WHAT'S NEXT FOR LIBERALISM?

[Jaskalas]

Does it bother others that the progressive libtards scoff at the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers when referenced in an argument to defend the Constitution but they believe they are the Holy Grail since they think they can get their way by using them?

Does it bother me that people rationalize things? No.
It is merely agendas being pushed, the question is if it's the correct agenda.

 

[mikeymikec]

I think they were more a factor of him being an equal opportunity asshole to pretty much anyone possible than pure xenophobia per se.

I must have missed the bit where he disparaged white people, or Christians, or Americans. Could you point that bit out to me?

I will say this however, if your side is going to conflate xenophobia with any effort to crack down more on illegal immigration then bring on th 'xenophobia." .

You're the one doing that here.

 

[compuwiz1]

Income inequality will be the next big battle I think.

So, who do you battle? That's not a problem for the government to solve for you.
In a capitalist society, we strive to have:

Education
Skills
Motivation
Creativity
Ingenuity
Entrepreneurship
Employment
Advancement

Those things are personal responsibility issues, not issues for the government to solve. Some people figure out how to create the maximum income for themselves. Others are not entitled to what they have earned. Income inequality is not new and it's not going away. I suspect those who don't agree with what I say, have an aim toward socialism. This isn't that kind country and I'd never want it to be. Those who are opposed to capitalism are not going to ever turn the US into a socialist state. Not gonna happen. For those I would suggest looking at moving to a socialist country. You're either gonna pull your own wagon, or get run over. For those, who's circumstances are beyond their control, we have a social safety net, which I support.

What's next for liberalism? I hope people grow up and quit being crybabies. One of the reasons I was happy about the election, is that it took it down a notch or two and hopefully stays at bay or recedes over the next number of years.

 

[sandorski]

So, who do you battle? That's not a problem for the government to solve for you.
In a capitalist society, we strive to have:

Education
Skills
Motivation
Creativity
Ingenuity
Entrepreneurship
Employment
Advancement

Those things are personal responsibility issues, not issues for the government to solve. Some people figure out how to create the maximum income for themselves. Others are not entitled to what they have earned. Income inequality is not new and it's not going away. I suspect those who don't agree with what I say, have an aim toward socialism. This isn't that kind country and I'd never want it to be. Those who are opposed to capitalism are not going to ever turn the US into a socialist state. Not gonna happen. For those I would suggest looking at moving to a socialist country. You're either gonna pull your own wagon, or get run over. For those, who's circumstances are beyond their control, we have a social safety net, which I support.

What's next for liberalism? I hope people grow up and quit being crybabies. One of the reasons I was happy about the election, is that it took it down a notch or two and hopefully stays at bay or recedes over the next number of years.

Wrong. Bigly.

 

[Meghan54]

It wasn't about the war so much as the economy. It was clear that Repubs had run us onto the rocks.

Haaaa no. You'd think 2008 would be enough proof of a real recession. Prior to that, it was all peanuts.

STF are you babbling about? That the recession Obama inherited was caused by Obama? Fact hint: Obama didn't take office until 2009.

 

[ivwshane]

So, who do you battle? That's not a problem for the government to solve for you.
In a capitalist society, we strive to have:

Education
Skills
Motivation
Creativity
Ingenuity
Entrepreneurship
Employment
Advancement

Those things are personal responsibility issues, not issues for the government to solve. Some people figure out how to create the maximum income for themselves. Others are not entitled to what they have earned. Income inequality is not new and it's not going away. I suspect those who don't agree with what I say, have an aim toward socialism. This isn't that kind country and I'd never want it to be. Those who are opposed to capitalism are not going to ever turn the US into a socialist state. Not gonna happen. For those I would suggest looking at moving to a socialist country. You're either gonna pull your own wagon, or get run over. For those, who's circumstances are beyond their control, we have a social safety net, which I support.

According to who?

The constitution certainly doesn't agree with you. The words, capitalism, free market or anything related to it don't appear in the document. However, the general welfare of the people is brought up several times. That's not to say the founded envisioned socialism but there's certainly no proof that the country was setup to be ruled by or via capitalism.

 

[compuwiz1]

Wrong. Bigly.

Just because YOU say I am, doesn't mean that is true for me. That's your truth. I've lived 58 years by what I posted and those things have treated me and my family well. You can achieve great things in America. You can also just lay down and do nothing. That's freedom and that's fine, but don't expect someone else to pay for your choices.

 

[sandorski]

Just because YOU say I am, doesn't mean that is true for me. That's your truth. I've lived 58 years by what I posted and those things have treated me and my family well. You can achieve great things in America. You can also just lay down and do nothing. That's freedom and that's fine, but don't expect someone else to pay for your choices.

Still wrong.

 

[trenchfoot]

What's next for liberalism is to learn the lessons that needed to be learned from 2016, sit back and watch Trump and his fellow billionaire buddies drain the treasury, cut their own taxes a hundred different ways to starve the government into submission, then raise the taxes on the middle class and the poor with teeny tiny fine print in legislation buried in a ton of riders to make up for the tax cuts Trump gave himself and friends, turn the Banksters and Wall Street crooks loose once more on the once stable and improving economy that Obama left behind, and presto change-o, it's 2008 all over again. Trump Corp. then gets their asses unceremoniously jerked out of the White House as they merrily count the billions upon billions of $$$ they ransacked and looted out of the Treasury.

Dems take over again to repair the mess again, but this time the Dems grow some bowling balls between their legs, execute the lessons they learned from 2016 and hammer away at the dirty deeds the GOP committed during Trump's excavation job at the nation's coffers and keep on incessantly hammering home 24/7/365 what the Repubs did and what they will do to the nation if they ever get another chance.

Howzzat?

 

[compuwiz1]

Finally gets classified as a mental illness in the DSM-VI.

 

[poofyhairguy]

California is going to eat red states' lunches. Automation is going to take your jobs, no matter how cheap and desperate you make your labor, you can't outrun Moore's law. Car electrification and renewable energy is going to take away your natural resource rents. And then once you are sitting home on welfare, Hollywood and Silicon Valley is going to take its cut for keeping you entertained. California is the one who knocks

The third world already took a lot of our jobs, so maybe automation will bring some back in the form of robot repairmen.

Electric cars aren't practical for most people until some new revolutionary battery comes out. A Telsa or Prius owner might deal with range anxiety and long charging times to feel better about themselves, but your average soccer mom isn't putting up with the inconvenience electric cars bring when gas cars are cheaper and lack those problems.

Even if electric cars take over, most of the renewable energy growth is in wind energy, and most of that is being produced in red states with nothing in them:

Plus again without better batteries renewable energy is just a daytime thing, and a bigger dependance on electric means more natural gas production (which all is not coming from NIMBY California).

As far as talking down agrarian rural areas, that is most of California by geography. In regards to Hollywood, many "red" states such as Louisiana are taking away a large part of movie production from California because of aggressive tax credits.

The only thing propping up California is Silicon Valley, and really only the producers in Silicon Valley (aka the people who can program and get high wages). In the same way Wall Street props up the Democratic stronghold of New York. Due to this if blue states such as California and New York were on their own it would have a income disparity that would rival many banana republics:

 

[desura]

STF are you babbling about? That the recession Obama inherited was caused by Obama? Fact hint: Obama didn't take office until 2009.

No. I'm talking the Dem majorities after 2006 in the Congress. This was mainly because of the Iraq War.

 

[jammix]

The third world already took a lot of our jobs, so maybe automation will bring some back in the form of robot repairmen.

Electric cars aren't practical for most people until some new revolutionary battery comes out. A Telsa or Prius owner might deal with range anxiety and long charging times to feel better about themselves, but your average soccer mom isn't putting up with the inconvenience electric cars bring when gas cars are cheaper and lack those problems.

Even if electric cars take over, most of the renewable energy growth is in wind energy, and most of that is being produced in red states with nothing in them:

Plus again without better batteries renewable energy is just a daytime thing, and a bigger dependance on electric means more natural gas production (which all is not coming from NIMBY California).

As far as talking down agrarian rural areas, that is most of California by geography. In regards to Hollywood, many "red" states such as Louisiana are taking away a large part of movie production from California because of aggressive tax credits.

The only thing propping up California is Silicon Valley, and really only the producers in Silicon Valley (aka the people who can program and get high wages). In the same way Wall Street props up the Democratic stronghold of New York. Due to this if blue states such as California and New York were on their own it would have a income disparity that would rival many banana republics:

"California Has Highest Rate Of Poverty In The Nation"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/california-highest-rate-of-poverty_n_4233292.html

There are many other factors to consider and in the end, CA will continue to be a revolving door for the poor. First, many poor are fleeing the expensive coastal cities and are moving to places like Fresno, Stockton, and San Bernardino. These are also areas where migrant workers set down their roots.

 

[agent00f]

The third world already took a lot of our jobs, so maybe automation will bring some back in the form of robot repairmen.

Electric cars aren't practical for most people until some new revolutionary battery comes out. A Telsa or Prius owner might deal with range anxiety and long charging times to feel better about themselves, but your average soccer mom isn't putting up with the inconvenience electric cars bring when gas cars are cheaper and lack those problems.

Even if electric cars take over, most of the renewable energy growth is in wind energy, and most of that is being produced in red states with nothing in them:

Plus again without better batteries renewable energy is just a daytime thing, and a bigger dependance on electric means more natural gas production (which all is not coming from NIMBY California).

As far as talking down agrarian rural areas, that is most of California by geography. In regards to Hollywood, many "red" states such as Louisiana are taking away a large part of movie production from California because of aggressive tax credits.

The only thing propping up California is Silicon Valley, and really only the producers in Silicon Valley (aka the people who can program and get high wages). In the same way Wall Street props up the Democratic stronghold of New York. Due to this if blue states such as California and New York were on their own it would have a income disparity that would rival many banana republics:

Classical western liberalism is basically intellectual meritocracy; no great surprise coming from a bunch of big thinkers promoting their own worth. Just a happy coincidence of where thinking leads to in a market capitalist system that those folks have monetary worth.

So again no surprise the political map is increasingly where the thinkers are.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, who do you battle? That's not a problem for the government to solve for you.
In a capitalist society, we strive to have:

Education
Skills
Motivation
Creativity
Ingenuity
Entrepreneurship
Employment
Advancement

Those things are personal responsibility issues, not issues for the government to solve. Some people figure out how to create the maximum income for themselves. Others are not entitled to what they have earned. Income inequality is not new and it's not going away. I suspect those who don't agree with what I say, have an aim toward socialism. This isn't that kind country and I'd never want it to be. Those who are opposed to capitalism are not going to ever turn the US into a socialist state. Not gonna happen. For those I would suggest looking at moving to a socialist country. You're either gonna pull your own wagon, or get run over. For those, who's circumstances are beyond their control, we have a social safety net, which I support.

What's next for liberalism? I hope people grow up and quit being crybabies. One of the reasons I was happy about the election, is that it took it down a notch or two and hopefully stays at bay or recedes over the next number of years.

That's pretty much Randian boilerplate & too often the position taken by people who've done well & don't realize they're more lucky than good. When Fortune smiles upon you it's best to acknowledge her power. I certainly do. I'm very fortunate to have advantages & opportunities granted to me by circumstance.

We live in a mixed economy simply by necessity. If anything, we've made too many concessions to Capitalism over the last 35 years or so even though not everybody understands that very well. Technological progress has greatly eroded the bargaining power of people who work for a living, as well. The way we think about how it all works is often terribly outmoded & counter productive to the welfare of the general public. We think in 1980 terms that don't account for real change in the meanwhile.

You're right, of course, that income inequality will always exist & is desirable to some degree. I don't think you realize how stark it has become & where it's headed if we can't figure out how to do things differently. If you study table 5 here at all, you'll notice that income has shifted radically away from the lower 75% towards the top & particularly the tippy top-

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

The financial elite have no intention of changing that trend. They intend to advance it through applications of more trickle down deception & will do so quite vigorously now that Repubs & Trump are at the helm.

 

[Jhhnn]

"California Has Highest Rate Of Poverty In The Nation"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/california-highest-rate-of-poverty_n_4233292.html

There are many other factors to consider and in the end, CA will continue to be a revolving door for the poor. First, many poor are fleeing the expensive coastal cities and are moving to places like Fresno, Stockton, and San Bernardino. These are also areas where migrant workers set down their roots.

California has been a destination of choice for poor people since the Dust Bowl era & likely before. It's seen as a land of opportunity & has served as such for millions.

Blue states are presented with an unusual opportunity in the proposals of Trump & the Repubs. With cuts to federal income tax, less will be going to redistribution via the feds so we can raise our own state taxes to compensate at no pain to our citizens. We can then use the money to better serve our own residents & we'll actually have more of it to work with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news..._experimentrandom_3_na&utm_term=.d808f447ab81

It's not what we really want but it's the best we can do under the circumstances. Lots of red staters will learn the hard way what they're doing to themselves, unfortunately.

Don't say nobody tried to warn you.

 

[poofyhairguy]

That's pretty much Randian boilerplate & too often the position taken by people who've done well & don't realize they're more lucky than good. When Fortune smiles upon you it's best to acknowledge her power. I certainly do. I'm very fortunate to have advantages & opportunities granted to me by circumstance.

I think that is a healthy point of view that many would agree with. The real debate is the flip side of that- when advantage turns into expectation. For example, I know I am lucky simply because I was born in America, but should I push for policies that insure that my children keep that same advantage to the detriment of someone else in the world who doesn't get a fair shake based on their merits because my children get an artificial boost? I think modern liberalism would say no to the validity of given an advantage to Americans based on imaginary map lines on paper, while many Trump voters translated "Great Again" in his slogan to mean that exact rejection of globalist thinking.

You're right, of course, that income inequality will always exist & is desirable to some degree. I don't think you realize how stark it has become & where it's headed if we can't figure out how to do things differently. If you study table 5 here at all, you'll notice that income has shifted radically away from the lower 75% towards the top & particularly the tippy top-

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

The financial elite have no intention of changing that trend. They intend to advance it through applications of more trickle down deception & will do so quite vigorously now that Repubs & Trump are at the helm.

I think one problem the modern Democratic Party has is that they can't claim the high ground on income inequality. I mean this gap you are talking about hit new highs unseen since the 1930s under Obama:

And a big optics problem with the Clinton Campaign was how close she seemed to Wall Street.

I feel like the Democrats are going to have to reject cozying up to big business (even the Silicon Valley ones) and start focusing on more aggressive income distribution ala Bernie to get back an enthusiasm for the platform. People don't like be told that they can retrain into a new working wage job, or that they can (barely) afford an exchange healthcare plan thanks to a subsidy. The Democratic Party will win again when it offers free college meaning bachelor degrees and not associate ones, and when it offers free healthcare and not "less expensive healthcare if your state approves it."

 

[Jaskalas]

I think one problem the modern Democratic Party has is that they can't claim the high ground on income inequality. I mean this gap you are talking about hit new highs unseen since the 1930s under Obama:

You'll find that lines up nicely with the Reagan revolution and later Republicans taking control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.
A mere President cannot change that one bit, there needs to be a political revolution to change the status quo without obstruction.
Moreover, I'll argue it has less to do with Congress and more to do with globalization and the value of labor in this world.
Free trade is that giant sucking sound of wages going overseas. Automation has also crippled workers.

It says far less about Obama, and more about the changing state of the world and our inability to adapt to it.
Americans need to stop fighting and start thinking before we're all begging for minimum wage.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Americans need to stop fighting and start thinking before we're all begging for minimum wage.

Honestly I think the only long term solution for automation and what to do with Blue Collar workers is something close to a guaranteed minimum income (GMI). Our American identity won't allow us to just cut people checks, but I could see sweetheart deals like Obama did with Detroit and Trump did with Trane as the path forward in the future. I can see a future where the average American makes $50k minimum, yet a third of the population really wouldn't make more than say $13k worth of productivity in a year on a global marketplace and therefore the richest 1% will be asked to fill in the difference or risk massive social and market stability that could ruin their buildup of wealth.

The problem with that solution is there is no one side who will fight for it. Republicans are too free market (due to decades of brainwashing from the 1%) to accept such compromises, even though Trump might drag them their anyway. Democrats are too cozy with the elites and too globalist to embrace the message- hell, at some level the entire concept of GMI is xenophobic! The same thought process behind building a wall ("this imaginary line means SOMETHING") is the same thought process that would give a GMI or a public option to Americans.

Eventually we have to pick, us or the world, and let China has the rest.

 

[Brainonska511]

For example, I know I am lucky simply because I was born in America, but should I push for policies that insure that my children keep that same advantage to the detriment of someone else in the world who doesn't get a fair shake based on their merits because my children get an artificial boost?

This kind of rings of an assumption that economics is a zero-sum game and that there are winners and losers. It's not a zero-sum game. Short-term, there could be losers thanks to displacement, but in the long run, we'd all In the long run - poorer countries would see their living standards rise as higher paying (relative to utter poverty) jobs move in and we'd see a bigger market for our own goods and services. I think the bigger question becomes, which you touched on, how can we help those displaced in the US and provide opportunities (not guarantees) to climb the economic ladder?

 

[Jhhnn]

You'll find that lines up nicely with the Reagan revolution and later Republicans taking control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.
A mere President cannot change that one bit, there needs to be a political revolution to change the status quo without obstruction.
Moreover, I'll argue it has less to do with Congress and more to do with globalization and the value of labor in this world.
Free trade is that giant sucking sound of wages going overseas. Automation has also crippled workers.

It says far less about Obama, and more about the changing state of the world and our inability to adapt to it.
Americans need to stop fighting and start thinking before we're all begging for minimum wage.

Agreed. What people fail to realize is that the only way left to get a bigger share of national income for working people is to do so through taxes & regulations. Otherwise the people at the top will run off with virtually the whole pie. Trump & the Repubs will do their best to make the latter into reality, make no mistake about it.

 

[poofyhairguy]

This kind of rings of an assumption that economics is a zero-sum game and that there are winners and losers. It's not a zero-sum game. Short-term, there could be losers thanks to displacement, but in the long run, we'd all In the long run - poorer countries would see their living standards rise as higher paying (relative to utter poverty) jobs move in and we'd see a bigger market for our own goods and services. I think the bigger question becomes, which you touched on, how can we help those displaced in the US and provide opportunities (not guarantees) to climb the economic ladder?

I seriously doubt that the pie can keep growing and growing. That assumes infinite resources, which if you believe in climate change is the EXACT sort of thinking that will ruin this planet.

But even if you are right and the pie can grow forever, we have to admit eventually that not everyone in America CAN compete internationally. Quite frankly a huge chunk of the American public is incapable of providing a good or service the rest of the world wants to buy, which then invalidates your theory. Free market assumptions assume winners and losers, so by definition America is going to have some economic losers and their numbers grow by the day.

Promising them retraining so they can trade in a (now gone) factory job with benefits and a pension for temporary office work that comes with neither is why Trump is president. And that is just the start, just a little minor political revolution. If that uncompetitive part of the country continues to lose buying power (and therefore loses what standard of living they currently have) then eventually the "protests" could get more violent (and I would argue we are already seeing that some with BLM). Enough domestic violence and the stock markets tank and everyone loses (see 9/11), even the 1%.

The way I see it we have three options:

1. Ignore the people who can't compete internationally, go full steam ahead with globalism and free trade, have America become unstable politically and socially as the elite all move to Caribbean Islands or New Zealand to escape the fallout.

2. Create jobs for the uncompetitive where their lack of competition is subsidized by the American taxpayer (and mostly the rich ones who have the most to lose with instability), slow down the forces of globalization and the raising of boats in poorer countries who have people who can't compete with an American subsidized worker, give the uncompetitive a reason to wake up in the morning and a feeling that they have something to lose in societal instability even if that isn't reality.

3. Legalize drugs across the country, cut the uncompetitive welfare checks that are the bare minimum they will accept without getting violent, hope the legal dope and Xbox games placate them enough to not demand more.

I don't think "raise every boat and make every American globally competitive" is even close to being a realistic option, and because those people have a vote (and their violence will be in our borders) we have to do more to placate them above and beyond free market platitudes.

 

[shortylickens]

California is successful, yet cant balance their budget.

 

[Jhhnn]

Honestly I think the only long term solution for automation and what to do with Blue Collar workers is something close to a guaranteed minimum income (GMI). Our American identity won't allow us to just cut people checks, but I could see sweetheart deals like Obama did with Detroit and Trump did with Trane as the path forward in the future. I can see a future where the average American makes $50k minimum, yet a third of the population really wouldn't make more than say $13k worth of productivity in a year on a global marketplace and therefore the richest 1% will be asked to fill in the difference or risk massive social and market stability that could ruin their buildup of wealth.

The problem with that solution is there is no one side who will fight for it. Republicans are too free market (due to decades of brainwashing from the 1%) to accept such compromises, even though Trump might drag them their anyway. Democrats are too cozy with the elites and too globalist to embrace the message- hell, at some level the entire concept of GMI is xenophobic! The same thought process behind building a wall ("this imaginary line means SOMETHING") is the same thought process that would give a GMI or a public option to Americans.

Eventually we have to pick, us or the world, and let China has the rest.

You fail to give credit to Dems where it's due. Clinton pledged to go where the money is, to the nation's wealthiest, to collect the revenues to finance a variety of direct job creating ventures in infrastructure, clean energy, housing, education & more. She also promised to spread social benefits up the scale to more people in the same fashion.

More socialism? Of course it is. We have no choice if we don't want to become more like India, Brazil & other economies.

 

[glenn1]

I must have missed the bit where he disparaged white people, or Christians, or Americans. Could you point that bit out to me?

You're the one doing that here.

Feel free to go through this list and pick out the white folks, Christians, and Americans.

The 289 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html