Tuesday, May 30, 2023

Was I wrong about Biden's debt ceiling deal?

 So, I saw Kyle Kulinski's take on it, and uh...this actually isn't bad all things considered. Biden actually did a good amount of damage control. Sure, some work requirements were expanded, but at the same time eligibility was expanded in net for SNAP. And medicaid was protected. It's still a shame that Biden had to cave at all, but all things considered, I can live with this. 

Oh, and all things considered, republicans are melting down over how it's a bad deal for them. I agree, but it seems like it's a not terrible deal for the left. Biden protected a lot more than he gave up. 

Okay, so, I was a bit too negative in my last post on this subject. This deal ain't perfect. No compromise with the GOP is, but this isn't terrible, all things considered. It's kind of like gathering a bunch of infantry together to force a sturm meteor strike away from a bunch of megatanks, to make an advance wars reference. Basically, gave up the most minor concessions possible to avert a complete disaster. GOP all things considered only got like a small percentage of what they actually wanted here. 

So yeah if Dark Brandon is gonna hose the GOP as much as he can get away with, then I admit he negotiated this a lot better than I originally thought.

Discussing how SJWs are the left wing fundamentalist christians...again (in context of the Rammstein situation)

 So, I had a post about this, but it was related to the Rammstein stuff I deleted, but there actually are A LOT of points that I want to bring back from those posts into this one. And the big focus is that the SJWs really are like the left wing equivalent of fundie christians. They're culture warriors who want to shove their ideals for how people should live down peoples' throats, and now, they're basically coming for Rammstein, regardless of the veracity of the allegations. 

I've struggled to actually talk about these specific issues from a left wing perspective because whenever I do, I feel like other lefties dog pile on me for being some crude "incel", despite me think incels are just as toxic as the most toxic feminists. But, in this post, the band aid is coming off.

First of all, "power differentials". I talk a lot about power differentials on this blog. I mean, being an indepentarian and looking at things from my "freedom to ACTUALLY say no" perspective, I tend to be sensitive to power differentials. But we often hear, in relation to the idea of Rammstein having groupies, that ew theres something SOOOO wrong with a 60 year old rock star wanting to have sex with a 20 something year old fan. And even though the original accuser's story is looking more and more false, I feel like now the SJW types whipped up into their moral outrage mode are starting to shift to THIS. They claim there's so much of a power differential between a 60 year old male rock star and their impressionable female fans, and there's a bit of a power dynamic in play that kind of invalidates consent. 

And I just wanna say that this is nonsense. First of all. Going to a concert is voluntary. Second of all, meeting your idol is voluntary. Third of all, having sex with them is voluntary. People who end up in the positions of being groupies and having sex with Till Lindemann WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH TILL LINDEMANN. Like really, we need to get rid of this big powerful male takes advantage of innocent wallflower young woman. We have age of consent laws to prevent abuse, assuming the person having sex with Lindemann is 18+, i DONT CARE if they do it if its consensual. GET OVER IT. 

Because, let's be honest, as a Rammstein/Lindemann fan, let me just say, more than a lot of the female fanbase is thirsty for till. They talk about how hot he is, some of them even make erotic fanfic about him for crying out loud. And these are ADULT WOMEN. If you're 18+, you're LEGALLY an adult. I see people act like omg 60 year old having sex with a 21 year old so gross. MEN LIKE TO HAVE SEX, AND MANY MEN LIKE TO HAVE SEX WITH YOUNG WOMEN, THIS IS NATURAL, GET OVER IT. 

And to go back to the women objectifying members of Rammstein thing, let's think about the shoe on the other foot. If a fan base of 20something year old males objectified an older woman, let's say not 60, because I doubt most men would be attracted to say, Madonna, say someone who is in their 30s. Say Taylor Swift. Wouldnt these guys still see that is "creepy"? Ew, this woman just wants to earn a living singing, why do they wanna objectify her? Poor Taylor! You KNOW it will happen. 

Let's be honest, these SJWs are man haters. These "feminist" types are all for advancing the causes of women and rewriting gender relations around womens' issues, but they do it in a one sided way on their own terms, and they tend to create tons of double standards. Because let's face it, these feminists are just the opposite end of the coin from Steven Crowder and MRA types. They inherently see men as strong and powerful, and women as weak, so they attack men and stand up for women, and it doesnt matter so much the context, because the underlying beliefs indicate that one group is more powerful than the other and therefore the weak side is always right and the strong side is always wrong. And it's nonsense. 

So, if male fans of a female music star want to bang said female music star, that's objectifying her. But if a male rock star wants to sleep with female fans, that's the rock star being predatory. 

It really gets ridiculous after a while. 

And then it's not just that. Look at how they attack Lindemann for respecting consent and being angry. I'm not sure if the situation happened as the accuser claims it did, but basically, she said she was led under the stage and Till wanted to have sex with her and she said no, and he got angry. That's another thing SJWs hate, the idea of men getting angry or upset when women say no. I mean, Till RESPECTED THE CONSENT, and that's the important thing that mattered, but the fact that he got angry was what made him look bad here. I honestly don't care if he was angry. Men have emotions, and I honestly hate this idea that we're supposed to ask women out on their terms, and if they refuse, you dont push back at all, even if you respect it otherwise. Because how dare the man have EMOTIONS and crap. 

And in this situation, it's very well possible the reason Lindemann got mad (if the situation happened at all) was because the guy who led her to him lied to him. She was clear about not wanting sex, and if she was led to Till under the pretense of having it, that means the person who led him to her is at fault here for miscommunication at best, or lying at worst (and for reference I really dont trust the accuser's story at all at this point as she's destroyed her credibility several times over by now). 

 And yeah, it gets ridiculous. And honestly, as a male, i DO NOT LIKE THIS CRAP. My own ethos is very libertarian. I believe the two things that matter are whether the people are of legal age, and if consent is given. And while I can understand power dynamics around consent and given my nuanced take on power dynamics I take that into the situation, these feminists are way too judgy of Till. OMG MEN WANNA HAVE SEX WITH YOUNG WOMEN, THE HORROR. OMG MEN DONT LIKE REJECTION, THE HORROR. Is everyone consenting and is consent being respected? If so, then you need to shut up and mind your own business. Like, I'm so over these SJWs. We cant enjoy ANYTHING because of them. They're a bunch of extremists who just come in and start dictating how people should act. I didn't leave Christianity to deal with this crap. 

Again, as long as everyone is consenting, of legal age, and consent isn't coerced in a realistic way (including say, drugging women to make them consent more easily, which has no been demonstrated here), then honestly, it's not up to me how you live your life. if you wanna have sex with a rock star, and they want to have sex with you, go for it. My interest in these allegations was limited to the allegations themselves insofar as they relate to drugging, sexual assault, and potential human trafficking (yeah, they're really spiralling out of hand and getting dark), and because these allegations aren't even credible, then there's nothing more to see here. This issue should be dying off already, but the SJW moralizers keep coming in and refusing to acknowledge reality, or if they do start moving goalposts to find something else to get outraged about. And they need to chill.

If you dont like Rammstein and Till Lindemann, think his music is too sexual, too misogynist, fine, but trying to cancel him and shut him down for it is where i draw the line, as well as defending false allegations. Where do these people get off in being the morality police? Get out of here already.

Monday, May 29, 2023

Discussing the MeToo movement and Rammstein

 So, I had a bunch of posts discussing the recent rammstein controversy, but in light of recent events, I decided to delete them out of respect for the band. Basically, they started their 2023 tour last week, and after the first concert, a woman came forward accusing the band of spiking her drinks, potentially for the purpose of the band's singer, Till Lindemann, to have sex with them later. They made it sound like they were doing human trafficking like crap. it was ridiculous. If you want a run down of the allegations, you can read about them here

And, as you can imagine, the social media discussion around these allegations got a bit political, with SJW types trying to push their "believe all women" narrative decided to champion her cause, and rampant claims that the Rammstein community as a whole, many of whom were more skeptical of the claims, especially as the claims the accuser was posting on her twitter and instagram became more and more extreme and unhinged. 

I initially tried to be more impartial on this matter, and told her when she first made her allegations on reddit that if she's serious she should file a police report and get evidence. She claims to have done that, but I'm starting to wonder.

Anyway, I feel like this controversy is near the end of its lifespan, between the band releasing an official statement denying the allegations outright, and the person in question apparently getting a cease and desist letter. 

Honestly, at this point, I see the matter as settled, if she pushes, it will be taken to court, for better or for worse, but given the confidence with which rammstein is making the statements they are i suspect that they know that the claims are nonsense and that they would win in court. If she made up the cease and desist, well, she just further ruined her own credibility anyway.

But, despite this satisfying conclusion to the matter, a lot of the SJWs are pushing the "believe all women" thing, and not being an SJW, I want to offer my take on this mess. I think that while there is a side of that concept that has legitimacy, as sexual assault victims often keep silent and are afraid to come forward, at the same time, this stuff is also guilty until proven innocent, and I think that claims like this are why this narrative is BS. Because false accusations exist, and for all the SJW hand wringing over potential witch hunts against victims of sexual assault who do come out, they seem to ignore the damage that defamation can do against an accused person who is innocent. Our legal system operates by innocent until proven guilty for a reason and like always these whackos just try to evade things like rights and rule of law to push their mob mentality crap. As we know from understanding the times, SJWs dont really care about objective truth, they care about pushing narratives from underprivileged groups regardless of their veracity, and are the epitome of feels over reals. And honestly, I'm sick of it. 

Heck, I'm sick of a lot of criticism against Rammstein that comes over this. Anyone who follows Rammstein closely knows that Till is a very sexual being. ANd maybe he does have sex with fans. Assuming this is consensual, I literally don't care what two adults do. But again, SJWs love to try to dictate their rules for how humans should act, as if they're fundamentalist christians. Rather than build their worldview around how humans actually act and going from there, they build it around their ideals of how people SHOULD act and insist on trying to force people to act in that way. And I'm honestly sick of entertaining these people. 

The same goes with other stuff I discussed in posts I now deleted in reference to these allegations. About how yes, men like to have sex and feel attraction to women, deal with it. Feminists only seem to like the idea of men having sexual attraction unless its mutual and get freaky over say, a 60 year old rock star wanting sex with 20something year old fans, citing power differentials and age gaps. They're all consenting adults and no one is forced to do anything, so who cares? Stop dictating your morality in peoples' lives. And if a man is rejected, maybe some of them act a little less than graceful. If the accusation is to be believed Till was likely misled about the situation and reacted poorly as a result. So what? I hate how these feminists come in and wanna dictate the actions of men in terms of potential sexual relations. I value and recognize consent, and for me, that is enough. beyond that, people should behave as they want to. No one should be forced to do anything for anyone, and that's why if the allegations were true, I would have a huge problem with how till/rammstein conducted themselves, but I'm pretty much convinced that they're nonsense.

My honest take is the girl got drunk, WAY too drunk, probably fell (hence the bruises), and then when she started sobering up she probably panicked and started throwing out unsubstantiated accusations of being drugged and then she just kept doubling down and digging herself into a hole.

I do admit that the band might have had some responsibility for creating an environment where something like this could happen, and that they're potentially opening themselves up to liability with these "row 0" parties, but I generally do tend to believe the band over her at this point. 

And with that, the matter is settled. SJWs can cope and seethe over my politically incorrect opinions for all I care. I stand with Rammstein.

Saturday, May 27, 2023

Aaaand Biden just caved...again

 We hear it all of the time. "WeLl We NeEd To CoMpRoMiSe WiTh ThE rEpUbLiCaNs!!!11!"

How is that going for us? While the corporate media and the corporate democrats circlejerk about this awesome "deal" that has just been struck, let's not forget that Biden just caved to the GOP...again. The GOP doesn't care. They're guided by this rigid, fundamentalist ideological commitment to their principles, and they're willing to go scorched earth to get their way. And the dems will cave to them every time. What's the end result of the left being a bunch of moderate wimps who fetishize compromise, and the right being a bunch of hardliners who are willing to burn the house down to get their way? The overton window moves right. The right holds the system hostage with their brinksmanship, and then the left just gives them the farm. Again. This is why nothing will ever change in politics. We got one side of the aisle who won't even fight for their ideals, and the other side just....doesnt care, screw you, they want their way and they want it NOW. 

Hello, Joe? We literally went BACKWARDS. More work requirements, more giving into this dogma that people must suffer before they get anything, because god forbid anything be EASY for anyone but rich people. It's a joke, it's a fricking joke. Assuming this means the medicaid expansion now has work requirements, according to my metrics, Biden is literally in the NEGATIVES now on my healthcare demands. 

And you know what? The centrist frickers don't care. They live in their little suburbs, they're basically former mccain and romney voters who think the GOP got a little too crazy, and they value fiscal conservatism. They're champagne liberals. They're not allies to the left, I'm sorry, but they're not. So they'll laud this compromise and bipartisanship and act like its the greatest thing ever, while normal americans feel the boot on their neck pressing just a little bit harder. We can't have nice things in this country. The GOP is anti nice things and the dems are willing to meet them half way.

If anyone wants to know why I'm so fricking uncompromising and radical and willing to buck the system and vote third party a lot of the time, look no further. Because I've been dealing with this crap since I left conservatism. I literally left because of stuff like this, and then the attitude on the left is just "WeLl We NeEd To CoMpRoMiSe!" I go by the statement, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. We've been getting fooled for 13 years straight now. And I'm sick of it. I'm sick of having to choose between weak and feckless dems who just give away the farm to the GOP, and the GOP themselves. Screw this two party system. Screw this entire party alignment. 

This is why, by the time 2016 came around, I was so fed up with the status quo that I was willing to vote third party and I just REFUSED to put up with four more years of centrist democrats. This crap wears on you after a while. You see this happening year after year, and you just wanna scream at your side FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, FIGHT! Nope, can't do that, gotta compromise and meet them half way, isnt this great? Yay incrementalism!

Biden, democrats, your entire strategy toward politics is a fricking failure. It really is. You start out with half baked policies, you water them down to nothing, and then when the GOP takes back congress, you go BACKWARD. It really pisses me off. 

Crap like this really makes me rethink whether I really SHOULD vote for Biden in 2024 if he's the general election nominee. As I said, I was kinda sorta willing to do it when he was forgiving SOME student debt forgivness and trying to pass mildly progressive things. Even if the dude aint everything I want, he'd at least TRY, but when I see THIS joe Biden, suddenly going progressive or bust starts sounding pretty fricking good to me.

If Biden is gonna turn into another freaking Bill Clinton from here on out, I might as well just refuse to support him and vote third party. Williamson ain't perfect either, but she's looking better by the day right now...

Thursday, May 25, 2023

Reacting to Marianne Williamson's "Economic Bill of Rights"

 Back in the 1940s, FDR had something known as the "economic bill of rights". It was considered a second bill of rights for Americans based on giving them economic rights in a post laissez faire political age. While I obviously have fundamental disagreements with FDR at times in his approach, and some of his proposed rights feel dated or misguided (such as a right to a job), I can't deny FDR's political legacy as an influence on my own approach to politics. I learned a lot from FDR, I liked his no BS attitude in taking on special interests, and I obviously believe that need a "new new deal" so to speak and a rewriting of the social contract within a 21st century context. A lot of my politics through much of the 2010s and even today had and has the aesthetics of FDR's style of economic populism, even if my own ideas are a little different at times. And this kind of fire is why I liked Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020. He kind of brought that kind of politics back to the table, and I thought if Bernie was successful, it should shift the overton window where my ideas are at least debated and taken seriously, and either way, we'd have economic change that makes millions of peoples' lives better. 

Anyway, between her anti poverty program, and now Marianne Williamson channeling her inner FDR and pushing her own economic bill of rights, it seems clear that she's the candidate to go for this election cycle if large scale economic change is your thing. I listened to williamson's speech on this and it was quite good. She's right, we need more than just tweaks around the edges, but a fundamental rework of our economy.

However, as you can probably imagine, based on her anti poverty plan and my reaction to it, we do have clear differences in ideology at times. I think a lot more like Andrew Yang ideologically, while Williamson sounds more like FDR and Bernie. With that said, let's actually discuss her economic bill of rights. I won't be quoting every part of her page on this, but I will go over each right and what I think about it. 

1) The right to a job that pays a living wage.

Eh.....no. Sorry, but no. Jobs exist to make things, they're a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. I believe, like Buckminister Fuller, that "we should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everyone has to earn a living." The right to a job is well meaning, and it is this well meaningness that makes me support people like Williamson and FDR as close alternatives to what I want. But I feel like tying income to a job only is a thing because we need monetary incentives to encourage people to work and do the things needed for society to function. By pushing a right to a job, we're, in the long term, encouraging make work and keeping people in a system of drudgery, when in reality, we should strive to ensure that every human being has to work as little as possible. Work should be made as voluntary as possible, and the work week should be reduced, or at the very least, the choice of how many hours to work should rest on the worker, rather than the employer. 

So...both Williamson and FDR, and Sanders and the rest of the left for that matter, are all misguided here. What we really need is a right to an income, and that's what I would try to accomplish with a UBI. Beyond that, we should try to pursue full employment (among voluntary participants), or, to put it another way, minimize INVOLUNTARY UNemployment, but no one should have a right to a job. It's a completely nonsensical notion to me, and something that doesn't work under capitalism, and isn't even desirable to me.

Now, the second part of this is a living wage. I support a living wage in the absence of a UBI. I would support a minimum wage in the ballpark of $15-18 an hour if we were to raise it. With a UBI we could debate a lower amount, but still, I would argue unless the UBI is really high and really causes a work reduction response that puts heavy pressure on businesses that keep wages high, I would argue for at least some minimum wage. My UBI does scale nicely in households where it does get close to what is normally proposed as "living wage" territory (~$15 an hour), but given some would get less and given my UBI may not necessarily truly achieve freedom as the power to say no as I would like to call it, I could argue some minimum wage still being necessary even in a world with UBI.

That said, even if I don't support the right to a job, I do support the right to fair wages for work.

2) The right to a voice in the workplace through a union and collective bargaining.

Sure, but to one up Marianne Williamson once again, I support freedom as the right to say no, not just to any job but all jobs. This would greatly improve INDIVIDUAL bargaining power to the point that it would have the same macro effect on the economy as a union would have, where no one would work at a job if it paid poorly or treated workers poorly. The whole problem with capitalism is economic coercion, and I'm trying to reduce that coercion through a UBI. Unions are a strategy to accomplish these changes, it relies on banding together and confronting capital as a group rather than individually, forcing businesses to come to the bargaining table, but I honestly think that we should go further than just unions. We need to empower individuals as well.

Still, my UBI ideas would just give workers more bargaining power and allow them to strike more effectively than they do in the existing capitalist system. Still, I really do think we need to get beyond just...work here. Like, these ideas that Williamson, FDR, etc, have are great if you have a society where people have to work for a living, but again, my end goal is to shift humanity away from working in the first place. So all of these ideas become dated and stop making as much sense in my own ideological context. 

As far as the PRO act goes, I do support the concept, although I would not elevate this to the point of being an economic right worth mentioning.

3) The right to universal quality health care.

Heck yeah, we need to guarantee some system of universal healthcare, whether it takes the form of single payer or a robust public option. I support single payer in principle but given my UBI obsession I may need to compromise here to make the numbers work with a public option.

4) The right to a cost-free higher education.

Yes, outside of UBI she's nailing my priorities nearly completely. After healthcare my emphasis would be free college and student loan forgiveness. She's right that this is needed for democracy to function properly, as well as the normal discussions about economic mobility.

5) The right to good, affordable housing.

Once again, she's nailing it. Housing is another top priority for me given how unaffordable it is in our society. 

6) The right to a clean environment and a healthy planet.

I agree with this in spirit. heck, I support a build back better style climate build as a top priority too. But this seems a bit ambitious. She talks a lot about ramping down natural gas exports and fossil fuel productions, but let's not do the same stupid thing that Germany did when they went full green only to become completely dependent on Russia for energy. Sadly, we need the dirty crap until we can actually get replacements to the market. We need to wean ourselves off of this responsibly, not just go full on cut everything overnight. I think a Biden style BBB plan is the best compromise between getting away from this stuff, while doing it responsibly. Yang's 2020 plan is another interesting alternative for me. 

7) The right to a meaningful endowment of resources at birth.

This is nice, it reminds me of THomas Paine's citizens' dividend, but honestly, rather than give everyone a lump sum of resources from birth or at age 21, we just give people an income stream. After all, this plan does little for people already born or in adulthood. Second of all, a lump sum could be spent irresponsibly, such as on college (in existing in society), or otherwise blown by some 18-25 year old who doesn't know what they're doing. I'd rather give people a stream of money where if they waste it, there's always next month. I feel like UBI would give people more economic security than this would. 

8) The right to sound banking and financial services.

I mean, I'm neutral on postal banking. I think it's an interesting idea but I don't overly emphasize it. I think that it could work in conjunction with my UBI, imagine everyone getting their UBI through a postal banking service, for instance, if they don't choose another place to receive it. It's an idea. I wouldn't call this a "right" though.

9) The right to an equitable and fair justice system.

Uh, seems out of place on economics. I know there are issues with the justice system, but this seems more a case for bolstering the original bill of rights, rather than pushing for a second one. 

10) The right to cultural and civic involvement in democratic life.

Much like the first one, I don't really like this one. Don't get me wrong, I support the arts and think UBI would be a godsend to artists who tend to struggle to support themselves financially. But...I'm not supportive of just giving artists money for being artists, or pushing some sort of "public works project" or "jobs program". Also, this feels as out of place as FDR's pivots to farmers in his original economic bill of rights in the 1930s. It's just a bizarre priority here. 

And again, did I mention that I feel like UBI would be a solid way to help artists in and of itself? It's not up to the government to prop up the art industry as much as it's up to the government to give people an income that allows them to self actualize and figure out their own lives. Which would help artists get off the ground and give them a start with which they can hone their craft. I just feel like UBI would address so many of these points that she's trying to bring up more effectively. 

Conclusion

I mean, before I say anything else, let me just say that Williamson coming out with this has made me more passionate about her candidacy. She's actually largely on the same page with me here, and I really feel like our goals are mostly aligned. However, much like happens with me vs most other leftists and liberals in general, there's too much emphasis on employment here. I believe that we need to do better and go further, and not just talk about guaranteed jobs and living wages and unions and stuff like that, but a full on basic income. A 21st century economic bill of rights should have UBI as its centerpiece in my opinion. It would provide a level of economic freedom and security that no other policy can provide, and would actually render several of these other rights somewhat redundant.

Perhaps I should provide my own 21st century economic bill of rights in the future. I've thought of how I would structure them, but I would like to think out the details a bit more. This is more just a reaction to Williamson's ideas. I think that she means well and has some really good ideas, but obviously, I think they require a bit of fine tuning. 

Still, much like with her anti poverty plan, I give her economic bill of rights a B.

Friday, May 19, 2023

Reacting to Marianne Williamson's anti poverty plan

 So, as you guys know, economic issues are very near and dear to my heart. They are the core reason I remain so interested in politics, and much of what I've written about on here is about how we can solve poverty and solve the problems with capitalism without abolishing the entire system. By this point, I have a good idea of what I want, and I know roughly how I would accomplish it. I mean, I've made entire metrics to judge 2024 candidates in the past, and will likely release some detailed metric discussing each of the candidate's plans at some point before the primary actually begins. 

Recently, I had someone posting about Willamson's anti poverty plan on a forum I regularly occupy, and I honestly have a lot of things to say about this, so I figured I will react to her actual policies on the issues. Some things I'll be saying will be good, some will be not so good, but ultimately, this is, so far, the best plan I've seen in this race, considering neither Yang, nor Sanders, are candidates this time. With that said, let's get into it. 

I won't be going over the introduction, I'll mostly be focusing on policies themselves, but the introduction makes a good argument discussing how screwed people are in this country. 

As for policies:

Declare an unconditional war on poverty, and aim to relieve and cure its symptoms in order to find solutions to prevent it.

 So the johnson approach. Well, I suggest we pick up where Johnson left off. In 1969, president Nixon had a commission on poverty that looked at the issue in detail, and pushed for a basic income to solve it. You know, that policy your friend Andrew Yang ran on? The policy you stated having support for in 2020 but seemed to have dropped in 2024? Yeah, I think we should start there.

And yes, I'm going to be biased here. I do have an idea of what I want, after all.

Strengthen democracy by urging Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to enfranchise voters, stop voter suppression, enact automatic voter registration, protect election security, and reform immigration.

 Not sure what exactly this has to do with poverty, but this is a nice idea.

Restore and make permanent the enhancement of Child Tax Credit and other critical investments that reduced poverty in the U.S. by the greatest amount in a single year in over 50 years.

 Yes, because as it turns out, giving people cash solves poverty. Almost like we should have a basic income...

Lift poverty wages by raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025. Currently, 1.1 million hourly wage earners earn the federal minimum wage or less, and a full third of the workforce earns less than $15 an hour. These wage earners are disproportionately women.

 I mean good idea. Although if she takes office in January 2025 it's gonna be implemented without a phase in period? Honestly, the amount should be a little higher at this point, and it's gonna take a few years. I'd aim for $18 an hour by the end of her first term. 

Ensure Universal rent control and a prohibition on rental deposits.

 *cringe* Rent control doesn't work...

We need a housing program. We need more housing. Rent control will just make it harder to get enough housing for people long term...

Fund social housing as part of the Green New Deal to build at least 15 million green, union-built, publicly-owned homes over the next 10 years.

 Now this is more like it. And this is the kind of jobs program that i WOULD support. Because it's the kind of program that actually gets us the stuff we need and isn't just BS make work. 

Provide grants to the poor, working poor, and our small businesses to retrofit their existing homes and businesses to become clean energy efficient.

 I mean thats not really a poverty initiative as much as its a green initative, and i doubt most people who are poor are thinking about installing solar panels on their roof.

End homelessness and housing insecurity with a Homes Guarantee. A Housing First approach to ensuring stable housing has been proven to improve outcomes over mitigation-based approaches to homelessness.

 I mean, with the extra homes you're building, sure.

Expand the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to aid the working families of this country with the burden of heating and cooling bills.

 I mean this is nice, but you could just give people cash instead. One thing I hate about the safety net is it's always like, let's have these 50 programs that do different things, when we could have one program doing them all. I'm not saying we literally need only one program, but you get the idea. UBI being the main one, and the others being stuff like healthcare, education, housing, ya know, addressing market failures.

Strengthen the safety net by removing the obstacles to the cash welfare system, Temporary Assistance for Families (TANF). Reduce the hurdles that keep families from receiving necessary assistance, increase the income threshold at which people are eligible to receive cash assistance, eliminate harsh sanctions and time limits and hold states accountable for the funds reaching eligible families. (For every dollar currently budgeted for TANF, only 22 cents get directed to poor families).

 Just fricking abolish TANF. it's a joke of a program. Give people a UBI. 

Restore funding for SNAP programs in every state to ensure families have access to food stamps and nutritional needs.

 We dont need more SNAP. We need more cash. UBI is the answer here.

Provide paid family and medical leave.

 Cool.

 Restore the current Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) back to its original form under the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA), which sent federal funding directly into communities via their local Community Action Agencies to eliminate poverty, expand educational opportunities, increase the social safety net for the poor and unemployed, and tend to the health and financial needs of the elderly.

 Or how about we just give people a fricking UBI?

Make Education Affordable: Public colleges (both community colleges and four-year colleges) and trade schools must be made tuition free. Those trade schools will coordinate with organized apprenticeship programs to give students real-world experience.

 Awesome, hitting another priority here.

Forgive all federal and privately held student debt (including interest): Students are too often burdened with school loans that hold them back from following their dreams. Forgiving all student debt will allow students to work in a career they love, launch a business, or buy a home.

 Based.

Now, there's more. She also has sections on banking and access to capital, as well as jobs and labor. I'm gonna list the things she wants to do for banking and access to capital, but I'm just gonna gloss over that part as I find it kinda boring and have no real opinion here.

A Williamson administration will:
  • Cap interest rates at 10 percent across all financial institutions.
  • Re-introduce the Glass-Steagall Act immediately to ensure commercial banking is separated from investment banking, and prosecute banking executives for breaking those rules.
  • Encourage Congress to pass the Close the Shadow Banking Loophole Act (S. 5189), ensuring that Industrial Loan Companies (ILC) are subject to every rule that traditional banks adhere to.
  • Encourage Congress to pass the Postal Banking Act (S.3891), providing basic banking services to all Americans through our more 31,000 USPS Post Offices.
  • Encourage Congress to pass the Stop Overdraft Profiteering Act of 2021 (S.2677), ensuring that banks do not punish their consumers for having less in their accounts.
  • Encourage Congress to pass the Junk Fees Prevention Act, ensuring consumers aren’t attacked by surprising or predatory fees.
  • Encourage Congress to pass the Minority Business Resiliency Act of 2021 (H.R.2689).
  • Utilize executive power and Congress to continue breaking down barriers in access to capital, specifically for black and brown families across the nation.
  • Encourage Congress to pass the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act of 2021 (S.1368), making it easier to buy a home and build wealth through homeownership

 I mean, I guess this is good. I dont have a super strong opinion on any of this, but I like some of it. I know postal banking has been floated as a concept for a while. I like the idea of stopping overdraft fees from happening, and stuff like that, but yeah. Banking stuff is a little outside of my expertise. I like at least some of these though.

I will focus more on the jobs and labor section though.

Pass trade deals that include worker protection provisions that prevent further deindustrialization of our communities.

 Yeah like here's the thing about free trade. I'm not anti free trade, but I agree something must be done to avoid doing business with exploitative countries, since free trade with no regulations is just a race to the bottom for most people. I honestly think we should be establishing labor standards, tax rates, and stuff like that in any trade agreement we have, so that we all avoid undercutting each other in our desire to trade. otherwise there will be global market pressure to reduce taxes and labor regulations to draw jobs to one's specific country. It's a race to the bottom that no one wins, except the rich capitalists who can play countries against each other to get what they want. 

Pass the PRO Act (H.R. 842), make it easier to unionize, unionized workers enjoy better wages and protections.

 All for reducing barriers to unionization.

Hold Corporate Executives accountable for labor law violations. CEOs should be personally liable for unpaid wages, and criminally liable for interference with workers’ efforts to organize. Employers who engage in wage theft, misclassifying workers, and bad faith stalling during bargaining, aka “surface bargaining”, will be heavily penalized.

 Yeah if r/antiwork and the like have taught me anything its that wage theft and crap is disgustingly common and that this is the real war on crime that we need to be fighting. So I agree with having stiff penalties with violating labor laws. 

Ensure that our undocumented workers are protected by labor laws. More than a third of our undocumented immigrants are paid below minimum wage, and close to 85 percent do not get paid overtime.

 Even though I'm not big on illegals being in this country, I actually kinda agree with this. Because the reason businesses get away with exploiting labor laws so much with illegals is they won't do anything to report being abused since it gets them deported. If we could hold businesses accountable and hold them to the same standards as they would if they used citizens for labor, it would remove the economic incentive to hire illegals in the first place. 

Urge Congress to pass a meaningful Reparations bill, addressing the moral and economic debt we owe to descendants of enslaved and oppressed generations of black Americans. See details here.

 Ugh, can we not? Sorry, I dont like the idea of reparations specifically for black people. For me, if you want reparations for an unjust economic system, it should be paid to everyone through a UBI.

Enact fair taxes on the wealthy, corporations, and Wall Street, and reduce taxes on working people. The richest people in America increased their wealth by $6.5 trillion in 2021. The total wealth of the 1% reached a record $45.9 trillion by the end of 2021, and these fortunes increased by more than $12 trillion, or more than a third, during the course of the pandemic. We should repeal the 2017 Trump tax breaks for the wealthy where 83 cents on every $1 cut went to the top 1%, immediately restoring the middle class tax cuts included in that bill; restore the estate tax to fortunes over $5 million’ add a tiny tax on Wall Street trade; and put a 2% tax on wealth over $50 million, and additional one percent on wealth over $1 billion.

 Yeah, this here is very bernie-esque, and I like it.

Lift completely the social security cap.

 I mean that would fix the funding issues with social security...

Establish a universal single payer healthcare system, in which everyone is covered for all medical services, including mental health.

 Based!

 Reduce the cost of prescription drugs by repealing the law that blocks the government from negotiating lower prices. If pharmaceutical companies don’t lower prices, activate the “march-in rights” under the Bayh-Dole Act that allows the government to license a patent to another party who charges less for medicine, or the government will simply produce those medicines itself, since much of the initial biomedical research and development done on pharmaceuticals is through publicly funded universities and the National Institute of Health.

 Also based.

Invest in clean energy and clean water, which will create green jobs, address climate change, and address the needs of the poor and people of color who already feel the effects of climate change.

 While we should do this, doing it specifically as a jobs program is cringe to me. I support a build back better style framework to climate change, not this green new deal crap. GND is the solution for jobists who wanna party like it's 1939 again. The whole appeal to these people is the idea of having massive public works employing millions of people. I just want to make the sausage while not focusing so much on employing people. 

Provide universal affordable child care. Train apprentices to expand the quantity and upgrade the quality of competent care providers.

 I mean it's a decent proposal.

Urge Congress to re-introduce the Free-Lunch-for-All Program, to ensure that every child has access to food, and the cancellation of lunch debt.

 Or continue to charge parents for lunch but give people a UBI so they can afford it. I remember in elementary school the school lunch program was like 80 cents a week? With inflation since the 90s, that's what, $2? like, come on. 

Aaaand, that's it. 

So, lets talk about this in terms of my priorities. UBI? Nope. Medicare for all? Check. Free college/student debt forgiveness? Check. Housing program? Check. Climate change legislation? Check. 

And as far as other proposals, higher minimum wage of at least $15 an hour, pro unionization efforts, child tax credit (aka UBI for kids), other welfare expansions.

Like if I were to grade this plan, it would get a B. You'd need a UBI to get an A, but this is basically a nice rehash of Bernie's ideas. I mean, it tends to lean a bit hard into "let's have extra funding for SNAP and TANF and block grants" and not enough into "we need a UBI", and a little too hard into the green new deal approach, but eh...that's the left for you. They're STUCK living in the shadow of FDR. In this case, it's kind of a shame. I really think Marianne knows better. She advocated for UBI in 2020, and I actually see her approach this time as a down grade. I think in designing her plans and how to frame her ideas, she really ended up listening to what i considered the wrong consultants. Kinda like how Bernie ended up listening to that stephanie kelton and her pro jobs program and anti UBI nonsense. 

I mean, honestly, UBI should be the centerpiece of a 21st century anti poverty program. Sorry, but that's just how I feel. I think Yang's approach is fundamentally the correct one, and my core disagreement with the rest of the left is generally speaking over this. As discussed with my reaction to "economics in one lesson", the left is too obsessed with jobs and work, and that is the sole source of agreement that I ultimately have with Hazlitt there ideologically. The left is too focused on preserving work, and making work pay, and trying to keep people employed. I understand this is necessary in a society in which we all have to work to get the money to survive, but rather than focus so much on jobs, I'd rather give people the money and the freedom associated with that to choose their own path in life. Any government jobs created should be for a purpose. And she had valid purposes there. Build homes, for example. We need to build tons of houses to alleviate the housing shortage we're currently facing. We literally need to build our way out of that crisis. That's the only real answer other than addressing the ownership issues and LVT on landlords and UBI and blah blah blah. But other than stuff like that, it's like, why do we valorize work and employment so much? I dont want some crappy guaranteed job busting my butt on some infrastructure project. Screw that.

Other than this core difference though, Williamson's program is pretty solid. For a non UBI centric idea, this is about the best we can do. I mean, maybe add bernie sanders' codetermination stuff to give it a market socialist bend, but other than that, yeah, this is about it. Stronger welfare programs with fewer restrictions, higher minimum wage, more support for unions. Medicare for all, free college, housing, climate change programs, etc. Again, it's a solid program. I'd give it an 8/10 or a B. It's not perfect, it's a good rehash of Bernie's platform, but it's much stronger than Biden's anti poverty plan. Which is closer to a 6/10 and like a C. So yeah, she beats the relatively low bar of being better than Biden. And that's why I support her. I really wish we did have a UBI centric candidate like Yang though. They'd get my vote in a heartbeat given the rest of their platform wasn't garbage.

Thursday, May 18, 2023

Reacting to Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"

 So...every once in a while, I get recommended this book. Normally by those right libertarian type guys who treat austrian economics like a religious cult. I actually had someone respond to my UBI plan somewhat recently and he brought up this book, while going on about how my ideas will never work because the market is like a force of nature and if you try to mess with it, it will come back to bite you or something. I got kinda annoyed by this, as I really don't view markets in that way, but as social systems that we can change for our enjoyment, well being, what have you, and I don't view economic laws as inviolable, they often come with tons of asterisks that these econ 101 obsessed guys dont focus on. 

So, I wanted to do a quick review of this book. I was gonna do a full tear down, but after being flooded with too much information to realistically respond to, I decided to screw it and reduce it to a short summary. I just dont have the patience to go by this one chapter by chapter like some of the others. And it's not like I didn't sound like a broken record when I tried to anyway, so let's just go into the general themes.

This book was written in 1946, right after World War II. Henry Hazlitt was a libertarian economist who had quite a bit of a bone to pick with what he saw with FDR trying to violate the inviolable laws of economics. He believed that even if FDR's agenda had positive effects in the short term, they would be disastrous long term as markets would shift around such policies causing us to be far less productive overall. Ya know, standard right wing stuff. 

Now, I did read it around 8-10 years ago as it is free online, but I honestly didn't find it very compelling. It's just standard libertarians worshipping econ 101 stuff, and I didn't recall liking it that much. However, rereading it I have to say my opinion is more...mixed. And normally when I say my opinion is mixed that means I go from liking something to being a bit split on it, but this is the other way, I feel split on it, but that's an improvement. 

I mean, in some ways, after reading so much BS recently about how jobs are important for giving people meaning and crap, it is refreshing to see someone acknowledge the cold hard reality about jobs. Jobs are there to make things. They're not there to employ people, and given how much of FDR's legacy was about protecting X industry, or preserving jobs that dont deserve to be preserved, or "spreading the work around" to guarantee "full employment", i found his focus on attacking such ideas to be refreshing.

Admittedly, while I consider myself to be on the left, I have made many criticisms about the traditional left, and this is one of them. I never realized this when I was a conservative because i feel like most conservatives admit that work sucks and is a necessary evil, but a lot of lefties really do have an obsession with work and jobs. And while I sympathize with their goals to preserve people's standards of living and ways to make a living, I really will never get this fixation on work that most of them have. it's creepy and dystopian. Some of them are more work obsessed than right wingers and that's saying something. 

So one thing I have to say is this book does focus on how a lot of left wing ideas have flaws. Like how destroying stuff in a war and then rebuilding again for the sake of making jobs is a bad thing, and how we should care about the sausage getting made, not how many people we employ in the process, blah blah blah.

At the same time, this guy's perspective has a negative side. He doesn't seem to realize that hey, people kinda need to work to survive in our society, and as long as that remains the case, we need to ensure work pays at levels that people can afford to live at. A lot of FDR's policies were largely successful at ensuring that people can get jobs, that those jobs pay well, etc. And while I would rather question the paradigm of why jobs at all, I understand why, in a society in which we force everyone to work, to actually make society have the work available. it's not the best approach to the problems at hand, and I think if this book offers anything, Hazlitt does tear the left a new one on their attempts to protect jobs and how this leads to economic efficiency and is kinda stupid in practice, but I understand it.

However, by the time we go into the second half of the book, things decline in quality and it just becomes the same nonsense right wingers always push. How the minimum wage leads to unemployment, stuff bashing unions, etc. 

I mean, I think that for all of the theoretical argument we can make, we let the outcomes speak for themselves. What era was better for most people, 1945-1980, or 1980 to present? I'd argue 1945-1970ish was the golden era of economics, and that people have prospered like never before. In the era before that (from the 1800s through the 1930s), and the era after it (the present era), capitalism's flaws became apparent. We didnt really grow much more than we did otherwise, inflation was only a little lower on the whole, but before the 1940s and after the 1970s, you had a lot more people struggling to get by, you had the rich getting richer, the incomes of the poor stagnating, people having to work longer hours, and life being quite hellish in general. 

I mean, and all in all, things werent that much better. For all the talk right wingers make of how bad these policies were, in practice, the new deal era was the best era to live in economically. You could afford to feed a family on one income, people were getting more and more luxuries, etc. Nowadays, we got lots of cheap luxuries, but then we have a massive underclass of people paying for them. Like, the downside of trickle down economics is that at the end of the day, the rich get richer, the poor poorer, the middle class goes on like before, but slowly being hollowed out, and they largely enjoy the fruits of everyone else's labor, while underpaying the massive underclass in the service industry ensuring that their lifestyles are feasible. Society becomes more stratified under these economics. The winners win big, the losers lose big, and the middle struggles to stay the same while acting like the frog in the pot. 

What FDR accomplished, was shared prosperity. We had more income equality, more people being able to afford to live well, and the rich still being rich but less absurdly so. 

Also, there's one thing this book seems to miss: the humanity of the economic system. At the end of the day, this whole system is there to benefit us. We are not there to serve it, but I feel like these economists are so focused on economic growth that they dont focus on the fact that there's more to life than work. Leisure is a good in and of itself. There's more than productivity and efficiency, and perhaps it is better to have a slightly slower growing economy that's less efficient, if the end result is more human, than one that grows constantly. We just went through 40 years of economics dominated by a version of this guy's thinking and I have to say that it sucks. 

Also, one more thing. Im not even sure that growth really is slower under these economies either. Why? because economies seem to run best when run from the bottom up, not the top down. We're so used to supply side and trickle down economics, and how if only the rich people have more money they'll use it to invest and create jobs. But as I said, the rich just hoard it and everyone else suffers. post 2008 growth was slow because the rich had so much wealth, and because no one else had any money to spend. What really leads to growth is demand. When you give people money for goods and services it creates demand for goods and services. Which leads to more jobs to fill that demand, which leads to higher employment, a more competitive labor market, and less income inequality. I admit it is possible to overdo it. You can get a wage price spiral of things go too far, but anything up to that point is doable, and the closer we are to that point without going over the line, the better off people are. I'd rather err on the side of a hot labor market with low unemployment and high inflation than the latter, although it is a balance. 

But yeah, thats why keynesian theory works, and trickle down doesn't. Hazlitt is pushing the same old austrian economics crap that the right has been pushing since like the 1920s, and it doesnt work. And even worse, it's not even empirically verifiable by design. And the second we try to empirically verify this stuff rather than just relying on axioms with no evidence to back them up, well, I find left wing theories like keynesianism once again produce better results.

I'm not saying that this book has no valuable lessons though. As I said, I find its takes on work and jobs somewhat refreshing after banging my head against all the jobist nonsense surrounding the debates around work that we get in the UBI community and all the weirdos pushing for job guarantees. And I clearly have learned some lessons about what the previous era of lefties did wrong that I believe the next generation should do better. SOmetimes lefties mean well but their policies are inefficient and sometimes arent the ideal approach. Too much focus on crap like job guarantees, and price controls, and stuff like that that just makes no economic sense. But at the same time, I have just as many criticisms, if not more of the right. So it's not like I really agree with the right either.

Honestly, I guess that I kind of looked at both sides of the argument, and came up with my own "synthesis" if we want to get some dialectical materialism up in here. We got the right (thesis), the left (antithesis), and I propose my own synthesis based on a hybrid approach. And I'm not the only one. I know a few authors I've read, like Nick Srnicek and Phillipe Van Parijs have spent much of their careers trying to reinvent the left in the same way. The answer for the left isnt the same old flawed new deal solutions, it's a new approach based on UBI and moving away from work as a concept. We need to embrace that old modernist utopian vision of the mid 20th century of robots doing all the jobs and work becoming less and less central to our lives. If we're growing this much and gaining all of this economic efficiency, rather than throwing the meat back into the meatgrinder to grow the economy endlessly in sisyhpusian fashion, perhaps we should work less.

Of course, that vision tends to gain enemies all over the aisle. Both Henry Hazlitt, as well as the FDR and Bernie leftists would attack me for that one. Seems like for all of the solutions we have, being pro GDP growth and pro work goes without question. It's almost as if, and I noticed this when I read Hazlitt's book, that people would rather people suffer with work out of some misguided sense of fairness and morality, than to liberate people from the concept because it might be unfair to someone's suffering somewhere. Such a backwards and short sighted mentality. But I digress.

So...Hazlitt's book? As much as I want to say it's crap, I have to say, it's only half crap. It has SOME good points SOMETIMES, but I still generally disagree with his overall economic perspective. The reason protectionist measures are so popular among the left is because the right doesnt seem to realize that people need to work to live and as long as people are required to take jobs, laws that ensure minimum standards of treatment and other mechanisms are necessary to ensure that people prosper. And despite the arguments this book makes about them, those ideas worked, and led to the greatest era of prosperity Americans have ever had. And if we want to improve on that, we need to take what they did and make it better. I believe this book has some valid criticisms of the left, but its solutions to shift us hard right to libertarian economics just doesn't work, and despite hazlitt's arguments, he makes a lot of miscalculations about how this stuff works out. In all honesty, a lot of austrian economics is empirically nonverifiable sophistry, even if it makes sense intuitively. And again, while I would like to reform the left into something better and more modern than it is, this isn't it.

So let's discuss Joe Biden's health

 Okay, so, I have a lot of criticisms of Joe Biden, and I do think his age is a potential concern (anyone over 80 should raise red flags in general for the presidency), but, I do think a lot of the anti Joe Biden left, is starting to sound a lot like the anti Joe Biden right. And much like with Clinton in 2016, as a leftie critical of establishment democrats, there are a lot of criticisms that were legit (like the dems rigging the primary to ensure her victory), and a lot that weren't (benghazi, pizzagate, her health, etc.). And the same thing happens with Biden at times. There are valid criticisms of Biden policy wise, but then there's just weirdos who act like Biden has dementia and belongs in a nursing home. 

I'm no medical expert, but when I listen to Biden speak, I don't think that he comes off as having dementia to me. People at such advanced age do experience some levels of cognitive decline, but there's differences between normal cognitive decline associated with aging and LITERAL DEMENTIA. Now, I do want to say that it is concerning that someone so old is in office, and is "the guy" to run for reelection, but this is the horse the dems bet on in 2020, and honestly, Bernie wasn't any younger. Now we're stuck with him. 

Honestly, when I look at Biden, whatever cognitive decline he has sounds a lot more like normal aging to me. It's largely cogent, he flubs some words here and there, but he's largely able to get his point across. The dude has always had a stutter, and as he ages I think it's getting more apparent again. Again, gonna happen when you slow down a bit. But still, my argument is this is more "general stuff that happens to people in their 80s" as opposed to "he's losing his marbles." If you want someone who actually lost their marbles, look at Dianne Feinstein. That IS someone who literally has dementia it seems, and you know what? It is long past time for her to resign. But...Biden seems way more together than that, and the two situations aren't even comparable.

Why am I going to such lengths to defend Biden? Because Im sick and tired of hearing the dude has lost his mind and belongs in a nursing home, that's all. It's extremely ageist, and seems to be a dishonest talking point from those wishing to demonize him, but can't actually criticize him on something substantive, like policy (or if I wanna be cheeky, lack thereof). Ya know? There's no reason to criticize someone's health dishonestly when we can criticize his policies. That's how I see it. I mean, I might be biased as fudge, but I at least am honest and say what I think. I don't need to make crap up or embellish stuff to criticize my political opponents.

Anyway, the white house has a document from Kevin O Connor, the physician to the president, that actually did a write up of Biden's health. I know some will say we cant trust what the white house says, and I guess I can see that point, I remember Trump had a lot of fake documents talking about how great his health is and you could easily tell that he basically wrote it and could read it in his voice, but yeah. This seems to be a fairly honest and fair handed discussion of the president, and I figured it would be worth going over this document and discussing the ailments Biden does have. 

Sadly, the document doesn't allow me to easily copy and paste, so I'll largely just discuss the issues he has directly. 

First, he HAD COVID. It was a mild infection, because he was fully vaccinated, and the vaccine worked. And then he got anti viral therapy on top of that. His illness was mild and his recovery was complete. As expected from someone who got fully vaxxed. 

Second, he had atrial fibulation. I had to look this one up, but apparently it's a condition that can lead to irregular heartbeat and increase the risk of blood clots and stroke. However, it's well controlled by medication, and he experiences no symptoms. It is not really uncommon for older people to develop various issues with their cadiovascular system as they get older. And they can go on for years or even decades with them before they succumb to them. OR, it could sneak up and kill them tomorrow. Still, if we're going to criticize Biden for this, we probably shouldn't have anyone above like, say 60 or something in the white house, which excludes literally almost everyone running. Because as you get older, you get these issues. Biden's health here is no different than someone in their 60s or 70s here. And if we want someone like that in office, why not Biden? And again, not like Bernie is any better, remember his heart attack on the campaign trail? Yeah. So this crap happens. 

Third, he has hyperlipidemia. Basically high cholesterol for those of us who aren't medical geniuses. It's well controlled with medication. Again, older people get this crap a lot. And a lot of people far younger than Biden have it. Again, unless you wanna exclude anyone aged 60 and older from running, disqualifying over this is minor. Older people get issues like this all the time. And they're often well controlled for years or even decades. It's actually fairly normal. 

Gastroesophageal reflux....so basically, heartburn. Causes him to have sinus issues and clear his throat more often. Controlled with over the counter medication. I mean....I'm in my 30s and I get symptoms of this. And I use the same med to control it. NEXT. 

Seasonal allergies. I mean, come on. And here I am struggling with this stuff with the pollen being so bad. It mentions he has had nasal surgery to alleviate symptoms, and also he uses anti allergy meds and nasal spray to control it. I mean, i havent had the surgery, but I've used allergy meds and nasal spray to deal with allergy symptoms. It's actually common. 

Stiffened gait related to moderate to severe degenerative osteoartritic change/spondylosis. Basically, dude is old. Has arthritis. Old people have arthritis. He had a foot fracture that he has arthritis in, and he has degenerative disease in his spine. These are things that happen in older people. You get an injury, it turns to arthritis and hurts like heck. And degenerative joint disease in the spine is quite common especially if you have a physical job that wrecks your back. It's kind of weird for Biden to have it given he's been a senator most of his life, but it can happen I guess. 

Mild sensory peripheral neuropathy of the feet. This is normally associated with diabetes, but he's not a diabetic. it is concerning, as injuries can go unnoticed and can turn bad, like what happens in diabetics, which is why many of them lose their feet. The cause hasn't been identified. I mean, all things considered, is this the end of the world? Not particularly. And I'd imagine a lot of people younger than this have these issues too.

He's under skin cancer surveillance because he spent a lot of the time in the sun, and as he gets older he has had several lesions turn cancerous and had them removed. So they are constantly checking for moles and the like that go bad. IIRC he had another one removed from his chest recently. That's...concerning. But I guess it could happen to anyone.

 Other than that, he seems quite healthy. 

Now, let's be objective here. Are some of these conditions concerning? Yeah. The idea of him developing skin cancer at any time is problematic, and a few other things like afib and peripheral neuropathy stand out to me in particular. Let's face it when your body reaches a certain age it's like it starts actively wanting to die, meaning that you can decline quickly from something like sudden cancer, or complications from heart disease, etc. Honestly, I'll maintain my position that having ANYONE in office in their 80s carries some significant risk for health issues. And health can decline rather quickly. You can be healthy one day and the next you're on your death bed at that age. Still, all things considered, at 82, the age when he will be sworn in for his second term, his life expectancy is actually around 7.32 years. So he can last another term, assuming his health stays good. As I said, in your 80s you kinda get to the point where with a president you don't want to run the risk of keeping them in office, even if they are healthy when they assume the office. I do think that the rate at which the body declines at that age does represent a significant risk that ideally I would not be comfortable with taking. BUT, the dude is incumbent, he has one more term to go, he's healthy as a horse all things considered.I think think he can do it.

I mean, let's be objective here. It's not abnormal for someone in their 80s to have these kinds of conditions. It's not abnormal for someone in their 60s to have these conditions. The real thing that matters is whether they are CONTROLLED, and with Biden, they are. He exercises, he eats well, avoids smoking, alcohol, drugs, etc. He takes many medications that control these kinds of things, and in theory, he can keep going for years like this. I would not be surprised for this dude to live to be 90, 95, or even 100. Most people are actually not this healthy at that age to my knowledge. Heck, my parents are quite a bit younger and they have more chronic conditions than this. I mean, I'm actually familiar with some of the stuff mentioned here because my parents have some of the same things. It's just a natural thing that happens when you age. Anyone over say, 65 is going to have at least some of these things. The fact that the dude is in his 80s and this is the only things wrong with him tells me he's a healthy one.

And of course, there's no mention of any cognitive issues. This is just made up BS by critics of Biden who want to portray him as too old to run, like he has dementia and belongs in a nursing home and blah blah blah. It's kinda fricking stupid. Especially considering most people making these arguments are Trump or RFK fans and Trump isnt exactly a portrait of good health, and RFK sounds like a ghoul from fallout to me (Biden's speech patterns are often a point of criticism these arguments rely on). 

So let's stop this crap. If we want to criticize Biden for something substantive, criticize Biden for something substantive. But claims of him having dementia are unfounded. The dude's healthy for an 82 year old. The only issue with his health is that he will in fact be 82 when he takes his second term in 2024, and that that is kinda old and his health could sour at any time for any reason. All kinds of things start going wrong in your 80s. Your body just breaks down. BUT, let's be honest, if I were a betting man, objectively speaking, I'd bet on Biden surviving his second term. I'd give it like a 75% chance give or take based on the data presented here. Between his age, life expectancy, and general health prognosis, that's actually pretty good.

The only problem with this is that...yeah....maybe we shouldnt take the risk on someone who has a 25% chance of dying in office. That still is kinda high. But again, the problem is the age in general, not a specific health problem with Biden. 

Idk. TLDR, Biden is in good health, but his age is still problematic. But let's not act like it's more problematic than it actually is.

Saturday, May 13, 2023

Reacting to Nerds for Humanity's Biden vs Republican 2024 Budget Data Deep Dive

 So....Nerds for Humanity, a pro Yang youtuber, basically looked into the Biden budget in detail, and looked at his popularity. And...I honestly don't understand why people hate Biden based on this. On the issues, he's doing very popular stuff. he's way better than the republicans. Generally speaking his numbers work and 49-70%+ of the public supports his ideas. But yet....so many people wanna vote republican? WHY?!

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying Biden isnt as interesting as a wet blanket, but on the issues, he's RIGHT. And the public likes his ideas a lot more than the republicans. I don't get it. With these kinds of numbers we should be well into a party realignment AWAY from the GOP and crushing them as a force in politics. Do people really go for this culture war drama and cult of personality stuff over issues? 

I mean, that's what I feel like it's about. The democrats arent popular. Their candidates arent popular. Their brand isnt popular. But their policies are. We should have the GOP being crushed party realignment style if people voted on ISSUES. But because they vote for feelings and personalities and blah blah blah, they seem to vote more along traditional partisan lines. That and dont forget the weirdos who are obsessed with transgender stuff. I mean, I did cover how people care more about "stopping wokeness" than about cutting social security. It's baffling to me, but that's what it is.

ANd I kinda get it, I'm on the same page. I have a lot of malaise for Biden. Despite me agreeing with him on the issues, I dont really feel super positively about Biden. Of course I'm a policy driven borderline ideologue, and am open about that, and honestly, I just have grander ambitions than Biden has. 

Now, the second thing I wanted to talk about this was nerds for humanity's coverage itself. Which I'm mixed on. On the one hand, I kinda think like him and you'll see a lot of the same critiques when I look at Biden myself, especially if you read my 2021 stuff. He talks about how instead of having all of these little programs that help some people, why dont we focus on a few larger programs that help more people? Like, he did nitpick some of the fairness issues of these programs, for better or for worse. Sometimes I agree, and sometimes I dont. Like on the child tax credit, he mentions he supports it because it is like a mini UBI in a way and Yang has openly camapigned for it, but it DOES exclude adults, and some adults might feel resentful they dont get help. And I feel like thats where a lot of the apathy and malaise for biden comes from. He has a lot of good ideas, but many americans just dont FEEL the positive benefits, because they themselves dont benefit. I feel like this is also what killed the welfare state back in the 1960s and 1970s. We shifted toward the more individualistic "me" generation and people asked "how does this benefit me?" and the answer was, it didn't, so people just sat by while Reagan dismantled the legacy of the new deal and war on poverty...while cheering him on whenever they got a $1k tax cut. 

And I admit, I've kinda risen above that, as an ex conservative where I'm like...well I still support this stuff, but yeah I'm not super passionate and why can't this money be spent just on UBI? That seems to be where Nerds is at, and that's where I'm at.

But then he goes too far and in too weird of a direction with this on some issues. For example, he had this huge spiel about social security. And uh...okay. Look. I get it. Social security is a flawed program. it is a contribution based program that basically represents a generational transfer of wealth from the young to the old, and seems to operate like a pyramid scheme where when it goes bust, it's gonna go bust. And long term, I wouldnt mind if we transitioned more to just UBI with SSDI/RI taking a more secondary approach toward things. BUT....we should give seniors what they are owed, and transition this system slowly over decades. my own compromises in my UBI plan outline a good compromise for the first generation, but after that if people want to make it less generous given we have UBI, so be it.

I also do wanna point out that social security could easily be saved just by removing the payroll cap. It doesnt solve the justice issues and how it squares with UBI as a concept. But the issue is artificial and removing the payroll cap would solve the budgetary issues for at least another generation or two. 

He also tended to be against free college and student loan forgiveness, which rubbed me the wrong way. I get many people didnt go to college and maybe it seems unfair to ask taxpayers to bail people with student loans out, but as ONE of those people, here's how I see it. My generation was sold on the idea of college as a path to opportunity, so we took out all of this money thinking it would be easy to get a good job afterwards and that paying them off wouldnt be a huge problem. But then we were slapped hard by 2008, the problems Yang talks about with the war on normal people, and the fact that many people with degrees didn't even get off the ground. We're buried under this debt with little to no hope of getting out other than slaving our lives away to pay it off, and it's not a good situation. While Nerds is correct in pointing out that college isnt always a good return on investment and throwing money at the problem might make the issue worse, that's why we need free college to begin with. Private education is a massive market failure in this country, and it is better to solve that market failure by making college free and bailing students out, than by just insisting they have to pay it back. It's one of those things UBI alone cannot solve, and it requires attention.

Also, I know Yang and many of his supporters tend to look at college as just a matter of employment training, but that's kinda bogus. As Bernie pointed out in his recent book, we need free college because we need to make people to be good citizens. Currently people dont have the critical thinking skills to really think about things properly. And that leads to a lot of uneducated people supporting morons like Trump and MTG and stuff. We need college to make democracy work, to make people well rounded, and good citizens. 

Also, even if free college may not guarantee people a job, people should have the opportunity to compete for me. Without college being free. A lot of white collar jobs just become accessible only to the elites. While the problems of more people going to college have churned out more people who cant get jobs after college because the jobs arent there, if we didn't do things this way, college would be only for rich people like it was for most boomers. if we really care about being the "land of opportunity" and a meritocracy, as opposed to an aristocracy, then we should support free college as something to level the playing field.

Another issue this guy seemed leery on was regulating housing prices. I admit, I'm not a fan of rent control, but I am so because it goes against basic econ 101 stuff. Price ceilings end up just making the market worse, by creating shortages. Maybe you could argue short term they're needed to solve price gouging, but there's a reason I dont lean into rent control in my own housing policies. And that's because it doesn't work.

Now, his argument was a bit different in the video. He mentioned being a "libertarian" and not liking the government telling people what they can and cant charge. I disagree, and I'm also a "libertarian" of sorts. But my libertarianism is based more in indepentarianism and real libertarianism. Ya know, left libertarian traditions that favor the liberty of people over that of property owners. I think it's perfectly fine, when the national inclinations of the market deny people a place to live, to step in and regulate such things. I mean, the freedom of a rich person to charge whatever they want is also the freedom to deny someone else a home if they dont pay. And that is extortionary. Markets need to work for people, Im fine with regulating markets to get results that work for people, but those policies need to actually work, and I'm not convinced rent control does. What rent control does is limit the amount of housing by reducing the profit motive to build new housing, and what that does is lead to less housing overall. Which for those not covered by rent control agreements means even HIGHER rents long term. The correct answer to the housing crisis is to subsidize the construction of millions of new housing units. By flooding the market, we basically reduce the price that way, while also increasing the supply. So you ultimately wanna subsidize new housing and stop people from abusing the market for profit rather than controlling prices directly. 

I mean, I know I say Im similar to yang on politics, but I'm not exactly like yang, and this dude seems to be towing Yang's 2020 line more closely than I am for better or for worse. We probably agree on a lot of stuff, but we would also disagree on stuff like free college and student debt forgiveness, and housing. I mean, I get the whole appeal of "why have this when we can instead have UBI?" and I generally agree with such a sentiment. I've made this criticism of Biden a lot in the past. But whenever I suggest a program on top of UBI like free college or housing, there's normally a reason for it. And that reason is that that market is fundamentally broken on a deeper level that UBI by itself will not solve. Yang/Nerds' solution to the free college thing is "stop giving colleges money". Okay, but then you either create an aristocracy that can afford college while no one else does, or you end up with tons of people deeply in debt with no career prospects. We should recognize that free college and student debt forgiveness are very much needed to solve modern problems with the economy. Same with housing. There is some validity to the idea that if we just give people a UBI and do nothing else, rents will probably rise in a lot of areas. Because those markets are broken, there's a shortage of housing relative to demand and certain bad actors like landlords, investors, etc. are exploiting that. And arguably, you could even argue some other stuff like Biden is pushing like free childcare are also important, and if we can fit them into the budget I'm not opposed to them, I just dont emphasize them or are passionate about them. 

So...all in all, what are my takeaways from this? Well, first of all that a lot of anti biden sentiment is idiotic. I mean, Biden isnt great, I would like to do better than Biden, but I want someone more progressive who does more. Anyone thinking of voting for a republican and trump who agrees with Biden on policy is the kind of person that makes me say "this is why we need free college in this country."And as far as Nerds' take on stuff, I get the sentiment that yeah, why do X thing when we could instead do UBI? but he takes it too far even for me sometimes. Yes, we need social security for now at least. Yes, we need free college, student debt forgiveness, and some sort of housing program. And healthcare too. And yeah, that's my view on this.

Friday, May 12, 2023

Should CNN have platformed Trump?

 So, CNN held a town hall for trump last night and it was...shall we say, a clusterfudge. The dude lied in every answer, sometimes gratuitously, a lot of people are criticizing CNN for even giving the guy a platform. AOC being a big one. 

Now, I kind of want to focus less on the town hall itself and more on whether we should have given this guy a platform, because I feel quite mixed here. 

On the one hand, I do believe that we need less media bias, and that we should platform every serious presidential candidate. I have a strong dislike, for example, of how CNN often treats Bernie. I mean, they would give Bernie and the like a town hall, but fill it full of loaded questions. And often they wouldn't even focus on Bernie at all when giving speeches, deciding to....instead....look at an empty podium at a trump rally. The media is biased in who they cover, and how they cover them. And honestly, I don't like that. I do believe there should be some fairness there, in principle.

At the same time, TRUMP IS DANGEROUS, and if there was ever a time to ignore a candidate, it's now. I mean the fact that this guy can get on a stage and just lie so openly while his crowd cheers him on is just...disguisting. This dude lowers the bar, and it's quite clear that his lies have hurt people. He has literally incited a insurrection in 2021, and given the circumstances, I can see shutting him out. If there was ever a time to shut someone out, it's something like trump that deserves it. Because this dude doesn't even TRY to tell the truth. He just makes crap up on the spot and his followers cling to every word. And it's had a horrible effect on our democracy. And it's this, which is why I don't feel I can go third party this time if Biden is the nominee, trump is such an open danger to democracy that yeah, he needs to be stopped. 

I mean, if there was ever a time for CNN to just ignore a candidate and pretend they don't exist, doing it now is the time. And that's why AOC was freaking out over this. I mean, AOC is like, traumatized from January 6th. And here we're giving the dude who incited an insurrection a platform to lie again. If there was ever a time to ignore someone, it's now. 

Heck, if we ignored him as not serious in 2016, then maybe he wouldn't have become president. The media covered him 1) for ratings, 2) because the dems wanted him covered. I mean, Trump was good for business, half the country would be horrified by the guy and the other half loved him for "telling it like it is", and of course, the dems thought by elevating him they'd have a better shot, so yeah, we did it. And as a result, he won. Because 1) a lot of people liked the guy, and 2) the democrats miscalculated on their "blue no matter who" campaign and people...didnt vote blue no matter who. 

I know that Breaking Points argued that maybe by giving him a platform it reminds people that he's still the same unrepentant nutcase and that he hasn't changed or learned his lesson, but eh....given how we knew this guy was a nut since 2016 and he won BECAUSE he was a nutcase, well...Im not sure covering the dude is a good idea. I mean, people LIKE this nutcase. It's like giving the joker a platform. 

Honestly, while some level of coverage is necessary given the dude is IS the republican front runner, idk....again, if anyone ever deserved the treatment Bernie and Yang got in 2016 and 2020, it's this guy. Just saying. I'm not saying we should do this for anyone else. Quite frankly, Trump is a special case. He has already caused enough real world damage with his words, and some stuff he does seems to go beyond first amendment protections, so yeah. I'd say January 6th was a hard line for me. if that never happened, I'd probably say out of principle, yes, cover the guy, everyone deserves fair coverage from the media. But yeah...not for the dude who has literally incited violence in the real world. He has to go. The only good thing about him is that he's old and that this will hopefully be the last cycle he runs.

Thursday, May 11, 2023

Explaining the 2008 and 2012 elections to modern liberals and how they compare to 2016 and 2020

 So...being a millennial, I'm getting up there in years now where I can say I've seen some crap in my life elections wise. 1988, technically alive for, don't remember it. 1992, vaguely remember Bill Clinton playing saxophone, nothing else. 1996, I remember my dad liked Bob Dole, and had a paul shanklin album (conservative parody guy) about that election cycle. 2000, I remember it being a clusterfudge and not knowing who was president for a month. 2004, I remember fairly well, being the first election I took an interest in. I remember being an evangelical christian and liking Bush. I remember Kerry being blasted for his swift boat stuff. I remember the howard dean BYAH! I remember jib jab's "my land", and I remember my classmates dualing with lightsabers in front of voters with bush and kerry masks. 

I couldn't actually vote until the 2008 election though. And, this is where I discuss what inspired me to write this. A lot of liberals were wondering if the 2012 election was particularly hard for the left, and I'm just going to say...no. Because, starting in Bush's second term, there started to be a sinking feeling among the right that, gee, it was screwed. I mean, voters were waking up. Bush was...not the most faithful interpretation of conservatism out there, and into Bush's second term, there was a general loss of confidence in the dude as a leader. While he was riding high in his first time after 9/11 as the country united behind him and he had a 90% approval rating and everyone was all on the same page with invading Afghanistan and Iraq and passing sweeping violations of our civil liberties like the PATRIOT act, in his second term...people on both sides really got sick of the guy. The fact was, the dude drove the country into a ditch. It became more and more apparent that Iraq was a mistake, with thousands of people dying, calls for troop surges, which made young me scared of being drafted, and it becoming quite clear that there never were weapons of mass destruction there. The unity of the early 2000s was followed by a general disunity later on. In 2006, the first year I was able to vote, I ended up voting split ticket, some democrats, some republicans, and the democrats won the house of representatives. I kind of felt like a change of leadership was needed, but in early 2007 I regretted my choice as Nancy Pelosi played games with the budget. Generally speaking, as the election season started taking off, republicans were in a slump. It reminded me a lot of the dems in 2016 and 2020. Where we just didn't like the candidates, and things were uninspiring. McCain ended up winning the primary, and I feel like no one really wanted him, we just chose him as a Bush third term. I actually went through my cringey libertarian phase around then and wanted Ron Paul. As I said, I felt like the republicans just abandoned conservative principles. I mean, Bush doubled the national debt between his wars and tax cuts, and his wars actually set the stage for the anti war/isolationist movement in the US, which I was kinda sorta a part of. I mean, pragmatically I understood we needed some international presence, but we obviously needed out of Iraq. 

In some ways, McCain felt like a doubling down with everything wrong with the Bush administration. He wanted to stay in Iraq forever, and the dude was just...uninspiring. I even considered voting democratic in 2008, and had Hillary won the nomination, I would have supported her. Why? Because AS a moderate conservative at the time, she kinda spoke to my moderate values, she wasnt too far left for me, and she probably would have gotten us out of Iraq and straightened out the budget. But then there was...Obama. Now, Obama was "scary" to me. I mean, he was the evil "socialist". I didn't want him as I felt he was a threat to our country. There was a lot of stuff going around suggesting he was an extremist and into "liberation theology" and wanted to redistribute the wealth to the third world, and that he wanted universal healthcare and that would have death panels. I also figured he would also be an ineffective leader because nothing he wanted would pass congress, but still, I didn't want the dude in office.

2008 was a bitter pill to swallow. And most conservatives were quite fatalistic. Like, internal talk among ourselves told us that yeah, we were SCREWED. Obama was gonna win, it was gonna be a blow out. I think my election prediction that year was like 99% confidence in an Obama win. I actually had it almost 100% correct, only getting North Carolina wrong, which I thought would go more conservative. But otherwise, the writing was on the wall. 

Even back then, I didnt really tow the party line. I mean, I was so unhappy with mccain as the nominee i even considered voting for Bob Barr as he was closer to Ron Paul, who I wanted, than McCain was. But ultimately, I ended up voting for McCain as I felt like Obama needed to be stopped. it should be noted, unlike on the left, I was not shamed for my ideas to vote bob barr. Democrats would SCREECH at me about the virtues of voting blue no matter who, but on the republican side, it was like "eh, it's your choice, i dont like mccain either."

And as I said, as election day came, we just braced for impact the best we could. We knew Obama would lose. The right didnt have a platform that resonated, and it was quite clear that a course correction was needed.

That said, in 2010, the ideas I originally started holding in 2008 with Ron paul, the idea that we need to go back to a more "pure" form of conservatism won out. And we got the tea party in 2010. And I was fired up, I was die hard for them at the time. I mean, this was the return to conservatism as it should be practiced we all really wanted, so why not support it?

But then...after they took office, I quickly got horrified by what I saw. First of all, the lack of compromise. While Obama's insane spending in the wake of the 2008 recession was a big focal point for conservative me, I kind of felt like reasonable compromises should be made. Instead, we got brinksmanship, with the GOP just holding the budget hostage. Like flat out "let's shut down the government to get what we want". And Obama seemed willing to compromise. He would offer spending cuts that went against his own party. But they would never be good enough. The GOP wanted to cut spending, but also refused to raise taxes on the rich. And here's the thing. If you're trying to balance a budget, there are two ways to do it, raise taxes, and cut spending. I thought it was perfectly reasonable to push for spending cuts if we raised taxes in return. But the GOP didn't want that, they wanted to lower taxes on the rich, giving money to the "job creators", who, quite frankly, weren't creating jobs, they were laying everyone off. I mean, we've discussed how even back then I was cynical of the world of work and how businesses were screwing people while making "record profits." And then insisting my dad had to give up his unemployment benefits to make that happen? Not a chance.

I mean, I think that 2012 was the election cycle we kinda realized that trickle down doesn't work. All of this supply side economics crap has been a massive failure, and it isn't doing anything for the American people. Obama was trying to stabilize the economy, and he was pretty cordial to republicans and clearly wanted to compromise, it was the republicans who didn't want to. They just wanted theirs, they would undermine the full faith and credit of the US to do it, and who does this beenfit? Rich people. 

And it didn't stop there. I watched Tom Corbett here in PA laying off teachers and calling for austerity in the middle of the recession. For the party of job creators, the fact that these guys were killing jobs in the middle of a recession was just...no. 

On social issues, the GOP started pushing for these assaults on abortion rights that seemed insane. We've seen a new wave of this with Roe v wade being nullified and it being open season against abortion, but even then they tried to suppress it as much as they could within the framework of roe v wade, leading to disgusting laws where women were forced to give birth to stillborn babies and crap. It was disgusting. 

And...through this, I kind of realized that it wasn't just how the conservatives were behaving that was the problem, it wasnt like it was this brand of conservatism that was bad, and if we had a better brand of conservatism that that would be better. No, this WAS the pure form of these ideas. This WAS the logical conclusion to them. And I realized it was hellish. 

It was so bad, I realized I had more in common with Obama than I did with the GOP at this point. And as I shifted to atheism and went through my great leaving of the cave, I started realizing my former ideas werent just flawed, they were pretty much evil. It was really a "are we the baddies?" moment for me. Yes, yes we were. And I decided to leave and to never engage in that again.

Looking back at the state of the country though, I don't feel like I was alone. I feel like the rest of the country was with me on this. Like...no one wanted this. People turned hard on the GOP. And the culture inside the GOP was just one of malaise. Like for presidential candidates, no one really had any ideas of who to support. I mean, names were thrown around, Gingrich, Guiliani, Romney, Herman Cain and his 999 plan. I mean, no one was really enthusiastic about these guys. And the more I looked at them and their platforms the more disgusted I was, and realized all of their ideas just benefitted the rich at the expense of everyone else. Everything the GOP does is about benefitting the rich. They dont make good policy. They just....try to help rich people and pander to evangelical nutcases. 

Anyway, Obama was a shoe in for 2012. He was more in touch with the country. His unemployment expansion was saving our bacon, he was protecting our civil liberties better. He got out of iraq and had a moderate foreign policy I found very few issues with. I mean, he addressed my concerns at time better than the right did. The GOP just didnt resonate. Because they were a bunch of out of touch rich guys and crazy people who just didnt understand politics these days. They used to be it, and now they weren't. I mean, was this the end of the reagan coalition? It felt like the writing was on the wall. 

So yeah, Obama winning felt like a blowout. It was narrower than 2008, but it still was an easy win. And it really did feel like the balance of power was shifting. Yes, the GOP still had power in congress. BUT, congress was also very gerrymandered in favor of the GOP. THe dems were winning the popular vote everywhere, the only reason the GOP held onto power was how anti competitive they made many congressional races. But it really did seem like the right was on the decline at this point. I really wanna hammer that home. We tend to act like this wasn't the case and it was just a couple screw ups on their part and obama had a charisma no one can replicate. But no, the country really was more aligned with the democrats in terms of values than the GOP. It was clear the GOP's coalition was aging. I mean the average fox news viewer was in their 60s, young people loved obama and wish he did more, heck, explaining a lot of their losses in 2010 and 2014, it really seemed the problem was...lack of enthusiasm. The people who wanted hope and change in 2008 just stopped showing up. Because obama was actually not doing enough. There were people who really did want universal healthcare. Who wanted to transform the country in ways that the republicans fear mongered about, but actually started sounding like a good idea.

And in Obama's second term, I started aligning with progressives, and expanding my own emerging leftn wing ideology, I started openly embracing for what I once feared....massive redistribution of wealth in the form of a UBI and universal healthcare. Free college and student debt forgiveness too. I started realizing that capitalism was broken and we needed a new new deal. 

Which is where we get into 2016, and how crap got weird, and the democrats lost the plot. 2016 felt like 2008 for the democrats. It really did. Like...just like in Bush's second term, the malaise set in, we didn't want 4 more years of this. We wanted something different. I think people wanted a more progressive alternative to CLinton, who was being propped up as a third obama term the way mccain was propped up as a third bush term. And the democrats hit all the wrong notes. And they started getting weird and leaning into this blue no matter who rhetoric, and showed open hostility toward the emerging progressive coalition. And that's the thing that got me, that really alienated me, the democrats...were OPENLY HOSTILE toward their emerging progressive voting block. Like they flat out antagonized us constantly in the primary, and basically declared war on us calling us bernie bros and telling us we'll never get universal healthcare, and it was almost as if the democrats were TRYING to piss people off. I mean, they felt they could get away with it. When the GOP is basically dying, they could push whomever they wanted and they'd win. They knew the alternative was worse and most of us would fall in line anyway, so they didnt care if they abused us.

Which is why, unlike in 2008, I went out of my way to vote for the greens. It was a matter of principle for me. You dont pee in my cornflakes and openly alienate me and then try to strong arm me to support clinton who i didn't want. I didnt want a third obama term, I couldnt wait until obama was out so we could get someone more progressive in, who didnt take crap from the GOP, and who pushed unapologetically for progressive policies and principles. Instead, we got the person who promised to compromise with the GOP, despite them being openly hostile toward obama for years and clearly showing no attempts to compromise AT ALL. 

Meanwhile the republican side got...weird too. Going into 2016, looking back at how conservatives were acting, they kinda realized they were giving up the ghost. There was a lot of doomerism on the republican side, as none of the options for president looked electable, and it seemed like they were too extreme and out of touch. The reagan coalition was flat out DYING. people were looking at electoral math and the blue wall and lamenting how the GOP would never win an election again. 

But then...Trump came along. ANd he breathed fire back into their base. He would start trash talking everyone, and it resonated with something in the people. he was "the guy who was gonna drain the swamp" and get crap done. he put a face on conservatism that really made it appear more attractive, something the democrats failed to do. And the democrats...just ended up making themselves as unattractive as possible. It's like suddenly, the trends freom 2008 on were reversing, with the dems being the moderate out of touch status quo that no one wanted, and the GOP being the attractive outsiders who were gonna fix our problems. And somehow, despite the odds, trump won.

Now, you guys know my views on 2016. I ripped the dems constantly on this blog for this. They really took their base for granted, and the GOP just ended up regaining energy, which was previously thought impossible for them. And they won. They fricking won.

Of course, in 2018, the dems made a come back, but again, something to be noted, the dems were making a come back by being moderate. They abandoned all of their obama voters they gained through that era, they were now trying to win over FRICKING ROMNEY VOTERS who wanted moderation and compromise, and who felt trump was bad blah blah blah.

The trend went into 2020. And in 2020, it felt like another race to the bottom election. The dems did all of their same tricks, alienated me again, and then openly brought people like JON FRICKING KASICH into the democratic convention. Meanwhile, the GOP started flirting with a vibe that felt...openly fascist. The GOP got even crazier somehow, with trump's supporters starting to seem more...violent and dangerous. There was a talk about whether he was gonna tell them to back off but instead told them "stand down and stand by". And then there was the teargassing of protesters outside of the white house. And yeah. Meanwhile the dems just flat out remained as unattractive as humanly possible but Biden still won, because Trump was so alienating that Biden just eeked out a win. 

Which...kind of brings me to being able to compare 2008 and 2012 to 2016 and 2020.

2008 and 2016 felt very much the same to me, but almost...reversed. In 2008 the dems had high energy and the GOP had a sense of "we're screwed". In 2016, the dems werent enthusiastic but there was an arrogant air of inevitability around Hillary. I would say the one difference between the republicans in 2008 and the democrats in 2016 was in 2008 the GOP knew they'd lose and seemed to make peace with it, while hillary arrogantly thought she had it in the bag. Like, the democrats had this air of arrogance around them the GOP never did. but otherwise, Id describe the scenarios as similar. There was low enthusiasm for these forced "third term" candidates and ultimately they lost to the other party who seemed much more enthusiastic for their candidates. Enthusiasm wins elections. Apathy and malaise loses them. And ultimately, the two sides ended up doing the same thing just about. 

In 2020 the apathy was still there on the democratic side, and the enthusiasm for trump was still there, but it did seem like the dems trying to pander to moderates started to work, as enough people were alienated from the trump coalition to swing things back toward the democrats. Like...it seems sad, but the dems were able to derail the seemingly emerging coalition of progressives they had been building up to that point, going all in with centrism wins. But at the same time, this also kinda kept the trump coalition viable. Like....while the GOP seemed on the way out, it seemed like trump revived it.

But now, things are looking weird. I think lack of enthusiasm and malaise are at record highs in recent hsitory going into 2024. The parties are realigning, but we're getting the bad future. And it's in part because it's been happening inorganically. Like....we're pretty much an oligarchy and the leaders are trying to strong arm us into voting for their guys, rather than most people getting what they actually want. On the left, this means that the progressive elements of the democrats are being muted and suppressed in the face of DNC screwery and calls to "vote blue no matter who", and on the GOP side, it seems to take the form of the party being taken over by the psychos they've been cultivating for decades, and most people wanting to jump ship for the more "sane" alternative. But all in all, people are just mostly voting for lesser evils right now. Sure, enthusiastic trumpers exist, and it scares me, but they need moderates to win, and the moderates think the GOP is too extreme. That's actually driving moderates to the dems, which suits them perfectly, because they dont wanna be the good guys, just the moderate alternative. So in a sense, that voting pattern of people jumping ship from the GOP and voting for dems who are "moderate" is happening, but it doesnt seem like no one is happy about it. Even the moderates are like "come on cant we have a better option than this?" LIke, I dont feel like people LIKE biden, and actually LIKE moderate policies in practice. Because the moderate conservatives jumping ship really want conservative policies, and many progressives actually want increasingly progressive policies. And then people are focused on culture war nonsense. It seems like conservative voters are moderating on economics, wanting someone to, say, protect social security, not cut it, but at the same time, they care more about wokeness than that so they'll just scream over that. Meanwhile the left screams over transphobia and bigotry and ugh...we are in hell. THe biggest and most stark differences are on cultural issues these days, and while I'd argue the left will likely win long term, they once again tend to make themselves unattractive, causing them to make setbacks that cause the right to win crucial elections. But once the right governs, people don't like that either, so they swing back left.

It's like we're in an era where no one really knows what they want, but they hate where we are. I have ideas for where we should go, but my ideas are mostly outside of the overton window. 

Anyway, I do realize it's not 2016 any more, and a lot of the energy for progressive candidates has evaporated, betwen the dems trying their darndest to kill that trend in its crib and them enabling the GOP to become even more extreme, but with a populist bend that resonates, it's like...we're screwed. 

I really do with we could just hit a reset button and go back from 2012 again. Because in 2012, it seemed so simple to me. The GOP was bad, the left was good. And we needed to ultimately shift things to be more progressive over time. 2016 just set things in motion that have put us in a very dark place. I almost feel like our birthrights were stolen from us there. Like we should be in year 7 of a Bernie Sanders presidency with our forgiven student loans and universal healthcare and $15 minimum wage by now. We should be openly debating UBI as chatGPT and automation threaten jobs. Like, that is where I would LIKE to be, and where I feel like the country SHOULD be. But instead, we're...in hell. I hate this.