2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I wouldn't call you a centrist. I would call you are a Perverse Contrarian.

Or a Pervert Contrarian!

[mookie1995]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Those both work!!


And both ARE centrist....

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Ummm
Rover is a lib
Mookie is a centrist
You, ahem, are a commie/socialist

I do get a kick out of my "journey" from being a commie leftist more liberal than Mike Dukakis to someone who apparently hangs out with Joe Lieberman at the DINO social club. While I do like people such as The Bern, I can also agree with them on principle while not wanting them to be my party's nominee. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

[mookie1995]

I do get a kick out of my "journey" from being a commie leftist more liberal than Mike Dukakis to someone who apparently hangs out with Joe Lieberman at the DINO social club. While I do like people such as The Bern, I can also agree with them on principle while not wanting them to be my party's nominee. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

You work in a bank and have kids.

You are therefore evolving

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I do get a kick out of my "journey" from being a commie leftist more liberal than Mike Dukakis to someone who apparently hangs out with Joe Lieberman at the DINO social club. While I do like people such as The Bern, I can also agree with them on principle while not wanting them to be my party's nominee. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

I understand that, though I think you do oppose most of Bernie's economic initiatives. You're in the financial sector, correct? I doubt you'd be pleased to see us slap the cuffs back on Wall Street the way we had them in the 50s through 70s.

I actually "oppose" Bernie in the sense of not believing he is the right messenger, and worrying that message and messenger will become hopelessly conflated if he is the sole speaker of the Gospel of Redistribution. I'd have preferred, for example, Warren, though what I most want to see is a burgeoning lefty movement with many, many energetic and innovative lefties invading the party, much in the way the right fringe took control of the GOP in the 90s.

I also think your constant drumbeat about Bernie's "martyr" follows belies your experience as a close follower of politics. Sanders' folks have not for the most part been the grubby hippies who helped Nader deliver the White House to the Chimperor. They're ward heelers and grassroots insiders, but they're also very practical and understand the Sanders' campaign mission is to push Hillary into doing what's right. Nobody has any illusions that Bernie's going to win the nomination, barring a Hillary heart attack at the 11th hour. Not to mention that since the Clintons' Achilles heel is the perception that they are arrogant and out of touch, Hillary's supporters ought to be bending over backwards to show respect for the rest of the coalition she needs to drag her across the finish line.

[mookie1995]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

CENTRIST MOOKIE is in the industry and would reinstate glass-steagall yesterday!!!!

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Those both work!!


And both ARE centrist....

You suck as a contrarian.

[mookie1995]

You suck as a contrarian.

You just fail to understand

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

You work in a bank and have kids.

You are therefore evolving

Well played.

Kep, I don't oppose Bernie's proposals necessarily. IMHO he should have fleshed them out a bit more at this point.

So for example, where does Bernie find Dodd-Frank to be lacking? No Glass-Steagall? Okay great, but what does he hope to accomplish by reinstating that the law hasn't already covered?

Another is his proposal to raise taxes on the rich to pay for college tuition. I love the idea. BUT - at this point in time he should have told us exactly what taxes he's raising and how much of the cost ($70B I think from his campaign) those hikes will cover. The reason is, if he has a solid proposal, like taxing carried interest as normal income, and that covers the cost, that's an easy case to make for whoever gets elected President. If his plan is to raise upper income taxes to 90%, that's not going to fly.

Love her or hate her, but Hillary has been pretty detailed thus far. Elizabeth Warren also is solid in terms of what she wants to do and how she wants to accomplish it. Sometimes Bernie seems like he's just throwing sh! t against the wall and seeing what sticks, and he'll figure out how to get it implemented when he's in the WH. As I've said before though, if he doesn't fill in the blanks, the GOP along with a compliant media will. I would also point Sanders has been in Congress a long time, but doesn't seem to have an ability to win people over to his side to get legislation passed. Yes, he's not always in the majority but that never seemed to stop Ted Kennedy.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

CENTRIST MOOKIE is in the industry and would reinstate glass-steagall yesterday!!!!

Perverse contrarian.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Well played.

Kep, I don't oppose Bernie's proposals necessarily. IMHO he should have fleshed them out a bit more at this point.

I think it's a fair point but only to some extent. We've seen time and time again that if you put out a hyper-detailed position paper your opponents will simply rip it to shreds, which distracts from the overall vision.

I want my think tanks telling me how to best soak the rich. It's enough for my presidential candidate to announce he favors soaking the rich, as distinct from the rest of the field who differ only in the degree to which they'll pucker up before fellating them. There is plenty of time for details after election, and of course those details will change a dozen times during the sausage-making process, so holding yourself to your campaign announced details is suicidal.

So I agree with you to the extent that, say, a candidate should say he favors replacing Obamacare with a single payer system. But as to the gory details of that system, that's something that will be fought over in the Oval Office and the cloak room, and there's no point in boxing yourself in before you get started.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

CENTRIST MOOKIE is in the industry and would reinstate glass-steagall yesterday!!!!

I believe that would have prevented what happened in 2008. I doubt that the power structure will ever allow it to happen.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I believe that would have prevented what happened in 2008. I doubt that the power structure will ever allow it to happen.

Re-regulation would have prevented 2007 but considering we changed nothing even after being ripped off for trillions by the speculators and banks, it's going to take a full-scale second great depression before the voters get savvy and mad enough to jail the fraudsters and nuke Wall Street.

Sadly, the only solution was to let them fail the first time. It would have increased the pain to the average citizen, but it would have freed our economy from the vampire squid and deleted the criminals from Wall Street, if not from actual existence.

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Very good piece on the substantive effect on taxes of Obama's re-election. It's much better news than I would have thought, and makes me raise the grade of the Obama presidency -- say, from a B+ to an A-.

That's a tough call. B+ or A-. Its in that range. The international scene has become more chaotic (very little he was responsible for). Being in the chair as the markets tripled is probably a feat unique in our history. And I'm of the opinion that some of the pull back is due to election year uncertainty.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Re-regulation would have prevented 2007 but considering we changed nothing even after being ripped off for trillions by the speculators and banks, it's going to take a full-scale second great depression before the voters get savvy and mad enough to jail the fraudsters and nuke Wall Street.

Sadly, the only solution was to let them fail the first time. It would have increased the pain to the average citizen, but it would have freed our economy from the vampire squid and deleted the criminals from Wall Street, if not from actual existence.

It just makes you appreciate "The Big Short" even more. The explanations. The terms. Steve Carell's characters anguish. I also left that film wishing I had born with the smarts to figure it out like they had and exploit it like they did. I just don't have the DNA for that (or professional athletics, or a number of other things for that matter).