Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[Zonkerbl]

Two things I want to say:
[snip, no real arguments from me]

2) There's a homeless prostitute heroin addict who hangs out in front of my house. One day I caught her red handed on ring stealing packages from my front door. I reported it to the police and had her arrested, and the next day they let her go. I talked with the DA about how all I wanted was for this woman to stop stealing crap from my front porch and tbh if they just send her to jail for 30 days she'll just be back on my front porch stealing crap in 30 days. So the DA proposed letting her plead guilty in exchange for turning herself in to rehab. There was some concern whether she would show up for her court date, being 1) illiterate and 2) having absolutely nothing to lose. What are they going to punish her with, jail time? Free food and board for 30 days is a penalty? So my question is, in a jobs guarantee program, anyone who wants a job will get one. Suppose this lady shows up asking for a job. What job are we supposed to give her? Who's going to supervise her? What if she sits around all day at the job shooting up? Is there any point to hiring someone who you know you will fire 30 days later? Why not sign her into rehab and give her a UBI, on condition that she keep checking in periodically to make sure she's not spending her money on smack? A jobs guarantee is an IDIOTIC idea. You can accomplish MUCH MORE with a UBI and a good mental health/drug decriminalization policy.

This other story to me is a perfect example of where the concept of restorative justice would
be the most sensible response.

https://restorativejustice.org/#sthash.kdHi5Vq9.dpbs

I love Ilhan Omar. But her recent "the jobs guarantee program will pay for itself" statement... needs some more thought. Speaking of policies I hate from politicians I love.

Yeah I love the idea of restorative justice. It should be a big part of any justice system/decarceration overhaul we do.

[dckingsfan]

Two things I want to say:
1) As I have said before, anything is possible with time and money. Preventing the extinction of the human race is possible, but the amount of time we have to do it is getting shorter and shorter, meaning the amount of money we will have to expend to do it gets higher and higher. However, since the alternative is total annihilation of the human race, we have to pay it - *no matter what that price is.* The cockroaches will not be impressed with how much money we saved before we went extinct, and it is not stupid or crazy to articulate what those costs will be. The idiots who forced us to wait this long are the jerks who forced the bill up this high. It's not AOC's fault that her generation is stuck saying out loud what that bill is. The ALTERNATIVE is DEATH. For EVERYONE. The cost of that *alternative* is INFINITE. So whatever the cost is, you have to pay it...

Agreed. And there are three parts to the plan.

1) CO2 (and other (worse) gasses) reduction
2) CCUS and other technologies
3) Mitigation

A CO2 reduction plan should be done as quickly as possible but without killing the economy, creating a backlash like the yellow jackets that slows the progress of the initiative(s), within the context of currently available technologies.

CCUS needs to be funded and supported because we will still need to take the Carbon out of the atmosphere to get us back to pre-industrial levels. No amount of CO2 reduction will get us there.

A mitigation plan because it is going to happen regardless of what we do. We aren't going to change the trajectory worldwide so we need to not be denialist and have a plan. There have a been a bunch of studies/papers showing that the return on investment is between 10 and 100x.

To me it is which plan has the best approach. With respect to AOC - it isn't an executable plan.

Actually I read the opposite from what you just said. You think AOC's vision is achievable, with some modifications. Well ok, you think what is necessary to prevent total extinction doesn't necessarily involve ending carbon emissions by an arguably unachievable date. I don't get why you keep saying the GND is total garbage when what you propose is what a good faith response to a well intentioned but slightly farfetched proposal would be. I guess we have different definitions of what a total garbage proposal is. To me any proposal that gets a discussion started that, if people participate in good faith, will lead to an acceptable solution, is the kind of proposal that gets floated in DC all the time. A garbage proposal is one that is made by people not actually interested in getting a deal done. Like arming school teachers. THAT'S a garbage proposal.

I dunno, maybe I have more experience seeing how the sausage is made.

Last point - probably - I supported lobbying efforts in CA for education and school finance. So, you most certainly have more experience on a federal level.

What I saw at a state and local level is that if you propose something that is unachievable it delays the conversation - in my experience it doesn't accelerate the conversation. I think that is what we have seen in the GND document.

And it has created a wedge issue between Ds as well. It hasn't been a unifying document - anything but.

Add to that - it is denialist in nature. It never mentions that we can't control other countries and that we ARE going past 2.5C. It doesn't talk about long-term strategies for CCUS. Basically it is an undisciplined document throwing "stuff" against the wall.

So, yeah - not a huge fan. It won't get us where we need to go. Next plan...

[dckingsfan]

Biden's support comes from the core of the Dem base - African American voters. My guess is they are basically supporting Biden because of his close relationship with Obama and name recognition, not because of any particularly progressive policies. Warren has the redneck former union member in Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania vote sewn up (well, she's splitting some of those votes with Sanders), so if she wins the nomination she should be able to beat Trump fairly easily. But she has to win the nomination first, and to do that she has to convince black voters to support her over Biden. Will be interesting to see how she addresses that puzzle.

Read on Twitter

So you're saying Biden has more redneck ex-union voters than I think

I know we have a largely adversarial relationship, guess I could have added some text to the post - this was just meant to reinforce your argument.

[pancakes3]

taking pot shots at AOC over her undisciplined document isn't helping either. it delegitimizes her as a congresswoman, suggesting that there are actual adults in the room with better plans when there aren't.

as for it being a "unifier" well... that's not a very good metric of whether it'll combat climate change or not.

i mean, i agree that it's not a very good or coherent plan but i'm also not going to denigrate it every chance it's brought up, especially when it's the only thing on the menu. save the criticisms for when it actually comes up for a vote. until then, the public has to demand that the topic is at least on the docket for discussion.

[Zonkerbl]

Agreed. And there are three parts to the plan.

1) CO2 (and other (worse) gasses) reduction
2) CCUS and other technologies
3) Mitigation

A CO2 reduction plan should be done as quickly as possible but without killing the economy, creating a backlash like the yellow jackets that slows the progress of the initiative(s), within the context of currently available technologies.

CCUS needs to be funded and supported because we will still need to take the Carbon out of the atmosphere to get us back to pre-industrial levels. No amount of CO2 reduction will get us there.

A mitigation plan because it is going to happen regardless of what we do. We aren't going to change the trajectory worldwide so we need to not be denialist and have a plan. There have a been a bunch of studies/papers showing that the return on investment is between 10 and 100x.

To me it is which plan has the best approach. With respect to AOC - it isn't an executable plan.

Actually I read the opposite from what you just said. You think AOC's vision is achievable, with some modifications. Well ok, you think what is necessary to prevent total extinction doesn't necessarily involve ending carbon emissions by an arguably unachievable date. I don't get why you keep saying the GND is total garbage when what you propose is what a good faith response to a well intentioned but slightly farfetched proposal would be. I guess we have different definitions of what a total garbage proposal is. To me any proposal that gets a discussion started that, if people participate in good faith, will lead to an acceptable solution, is the kind of proposal that gets floated in DC all the time. A garbage proposal is one that is made by people not actually interested in getting a deal done. Like arming school teachers. THAT'S a garbage proposal.

I dunno, maybe I have more experience seeing how the sausage is made.

Last point - probably - I supported lobbying efforts in CA for education and school finance. So, you most certainly have more experience on a federal level.

What I saw at a state and local level is that if you propose something that is unachievable it delays the conversation - in my experience it doesn't accelerate the conversation. I think that is what we have seen in the GND document.

And it has created a wedge issue between Ds as well. It hasn't been a unifying document - anything but.

Add to that - it is denialist in nature. It never mentions that we can't control other countries and that we ARE going past 2.5C. It doesn't talk about long-term strategies for CCUS. Basically it is an undisciplined document throwing "stuff" against the wall.

So, yeah - not a huge fan. It won't get us where we need to go. Next plan...

From where I sit, where I don't expose myself to a lot of right wing propaganda, the GND is achievable and not a wedge issue. We can absolutely do the stuff the GND asks us to do, and it expresses the urgency of taking action now, and climate change is in the national conversation among Dem presidential candidates because of it. So it's the opposite of a wedge issue. Is all of what the GND proposes necessary/a good idea? I don't know. But there has been a lot of right wing hyperventilation about the GND by a lot of people who haven't read one word of it, so pardon my skepticism.

In education you're taking something that everyone pretty much agrees on and trying to make marginal improvements to it. That's not what's going on in the climate change conversation. A current solution that is doing pretty well but could be improved with minor tweaks on the margin does not exist.

[dobrojim]

speaking of education...

This quote is from a personal email I received from a friend of a friend who lives, IIRC, in Silver Spring.

Last Saturday, I went to a meeting titled "Montgomery County Climate Emergency" sponsored by local activists. The County Council passed a resolution in 2017 committing to 80% renewable energy by 2027 and 100% renewable by 2035. All well and good. The County Executive and several council members attended as well. Then they got down to specifics. More than 1/2 of the county's budget is dedicated to the school system which is under separate governance of an elected Board of Education. We learned that only 6 of the 200 schools in the county have solar on their roofs and that the school system considers itself a national leader because they moved from 4-6 over the last year. We also learned that there are no electric vehicles in the school bus fleet and that a new procurement of school buses (with 20 year life cycle)will not be electric despite strong evidence that these vehicles have lower total life cycle costs that gasoline-powered vehicles. But on the positive side, the county now has 5 working groups to study the climate change issue! Some emergency.

I'm going to pester the school board about this, but this is the kind of inertia that's symptomatic of the problems we face in dealing with climate change.

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

God damn Bernie bros are getting desperate. How the hell is Elizabeth Warren establishment? Bernie voters are going to stay home again if he’s not on the ticket aren’t they?

[Zonkerbl]

...snip...

I know we have a largely adversarial relationship, guess I could have added some text to the post - this was just meant to reinforce your argument.

Pish posh. We disagree on a few things sure but... adversarial? I don't have an adversarial relationship with anyone on this board. My disagreements are with ideas, not people.

[I_Like_Dirt]

God damn Bernie bros are getting desperate. How the hell is Elizabeth Warren establishment? Bernie voters are going to stay home again if he’s not on the ticket aren’t they?

It's worth noting that societal fragmentation is a part of the product with social media. Bernie says some stuff I agree with and other stuff I don't. His supporters are passionate and generally have a larger sense of good ideas, at the very least. Bernie and his supporters are also the best example within the Democratic party of fragmented society, though.

I suspect a lot of them will still come out to vote regardless of the candidate. There are going to be people who stay at home from amongst all the camps - particularly supporters of fringe candidates who are there just to watch the world burn and hope to tear things down. I just expect Bernie's supporters are going to stick with him until the bitter end which has a predictable outcome. There is a very real possibility they wind up frustrated that Biden is the candidate when they actively take steps to increase the chances of that happening by casting all other options as relatively equally bad and therefore it's Bernie until the end. Biden almost assuredly inspires the fewest people to come out and vote. It's possible he gets a VP candidate who does that for him but he's drawing from Democratic bases that are going to vote regardless. I get the impression that most of his supporters are largely just thinking "good enough." It's a throwback campaign.



I suppose Eisenhower did win his second term...

[Pointgod]

2) There's a homeless prostitute heroin addict who hangs out in front of my house. One day I caught her red handed on ring stealing packages from my front door. I reported it to the police and had her arrested, and the next day they let her go. I talked with the DA about how all I wanted was for this woman to stop stealing crap from my front porch and tbh if they just send her to jail for 30 days she'll just be back on my front porch stealing crap in 30 days. So the DA proposed letting her plead guilty in exchange for turning herself in to rehab. There was some concern whether she would show up for her court date, being 1) illiterate and 2) having absolutely nothing to lose. What are they going to punish her with, jail time? Free food and board for 30 days is a penalty? So my question is, in a jobs guarantee program, anyone who wants a job will get one. Suppose this lady shows up asking for a job. What job are we supposed to give her? Who's going to supervise her? What if she sits around all day at the job shooting up? Is there any point to hiring someone who you know you will fire 30 days later? Why not sign her into rehab and give her a UBI, on condition that she keep checking in periodically to make sure she's not spending her money on smack? A jobs guarantee is an IDIOTIC idea. You can accomplish MUCH MORE with a UBI and a good mental health/drug decriminalization policy.

I’d argue that the lady in your example needs to get help first and get clean through rehab first before the discussion of UBI or Federal Jobs guarantee. I disagree with your premise, because the vast majority of people that would be helped with a Federal Jobs guarantee wouldn’t be drug addicts. I’ve read and listened to various sources discussing the UBI vs Federal Jobs guarantee. A Federal Jobs guarantee should be tied to something like educational opportunities so that you’re gaining experience in the field you’re studying in. Some criticisms of the UBI is that it would replace other social services, but not necessarily adequately. Another good argument is what’s to stop a landlord for example from raising the rent 1000 if I know all my tenants will be getting 1000 a month in additional income, I’m assuming there’s no Federal laws regarding housing. In general what’s to prevent overall prices from rising? I think I’d lean more towards strong minimum wage laws and a Jobs guarantee over UBI.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

God damn Bernie bros are getting desperate. How the hell is Elizabeth Warren establishment?

Bernie voters are going to stay home again if he’s not on the ticket aren’t they?

Not even concerned about them at this point.

It is what it is.

Lets just make sure ACTUAL Democrats turn out to vote.

[Zonkerbl]

2) There's a homeless prostitute heroin addict who hangs out in front of my house. One day I caught her red handed on ring stealing packages from my front door. I reported it to the police and had her arrested, and the next day they let her go. I talked with the DA about how all I wanted was for this woman to stop stealing crap from my front porch and tbh if they just send her to jail for 30 days she'll just be back on my front porch stealing crap in 30 days. So the DA proposed letting her plead guilty in exchange for turning herself in to rehab. There was some concern whether she would show up for her court date, being 1) illiterate and 2) having absolutely nothing to lose. What are they going to punish her with, jail time? Free food and board for 30 days is a penalty? So my question is, in a jobs guarantee program, anyone who wants a job will get one. Suppose this lady shows up asking for a job. What job are we supposed to give her? Who's going to supervise her? What if she sits around all day at the job shooting up? Is there any point to hiring someone who you know you will fire 30 days later? Why not sign her into rehab and give her a UBI, on condition that she keep checking in periodically to make sure she's not spending her money on smack? A jobs guarantee is an IDIOTIC idea. You can accomplish MUCH MORE with a UBI and a good mental health/drug decriminalization policy.

I’d argue that the lady in your example needs to get help first and get clean through rehab first before the discussion of UBI or Federal Jobs guarantee. I disagree with your premise, because the vast majority of people that would be helped with a Federal Jobs guarantee wouldn’t be drug addicts. I’ve read and listened to various sources discussing the UBI vs Federal Jobs guarantee. A Federal Jobs guarantee should be tied to something like educational opportunities so that you’re gaining experience in the field you’re studying in. Some criticisms of the UBI is that it would replace other social services, but not necessarily adequately. Another good argument is what’s to stop a landlord for example from raising the rent 1000 if I know all my tenants will be getting 1000 a month in additional income, I’m assuming there’s no Federal laws regarding housing. In general what’s to prevent overall prices from rising? I think I’d lean more towards strong minimum wage laws and a Jobs guarantee over UBI.

I hear this argument about UBI being passed on to rent a lot, I don't get the argument. Rent is entirely determined by how much people are willing to pay to rent out your place. If I raise the rent on my tenants by $1000 they're all going to move out. I don't control the market, I'm not a monopolist. That's the whole point of the UBI is that it *isn't* tethered to any particular service so it precisely will *not* have that kind of effect. Unlike other tethered services like food stamps and rent control and section 8 vouchers. I can't take my section 8 voucher and spend it on groceries. I *have* to spend it on housing. UBI you can spend on whatever you want. Now if housing is 90% of your budget sure but that's not true for everybody.

UBI is not printing money, you take money from rich people and you hand it out, it's a transfer from one pocket to another, so it won't affect overall price levels.

[dckingsfan]

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

God damn Bernie bros are getting desperate. How the hell is Elizabeth Warren establishment?

Bernie voters are going to stay home again if he’s not on the ticket aren’t they?

Not even concerned about them at this point.

It is what it is.

Lets just make sure ACTUAL Democrats turn out to vote.

This - when you start attacking Warren as a "capitalist" then you are essentially saying Bernie is against capitalism.

Let him go start his own "socialist" not "social democratic" (where social democratic = democracy + capitalism + social programs) party.

But yeah - desperation has set in - Sanders goose is cooked. If he really wants to do the right thing he should end his campaign and go out and campaign for Warren.

[Zonkerbl]

Spoiler:

God damn Bernie bros are getting desperate. How the hell is Elizabeth Warren establishment?

Bernie voters are going to stay home again if he’s not on the ticket aren’t they?

Not even concerned about them at this point.

It is what it is.

Lets just make sure ACTUAL Democrats turn out to vote.

This - when you start attacking Warren as a "capitalist" then you are essentially saying Bernie is against capitalism.

Let him go start his own "socialist" not "social democratic" (where social democratic = democracy + capitalism + social programs) party.

But yeah - desperation has set in - Sanders goose is cooked. If he really wants to do the right thing he should end his campaign and go out and campaign for Warren.

Well, there are a lot of other candidates polling at 1% who haven't thrown in the towel yet. Having a national platform to discuss your policy proposals is valuable, it's not something you give up on right away.

[dckingsfan]

From where I sit, where I don't expose myself to a lot of right wing propaganda, the GND is achievable and not a wedge issue. We can absolutely do the stuff the GND asks us to do, and it expresses the urgency of taking action now, and climate change is in the national conversation among Dem presidential candidates because of it. So it's the opposite of a wedge issue. Is all of what the GND proposes necessary/a good idea? I don't know. But there has been a lot of right wing hyperventilation about the GND by a lot of people who haven't read one word of it, so pardon my skepticism.

In education you're taking something that everyone pretty much agrees on and trying to make marginal improvements to it. That's not what's going on in the climate change conversation. A current solution that is doing pretty well but could be improved with minor tweaks on the margin does not exist.

Well, for what it is worth - I was really excited about the GND when it came out. Then I read it - you have probably done the same. I then read Bernie's proposal - it's a bunch of mishmash thrown into a bowl to throw something at everyone. I read the Senate bill as well.

I had my comments out even before the right wing propaganda machine hammered out their message. You might note that my criticism(s) aren't in line with their thinking. There is no climate change; why should we do anything about that; they aren't going to let you eat meat; they won't let you fly; etc..

We do agree that there is no climate change policy in place (period). So you are right there is no tweaking the edges to make it work.

I am waiting for a better (and several of the candidates have posited examples) solutions. The GND is a non-starter (IMO).

Just from a game theory perspective - attack the problem where you get the most return on your resources. The GND isn't close to that.

[dckingsfan]

Well, there are a lot of other candidates polling at 1% who haven't thrown in the towel yet. Having a national platform to discuss your policy proposals is valuable, it's not something you give up on right away.

Fair enough. Do you tear down the other progressive candidate at the same time?

[Zonkerbl]

Well, there are a lot of other candidates polling at 1% who haven't thrown in the towel yet. Having a national platform to discuss your policy proposals is valuable, it's not something you give up on right away.

Fair enough. Do you tear down the other progressive candidate at the same time?

Is he? I haven't noticed. Oh you mean the tweet. I mean what I really want to have happen is for Bernie supporters to feel like their candidate got a fair shake and just lost a fair battle in the arena of ideas. That means he needs to be perceived as having delivered a suplex or two. If Warren can't survive being called a capitalist establishmentarian she shouldn't be in the race, because Trump is going to say much worse stuff. But if he keeps hanging around long after he's mathematically eliminated, then it's a problem.

[gtn130]

The GND exists for politicians like AOC to signal their values and to put a stake in the ground. Lots of Bernie's positions are Overton Window movers and are not finalized legislation.

Scrutinizing policy details for things that are functionally little more than marketing collateral is an incredible waste of time and shows a complete lack of understanding for why these things exist. Ultimately it's an exercise in bad faith to sit here and castigate the fine print of a fictional bill that will change 1000000x over between now and when it's actually voted on by a majority that supports it.

[dckingsfan]

Well, there are a lot of other candidates polling at 1% who haven't thrown in the towel yet. Having a national platform to discuss your policy proposals is valuable, it's not something you give up on right away.

Fair enough. Do you tear down the other progressive candidate at the same time?

Is he? I haven't noticed. Oh you mean the tweet. I mean what I really want to have happen is for Bernie supporters to feel like their candidate got a fair shake and just lost a fair battle in the arena of ideas. That means he needs to be perceived as having delivered a suplex or two. If Warren can't survive being called a capitalist establishmentarian she shouldn't be in the race, because Trump is going to say much worse stuff. But if he keeps hanging around long after he's mathematically eliminated, then it's a problem.

I don't think Bernie supporters will EVER feel they have had a fair shake unless then win. Otherwise it is a conspiracy with Bernie taking down the lead candidate again.

[dckingsfan]

The GND exists for politicians like AOC to signal their values and to put a stake in the ground. Lots of Bernie's positions are Overton Window movers and are not finalized legislation.

Scrutinizing policy details for things that are functionally little more than marketing collateral is an incredible waste of time and shows a complete lack of understanding for why these things exist. Ultimately it's an exercise in bad faith to sit here and castigate the fine print of a fictional bill that will change 1000000x over between now and when it's actually voted on by a majority that supports it.

Fascinating. Every proposal can therefore be justified the same way. I guess that is how those that support Trump do it too - MAGA (complete fiction also).

Sorry, I don't buy it. The proposals and proposal details matter. Unless we are just running on how we feel about the candidate. In that case it just comes down to "electability". In that case - no whining when Biden becomes the candidate.