2020 Democratic presidential primary

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.

Except, the moment reality turns out a hair worse than promised, Democrats get hammered and scurry on back to their hidey holes.

Remember "you can keep your current doctor"?

xpost Sanders explains he is going to pay for the GND with, in part, the net addition of 20 millions jobs (when currently there is only 6 millions unemployed) + all the while phasing out entire industries. It’s one those many lies I just can’t stand. Sure, republicans are worse, climate denial is a pretty low bar to clear but clearing it doesn’t justify undermining the crucial undertaking of saving the climate with desperate electorate claims and marketing fantasies.

As I have said earlier, it’s been a political battle to implement carbon pricing in some nations that historically see all of climate, taxes, and government regulations more positively than US citizens have had. But that guy, polling 18 % in the losing party, that guy is sure to convince the nation that tens of millions will lose their jobs and that it will be alright because ‘it pays for itself’ ? * All I see is that Sanders took a legit set of actions, something like the GND, and applied his ego on it to the point of distorting any sense of credibility to it.

* Yes I understand, they won’t lose their jobs, I did not forget the 20 millions magical jobs created that pay for themselves, those oil workers will be relocated in a field in which they have no prior experience. It will all be so smooth. Haha eat the rich **rose emoji**

Was there some previous version of the GND with specific proposals and a realistic fully-costed budget?

for argument's sake VHS, how would you like a politician to sell a climate action plan that is commensurate with the scale of the problem

the net addition of 20 millions jobs
that's not what the plan says. it says "20 million new jobs". not net.

also, his plan doesn't talk about carbon pricing

i'm typing out a longer post that criticizes your perspective on this (it's a must read!!), but i just want to start with that. it's a good thing to want your political leaders to use facts they can stand behind. we need to do that, too

Higher taxes on "the wealthy and corporations" are part of the proposal. Maybe the middle class would need to pay more as well. I do agree that any serious climate action will require a lot of upheaval and expense and quite possibly a reduction in standard of living and politicians who want to tackle the issue are probably not going to stress those aspects in their platform; let's see how he responds when these issues come up in debates. I don't really believe that he will end unemployment. Providing five years' full compensation for all resource workers who lose their jobs seems pretty ambitious too but it would be p sweet if it could be done. Idk the political realism of anything anymore tbh. If the Amazon keeps burning, maybe none of it will matter anyway.

xps

and while i shit out that post, here's the conceding part of it:

on the whole, i think some of your criticisms are valid. some of the information in the plan doesn't exactly hold up to scrutiny. here are the first and last posts in a thread from someone who knows what they're talking about.

The Sanders campaign has just released their climate policy proposal. Its.... ambitious. https://t.co/HO3D9ODunv

It aims to reach 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030, including almost $900 billion in energy storage build out.

This is *not* possible

— (((Alex Gilbert))) (@gilbeaq) August 22, 2019

Thats about it. The plan is worth reading, it has a lot of good ideas, and only a handful of really kooky ones. I will say all of the money spending and economics seem questionable, especially as they are not consequential economic analyses but just costs (end)

— (((Alex Gilbert))) (@gilbeaq) August 22, 2019

actually, no one wants to read my bullshit. this is essentially what i'm getting at:

for argument's sake VHS, how would you like a politician to sell a climate action plan that is commensurate with the scale of the problem

― Simon H., Friday, August 23, 2019

and remember - offering up a $16 trillion plan that leads to tons of positive outcomes that have nothing to do with the environment will be viciously smeared by big oil and every single Republican in the country. that is also true of every other realistic climate plan from any Democrat, regardless of what's in the plan or how expensive it is. full stop.

candidate plans (regardless of subject) are generally not worth arguing over in terms of actionable legislation. but carry on!

howbout taking the plan and doing all the possible things

assuming a continued GOP Senate, i'm hearing lots of things from all the Dems that are not possible

the general trend that candidates even feel compelled to offer detailed climate plans is a good sign/positive outcome. It indicates that the majority of the Dem candidates will respond to public pressure on this issue in some way once/if they are in office. But what actually gets hammered out in Congress as passable legislation will bear p much zero resemblance to anything proposed on the campaign trail.

xp

candidate plans (regardless of subject) are generally not worth arguing over in terms of actionable legislation. but carry on!

i think it's worth carrying on about what is the appropriate way to introduce climate legislation that is actually good. i disagree with VHS but they probably represent the majority viewpoint

xp

eg Obama and healthcare

xp

fwiw, I think VHS's feelings of concern are entirely sincere, but I cannot see them as constructive. Of all the things to wring his hands about, this seems very remote from my main political concerns atm. Politics are very messy and embodies all the vices in addition to all the virtues, and no matter how pristine he keeps himself they will remain forever messy. His criticism is both right and utterly useless.

by oil workers, do you mean like 'roughnecks'? because the majority of people employed by the oil and gas sector (electrical contractors, engineers, admin assistants, whatever) utilize skills that can be employed just as well in other fields. they didn't get their jobs out of the largesse of the fossil fuel industry, after all.

whoops, major xpost by now!

a conundrum of the climate crisis is that every year we choose not to dramatically change our approach to energy, the costs of the delay go up. this has been and will continue to be a political nightmare.

the ONLY way it will happen is if a candidate speaks for it powerfully and persuasively, and leaves the bullshit preemptive compromises with republicans and the fossil fuel industry out of it. they're going to fight it tooth and nail, whatever the legislation is. and they will win (again), unless there we are bold. sanders' plan is bold. i don't know if he's the right guy to argue for it, but who else is? Inslee? Would Harris support a plan of this ambition? Would Biden (pffffft)? Warren might.

generally agree that big bold plans are good, yes.

I think Harris generally would, she endorsed the "Green New Deal" such as it was, but she's more cautious than Sanders is. I can't remember if she's endorsed one of the carbon dividend bills or not.

warren would probably endorse the good stuff in the proposal (of which there are many) but she wouldn't support things that ppl could easily take apart as impossible