Reaction to Stacy Abrams’s speech

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Reaction to Stacy Abrams’s speech

Postby KeithE » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:33 pm

I’ll start out by saying I got interrupted twice in listening to her speech.

I did not like how she started out - all about her life. Appropriate for a stump speech, but not as a response to the SOTU.

Heard a later segment and that was quite good when she went though legislation that could help people.

Then I was interrupted again (important matter this time that overtook the rest of the night). Did she end with how these things would be funded? I always appraised that about Bernie Sanders, he had good ideas to raise revenues like a financial transaction tax, and repatriation taxes.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9133
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Reaction to Stacy Abrams’s speech

Postby William Thornton » Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:13 pm

Another fairly meaningless exercise. Dems want to boost her stock after she came close to winning the guv race here. She's pretty sharp. If she avoids the angry resister dem socialist mode, she might go somewhere.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12355
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Reaction to Stacy Abrams’s speech

Postby KeithE » Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:23 pm

William Thornton wrote:Another fairly meaningless exercise. Dems want to boost her stock after she came close to winning the guv race here. She's pretty sharp. If she avoids the angry resister dem socialist mode, she might go somewhere.


I appreciate your nice word about Abrams's potential.

But recognize that true “socialism" is a quite different approach to governance than the market-based, socially-minded, representative democracy ("social democracy" for short) that Stacy and the Nordic countries represent. Markets have to be controlled when they go askew (e.g.:
(1) recessions require government stimulus,
(2) inflation require monetary control from the Fed,
(3) too high of income inequality (> about 1:100) requires taxes on the rich and/or setting min/max wages,
(4) price collusions among producers require anti-trust action,
(5) soak the desperate (e.g. over priced drugs way over legitimate production/development/testng costs) need price controls,
(6) needed programs that are simply too big/risky for private industries need government led / multiple private business contracted projects (e.g, DoD, the Interstate System under Eisenhower, the Internet (DARPA funded) ...),
(X) maybe more.

But the free market of businesses identifying products, producing them, distributing them is the baseline until (1)- (X) becomes apparent (and there will usually be one or more factors out of control). No responsible economist /politician I’ve heard of denies that government must step in frequently. Like any control system, the economy must be “managed” when it ends up going off the rails; but the underlying force is still free market driven.

True economic “socialism" is where the state dictates (by show of force) the means and sequence of all production from a central body - throwing away the baseline market based competition and democratic elections/legislations. That was tried in the USSR, early Castro’s Cuba, and Maduro in Venezuela. That central body has never been successful in providing food and goods in adequate numbers and availability for their citizenry.

The market-based, socially-minded, representative democracy like in the Nordic countries is working and working well with a far fairer distribution of wages to the populace than we have in the USA today. They are the happiest countries in the world. The 6 rating factors of overall well-being: income (GDP per capita), healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom, trust (absence of corruption) and generosity. USA was number 18 (not bad, but could be better).

Trump tried in the SOTU to conflate “socialism” with "social democracy” (yet curiously gave a small voice to universe health care and an infrastructure program). Do not be fooled and do not listen to Trump or the RW pundits that are funded by those currently receiving high income and have accumulated much wealth (the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 90% of Americans). And they want to keep it.

The current crop of so-called left wing Democratic Presidential candidates are of the "social democrat" sort.

Financial transaction taxes (e.g 0.1%), one-time wealth tax (maybe 5%), greater income taxes on the rich (>50% on income over $1m/year), repatriation taxes (say 2/3 of what they should have been paying) can easily provide the revenue and reduce annual deficits. I’ll be looking for candidates that talk the revenue side of things that will fund the social programs they propose and will reduce the deficit. Bernie did that.

USA, USA, USA! Count me in as an angry resistor "social democrat (small d)" not happy with either major party.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9133
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Reaction to Stacy Abrams’s speech

Postby Sandy » Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:50 am

William Thornton wrote:Another fairly meaningless exercise. Dems want to boost her stock after she came close to winning the guv race here. She's pretty sharp. If she avoids the angry resister dem socialist mode, she might go somewhere.


I tend to agree with the statement that the Democrat response to a State of the Union, like the Republican ones during Democratic administrations, is a fairly meaningless exercise for the most part. And they do tend to have people make those whose stock they are trying to boost. She made an excellent speech, right on target, and most fact checkers were probably bored with extra time on their hands since she didn't make the outlandish assertions or tell the big whoppers that Trump did.

They are obviously trying to "boost her stock," my guess for a senate seat run in 2020. She has an excellent shot at that. If we wind up having to endure two more years of corruption and lying from the current White House occupant, she'll easily close on the few thousand votes by which she lost the gubernatorial race. Much like Texas, Georgia's population growth is made up of large Democratic constituencies, Latinos and Northeastern liberals moving south because of the climate. I believe we will see several Democrats win senate seats in what have been fairly reliable "red states" for the past couple of decades including Georgia and Texas.

I'm not sure what the "angry resister Democratic socialist mode" is, exactly, but there are certainly a lot more Democrats in Washington and in state houses than there were prior to the mid term elections, so whatever tactic or position they took, it was pretty successful against the frumped up, frowning, enraged, WASP racist male Republican establishment.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9346
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Reaction to Stacy Abrams’s speech

Postby William Thornton » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:23 am

She almost won against a very weak candidate. Tough to expect her to do better against an incumbent. No one knows.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12355
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests

cron