Printable View
New York Democratic primary just delivered a surprise
New York's 14th punted the 10-term incumbent to appoint a 28 year-old running on a solidly progressive platform:
https://www.wonkette.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez
Health-care for all, tuition free college; she has all that and more. Any further left and you'd have to declare a revolution (at least in America)
Does this signal Trump's "red wave" or something else?
Has she priced / got a plan for implementing any of these initiatives? Doing any of these things would be tough. Doing them all either makes her a Polymath or a Populist.
If she was in Texas / Wyoming / Alabama I'd say major change is coming. In New York this might just galvanise any that were wavering on Trump and his cut outs to see that they are the bastion to prevent Communism in the USA.
~:smoking:
Pfff, this is always said by those waging class warfare on the poor. Take the Basic Income for example. A professor in Germany recently said that a mere 0.3% or 0.4% tax on financial transactions would make billionaires pay enough to grant every German a Basic Income of around 1500€. And it would be so low that barely any financial transactions would stop happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The US have the highest GDP in the world and only a few people who actually profit from that. They just have to distribute the spoils of their economy more evenly rather than continue to let a select few take most of it and then buy themselves the politics to get even more. :creep:
I didn't say it wasn't possible. Has she outlined a plan to do so? I take that this means "no".
Every time such a plan is voiced I always hear it'll be paid for by "closing tax loopholes"... and everything will magically work. Given that a progressive country such as Germany hasn't done this and pilots in the nordics "failed" (whatever that means) and Switzerland voted against it, the concept has hardly won hearts and minds. So in an extremely individualistic, small state country do you really think this will work?
The USA has a massive and increasing deficit. So to do this would require a VAST structural change to the very fabric of the USA since there's no "spare" money, it'd all have to be expropriated. And a majority of voters would have to utterly change their outlook on life.
But yeah. It's a fraction of GDP so dead easy... :dizzy2:
~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
None of these policies are viable in the legislature at the moment, so it would be perverse to ask her to come up with plans for the biggest reforms in American history all on her own.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
As these ideas reach critical mass in the Democratic Party through rhetoric and representation, they can employ their internal resources, as well as the government's through legislation, to develop them concretely.
The hard part isn't paying for it, the hard part is the enormously complex legislation it would require, and the very hardest part is as you say. accepting as a general commitment by society and state a new social contract on the basis of such floors and minimum standards. Once you have the commitment, it's just a matter of time.
I haven't heard that any experiments in the Nordics failed, but I do recall hearing that Nordic welfare states have historically sustained themselves not by (merely) taxing the rich, but the broad base of the middle class - heavily. But hat's part of their contract, or was in the 20th c: more taxes for more services.
Already posted in the Trump thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
As long as we're doing thread crossovers, a few thoughts on the tactic of Democratic court packing to counteract Republican procedural extremism:
I don't support it. At least, not yet. Don't jump the gun. It should remain available for a more opportune moment; expending this card now significantly depreciates its future utility, and that's not optimal in a time when the long-term has to be considered and is also so opaque. One of the best arguments against a hasty packing maneuver is that, even if Democrats got the spine to do it, Republicans are naturally better at escalation than Democrats. So, if the Democrats packed the courts, the Republicans would match them and, say, repeal civil service laws, purge the government and declare a one-party state. :shrug:
Instead, what a Democratic admin should do is aggressively push non-partisan judicial reforms, the ones that work on the assumption that the opposition party is a legitimate organization. 'But isn't that wrong and naive?', you'd protest. The key thing is that it is a clear improvement on the current system, it weakens the radical momentum of the Republicans somewhat, and doesn't just toss away a major trump card up our sleeve - one that, recall, enables the Republicans to escalate all the way to toppling the republic.
For example, the Supreme Court should be term-limited, and members replaced according to defined intervals (so, regardless of who holds office or Congress). Expand the SCOTUS, double it even - but not for the purpose of packing. Do it so that each seat is devalued, and do it in such a way that the numbers are increased in staggered fashion over a few years, not all at once (i.e. packing).
I'm sure there are similar things to be done with the circuit and district courts, but I don't have specific proposals here.
I'm sorry for misinterpreting how you meant what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
But as Monty says, these changes need time, the first step is to get enough politicians elected who are actually willing to implement them. Getting them elected (and potentially re-elected) gives them the legitimization to enact the necessary changes over time.
Plus, if the alternative is waiting until enormous public unrest or even some kind of civil war enforces similar changes, I'd rather go with working towards changes through legislation now.
It's a symptom of the increasing polarization of politics in the USA. Trumps deplorables love him for being combative and finally taking on the "enemy." Those who are in the opposite camp are encouraged to be even more ardently big-government and left wing.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
You also forgot her plank on getting rid of ICE, and thus implicitly condoning free and unrestricted immigration.
Quite understandable - it was a typical comment for those who wish for no change and so hardly surprising you took it that way.
Politicians who have large promises and fail to deliver on any of them tend not to last long. Better to have smaller, specific targets that are achievable that give confidence to re-elect for more changes - have one's vision then smaller SMART steps to get there. My concern is whenever her term ends if she's nothing but a list of somewhat technical excuses why nothing on the list has been accomplished her tenure might be limited.
As things stand she is even against the Democrat Party Aristocracy so they'll either adopt her or destroy her.
~:smoking:
Did we have free and unrestricted immigration before Bush 43?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Before Bush 43, Yes. Actually before U.S. Grant. Immigration wasn't really restricted until the 1880 when the SCOTUS declared it a federal responsibility. There have been at least some restrictions in place ever since.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
It is correct that all borders were basically open before about a century ago, unless one was unlucky enough to run into some armed men at an outpost or patrol, and those armed men decided they wanted to :daisy: with someone that day. (Funny too, as noted in the Trump thread, that our President's grandfather was in effect deported from Germany to New York for illegal emigration/draft dodging.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But I was saying, ICE did not exist before 9/11 and DHS and all that. Do you really see it as a positive development in government?
Here's a good summary of the situation with ICE and our larger bureaucratic/militarized/carceral immigration system:
Quote:
I don't want to be one of those decency crusaders who says, ”[Blank] issue allows for wide range of acceptable opinion.” Mostly because I think that's a dodge for people who lack moral clarity. Open borders are the best solution for our world. If we can't do that, then we can embrace a tolerant, sensible system which provides a clear path to citizenship, and gives rights and protections to undocumented workers. It's hard to see how anyone could disagree with this.
But. But I understand there are people who don't feel as I do. People who are still outraged about kid jail, but feel qualms about immigrants. Who knows why you feel the way you do?
Maybe you think borders are healthy. Maybe you think citizenship needs to be the result of doing a set number of Herculean labors. Maybe you believe that citizens should have to pay your way in. Perhaps you just feel strange about having a club anyone can join.
Anxieties about order and norms. Understandable. I get it. But what is not forgivable, what is beyond the pale, is this kind of solution.
And here's the problem: most political problems are set up to have pre-designed answers. Deficit hawks have little interest in raising taxes or cutting military spending. “Deficit” is a problem invented to take care of a specific problem: the welfare state. The hawks were only ever concerned about cutting social spending.
Most everyone hates crime. But the kind of crime we hate, and the way we hate it, is telling. “Crime” in American culture indicates the actions of poor people of color, never suburban drug users, or white-collar criminals, or white men with guns. “Crime” is only focused on one kind of crime. “Crime” only gets solved in one way: more cops, more prisons, more laws. That's why “tough on crime” is always code for “arrest more Black people” and “illegal immigrants” is code for “Hispanics.”
That's why immigrant-bashers who are offended by kid jail seem suspect to me. The problem they are concerned about … is a problem designed with this solution in mind. This brutal, deliberate, dehumanizing process we live with. ICE, the Border Patrol, all of the mechanisms of terror and harm our system designs … those are the logical outcome of being “tough” on “illegal immigration.” This is what that means.
Be carefull what you wish for, the quality of everything will take a nosedive
Better a sparrow in the hand than a pigeon on the roof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Not sure as to how positive it is. The old INS was not quite getting the job done either though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
But we do need some form of restraint on the flow of immigrants to the USA. The number of people we could absorb culturally is lower than the number we could absorb economically. Both numbers are, in all likelihood, lower than the number of people who want to come here.
Is ICE the best setup for the tasks of controlling the border, allowing for controlled immigration to enhance our population, and trying to prevent and reverse illegal immigration? Maybe not. But those tasks need to be addressed.
If you're still not convinced she has the right goals, maybe this will convince you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZUiWMEXISo
Healthcare -> downright scary
Houses for the homeless -> downright scary
Jobs -> downright scary
Women's rights -> downright scary
Clean campaign finance -> downright scary
Higher education for all -> downright scary
Support seniors -> downright scary
I'm sure all the seniors watching his circus agree especially about that last one being "downright scary".
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Fox is kinda scary. You say better a sparrow in the hand than a pigeon on the roof, it is also better to have one cunt in the hand than the smell of ten. Trying her idea's very locally could work but thereś always that smallest violin of the world; $$$
How about this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Open borders, but no birthright citizenship for anyone. (I have an inkling of children of citizens rising to the position of full citizenship, but I would have to work that out...)
Everyone is welcome to enter and stay in the country, if they will consent to do so through a relatively simple and painless bureaucratic process at ports of entry and at various times during long-term residence. They will be identified and registered as entrants - this before we even have to decide what benefits and duties apply.
Thus, the large portion of dangerous unlawful crossings are eliminated: only fugitives, vagabonds, and international criminals would have any incentive to do so. Human trafficking is curtailed, and now will be strictly in the domain of slave labor.
Visa overstay would be eliminated, at least in its current form, because the visa system in its current form would not exist, except perhaps to categorize after the fact.
The object here is to make the process easy, painless, and non-threatening (no threat of arbitrary deportation or persecution) in order to get people to submit to government regulation and oversight while present or resident in the country. (N.b. There is much in common with the principles of the 'regulated full legalization' model of drug control.) One element of the meta-process might be to have the government come to you, rather than the other way around, thus promoting both convenience and compliance. Of course the officials would generally be mild-mannered notaries with clipboards, not leering jackboots.
The abolition of jus soli negates the advantage of merely existing on American soil, so peacable entrants to the United States will consolidate into the categories of:
*Tourist
*Temporary economic migrant
*Aspiring permanent resident/citizen/refugee
Without jus soli, we can expect some level of self-sorting from the third category into the second.
This should please both leftists and libertarians. For a believer in the market, it must be expected that the net flow of migrants will equilibrize according to the dynamic economic capacity of the US after only a short period (months, bullishly) of adjustment and turmoil. As for the fascists and supremacists, I'm this close to advocating we deport them to Mars - no truck with them.
Now we are at relative leisure to discuss what goes into citizenship, and what it should take to attain it. It becomes a distinct and compartmental question. To a great extent our border crisis, and a great deal of human suffering, will have been mitigated in the meantime. We even get to liquidate superfluous government agencies and bodies, including the Schutzpolizei, which saves a bit of coin.
So long as one's priority is not outright sadism, it's hard to see how the current system, let alone a more extreme extrapolation, could be preferable to my outline.
Almost none of those ideas are pursuable on a local level alone. A dick in each hand is better than one dick in both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
My problem is that the net increase in new residents, given the size of our economy, is likely to be staggeringly large over a period of relatively few decades. Given the conditions many face around the world, the rational choice for millions would be to obtain a plane ticket, come here, and hope for the best -- because our worst is better than what they face. I think the numbers would swamp us, and end up causing a host of new problems even as your approach would curtail many of the current set.
Our culture, I suspect, could not absorb that many new persons, new values, etc. and not end up being radically altered. While I acknowledge our culture is imperfect, I think we would be less pleased with the results of this level of change in so short a time frame as I think would be the case.
EDIT: Let me emphasize separately a hypothesis already stated, that open borders makes it easy for people to come and go, to work or study for a season or a few years and depart, whereas restrictive regimes (e.g. since Clinton) incentivize entire families to settle permanently. What, quintupling the numbers of permanent unauthorized residents in a generation (again, since Clinton-era) seems like good evidence.
(And collocate these two permanently in your mind: 1996 immigration reform, NAFTA. Former incentivizes permanent residency, latter alters the economic balance to penalize staying in Mexico's labor market and reward being in the US labor market. Double whammy)
In the first place, we should note that not that many people, relatively speaking, are interested in abandoning their homes for a chance at permanent residence in the US, even if the conditions will be or are perceived to be superior. Just as most people in the Rust Belt are staying put!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
(But really, internal migration is the big outlet in the developing world.)
So your case would be that the new policies would encourage too high a long-term surge, or that though there wouldn't be a remarkable shift in the baseline, the baseline alone (of people who would come if they had the opportunity) is overwhelming in magnitude.
I'm not so sure this would be the case, but let's accept that it would be for now.
To that I say, fix the other policies driving problematic patterns of migration:
1. Keep our damn promises to our collaborators in the War on Terror.
2. Don't add to (I'm not even using the word "stop") the destabilization of the Middle East.
3. Tackle gun production and theWar on Terror(EDIT: I'm sorry, I meant to write War on Drugs) to cripple the cartels' revenue stream and allow Latin America a chance to get back on its feet.
4. Invest heavily in climate change mitigation and preparedness on transnational scale; the world hasn't seen anything yet.
5. Disincentivize employers from importing skilled labor for the purpose of holding down payroll expenses.
6. Help other countries not be places people are eager to leave.
7. Global capitalism demands constant competition and mobile low-cost labor forces. Explore a system that doesn't require people in the developing world to become economic itinerants for their survival.
Regardless of the broader policy context, as I and quoted authors point out several times the existing framework demands escalating violence and repression to maintain "border integrity", even as the conditions for migration-inducing instability outside (and within) the US are exacerbated. Like the national debt, the scope and scale promises only to expand. On our current path, deterrence escalates; solutions become more total and final, and fatal; the collateral damage to Our livelihoods and institutions becomes enormous and irreparable. The likeliest possible outcomes are maximalist, the logical conclusion of trends and priorities, so we can accept one set of problems or another.
Accept, in other words, a transformation of US foreign policy in conjunction with lenitive border reform, OR genocide and police state.
That's the bottom line, I think. We have to choose what we are willing to live with, and I won't choose the latter. If I can help it, I will act to prevent supremacists from choosing the latter.
If you choose to do nothing, to acknowledge no dilemma, to wait and see, how can you avoid falling in with the path of least resistance?
A curio: This libertarian believes we should encourage hundreds of millions of Muslims to immigrate to the West (on a, to simplify, citizenship-for-sale framework) because because immigration to Western societies is known to cause progressive rates of apostasy and religious disaffiliation over generations. The theory is that bringing in hundreds of millions of Muslims will go a long way toward marginalizing Islam in the world as most Muslims eventually convert to either Christianity or the "Enlightenment" religion. The author, some type of Christian, apparently also believes that Christianity would have an advantage over secular humanism (i.e. Enlightenment) in converting Muslims and so would finally be able to gain an edge over the Enlightenment in the West.
Have to say, there are a lot of eyebrow-raising premises in this fella's speculation (and some questionable assertions on comparative religious history). This is why people make fun of libertarians, right? Helps remind me why not all types of social engineering may be salutary, or soundly-intentioned.
If the Democrats take any lesson away from this its that the voters dont want the old guard anymore. No Biden, no Warren, no Sanders. They need young blood, more people like Ocasio-Cortez. Maybe not as extreme as her in all those policies, but at the very least new and younger people. It would be a tragic mistake to nominate Bernie or Biden.
Also the NY 14 is very deeply blue so theres little to no risk in it turning red in November.
What's the problem, they are only uneducated by western standards, can't keep up with it anyway as they do do not't speak your language, and think very differently about a lot of things. It is such a succes in Europe, every day reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
edit, I do not know who this guy is but I think he's right. https://twitter.com/spikedonline/sta...eenstijl.nl%2F I think I have stated a few times here that immigration is a weapon, glad to see someone saying the same
I am in emphatic agreement with you on point 5, agree with points 1 & 2, agree (though not sure of the doability in practice on 6 & 7. Emphatically agree that War on Drugs is a sinkhole that is counterproductive (though might quibble on the best methods/steps to stop the bleeding) and even have some sympathy for 4. Setting aside the anthropomorphic debate, the climate is changing and methods to adapt to that changing climate need to be addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I don't think my choices are quite so either/or as you paint them above, though as you can tell by my agreement with many of your noted points, I do not believe your argument is baseless.
Applies to us here:
Narcotizing dysfunction
Quote:
Narcotizing dysfunction is a theory that as mass media inundates people on a particular issue they become apathetic to it, substituting knowledge for action.[1] It is suggested that the vast supply of communications Americans receive may elicit only a superficial concern with the problems of society, while importance of real action is neglected, and this superficiality may cover up mass apathy [...] However, being informed and concerned is not a replacement for action.
This raises a couple of issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The divide between theoria/praxis; Aristotle looks at that divide in his Nicomachean Ethics; for some things (mathematics, logic) it doesn't really matter if it ever is applied, the exercise is enough; for politics OTOH, without practical application the exercise is pointless.
Coupled with some ideas about cognition: "How can one assert that they know something (smoking excessive, drinking are bad) if their behaviour does not reflect what they claim to know"
Monties tourist observation comes into play here; talking endlessly about issues w/o action is like flying over the Grand Canyon, pretending to be an expert based on that experience.
Ocasio-Cortez interrogates political corruption:
https://i.imgur.com/V2kOrCQ.jpg
If you arent following her on Twitter then you are simply missing out.