2020 Democratic presidential primary

can we have @DennisThePerrin hatcatted?

^^^^

Replace with Socks the cat for maximum trolling

Guys? Fuck off.

why

Phil Collins

I support that suggestion

I suspect you faggots* will actually do this, so that's my last post of that type.

*in the oldschool nonwoke sense

Mordy, where are you getting this 80% figure from?

― Karl Malone, Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:54 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

our GDP is 20t the plan is 16t = 80%

― Mordy, Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:55 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

So, you want to take an amount to be allocated over the next 30 years and spend it all in the first year?

― brigadier pudding (DJP), Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:57 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

btw that's new spending - the gov already makes up a large % of our national economy that this would be added to

― Mordy, Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:57 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

I appreciate the urgency but I don't think that matches Sanders' implementation plan

― brigadier pudding (DJP), Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:57 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

tbc it's a ten year plan and yes i'd imagine much of it would be upfront since he expects it to pay for itself within 15 years

― Mordy, Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:00 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

just because no one followed up on this...

it's a $16 trillion plan, over 10 years. that's $1.6T a year. assuming a $20T/year economy, that's 8%, not 80%. yes, that's still a lot. (also, if he somehow got elected and congress somehow decided to try to pass this bill, $16 trillion would be the starting point that would inevitably be reduced substantially.)

here's how the plan - https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/ - says that it will pay for itself within 15 years:

This plan will pay for itself over 15 years. Experts have scored the plan and its economic effects. We will pay for the massive investment we need to reverse the climate crisis by:

• Making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.
• Generating revenue from the wholesale of energy produced by the regional Power Marketing Authorities. Revenues will be collected from 2023-2035, and after 2035 electricity will be virtually free, aside from operations and maintenance costs.
• Scaling back military spending on maintaining global oil dependence.
• Collecting new income tax revenue from the 20 million new jobs created by the plan.
• Reduced need for federal and state safety net spending due to the creation of millions of good-paying, unionized jobs.
• Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share.

Mr. Sanders’s campaign estimated that roughly $3.1 trillion would be generated from “making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution” through new but unspecified fees and eliminating $15 billion in annual subsidies; another $1.2 trillion would come from “scaling back military spending on the global oil supply,” and $2.3 trillion would be collected from new income tax revenues from new jobs in the renewable energy industry, among other measures.

so people can and will quibble with how this would pay for itself, but let's not emulate rightwing talk radio and start saying that the plan would cost 80% of the US national economy and that it's all going to be spent in a few years, before we even read the fucking plan

also, the cost of a new stealth bomber is $46 trillion, according to leftwing talk radio

If one major mistake of Waxman-Markey was its backers’ inability to articulate how that climate bill would make people’s lives easier, the Green New Deal framework operates by constantly delivering and broadcasting tangible quality of life improvements, using early victories as an opportunity to enlist more support among the many, many people needed to challenge the colossal power of the fossil fuel executives, who are going to put up a massive fight one way or another. Sanders’s Green New Deal offers voters a vision of how much better the world could be without them; its policy and its politics aren’t unrelated.

https://theintercept.com/2019/08/22/bernie-sanders-climate-policy/

It might be worth noting that money spent does not disappear, but re-enters the economy, where it continues to circulate. Also worth noting that interest rates are still remarkably low in terms of the past 50 years, and if the Fed can purchase more than a trillion dollars of worthless paper to clean up the balance sheets of big banks and insurance companies after they screwed the pooch in 2008, it could monetize some of the US debt required to pursue such a plan by purchasing some of the US Treasury bonds that would be issued.

Just some minor considerations.

sorry, one more long excerpt, because fuck yeah on this

Using an old playbook, Republicans will liken any plan to curb emissions at all — be it a revenue-neutral carbon tax or a fuel efficiency standard — to socialism. Sanders’s plan doesn’t dance around the fact that the government will indeed play a more active role in the economy — or that most people’s lives will be better off for it.

Rather than inviting fossil fuel interests to the negotiating table, Sanders targets them as enemy number one. There are practical as well as political reasons not to enlist the likes of ExxonMobil in the transition to a low-carbon economy: Their core business model — to dig up and burn as much coal, oil and gas as possible — has not changed, and is plainly incompatible with decarbonizing along the timeline science is saying is necessary to avoid catastrophe. In addition to banning fracking, mountaintop removal coal mining, and extraction on public lands, Sanders plans to “[p]rosecute and sue the fossil fuel industry for the damage it has caused,” making particular reference to revelations in the last several years that Exxon funded climate disinformation while knowing full well the damage warming posed. “These corporations and their executives should not get away with hiding the truth from the American people. They should also pay damages for the destruction they have knowingly caused,” the plan states. On this point, Sanders’s plan is more confrontational than Ocasio-Cortez and Markey’s Green New Deal resolution, which doesn’t mention fossil fuels.

so fucking glad to finally see a major candidate lay it out like this. "he says what i'm thinking!!"

Tremendous, thanks for the excerpts

Reduced need for federal and state safety net spending due to the creation of millions of good-paying, unionized jobs.
Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share.

Canadians can't get even carbon pricing to fuckin exists and not only this dude is promising that a 1.63 trillion plan will pay for itself but he thinks the nation that voted twice for climate deniers in the last 12 years will buy it. Is it the desperation that is such good marketing or really no one has a calculator in their hands? Scaling aback in military spending? If you scale back 20% of military spending, you save a whooping a .12 trillion. You capture 15% of all revenues from oil producing companies? You save a whooping .35 t.

Green New Deal is the only forward, fine. But it's going to cost a lot to each individual citizen. Let's stop denying this. So either Bernie ascribe to voodoo economics and think the Fed can print as much money as they want and use taxes only as a deflation tool which is absolutely nuts, you can ask Argentinians how they are going to pay their debts in foreign currency over the next few years, or Bernie just does not have the guts to say 'it is time Americans become a society in which individuals pay taxes like other high-HDI nations' and stop with the abhorrent lying.

you can ask Argentinians how they are going to pay their debts in foreign currency over the next few years

Not to say that we have been very responsible or deserving of the distinction lately, but the US dollar is the world's foremost reserve currency and therefore in a highly privileged position compared to the Argentine peso. Earning foreign currency to pay off debts is not really a problem here.

The US currency is in this very deserving position because the whole world trusts that it won’t inflate. Print tons of it and that trust is long gone and we find yourself in a shitty situation for lots of economies around the world.

We find ourselves**

Is it the desperation that is such good marketing or really no one has a calculator in their hands? Scaling aback in military spending? If you scale back 20% of military spending, you save a whooping a .12 trillion. You capture 15% of all revenues from oil producing companies? You save a whooping .35 t.

no, it's a whooping $1.2 trillion for the military cuts, and a pooping $3.1 trillion from the fuck you fossil fuel fee

Mr. Sanders’s campaign estimated that roughly $3.1 trillion would be generated from “making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution” through new but unspecified fees and eliminating $15 billion in annual subsidies; another $1.2 trillion would come from “scaling back military spending on the global oil supply,” and $2.3 trillion would be collected from new income tax revenues from new jobs in the renewable energy industry, among other measures.

For most of the past decade the Fed has been having considerable trouble getting inflation up to their own target of 2% annually. We would seem to have some leeway before we get to hyperinflation destroying the US economy.

I'd much rather frontrunners advance too-ambitious plans that actually address issues in a way that is commensurate with the scale of the problems than bury their heads in the sand and throw out quarter-measures. At worst, it potentially helps to shift the discourse. If even one-twentieth of the measures in Bernie's plan were actually put in place it would be a tremendous benefit to many.

I would want the same from the Canadian left, incidentally.

I would love some more inflation, ffs

the same way pelosi and biden are haunted by reagan, bankers/economists are haunted by 70s inflation. those who remember it will be gone soon

Annual military spending for the US is 700 b; how does he get that 1.2 t ?

It is the other way around Mooks, freshwater econs are using the spectre of 70s inflation to justify trickle down policies.

You can have increased spending without increased inflation, that’s what rates are for, it’s been done over and over. But every implemented inflationary policy plan has been a disaster and it’s not just third world Argentina but 80s France and late 90s Germany.

Annual military spending for the US is 700 b; how does he get that 1.2 t ?

like you said earlier, maybe scale it back 20%? 20% of 700 billion is 140 billion, per year. doing that 10 years in a row gives you 1.4 t

on the other hand, if we did not support the troops and cut spending by 20%, our annual military spending would only be as big as the next 5 countries combined, rather than the current 8. i'm not sure this nation can survive the indignity

I have no problem with a giant plan like the Green New Deal, and if it were 3 times the cost then so be it. I just have a very strong preference for honesty and rational thinking and the situation right now is that to save or even just adapt to climate change is going to be extremely costly. Nothing in this situation will ‘pay for itself’, we will all foot a pretty big bill and to pretend otherwise using shody electoral rhetoric is imo a very very dangerous path.

bearing in mind that the US military is also one of the world's biggest polluters xp

we will all foot a pretty big bill and to pretend otherwise using shody electoral rhetoric is imo a very very dangerous path.

finding it difficult to imagine a more dangerous path than the one we're already on tbh

1.4 t is not even 10% of the cost Bernie is asking for. Not even accounting the price of disruption (that would represent job losses) and the fact that a whole bunch of world trade is dependent on US projecting power. Once again, I’d do it. But to pretend like cuts in the military will cover a significant portion of the GND costs is not true. To pretend that those cuts are not extremely costly is also not true.

t/s: costly measures vs total global collapse

finding it difficult to imagine a more dangerous path than the one we're already on tbh

― Simon H., Friday, August 23, 2019 1:10 AM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Both plans are similar in that they promise every thing will be fine and you won’t have to pay a penny and in the end that’s what important.

I’m glad you got to save on yearly income taxes.

t/s: costly measures vs total global collapse

― Andy Jones, Earth-Born Angel of Love (bizarro gazzara), Friday, August 23, 2019 1:17 AM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Bernie said it won’t be costly.

That’s my point.

I just hope no one at the Pentagon hears that you can spend 16.3 t and that it will pay for itself.

Bernie just does not have the guts to say 'it is time Americans become a society in which individuals pay taxes like other high-HDI nations'

He has said this many times fwiw.

Bye-bye, Seth Moulton, whoever the fuck you are/were.

The three-term congressman plans to say in a speech later on Friday that he feels confident that he “raised issues that are vitally important to the American people and our future,” and he will pledge to campaign vigorously for the eventual Democratic nominee.

Thank goodness these randos aren't sticking around to the bitter end

(chorus of 'Like a Rock' plays over slideshow of Seth Moulton images culled from hasty google search, only about 2/3 of which are photos of the correct Seth Moulton)

It doesn't look like Gillibrand is going to make the 3rd debate. Drop out soon to come?

Gillibrexit

deblasio just kinda sorta nonchalantly hoping there's a major times square incident in the next three weeks

One time I was living in a basement apartment and there were like 8-10 people hanging on a warm summer evening and just milling between the stairwell and the apartment with the front door open when out of nowhere some total stranger slipped under the railing and strode confidently into my place and all the people who were supposed to be there because they knew one another were all like 'uhh...what?' and it took him kind of a surprisingly long time to get the hint. de Blasio reminds me a little of that guy.

Seth Moulton is not bad as Rep but I have no idea why he decided to run for President other than a big pile of "I'm a left-leaning white male veteran with a Harvard degree" hubris

He’s not particularly left leaning as I understand it. He organized the attempt to depose pelosi from the right of the democratic caucus last year. He’s quite likely to get primaried from the left.

I think reading him as conservative is dumb when you look at his record. He's not as progressive as he claims to be but he's nowhere near Joe Manchin territory, which is how his critics describe him.

His recent record involves forming a group with the most right wing democratic congresspeople to oppose pelosi’s reelection as speaker, and he’s on the record as hating Medicare for all. He may not be a conservative depending on your definition of the word but there’s that.

Every white dude his age who occupies his space is one viagra overdose away from becoming joe manchin

using shody electoral rhetoric is imo a very very dangerous path.

I would suggest you are looking in the wrong direction to find the primary source of this danger you so abhor. Trump and the Republicans are so much further down that path that if this were a race to embrace shoddy rhetoric they would be the hare to Bernie's tortoise. Some memorable examples would be 'global warming is a Chinese hoax' and 'beautiful clean coal'.

Much as you dislike it, most voters require a spoonful of sugar to help the sacrifices go down. Casting your policies in a bit of rosy light helps people to accept them, which is not quite the same as the outright blatant lies we get from climate deniers.