Democratic (Party) Direction

I don't care if "a better deal" could use "a catchier slogan" tbf - although why we're still talking about "deals" on both sides on the Atlantic come 2017 is its own epistemic problem, imo

the "deal" presumes some kind of game between parties whose interests aren't entirely mutual, when the continued existence of humanity, in a healthy and fulfilling environment, seems like something we should all be in favor of. Let's not make any more fucking deals. Let's have a better fucking way of life.

"Better deal" is so stupid bc Trump already claims to make the best deals

Democrats 2018: Liberté, Equalité, Beyonce

yeah so all that said can we move on to the planks

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/07/better-deal-far-democrats-moved-far-need-go

E Pluribus Unum = what's in it for me?

xxp

presumes some kind of game between parties whose interests aren't entirely mutual

imagine

Right now millions of unemployed or underemployed people, particularly those without a college degree, could be brought back into the labor force or retrained to secure full-time, higher-paying work. We propose giving employers, particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs. This will have particular resonance in smaller cities and rural areas, which have experienced an exodus of young people who aren’t trained for the jobs in those areas.

it's 15$ by 2024 which inflation adjusted is the same as hillarys 12$, but money illusion is real so 15$ ppl will be appeased (and tbh, it was prob intentional on activists part to set it high with knowledge that it would take better part of a decade to pass)

infrastructure good, seems like a esp good one to beat Trump with given his empty promises on it

i find Matt Stoller really annoying and Loomis is prob right that antitrust is likely too boring, but in areas like telecoms and healthcare there's some low hanging fruit, and antitrust is already bipartisan and an easy sell to Americans

tax credits for retraining; something like this should prob exist, but the devil's in the details. ideally you wanna strike the right balance between wasting tax expenditure on hires that would've happened anyways and incentivizing those that don't; something like setting the subsidy proportional to unemployment (or 1 - prime age epop) in the commuting zone and having it phase out with firm size

They always seem to imagine that the closer they edge to Republican policy positions, the more votes they will inevitably capture, due to math.

The Democratic party of 2017 embraces an end to mass incarceration, free higher education, legalized marijuana, and civil rights for both gay people (which even Republicans have come to grudgingly accept) and trans people. It has made extreme income inequality into something people see as an injustice instead of the God-given order of things.

I mean I'm not saying they're political masterminds but I don't think they're moderate Republicans. I think their failures are largely structural and tactical; focusing too little on state legislatures, which creates a situation where there aren't enough seasoned Dem candidates to run for U.S. office, and which allows state law to bit by bit put money in the hands of organized groups that donate to and campaign for the GOP, keep money out of the hands of organized groups that donate to and campaign for Democrats.

how are any of their policy ideas actually going to make a serious dent in income inequality?

how the fuck do you even make a serious dent on income inequality at this point?

not with any measures Dems will go for that's for damn sure

yeah let me know how many silicon valley VCs or corporate big law dudes will take a 75% upper tax bracket

fart fart fart small business fart fart factory workers fart fart fart fart tweaks to employer-based health care fart fart fart trump 2020

yeah let me know how many silicon valley VCs or corporate big law dudes will take a 75% upper tax bracket

oh, I definitely agree.

yeah let me know how many silicon valley VCs or corporate big law dudes will take a 75% upper tax bracket

oh, I definitely agree.

pay it or go to prison

how the fuck do you even make a serious dent on income inequality at this point?

A financial transactions tax on Wall Street trades would be a start. More high tax brackets on income, up to 75%. Ending easy shell companies based in the USA. New currency controls. Increasing the tax on capital gains over $10 million. Bigger estate taxes on estates over, say, $25 million. Changing how credits, deductions and exemptions are handled on high income returns.

The trick is to target the upper 5% and inflict just the right amount of pain at each level of wealth, so that the decision to move to some other lower tax country involves too much personal disruption and sacrifice to be worth it.

again I just can see Dems ever doing the majority of those things, even the modest ones, soooo

100% estate tax and guillotines?

sounds p good right now

100% estate tax and guillotines?

sounds p good right now

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.)

hey, you know how a top ilx pastime right now is looking back on stuff we said a year ago for morbid yuks?

it's only a morbid yuk if it comes true and that'll take a lot more than a year I'd expect

“A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future”

wow with a slogan this good they don't even need policies.

better future? where do i donate my money?

i like better future!

Yeah Schumer said the other day "we're not going to include any policies at all so don't bother looking it up, we're just going to use a slogan only" me and the people online I get my news from were all really upset about it.

they should try to pass a bill stripping healthcare from elected representatives i bet that would be extraordinarily popular

Isn't it Better Skills Better Jobs Better Wages?

was there just the op-ed in the NYT or somewhere more official to see a fuller slate of things?

the policy aspects that came along with the new slogan were: $15 minimum wage, increased antitrust activity (believe that when I see it) and negotiating for lower prescription drugs (lol that went out the window immediately during ACA)

15$ min wage might mean something without a six-year wait attached, I also don't believe the antitrust thing, and that doesn't sound like he said single payer, that thing americans like

single payer? you mean "medicare for all" right? :)

but yeah medicare for all or gtfo

the coal industry and the health insurance industry need to be about 1/20th the size they are now. it's so dispiriting realizing this is the inevitable endgame but having to go through decades of stupidity and greed and millions of people dying in order to get there. surely we can jump start this?? have a plan for investment in renewable energy that includes specific initiatives for the people who lose their jobs, tangible stuff like training and actual monetary support. it's all the same thing. healthier people, healthier planet, higher-tech, fully automated luxury communism

universal basic income

universal health care

universal tuition remission

better ingredients
better pizza

this is a pretty succinct statement of something I've been thinking for a while https://t.co/HPzn4fbAo3

— slackbot (@pareene) July 30, 2017

the highest levels of dem policy is all lawyers & economists. both fields suffer from key flaws. there are no social scientists to balance.

yes. but I know some people who are actively trying to do something about that exact problem

I made a handy guide to when you can criticize the democratic party pic.twitter.com/2fybtCEN53

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) June 30, 2017

It's "tongue in cheek" because he does it every day, see?

pic.twitter.com/ELwwEvoonp

— Pixelated Boat (@pixelatedboat) August 1, 2017

In what universe are economists not social scientists?

a better one?

Good article about NYC Adam's business venture prior to his "democrats bad" rebranding. https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2013/02/11/how-annoying-bar-customers-with-dead.html

Economists are definitely social scientists, they just don't seem to think so.

a lot of economists fancy themselves hard scientists, but i have touched them, their bodies are doughy and pliable

Also, they can be dissolved with surprisingly weak concentrations of acid.

not sure abt economists but def too many lawyers in politics

too many prosecutors, anyway

so at the risk of getting shit started, what's the short list of people who could effectively bridge the berniebot/ clintonista factions?

1) Elizabeth Warren
2) ...

That's about it right now, and even Warren has a spotty voting record iirc