American Politics III: New President, Same Old Country

[Nejii]

I find it both hilarious and saddening at the same time that there are people who still think welfare is socialism, when it was first implemented by an ultra-right wing monarchist to stomp out the influence of socialist parties, and Marx criticized this early form of social democracy in his Critique of the Gotha Program as "revisionist" and "ineffective".

While I wasn’t aware of that historical bit I do believe welfare is necessary. I just don’t think a society should be overly dependent on it. Or even an individual. Do I think it’s “commie policy”? No.

[Greater Miami Shores]

A Few Excerpts:
Breaking ‘Unity’ Pledge, Joe Biden Backs Trump Impeachment Trial

but said he doesn’t think 17 Republican senators will vote to convict Trump.

I always knew the unity talk is just political talk. There is no such thing as unity with the Leftist Liberal Democrats in Congress. This is also been posted in many different news sites.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... ent-trial/

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I find it both hilarious and saddening at the same time that there are people who still think welfare is socialism, when it was first implemented by an ultra-right wing monarchist to stomp out the influence of socialist parties, and Marx criticized this early form of social democracy in his Critique of the Gotha Program as "revisionist" and "ineffective".

There is however serious debate about how far welfare should go. At the extent of "a living wage for everyone, whether they work or not" it is quite subversive to capitalism ... but not necessarily socialist. Add to that a cap on individual income/wealth and it would cross the line, imo. Income incentive is fundamental to capitalism, and if capitalism collapses then the State has no alternative but to impose (state) socialism: buying, building and operating businesses itself.

[The Alma Mater]

A Few Excerpts:
Breaking ‘Unity’ Pledge, Joe Biden Backs Trump Impeachment Trial

but said he doesn’t think 17 Republican senators will vote to convict Trump.

I always knew the unity talk is just political talk. There is no such thing as unity with the Leftist Liberal Democrats in Congress. This is also been posted in many different news sites.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... ent-trial/

He indeed should never have made the call. His supporters do not want it, Trump supporters do not want it.
So let one side yell that Kamala is not a citizen because her parents were immigrants while the other side denounces Trump for inciting riots.

I need my shot of "America" on tv.

[Neutraligon]

I find it both hilarious and saddening at the same time that there are people who still think welfare is socialism, when it was first implemented by an ultra-right wing monarchist to stomp out the influence of socialist parties, and Marx criticized this early form of social democracy in his Critique of the Gotha Program as "revisionist" and "ineffective".

There is however serious debate about how far welfare should go. At the extent of "a living wage for everyone, whether they work or not" it is quite subversive to capitalism ... but not necessarily socialist. Add to that a cap on individual income/wealth and it would cross the line, imo. Income incentive is fundamental to capitalism, and if capitalism collapses then the State has no alternative but to impose (state) socialism: buying, building and operating businesses itself.

A living wage is not subversive to capitalism considering for capitalism to work people need to be able to buy things. If people are unable to support themselves on their own wage then it means that they are not part of the buying market and are instead dependent on either government money or donations from other people, making the market smaller. The living wage allows people to be part of the market. It is an interesting issue with capitalism where the companies have competing interests in how much they pay their employees. For a company the best result is if every other company pays a living wage while they do not and yet still get employees.

[Infected Mushroom]

A Few Excerpts:
Breaking ‘Unity’ Pledge, Joe Biden Backs Trump Impeachment Trial

but said he doesn’t think 17 Republican senators will vote to convict Trump.

I always knew the unity talk is just political talk. There is no such thing as unity with the Leftist Liberal Democrats in Congress. This is also been posted in many different news sites.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... ent-trial/

He’s a skillful politician. He waited until after safely securing/taking the office before deciding to go after his rival.

Like him or not, Biden knows how to play the politics and democracy game. He’s a true product of the system. Someone who calculates every move and responds to the incentives provided by America’s checks and balances, opportunities for deal-making, and vote seeking competition.

He’s a traditional political actor while Trump was more like someone who went against trends.

[Neutraligon]

A Few Excerpts:
Breaking ‘Unity’ Pledge, Joe Biden Backs Trump Impeachment Trial

but said he doesn’t think 17 Republican senators will vote to convict Trump.

I always knew the unity talk is just political talk. There is no such thing as unity with the Leftist Liberal Democrats in Congress. This is also been posted in many different news sites.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... ent-trial/

He indeed should never have made the call. His supporters do not want it, Trump supporters do not want it.
So let one side yell that Kamala is not a citizen because her parents were immigrants while the other side denounces Trump for inciting riots.

I need my shot of "America" on tv.

Seems to me that Biden was asking the Senate to deal with the impeachment while also dealing with his agenda. Basically a mix of get it done with already and do't forgot you have other shit to do.

Oh, also from a different not so utterly terrible source https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics ... index.html

[Picairn]

He’s a traditional political actor while Trump was more like someone who went against trends.

Trump went against trends and look where we are now. I prefer skilled politicians familiar with how government works than outsiders who know nothing about the art of governance.

[Rusozak]

He’s a traditional political actor while Trump was more like someone who went against trends.

Trump went against trends and look where we are now. I prefer skilled politicians familiar with how government works than outsiders who know nothing about the art of governance.

I feel the past four years have just been one big case study of why career politicians are a necessary evil.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

A Few Excerpts:
Breaking ‘Unity’ Pledge, Joe Biden Backs Trump Impeachment Trial

Compromise and working together, with the Republican party, does not imply going easy on Trump.

I've never thought of Trump as a Republican. He was, and is, an opportunist who brought a few supporters to the party (and will likely take them with him) but mostly got elected by having the R after his name. Now that he's been President, terribly, he really should retire. 4 years as President would be a huge achievement, to most people. But no, he couldn't accept losing and will surely try again. Republicans won't let him run for their party again (count on it) which makes Trump a direct threat to their 2024 candidate. Trump is an anti-Republican now.

The only reason Trump isn't spewing bile about every other member of the Republican party, is he still needs the votes against being convicted in the Senate. Once that's done, yes or no, Trump will show his true colors. Trump Good. Therefore Everyone Else Bad.

[The Black Forrest]

A Few Excerpts:
Breaking ‘Unity’ Pledge, Joe Biden Backs Trump Impeachment Trial

but said he doesn’t think 17 Republican senators will vote to convict Trump.

I always knew the unity talk is just political talk. There is no such thing as unity with the Leftist Liberal Democrats in Congress. This is also been posted in many different news sites.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... ent-trial/

You can still seek unity and still punish Trump for supporting and encouraging an insurrection. Remember he was all giddy when it was going down.

It’s almost funny they have Rand Paul and the “combat Ranger” Cotton for quotes. Those two are trying to get the support of the followers.

Do you feel like supporting them now?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Trump went against trends and look where we are now. I prefer skilled politicians familiar with how government works than outsiders who know nothing about the art of governance.

I feel the past four years have just been one big case study of why career politicians are a necessary evil.

... why Congress is a necessary evil. It's tradition that to get the most powerful positions (leader, Chairs of committee) one must get re-elected again and again. Career politicians.

[San Lumen]

I feel the past four years have just been one big case study of why career politicians are a necessary evil.

... why Congress is a necessary evil. It's tradition that to get the most powerful positions (leader, Chairs of committee) one must get re-elected again and again. Career politicians.

I don’t see why the most senior person in the majority party shouldn’t be the chair. It should be something you earn.

[Diarcesia]

A Few Excerpts:
Breaking ‘Unity’ Pledge, Joe Biden Backs Trump Impeachment Trial

but said he doesn’t think 17 Republican senators will vote to convict Trump.

I always knew the unity talk is just political talk. There is no such thing as unity with the Leftist Liberal Democrats in Congress. This is also been posted in many different news sites.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... ent-trial/

You can still seek unity and still punish Trump for supporting and encouraging an insurrection. Remember he was all giddy when it was going down.

It’s almost funny they have Rand Paul and the “combat Ranger” Cotton for quotes. Those two are trying to get the support of the followers.

Do you feel like supporting them now?

Imagine calling the rioters "patriots"

The Right is (or was) very sure that this is something only the Left does.

[Nejii]

[Diarcesia]

(Image)

It is not a realistic good if the participants are inflexible in their ideological dogma.

[Nejii]

(Image)

It is not a realistic good if the participants are inflexible in their ideological dogma.

A damning flaw.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

There is however serious debate about how far welfare should go. At the extent of "a living wage for everyone, whether they work or not" it is quite subversive to capitalism ... but not necessarily socialist. Add to that a cap on individual income/wealth and it would cross the line, imo. Income incentive is fundamental to capitalism, and if capitalism collapses then the State has no alternative but to impose (state) socialism: buying, building and operating businesses itself.

A living wage is not subversive to capitalism considering for capitalism to work people need to be able to buy things. If people are unable to support themselves on their own wage then it means that they are not part of the buying market and are instead dependent on either government money or donations from other people, making the market smaller. The living wage allows people to be part of the market.

One part of the market, yes. Not the labor market.

It is an interesting issue with capitalism where the companies have competing interests in how much they pay their employees. For a company the best result is if every other company pays a living wage while they do not and yet still get employees.

They get better workers and better work if they pay more though. When I say "living wage" I mean a high UBI, which doesn't just remove any incentive to work the least satisfying jobs, but removes incentive to work (or work as much) all the way up to median wage. A labor shortage, which will kill companies that aren't set up to pay higher wages, and drastically restructure other companies to require less labor.

Sure it might be an exaggeration to call that "subversive" but it might be an understatement too. The most successful companies rely on a fabric of more numerous but individually dispensible companies, that are profitable but not so profitable as to grow quickly. Small businesses, yes, but also some quite large ones that are stuck in quiescent or shrinking parts of the market. There's no telling what would happen to them if low-paid work was removed, and low-moderate paid work strongly discouraged, by a UBI.

After all, I described that as "subversive" but it's only with limits on earnings at the top end, and/or limits on wealth, as well as a UBI, that capitalism itself would be seriously threatened.

[Neutraligon]

A living wage is not subversive to capitalism considering for capitalism to work people need to be able to buy things. If people are unable to support themselves on their own wage then it means that they are not part of the buying market and are instead dependent on either government money or donations from other people, making the market smaller. The living wage allows people to be part of the market.

One part of the market, yes. Not the labor market.

It is an interesting issue with capitalism where the companies have competing interests in how much they pay their employees. For a company the best result is if every other company pays a living wage while they do not and yet still get employees.

They get better workers and better work if they pay more though. When I say "living wage" I mean a high UBI, which doesn't just remove any incentive to work the least satisfying jobs, but removes incentive to work (or work as much) all the way up to median wage. A labor shortage, which will kill companies that aren't set up to pay higher wages, and drastically restructure other companies to require less labor.

Sure it might be an exaggeration to call that "subversive" but it might be an understatement too. The most successful companies rely on a fabric of more numerous but individually dispensible companies, that are profitable but not so profitable as to grow quickly. Small businesses, yes, but also some quite large ones that are stuck in quiescent or shrinking parts of the market. There's no telling what would happen to them if low-paid work was removed, and low-moderate paid work strongly discouraged, by a UBI.

After all, I described that as "subversive" but it's only with limits on earnings at the top end, and/or limits on wealth, as well as a UBI, that capitalism itself would be seriously threatened.

Shrug with automation we are heading into new territory where capitalism itself may not work.

[Diahon]

A Few Excerpts:
Breaking ‘Unity’ Pledge, Joe Biden Backs Trump Impeachment Trial

but said he doesn’t think 17 Republican senators will vote to convict Trump.

I always knew the unity talk is just political talk. There is no such thing as unity with the Leftist Liberal Democrats in Congress. This is also been posted in many different news sites.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... ent-trial/

There is no uniting with fucking quislings. You and fellow conservatives can choose to dissociate from him and his nefarious influence on American conservatism, or be ostracized as supporters of an authoritarian abetter of insurrectionists, at minimum.

Trump won't be another tricky fucker Dick Nixon, nor will his postpresidential life be his Landsberg, the prelude to far worse attempts at usurpation of power and a dismantling of democratic institutions. If unity is what you truly want and not escape from accountability and the subsequent resumption of Trump's murderous rule, submit to democracy or else.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

... why Congress is a necessary evil. It's tradition that to get the most powerful positions (leader, Chairs of committee) one must get re-elected again and again. Career politicians.

I don’t see why the most senior person in the majority party shouldn’t be the chair. It should be something you earn.

I was just observing, that the "necessary evil" of career politicians is enforced by tradition in Congress. That's a point in favor of promotion by seniority.

"It should be something you earn" is the worst possible justification, though. A member (or Senator) who wins a marginal seat should be recognized ahead of one who who holds the same safe seat for many terms. Because the voters. But you think "doing the time" in Congress is a contribution more worthy of reward?

Downsides: the most important positions are taken by old people (old men in fact). Their knowledge might be out of date (google my nation name) leading to them making the wrong decision. The important positions are also taken by those who were lucky enough to first run in a safe seat. They're likely very out of touch with the voters, for that reason.

Seniority rules make more sense for the Leader and Whip. They have to know how their caucus and chamber works, they need to know them all, and if they've lost touch with the world outside that's a price worth paying.

[The Alma Mater]

They get better workers and better work if they pay more though. When I say "living wage" I mean a high UBI, which doesn't just remove any incentive to work the least satisfying jobs, but removes incentive to work (or work as much) all the way up to median wage.

Would it though ? After a year of lockdown, people are begging to go back to work. Sitting at home in front of netflix and the wife 24/7 turns out to be far less fun than expected.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

One part of the market, yes. Not the labor market.



They get better workers and better work if they pay more though. When I say "living wage" I mean a high UBI, which doesn't just remove any incentive to work the least satisfying jobs, but removes incentive to work (or work as much) all the way up to median wage. A labor shortage, which will kill companies that aren't set up to pay higher wages, and drastically restructure other companies to require less labor.

Sure it might be an exaggeration to call that "subversive" but it might be an understatement too. The most successful companies rely on a fabric of more numerous but individually dispensible companies, that are profitable but not so profitable as to grow quickly. Small businesses, yes, but also some quite large ones that are stuck in quiescent or shrinking parts of the market. There's no telling what would happen to them if low-paid work was removed, and low-moderate paid work strongly discouraged, by a UBI.

After all, I described that as "subversive" but it's only with limits on earnings at the top end, and/or limits on wealth, as well as a UBI, that capitalism itself would be seriously threatened.

Shrug with automation we are heading into new territory where capitalism itself may not work.

That's fair. Capitalism should be given warning and given time to adapt though. It's been a good horse and -- never mind the analogy. I would introduce a UBI for everyone (half for <12 children) but at a quite modest level like $100 a week, just to get the structural changes started.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

They get better workers and better work if they pay more though. When I say "living wage" I mean a high UBI, which doesn't just remove any incentive to work the least satisfying jobs, but removes incentive to work (or work as much) all the way up to median wage.

Would it though ? After a year of lockdown, people are begging to go back to work. Sitting at home in front of netflix and the wife 24/7 turns out to be far less fun than expected.

What effect do you think it would have on wages, then?

[Albrenia]

A Few Excerpts:
Breaking ‘Unity’ Pledge, Joe Biden Backs Trump Impeachment Trial

but said he doesn’t think 17 Republican senators will vote to convict Trump.

I always knew the unity talk is just political talk. There is no such thing as unity with the Leftist Liberal Democrats in Congress. This is also been posted in many different news sites.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... ent-trial/

To my knowledge Biden never pledged not to Impeach Trump. Considering that many from the Republican side of the fence are going for it too, I'm not sure it even violates the 'unity' message.

Considering the damage Trump did in undermining the bedrock of US Democracy with his claims of fraud which were thrown out of court, and the rhetoric which lead to January 6th, I don't think one can fairly expect Trump to be granted mercy from the consequences of his actions.