Community >> View Post
·
Post By
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Late Great Donald Blake 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563
Subj: Re: It seems like you're assuming whatever the Democrats are doing is the best that can be done.
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 at 11:28:01 am EDT (Viewed 209 times)
Reply Subj: It seems like you're assuming whatever the Democrats are doing is the best that can be done.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2022 at 04:00:04 pm EDT (Viewed 214 times)



    Quote:
    First, yes this is all better than the the Republicans would do... that should go without saying...



    Quote:
    I imagine your reply will say this an awful alot lol


Actually, I'm not going to say it once in this reply.


    Quote:
    ...but most of these measures are basically insufficient and the question is WHY? Usually because in order to get any approval from the Democratic Party's actual constituency, these things have to be sufficiently defanged or watered down or others be made a massive give away to financial or other business interests and basicallythe upper 1%. And if we dig into the details that's what we find. I mean


It seems like this is a response you wrote before even reading the entirety of my post, which already states what you just stated. And what does "sufficient" legislation even mean? You think a single bill can solve all of climate change? A single bill can solve COVID? A single bill can solve all aging infrastructure issues? A single bill can solve all the problems of the healthcare industry? No bill is ever "sufficient" and none of these ever could have been. But you seem to believe that some utopian government is possible where politicians who are not indebted to any interests can solve any problem. That world does not exist.


    Quote:
    Also pointing to low unemployment as a sign of economic prosperity is a misleading and desperate measure... for the same reason it was a poor metric when the Trump administration tried to use it... because it doesn't tell you much about whether the income is enough to comfortably afford necessary expenditures. Or the quality of those jobs or anything else.


True, but all other things being equal, low unemployment is still much better than high unemployment.


    Quote:
    Also listing all these pieces of legislation with basically just the administration's tag lines attached I think should be taken with heaps of salt. We can get into detail, but basically you should be asking yourselves to what degree do these pieces of legislation meet the problems they're meant to address and to the degree they don't, then why don't they.


Strangely, this is what you criticize me for. This is vague criticism that can be a response to anything and isn't meaningful without details.


    Quote:
    You seem to clutch onto this regulatory idea that these are the pieces of legislation that were passed since the Democrats have taken office and definitionally they must have done the best the could and that must imply that this is the best that can be done. Which seems like a really bad way of evaluating a political situation. Or rather a forgone way of not evaluating it.


Again, this assumption is yours alone and belies your actually reading what I wrote which blatantly states that this is not the best Dems could have done - literally "there is a lot that Democrats can be criticized for" but somehow what you erroneously expect from my posts blinds you to the actual content of my posts.


    Quote:
    You say these are a mixed bag. Yeah everything is, but "subject to the sausage making compromise inherent to the legislative process" is basically just the universal solvent by which any criticism is dismissed. With this rubric which you could apply to ANY piece of legislation that you're party passes, you can justify anything.


How can I be dismissing criticism when I literally wrote, "there is a lot that Democrats can be criticized for" and then listed my criticism with specific details: "fails to ban assault rifles, the CHIPS Act is partly a giveaway to some big companies that don’t need the money"?


    Quote:
    From my perspective it's the President and the Congress doing what they can to represent the coalitions that empower them: rich donors and business interests and the libs who are ideologically dependent on the thought of Democratic Party (as it is) being a
    benevolent force for good and the limit of our politics.


And below, you accuse me of cynicism. This is one of those cynical generalizations/broadsides that applies to any political party, isn't all that meaningful, and doesn't look at the details. What political party doesn't represent the coalitions that empower them? What political party takes zero account of business interests? What political party doesn't think they are doing good? About those details and being beholden to business interests, this modestly named Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which will very likely pass this week is going to do something Big Pharma has blocked for decades - allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Yes, this negotiation has restrictions that will initially limit the negotiation to 10 drugs, but it will broaden over time. Is it "sufficient" to solve drug pricing issues? Of course not, but it's overcoming a major hurdle and it is a big win over Big Pharma in context. So this bill lowers prescription drug prices (against big business interests), imposes a 15% corporate minimum tax rate that will bring in $313 billion (against big business interests), adds a 1% tax on stock buybacks (against big business interests and the interests of the very rich), increases enforcement of tax collection (against the interests of the rich), and invests heavily in clean energy. Given your previous posts and your ideology, I know there is never anything Democrats can do that would be "sufficient" for you, but climate groups are praising what is in this bill, some with superlatives and some with qualifications, but mostly praise which is worth something (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/climate-groups-react-to-senate-passing-the-inflation-reduction-act.html).



    Quote:
    What I think is curious here is the point of your post. I respect it as an argument. But what I mean is the idea of trying to convince people that despite their own experience and intuitions about the state of the country and the economy, things are quite good or at least as good as they can reasonably be expected to be.


Except that is not what I am doing. If you read my last post in a debate we were having carefully (https://comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=community-2022051703335937), one to which you never responded, I stated what I was doing then and it is what I am doing now: "Now you can characterize everything I wrote as being an apologist to a Democratic Party that I am only half invested in, but what I am actually doing is shading the gray because all you want to do is focus on how Dems and Republicans are alike even as you condemn Dems more than Republicans. I want to focus on their differences so people know where to vote their interests." Now that post and my original post in this thread deal with a lot of grays, but you seem to insist on seeing everything in black and white, particularly this things are as "good as they can reasonably be expected to be" straw-man refrain which I have never ever stated but which you impute to me.


    Quote:
    In other words when you look at Biden's low approval ratings, that isn't itself data. It isn't the case that those low approval ratings are evidence that that many people aren't doing well, but that those people are in fact mistaken. They just don't understand how "overall" good things are. That just appears cynical. And while I can see why Dem apperatchiks are putting this out there. They have to. They have to sell the party. But when liberals do this it looks an awful lot like middle class people having more sympathy with the powerful and the institutions that serve them than for the people those institutions have failed and are failing.


The irony of your using Biden's low approval ratings as an example is that you earlier blew off my using Clinton and Obama's high approval ratings as an example. You can't have it both ways. It's hypocrisy. I can turn your exact argument against you: "It isn't the case that those high approval ratings are evidence that that many people are doing well, but that those people are in fact mistaken. They just don't understand how "overall" bad things are. That just appears cynical." In any case, regarding Biden's approval ratings, I do think Biden is doing an overall bad job. That doesn't mean that the Democratic Party as a whole hasn't passed some significant and good legislation. But saying that means going into the details and getting into the gray, the opposite of generalizations that a political party is beholden to business interests and so can never do anything "sufficient."




How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49xWJJvpjzI
Posted with Google Chrome 103.0.0.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software