Tinidril comments on In the end, The Hill lied and Harris was right.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Yeah, consequences like FDR getting elected President four times in a row. That was the last time the Democrats had a popular President.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but America's ability to do much of anything is being dismantled before our eyes. The Democrats played it safe, so voters looked elsewhere.

60 years of unbelievable productivity gains and new technologies, and life has only gotten harder. I think we could do better than that. Bullshit excuses are easy to accept when it hasn't hit you yet.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This isn’t “bullshit excuses” as you are focusing on the potential political gains and I am talking about the economic problems that could come about from sweeping economic changes.

When the New Deal passed the USA was a larger portion of the world economy and it was growing.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It's absolutely bullshit. Most of what progressives want is stuff we had 50 years ago. The boldest new proposal is Medicare for All. Somehow every single other developed economy in the world can achieve universal healthcare, but the richest country in the world can't manage it? BULLSHIT! While you wrong your hands people are dying and lives are being ruined every single day. It's profane, and it's pathetic. Yes, we can do a hell of a lot better.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't think you are following this thread at all.

Large sweeping economic changes are usually bad. Medicare for all wouldn't be a sweeping change unless we immediately banned all private insurances which M4A would not do. M4A would be increasing the efficiency of the American economy which is what economists want.

Large sweeping economic changes would be things like adding $5 to the federal minimum wage all at once. The economy would likely grow from an incremental move that added $5 over the course of a few years but spiking it hard and fast will kill a lot of businesses that would have been fine with $1/yr over 5 years. It does not help to increase the minimum wage if it causes rapid widespread unemployment (note: I am absolutely not arguing against a minimum wage increase just against a rapid shift).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And, where in the thread again was an instantaneous $5.00 raise to the minimum wage mentioned? Alluded to? Implied?

You are absolutely right, I'm not following the thread. I'm following the discussion, but the thread is a figment of your imagination, and I don't know how to do that.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

We were talking about whether large sweeping economic changes are a bad idea and whether incremental changes are better. You were arguing against that and I used minimum wage as an example.

Im tired of explaining things to you, so let's stop here.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Let me try to explain something to you. "Large" is not a fixed concept, it's a relative measure. Can you point to me where any bill or proposal for increasing the minimum wage has proposed doing it overnight? They always get phased in, even in the most progressive proposals. When you say "large", or even "large sweeping", no body is going to presume that you are jumping to something that far out of scope.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent