before?

Revolutions take place when the path to change is completely blocked by the establishment. When change can't happen through the usual channels (political bargaining, protests, elections), then people try to take matters into their own hands. I doubt it will go so far in the USA, I think it's likely we'll see an escalation of current trends. So more far-left calls for system reform and more far-right calls for rolling back or blocking progressive agenda. Revolutions take place when you have a majority that is oppressed and turns against an oppressive political elite, not when you have two large camps of opposing political views.
It's possible that what will happen in the USA will not be a pattern that has happened before. For example, we could see states growing further apart in terms of legislation. I wouldn't be surprised if we'd see calls to make constitutional changes to give states exemptions from federal legislation. Like, let's say a Democratic candidate wins the presidency and they have a majority in congress too. If they try to crack down on gun ownership, I could see this backfiring somehow.

[spanky4ever]

@Amsel_

I agree with you about increasing consumption power, which would help the economy. But I don't really see the need for systematic anti-capitalist changes. Monetary policy is enough to extend purchasing power to the point that demand can match supply.

I am glad you agreed to some of my arguments, above. I do not think your solution will solve the underlying problems though. Just printing more money (monetary politics) has only helped the rich to get even richer and powerful. And the banks to rob the country even harder. If I have misinterpreted you, in saying monetary politics (printing more money) will solve "everything", please enlighten me

[Amsel_]

@Amsel_

I agree with you about increasing consumption power, which would help the economy. But I don't really see the need for systematic anti-capitalist changes. Monetary policy is enough to extend purchasing power to the point that demand can match supply.

I am glad you agreed to some of my arguments, above. I do not think your solution will solve the underlying problems though. Just printing more money (monetary politics) has only helped the rich to get even richer and powerful. And the banks to rob the country even harder. If I have misinterpreted you, in saying monetary politics (printing more money) will solve "everything", please enlighten me

You can do demand-side deficit spending. Public-works job-creation programs are a good example of that. Boosting social security is an example of that. Cutting taxes for the lower and middle classes are an example of that. Subsidizing health insurance is an example of that. Your tendency to immediately call things a tool of the rich is rather dangerous. In history, it has actually been fairly common for the left itself to block genuine efforts to improve the situation for the working class (they don't benefit from uplifting the poor, because the poor are their voter base), and their reasoning is usually accusing the policy of somehow helping "big business."

[spanky4ever]

@Amsel_

I agree with you about increasing consumption power, which would help the economy. But I don't really see the need for systematic anti-capitalist changes. Monetary policy is enough to extend purchasing power to the point that demand can match supply.

I am glad you agreed to some of my arguments, above. I do not think your solution will solve the underlying problems though. Just printing more money (monetary politics) has only helped the rich to get even richer and powerful. And the banks to rob the country even harder. If I have misinterpreted you, in saying monetary politics (printing more money) will solve "everything", please enlighten me

You can do demand-side deficit spending. Public-works job-creation programs are a good example of that. Boosting social security is an example of that. Cutting taxes for the lower and middle classes are an example of that. Subsidizing health insurance is an example of that. Your tendency to immediately call things a tool of the rich is rather dangerous. In history, it has actually been fairly common for the left itself to block genuine efforts to improve the situation for the working class (they don't benefit from uplifting the poor, because the poor are their voter base), and their reasoning is usually accusing the policy of somehow helping "big business."

hmm. I am only thinking of how your government has used those monetary politics in recent decades. yeah, sure, you could do alot, but you have not. So what will it take for the government to print money to benefit most ppl?

Btw, do you refer to the "left" as the Democratic party, for the last half-century?

about the voter base; the biggest block of voters, do not vote, because they realize that it is too much hassle, and nothing will come out of it in the end. Imagine how USA politics would have looked like, if you had a system as we have, that every citizen are a voter, and you do not have to do jack shit to become one.

[Amsel_]

hmm. I am only thinking of how your government has used those monetary politics in recent decades. yeah, sure, you could do alot, but you have not. So what will it take for the government to print money to benefit most ppl?

That is more of a political question than an economic one.

Btw, do you refer to the "left" as the Democratic party, for the last half-century?

Both. Leftists are surprisingly similar in every country.

about the voter base; the biggest block of voters, do not vote, because they realize that it is too much hassle, and nothing will come out of it in the end. Imagine how USA politics would have looked like, if you had a system as we have, that every citizen are a voter, and you do not have to do jack shit to become one.

I 'm confused. You say the word "realize" which would imply that you think it is correct for non-voters to believe that voting is a waste of time. But then you tell me to imagine what it would look like if everyone voted, implying that you want me to think it'll be good if everyone votes. I don't quite know what would happen if everyone voted. I presume it would end up for the worse, like every other time in history that democracy has been tried. Regardless, it's actually fairly easy to vote here. The idea that we're suppressing voters is a meme spread because it stops dead people and Miguel de Lopez-Rodriguez from voting.

[spanky4ever]

forgive me for not quoting everything, it just makes a thread like this super boring
@Amsel_
About the monetary politics, you avoided my question I guess? saying that it is a political one? I agree, IT IS, and for half a century the politicians in power have voted for money and power to corporations. So how do you think this will ever change? Can Sanders be a game-changer here?
If the DNC put their hand on the scale in the second round, and elect somebody like Pete, or Biden, how will that turn out? I mean for DNC, or for democracy?
I mean, if Berne has the most voters, and the superdelegates choose another candidate, who will then win? There are many big issues going forward, I am sure Bernie will win most votes, but not sure if he can win more than 50%.

[fightinfrenchman]

@spanky4ever What makes you think Bernie will get the most votes

[spanky4ever]

@spanky4ever What makes you think Bernie will get the most votes

Bernie has the biggest base of ppl who have clicked in and will not move, he has most small donations (average 18 dollars) most ppl who will knock on doors for him, the biggest turnout for rallies. He tries to get ppl who are not usually voting, come out to do just that - vote. He has the biggest donations of them all, from really small donations
I am pretty confident that Bernie will get the most votes, yeah