Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 7:41 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 10:43 pm fiscally conservative has never been defined enough for me to understand what the person saying it *really means.

They would prefer less government service/programs and less taxation, generally speaking. When you get in to the weeds that's different things for different people. The same goes for a fiscally progressive statement.

Yeah, for me that still sounds like "don't tax the rich man" and "stop paying for poor people's food"

It's the sophisticated way to say "I got mine, fuck off"

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 10:00 pm

dfs wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 9:55 pm The notion that there are a group of "good" republicans just waiting to take over the party once Trump is on the outs is a peculiar liberal fantasy. I have no faith that such creatures exist.

Maybe it’s a New England thing. We have a long history of socially liberal/fiscally conservative Republicans who have merely gone underground.

Yeah, I don't see it as a fantasy. I think there are far more republicans who are just scared for their own careers to speak up than folks believe. Whether or not they'll find a voice post Trump depends on how quickly, if at all, there is a backlash amongst those who do to Trump's hold on the GOP.

Politicians are supposed to lead, not hide from the mobs.

A person’s character is determined by their decisions during the hard times. Anyone can get by during the easy times.

hepcat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 9:13 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 10:00 pm

dfs wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 9:55 pm The notion that there are a group of "good" republicans just waiting to take over the party once Trump is on the outs is a peculiar liberal fantasy. I have no faith that such creatures exist.

Maybe it’s a New England thing. We have a long history of socially liberal/fiscally conservative Republicans who have merely gone underground.

Yeah, I don't see it as a fantasy. I think there are far more republicans who are just scared for their own careers to speak up than folks believe. Whether or not they'll find a voice post Trump depends on how quickly, if at all, there is a backlash amongst those who do to Trump's hold on the GOP.

There are also significant structural problems in our democratic / constitutional system that distort things as well. The combination of equal state representation in the Senate plus the electoral college (and to a degree gerrymandering) disproportionately empowers the rural / conservative parts of the country that are generally the heart of MAGA territory. On top of that the multiple veto points in our system for legislation means that conservatives only need to hold one veto point in the system to be able to substantially thwart governmental action that they don't like.

All of this means that Republicans don't pay as much of an electoral penalty for extremism as they would in a more democratic system, which limits their incentive to compromise and moderate.

Bloat

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 9:08 am
Yeah, for me that still sounds like "don't tax the rich man" and "stop paying for poor people's food"

It's the sophisticated way to say "I got mine, fuck off"

+1. The "good" Rs have always been about tax cuts to buy that second yacht and fuck the poors.

I think many people who call themselves "fiscally conservative" would leap at the opportunity for, say universal healthcare paid for simply by making corporations and the richest people pay their genuinely fair share of taxes.

gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 2:39 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 9:08 am
Yeah, for me that still sounds like "don't tax the rich man" and "stop paying for poor people's food"

It's the sophisticated way to say "I got mine, fuck off"

+1. The "good" Rs have always been about tax cuts to buy that second yacht and fuck the poors.

-1000

I think this is a bunch of partisan, demonizing bullshit, personally. You don't have to agree, but there's a real problem if you can't even conceive of a principled position that advocates for smaller government and reduced government spending that's not "I got mine, fuck off."

The world isn't black and white. Shades of grey, people, shades of grey.

You can of course suggest "your blog sucks", but she makes the points I would raise (and others have noted).

I've been in the public sector in some capacity for almost three decades and I've yet to work with someone that calls themselves a "fiscal conservative" that hasn't actively tried to cut/remove/reduce anything related to social services, public health or the greater public good while simultaneously rubber stamping anything related a police budget.

Fiscal conservatisms assume everyone has access to freedom, but that’s simply not true for people with no financial means to support them. Fiscal conservatives who are detached from lower-income communities, the people suffering the most from climate change, don’t want to extend the money that would alleviate their burdens.

In closing:

If socially liberal, fiscal conservative ideologs really valued freedom, they wouldn’t be fiscally conservative. What they really mean when they say that they value freedom is not freedom for all people, but freedom for their wallets.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 7:43 pm You can of course suggest "your blog sucks", but she makes the points I would raise (and others have noted).

I've been in the public sector in some capacity for almost three decades and I've yet to work with someone that calls themselves a "fiscal conservative" that hasn't actively tried to cut/remove/reduce anything related to social services, public health or the greater public good while simultaneously rubber stamping anything related a police budget.

Fiscal conservatisms assume everyone has access to freedom, but that’s simply not true for people with no financial means to support them. Fiscal conservatives who are detached from lower-income communities, the people suffering the most from climate change, don’t want to extend the money that would alleviate their burdens.

In closing:

If socially liberal, fiscal conservative ideologs really valued freedom, they wouldn’t be fiscally conservative. What they really mean when they say that they value freedom is not freedom for all people, but freedom for their wallets.

Similar. I've worked with state government for most of my career and I echo these sentiments. I'm sure there are principled small government Republicans out there that actually care about poor people and don't simply try to gut any programs that don't help themselves, but they have been scarce on the ground, to say the least. Most of them look at deeply entrenched social problems, claim that government can't be part of the solution, then take their tax cuts and whistle while the problem gets worse.

Kurth wrote: but there's a real problem if you can't even conceive of a principled position that advocates for smaller government and reduced government spending that's not "I got mine, fuck off."

Perhaps I have such a hard time conceiving of such a principled position because the Republican party hasn't embodied that in my lifetime.

I should clarify - I think I'm fiscally conservative in that I favor paying more taxes so we don't continue to endlessly rack up debt to pay for the things that people want from the government. I don't believe in endlessly cutting taxes and then saying that because the deficit is so high, we can't possibly pay for school meals for students that would otherwise go hungry.

To be clear, I think that what the Cheney's and other prominent Republicans are doing absolutely shows that they value democracy and the country over their party. I just disagree that they have shown much concern about people who aren't in their tax bracket.

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 2:55 pm I think many people who call themselves "fiscally conservative" would leap at the opportunity for, say universal healthcare paid for simply by making corporations and the richest people pay their genuinely fair share of taxes.

Is this sarcasm? I legitimately can't tell.

I think this goes back to the not understanding privilege thing.

I know when I was voting Republican for many years, my mindset was not "rich people should take all they can get!" I was not rich (still am not!), so I honestly didn't care one way or the other how much rich people were taxed. And it was not, "Poor people suck! Let's get 'em!" I grew up poor - not poverty level, but single mom making minimum wage with two kids level.

However, I did believe the myth that a lot of people requiring government assistance were just not applying themselves. I watched both my parents go from childhoods of extreme poverty to successful middle-class adulthood, so I figured everybody could if they really wanted to. And I thought the government acting as a constant safety net was encouraging people to not put in the work.

It took many years to understand how privilege factored in to how easy or difficult the road is to success, and that not all roads are created equal. I think it's one reason Republicans push back so hard against so-called "wokeism," etc. The idea that people are diverse and indeed not created equal (in our society) undermines the whole position of individual responsibility for one's success.

gbasden wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 2:28 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 2:55 pm I think many people who call themselves "fiscally conservative" would leap at the opportunity for, say universal healthcare paid for simply by making corporations and the richest people pay their genuinely fair share of taxes.

Is this sarcasm? I legitimately can't tell.

I didn't mean it sarcastically.

gbasden wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 2:27 am To be clear, I think that what the Cheney's and other prominent Republicans are doing absolutely shows that they value democracy and the country over their party. I just disagree that they have shown much concern about people who aren't in their tax bracket.

I think it’s hard to argue against this, and I won’t. I largely agree with you. I just think there’s more that’s going on than “I got mine, so fuck off.” That certainly describes some that try to shield their lack of empathy and compassion for their fellow man behind an excuse of “fiscal conservatism,” but I don’t think that description fits all fiscal conservatives.

Lord knows my parents have things I can't comprehend politically but in their fiscal conservatism they spend nearly $200 most weeks feeding the food insecure and my mom spends many hours preparing the food she purchased. Since the TFG tax cuts, they don't even get tax breaks for what amounts to around $8000 a year, much less the time they put in. Oddly enough they blame the lack of write off on the democrats, because reasons...

In short, I whole heartedly reject the noting that fiscal conservatism is code for fuck the poor, even if it's a shield used by people who do use that code. I think making that statement says more about the people making the claim than it does about fiscal conservatism.

I know people like that. They don't believe that government should provide things like universal healthcare and whatnot because taxes are "coercive" but they also put an honest effort into being charitable (for charitable causes of which they approve).

Max Peck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 1:19 pm taxes are "coercive"

They're supposed to be. The other option is violence.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 1:19 pm they also put an honest effort into being charitable (for charitable causes of which they approve).

And the government is supposed to make sure that everyone has support, not just the popular people/causes.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:56 am Lord knows my parents have things I can't comprehend politically but in their fiscal conservatism they spend nearly $200 most weeks feeding the food insecure and my mom spends many hours preparing the food she purchased. Since the TFG tax cuts, they don't even get tax breaks for what amounts to around $8000 a year, much less the time they put in. Oddly enough they blame the lack of write off on the democrats, because reasons...

In short, I whole heartedly reject the noting that fiscal conservatism is code for fuck the poor, even if it's a shield used by people who do use that code. I think making that statement says more about the people making the claim than it does about fiscal conservatism.

The doctrine of fiscal conservatism is there to persuade people like your parents that tight scarcity is the normal state of economy. It's designed to make it impossible to imagine government doing great things for the public good. But it actually functions as a shield for the very rich who hide their wealth as loans and corporations who hide theirs offshore.

It's no coincidence that the most *fiscally liberal* period in American government was the period when we accomplished the greatest things, from the TVA and interstate highways to universal education to computers and putting 1960s humans on the fucking Moon. Take a look at the tax rates and policies from that period and you can see how we did it.

And not a single millionaire starved to death.

Then there was a meaningful alternative form of government that offered a much closer divide betweeen rich and poor Comrade.

And a large proportion of men were trained killers so keeping them happy was extremely important.

Now the same number of men would rather measure their T with Elon.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 8:48 am I think this goes back to the not understanding privilege thing.

I know when I was voting Republican for many years, my mindset was not "rich people should take all they can get!" I was not rich (still am not!), so I honestly didn't care one way or the other how much rich people were taxed. And it was not, "Poor people suck! Let's get 'em!" I grew up poor - not poverty level, but single mom making minimum wage with two kids level.

However, I did believe the myth that a lot of people requiring government assistance were just not applying themselves. I watched both my parents go from childhoods of extreme poverty to successful middle-class adulthood, so I figured everybody could if they really wanted to. And I thought the government acting as a constant safety net was encouraging people to not put in the work.

It took many years to understand how privilege factored in to how easy or difficult the road is to success, and that not all roads are created equal. I think it's one reason Republicans push back so hard against so-called "wokeism," etc. The idea that people are diverse and indeed not created equal (in our society) undermines the whole position of individual responsibility for one's success.

I strongly believe that opportunity comes from being given the best possible education and have access to health care (which used to come from our employers who have slowly destroyed that benefit) built around the best infrastructure so people get get to work in an affordable way.

And the best Republican president of last century Eisenhower believed it too.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 4:00 pm And not a single millionaire starved to death.

I would put it that not a single millionaire acted like he/she was going to starve to death. Seriously, what is wrong with making corporations and really rich people pay their fair share of taxes? Why do we accept that a maximum of 37% tax rate is fair and equitable for people making 578,000 and for people making over 1 million in taxes? If I was making $578,000 I'd be raising holy hell that someone like Musk gets off paying taxes at my rate.

Hell, in 1984 the top tax bracket was 50%, and that was the era that gave us "Greed is good" as a catchphrase. I'd be all right just going back to that, never mind 60's era tax brackets.

That's the kind of fiscal conservativism I'd go for. Make sure you can pay for government spending, and do it by not letting the really rich and corporations get off on lower than reasonable tax rates.

Honest fiscal conservatism is not anti-tax. It’s anti-waste and anti-unsustainable spending.

Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:40 pm Honest fiscal conservatism is not anti-tax. It’s anti-waste and anti-unsustainable spending.

And I can absolutely support that. Nobody but the grifters want waste, and we should be able to pay for what we want, no arguments at all. IMO, the R's since Reagan have perverted that into massive tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, deficit spending being fine for defense, and an all out assault on most spending that helps normal people. We should be having honest conversations with each other about how we can trim spending so sacrifices are shared, increasing taxes on those that can afford it (and I lump myself into that category) and investing into national priorities such as infrastructure. And we won't do any of these things, of course.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:07 am

gbasden wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 2:28 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 2:55 pm I think many people who call themselves "fiscally conservative" would leap at the opportunity for, say universal healthcare paid for simply by making corporations and the richest people pay their genuinely fair share of taxes.

Is this sarcasm? I legitimately can't tell.

I didn't mean it sarcastically.

I would say that from my experience, most people who call themselves "fiscal conservatives" don't seem to want corporations or the rich taxed and argue against the smallest increase in the availability of healthcare as "socialism/communism".

Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:40 pm Honest fiscal conservatism is not anti-tax. It’s anti-waste and anti-unsustainable spending.

The problem is in deciding what is wasteful and unsustainable. Some people lump all social programs, medical care, and education into those categories. Others would point to the military. Some Social Security. Others would call out any dollar spent on any foreign issue (like Ukraine) without accounting for how those issues impact our own interests.

gbasden wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 8:02 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:07 am

gbasden wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 2:28 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 2:55 pm I think many people who call themselves "fiscally conservative" would leap at the opportunity for, say universal healthcare paid for simply by making corporations and the richest people pay their genuinely fair share of taxes.

Is this sarcasm? I legitimately can't tell.

I didn't mean it sarcastically.

I would say that from my experience, most people who call themselves "fiscal conservatives" don't seem to want corporations or the rich taxed and argue against the smallest increase in the availability of healthcare as "socialism/communism".

In other nations fiscal conservatism means a balanced budget with a surplus an d only investing in things that have a return on investment. Not just in monetary terms for the budget but in terms of things like increased economic growth more broadly.

Take our current health system. The government as it stands pays more on health per person than other countries. Then we pay more on top.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... 02019-2022

And compared to the UK it’s even worse:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42950587

Then the world:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... per_capita

It’s all just one big grift. We pay more as a society, state federal and individual and get less than other countries. No wonder the health companies don’t want it to change.

It’s socialism for the rich.

The far rights solution is to force other countries to pay more for “our” medical discoveries using our corporations.

Funnily enough many things we pay through the nose for now have been known since before the Second World War and were often invented or discovered by non Americans.

Many key drugs weren’t invented by Americans:
Insulin- a Canadian
Antibiotics - a Scotsman
Ventolin - an Englishman

One vial of insulin only costs between $2 and $10 to make, depending on the type. However, for consumers, one vial of insulin can cost between $50 and $1,000, and a pack of insulin pens can range from $45 to $600.

Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:40 pm Honest fiscal conservatism is not anti-tax. It’s anti-waste and anti-unsustainable spending.

Well then, we are agreed. And given what people have outlined so far with respect to the pitfalls in deciding what is waste and unsustainable - I propose we hike up the tax rates first - so everyone has skin in the game. Then we can talk about eliminating waste, because then even the very wealthy and corporations will start to give a damn where the money goes.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 8:56 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 7:40 pm Honest fiscal conservatism is not anti-tax. It’s anti-waste and anti-unsustainable spending.

The problem is in deciding what is wasteful and unsustainable. Some people lump all social programs, medical care, and education into those categories. Others would point to the military. Some Social Security. Others would call out any dollar spent on any foreign issue (like Ukraine) without accounting for how those issues impact our own interests.

I am a strong believer in personal responsibility but ultimately sometimes people need help.

And if we allow wages so low that people need food stamps to live and the stripping of health benefits so the execs can get a private jet: what good is that?

If companies won’t do the right thing we should tax them til they do.

Bad shit happens through no fault of your own sometimes and I think our prosperous country can afford to help people out to get them on their feet. There's always going to be people gaming the system but companies and rich folks game the system too and we're not talking about how they are a drain on society. I'd rather live in a country that values compassion with the risk of some people taking advantage of the social safety net vs a dog eat dog capitalist society where those who aren't as successful are just "losers".

$iljanus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 11:14 am Bad shit happens through no fault of your own sometimes and I think our prosperous country can afford to help people out to get them on their feet. There's always going to be people gaming the system but companies and rich folks game the system too and we're not talking about how they are a drain on society. I'd rather live in a country that values compassion with the risk of some people taking advantage of the social safety net vs a dog eat dog capitalist society where those who aren't as successful are just "losers".

Goddammit, 1,000x yes, this.

Economically it’s better to help people become productive members of society. We have school to keep kids out of trouble and to teach them skills for work/life. Infrastructure allows for more efficient trade and d travel. Changing light bulb and heating standards will increase efficiency.

Fiscal conservatives are so focused on the cost of government doing a thing that they lose sight of the cost of government NOT acting, both in human and economic cost.

$iljanus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 11:14 am Bad shit happens through no fault of your own sometimes and I think our prosperous country can afford to help people out to get them on their feet. There's always going to be people gaming the system but companies and rich folks game the system too and we're not talking about how they are a drain on society. I'd rather live in a country that values compassion with the risk of some people taking advantage of the social safety net vs a dog eat dog capitalist society where those who aren't as successful are just "losers".

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone so directly hit the nail on the head as to my own view on society as you did just now. This is about as perfect an explanation as I've ever heard to express an idea thumping around in my brain cage. Well written, Silj.

$iljanus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 11:14 am Bad shit happens through no fault of your own sometimes and I think our prosperous country can afford to help people out to get them on their feet. There's always going to be people gaming the system but companies and rich folks game the system too and we're not talking about how they are a drain on society. I'd rather live in a country that values compassion with the risk of some people taking advantage of the social safety net vs a dog eat dog capitalist society where those who aren't as successful are just "losers".

Yes, please.

And while getting people on their feet is a good primary goal, you also have to account for those who don't have that option. Just sweeping those people under the rug so that they won't get in the way isn't exactly a compassionate solution.

I'd add that if you want fewer people needing that kind of assistance, you have to direct resources into intervention services, mental health, medical care, and education.

You will lubricate the gears of the economy with your sweat. If you can not or will not, you will lubricate them with your blood.

*sigh*

I'll be under my rug.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 12:26 pm *sigh*

I'll be under my rug.

It really ties the existential dread together.

This dude, who has made some accurate predictions, says Harris will be the next President:

Interestingly enough, Lichtman would have likely predicted Biden to be President based on the keys, had Biden stayed in the race. Biden actually had one more key in his favor (incumbency) than Harris, and the other factors that were in play were independent of whether Biden or Harris were running (the economy, social unrest, and foreign policy keys).

So he called two coin flips correctly?