Like, aside from the obvious racism and xenophobia, I'm surprised how against immigration conservatives are. Like 81% or so are working age, which means you skip all the expensive social costs of raising and educating a kid and instead get a working taxpayer who's a net boost on the economy.
The obvious racism and xenophobia is all there is. There is no more pretense. No more grand illusion. Just fetid, pulsating hate.
+21
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
You need to just stop
Like can you just not
Talk about fucking purity testing
You need to calm down
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+15
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Also, talk of overpopulation is off topic unless it directly pertains to candidates' plans. If you want to discuss it, make a new thread, it doesn't have to be some ten paragraph magnum opus.
Like, "Hey, overpopulation, here is a thought I have, let's talk about it in general!" is perfectly fine.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Sanders answer was wrong in that he accepted the false premise and claimed it as his own.
READYOFF: Good evening. Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but it’s crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?
SANDERS: Well, Martha, the answer is yes. And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.
And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that are — that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control, to me is totally absurd. So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, it’s something I very, very strongly support.
He was voicing support for reproductive rights, was wrong on the details of the topic of climate change. Oh well, it was clumsy. Even an anti-Sanders person like me isn't going to care that much about that.
edit2 removed the non-candidate part
Also, talk of overpopulation is off topic unless it directly pertains to candidates' plans. If you want to discuss it, make a new thread, it doesn't have to be some ten paragraph magnum opus.
Like, "Hey, overpopulation, here is a thought I have, let's talk about it in general!" is perfectly fine.
If people are worried about the American birth rate then you have two sensible choices:
Increase immigration
Or
Unfuck the prospect of starting families - I really like Warren's proposed childcare plan and a means tested student loan relief/overhaul of public universities
it's another piece of the Dem proposal slate that's missing. Warren's plan, so far as I'm aware, does nothing for single-income families. The solution needs to be multifaceted, not exclusively geared toward making sure that you can afford daycare for your two-income household.
Lol I wasnt even trying to get into some weird debate on overpopulation. It doesnt even matter. What was more concerning was a paper of record running such dreck about a candidate as it did.
If people are worried about the American birth rate then you have two sensible choices:
Increase immigration
Or
Unfuck the prospect of starting families - I really like Warren's proposed childcare plan and a means tested student loan relief/overhaul of public universities
it's another piece of the Dem proposal slate that's missing. Warren's plan, so far as I'm aware, does nothing for single-income families. The solution needs to be multifaceted, not exclusively geared toward making sure that you can afford daycare for your two-income household.
I'm a little too caught up right now but it seems unlikely to me that Warren's overall plan somehow leaves single income/parent households in the lurch.
Unless you have some grievance with how a two parent/single income household is going to fare. I'd ask you to expand on that if you may.
If people are worried about the American birth rate then you have two sensible choices:
Increase immigration
Or
Unfuck the prospect of starting families - I really like Warren's proposed childcare plan and a means tested student loan relief/overhaul of public universities
it's another piece of the Dem proposal slate that's missing. Warren's plan, so far as I'm aware, does nothing for single-income families. The solution needs to be multifaceted, not exclusively geared toward making sure that you can afford daycare for your two-income household.
I'm a little too caught up right now but it seems unlikely to me that Warren's overall plan somehow leaves single income/parent households in the lurch.
Unless you have some grievance with how a two parent/single income household is going to fare. I'd ask you to expand on that if you may.
That's the issue, yes. It's a longstanding gripe of mine, so I don't figure anything will ever get changed... but support for a stay-at-home parent that's roughly equivalent to childcare allowances made for two-income families ought to be a part of any package. Two-parent, single-income families are going to be basically ignored as usual.
To put it in personal terms, Belasco did about $1.5mil in unpaid work over the course of 20 years of childrearing, and childcare proposals that ignore the value of that contribution or neglect to lessen the burden of raising a family on just one income, while putting effort into defraying the cost of a choice to use daycare and enable two-income families more easily, make me disappointed.
+1
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
edited September 2019
Did warren state that she doesn’t want to support single parent families? That would be very surprising to me. That sounds more like something Biden would think.
Did warren state that she doesn’t want to support single parent families? That would be very surprising to me. That sounds more like something Biden would think.
spool isn’t talking about single parent homes, he’s talking about two-parent-single-earner homes where one of the parents is handling daycare duties at home.
Warren’s plan is very ambitious, and also not designed to do anything for those families. It’s not an oversight, direct subsidies are just not the solution they set out to provide. The plan is a universal child care system. They haven’t ruled out maybe doing subsidies/credits in the future, but it’s also just not part of the plan.
Yeah I wouldn't go so far as to say Warren doesn't value stay-at-home parents. Just like all the candidates, she simply doesn't offer to do anything for them, or acknowledge their existence. The need for daycare solutions is obvious - it's just that "make it easier for one parent to stay home with the kids" is not on the list of ways to solve it for her, and certainly not on the list of things she'd try to promote.
Yeah I wouldn't go so far as to say Warren doesn't value stay-at-home parents. Just like all the candidates, she simply doesn't offer to do anything for them, or acknowledge their existence. The need for daycare solutions is obvious - it's just that "make it easier for one parent to stay home with the kids" is not on the list of ways to solve it for her, and certainly not on the list of things she'd try to promote.
I would say warrens economic plans indirectly support single parent income families because for the most part its not economically viable for one parent to be the only income. If peoples wages rose this becomes more viable.
As someone who currently gets fucked in the ass by childcare costs and has a laughable subsidy from the government on it I welcome someone finally doing something about those costs.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah I wouldn't go so far as to say Warren doesn't value stay-at-home parents. Just like all the candidates, she simply doesn't offer to do anything for them, or acknowledge their existence. The need for daycare solutions is obvious - it's just that "make it easier for one parent to stay home with the kids" is not on the list of ways to solve it for her, and certainly not on the list of things she'd try to promote.
I would say warrens economic plans indirectly support single parent income families because for the most part its not economically viable for one parent to be the only income. If peoples wages rose this becomes more viable.
As someone who currently gets fucked in the ass by childcare costs and has a laughable subsidy from the government on it I welcome someone finally doing something about those costs.
Yeah I wouldn't go so far as to say Warren doesn't value stay-at-home parents. Just like all the candidates, she simply doesn't offer to do anything for them, or acknowledge their existence. The need for daycare solutions is obvious - it's just that "make it easier for one parent to stay home with the kids" is not on the list of ways to solve it for her, and certainly not on the list of things she'd try to promote.
I would say warrens economic plans indirectly support single parent income families because for the most part its not economically viable for one parent to be the only income. If peoples wages rose this becomes more viable.
As someone who currently gets fucked in the ass by childcare costs and has a laughable subsidy from the government on it I welcome someone finally doing something about those costs.
Weeps 2400$/monthishly
Kind of absurd that it costs more than a house (Depending on market, but)
Yeah I wouldn't go so far as to say Warren doesn't value stay-at-home parents. Just like all the candidates, she simply doesn't offer to do anything for them, or acknowledge their existence. The need for daycare solutions is obvious - it's just that "make it easier for one parent to stay home with the kids" is not on the list of ways to solve it for her, and certainly not on the list of things she'd try to promote.
I would say warrens economic plans indirectly support single parent income families because for the most part its not economically viable for one parent to be the only income. If peoples wages rose this becomes more viable.
As someone who currently gets fucked in the ass by childcare costs and has a laughable subsidy from the government on it I welcome someone finally doing something about those costs.
Weeps 2400$/monthishly
Kind of absurd that it costs more than a house (Depending on market, but)
Yeah childcare is going to cost that, because you’re paying someone to be you while you have to do other stuff.
I still haven’t figured out how to make this make sense to my wife. She’s all about people earning a living wage until it’s the person we trust to keep our kid alive.
Damnit Josh
That movie also features “he’s dead tired” and “I let him go”
Seriously though, purity testing isnt real. Its just a dumb way to dismiss priorities and concerns you dont share.
The issue is that in any sane governmental system the Democrats would be a coalition of about eight different parties and there are an actually unreasonable number of people who will turn their nose up at a candidate if he doesn't meet their standards for the only thing they care about.
The party lacks a coherent ideological core, always has, and it is a Real Problem given the myopia of the base.
Seriously though, purity testing isnt real. Its just a dumb way to dismiss priorities and concerns you dont share.
The issue is that in any sane governmental system the Democrats would be a coalition of about eight different parties and there are an actually unreasonable number of people who will turn their nose up at a candidate if he doesn't meet their standards for the only thing they care about.
The party lacks a coherent ideological core, always has, and it is a Real Problem given the myopia of the base.
Coalition based governments are mostly a myth and when they exist are generally deeply dysfunctional
Seriously though, purity testing isnt real. Its just a dumb way to dismiss priorities and concerns you dont share.
The issue is that in any sane governmental system the Democrats would be a coalition of about eight different parties and there are an actually unreasonable number of people who will turn their nose up at a candidate if he doesn't meet their standards for the only thing they care about.
The party lacks a coherent ideological core, always has, and it is a Real Problem given the myopia of the base.
Coalition based governments are mostly a myth and when they exist are generally deeply dysfunctional
I feel like this needs a citation, assuming it is allowable in the thread
EDIT: It also doesn't really refute Monwyn's point about the nature of the Democratic Party's big tent as the result of America's multitude of electoral dysfunctions.
The flameout of Gary Hart campaign is interesting to read about! I mean, in an 80s kinda way, it’s pretty quaint compared to modern scandals.
Even today, there’s something special about a candidate daring reporters to watch his house he’s so clean, then gets busted by reporters watching his house.
The craziest thing about the Gary Hart thing is (imo) actually how vanilla it stayed; like the dude probably had an open marriage and was not exactly alone among male politicians of his era in terms of gettin his dick wetted.
But he just got into trouble for doing it a litttttle too publicly and that was as at as anyone wanted to look
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Hart is why we have the tabloid style coverage of politicians. He was the one that they first broke the quiet rules about personal lives on. For better and worse.
+1
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I'm having to watch a couple of my good friends deal with poverty because of their kid. Wife is staying home, raising the child, and the husband works in a pretty low paying job. It's kind of awful.
Would this be a place where Universal Basic Income could help? Like UBI as a stipend for new families seems more palatable than UBI for everyone.
I'm having to watch a couple of my good friends deal with poverty because of their kid. Wife is staying home, raising the child, and the husband works in a pretty low paying job. It's kind of awful.
Would this be a place where Universal Basic Income could help? Like UBI as a stipend for new families seems more palatable than UBI for everyone.
That's just the sort of thing where Warren's plan would assist not in helping that family continue as is but with less financial stress, but instead help the wife leave her kid with someone else for most of the day and go work.
Whether that's better or worse is a whole other topic, but it definitely is a situation where her policies prefer and incentivize the two-worker + childcare model, rather than the "one parent raises the child" configuration.
I'm having to watch a couple of my good friends deal with poverty because of their kid. Wife is staying home, raising the child, and the husband works in a pretty low paying job. It's kind of awful.
Would this be a place where Universal Basic Income could help? Like UBI as a stipend for new families seems more palatable than UBI for everyone.
That's just the sort of thing where Warren's plan would assist not in helping that family continue as is but with less financial stress, but instead help the wife leave her kid with someone else for most of the day and go work.
Whether that's better or worse is a whole other topic, but it definitely is a situation where her policies prefer and incentivize the two-worker + childcare model, rather than the "one parent raises the child" configuration.
The genie is kind of out of the bottle on mom or dad staying home until maybe we go full UBI/acknowledge where automation is about to take us
I'm having to watch a couple of my good friends deal with poverty because of their kid. Wife is staying home, raising the child, and the husband works in a pretty low paying job. It's kind of awful.
Would this be a place where Universal Basic Income could help? Like UBI as a stipend for new families seems more palatable than UBI for everyone.
That's just the sort of thing where Warren's plan would assist not in helping that family continue as is but with less financial stress, but instead help the wife leave her kid with someone else for most of the day and go work.
Whether that's better or worse is a whole other topic, but it definitely is a situation where her policies prefer and incentivize the two-worker + childcare model, rather than the "one parent raises the child" configuration.
The genie is kind of out of the bottle on mom or dad staying home until maybe we go full UBI/acknowledge where automation is about to take us
A lot of this is due to the wage stagnation. Basically general redistribution raising the wealth of the middle and allow a family to live off a single income.
The reality is the nuclear family which is still an rather new thing in human society/US culture was only really a thing due to the wealth and growth in the post war era. And in reality we are slowly moving back to the need of a community/expanded family not the nuclear family to raise kids because it makes more economic and organizational sense. Which also probably includes creches and publicly funded childcare.
The best two policies to help families with a stay at home parent is either universal basic income so the stay at home parent is bringing in resources or overall shifting the economy to allow a single income to support a family. Warren's plans do effect the latter.
At this point we as society should probably shift how we think of the family just like we did 70 years ago and move away from the nuclear family back to a broader definition/communal definition of family and child care.
I'm having to watch a couple of my good friends deal with poverty because of their kid. Wife is staying home, raising the child, and the husband works in a pretty low paying job. It's kind of awful.
Would this be a place where Universal Basic Income could help? Like UBI as a stipend for new families seems more palatable than UBI for everyone.
That's just the sort of thing where Warren's plan would assist not in helping that family continue as is but with less financial stress, but instead help the wife leave her kid with someone else for most of the day and go work.
Whether that's better or worse is a whole other topic, but it definitely is a situation where her policies prefer and incentivize the two-worker + childcare model, rather than the "one parent raises the child" configuration.
The genie is kind of out of the bottle on mom or dad staying home until maybe we go full UBI/acknowledge where automation is about to take us
A lot of this is due to the wage stagnation. Basically general redistribution raising the wealth of the middle and allow a family to live off a single income.
The reality is the nuclear family which is still an rather new thing in human society/US culture was only really a thing due to the wealth and growth in the post war era. And in reality we are slowly moving back to the need of a community/expanded family not the nuclear family to raise kids because it makes more economic and organizational sense. Which also probably includes creches and publicly funded childcare.
The best two policies to help families with a stay at home parent is either universal basic income so the stay at home parent is bringing in resources or overall shifting the economy to allow a single income to support a family. Warren's plans do effect the latter.
At this point we as society should probably shift how we think of the family just like we did 70 years ago and move away from the nuclear family back to a broader definition/communal definition of family and child care.
Creches and publicly funded childcare is not a community model though. It's a corporate model that doesn't create any sort of a community. The social connections that would be necessary for a group of families to be comfortable with members of that group sharing childcare duties do not exist in the Warren model. Edit: I don't think her other plans get us anywhere toward the possibility of a single-earner model either... for that to be true, she'd have to be offering e.g. M4A tax increase scales that ease the burden on those kinds of families. A general relief from wage stagnation does nothing of consequence to make single-earner, dual-households easier or more viable - there's no plan to try and hold down CoL increases for example. Her message to working parents is very much "if you want to work, we'll help! If you don't, well, good luck out there".
Redtide you're right that it's increasingly hard to pull that setup off. We managed it starting in the mid 90s and it was hard af even then, with the huge advantages of the tech revolution creating completely new economic sectors around us. Certainly though, creating new and more powerful incentives to move even further the opposite direction only make it harder. I wouldn't go as far as saying that her plan is "pro-woman, anti-mom" but if you took a wide angle photo they'd be in the same frame.
edit 2: that doesn't make Warren any worse than the rest of the candidates though - they're all equally afk on this topic.
Hindsight being 20/20, a more accurate (though still morally questionable) advice would be: "If you go there, he's going to pull the Bill card. And you are going to lose". But that's not what Biden is saying.
TryCatcher on
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I’m pretty much convinced that if Biden is the nominee, he’ll lose.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I'm having to watch a couple of my good friends deal with poverty because of their kid. Wife is staying home, raising the child, and the husband works in a pretty low paying job. It's kind of awful.
Would this be a place where Universal Basic Income could help? Like UBI as a stipend for new families seems more palatable than UBI for everyone.
That's just the sort of thing where Warren's plan would assist not in helping that family continue as is but with less financial stress, but instead help the wife leave her kid with someone else for most of the day and go work.
Whether that's better or worse is a whole other topic, but it definitely is a situation where her policies prefer and incentivize the two-worker + childcare model, rather than the "one parent raises the child" configuration.
The genie is kind of out of the bottle on mom or dad staying home until maybe we go full UBI/acknowledge where automation is about to take us
A lot of this is due to the wage stagnation. Basically general redistribution raising the wealth of the middle and allow a family to live off a single income.
The reality is the nuclear family which is still an rather new thing in human society/US culture was only really a thing due to the wealth and growth in the post war era. And in reality we are slowly moving back to the need of a community/expanded family not the nuclear family to raise kids because it makes more economic and organizational sense. Which also probably includes creches and publicly funded childcare.
The best two policies to help families with a stay at home parent is either universal basic income so the stay at home parent is bringing in resources or overall shifting the economy to allow a single income to support a family. Warren's plans do effect the latter.
At this point we as society should probably shift how we think of the family just like we did 70 years ago and move away from the nuclear family back to a broader definition/communal definition of family and child care.
Creches and publicly funded childcare is not a community model though. It's a corporate model that doesn't create any sort of a community. The social connections that would be necessary for a group of families to be comfortable with members of that group sharing childcare duties do not exist in the Warren model. Edit: I don't think her other plans get us anywhere toward the possibility of a single-earner model either... for that to be true, she'd have to be offering e.g. M4A tax increase scales that ease the burden on those kinds of families. A general relief from wage stagnation does nothing of consequence to make single-earner, dual-households easier or more viable - there's no plan to try and hold down CoL increases for example. Her message to working parents is very much "if you want to work, we'll help! If you don't, well, good luck out there".
Redtide you're right that it's increasingly hard to pull that setup off. We managed it starting in the mid 90s and it was hard af even then, with the huge advantages of the tech revolution creating completely new economic sectors around us. Certainly though, creating new and more powerful incentives to move even further the opposite direction only make it harder. I wouldn't go as far as saying that her plan is "pro-woman, anti-mom" but if you took a wide angle photo they'd be in the same frame.
edit 2: that doesn't make Warren any worse than the rest of the candidates though - they're all equally afk on this topic.
The problem in what you're looking for is something that Mazz touched on. You're essentially looking for a reordering of society to something resembling what was possible for everyone but the poorest folks back in the postwar era.
Which at the time wasn't something that was designed (though it was encouraged) but was a byproduct of a level of prosperity that would be impossible to replicate (unless we become post energy/scarcity a la Star Trek).
The only way we can put it more in reach is basically pairing UBI with a bunch of measures that alleviate the downward stress on the working class. Warren's plans at least address more then half of this equation.
I’m pretty much convinced that if Biden is the nominee, he’ll lose.
I don't know if he will lose, but I think the polling on the head to head (which almost consistently has Biden withe the highest margin) would be proven wrong.
Can't think of a top 5 candidate that would have a harder time than Biden of beating Trump. There's just so much shit on Biden, and Trump loves playing in shit. That it's hypocritical won't stop him from going after Biden for Anita Hill. Crap like that.
"We both suck!" is a winning message for Trump against Biden. Cause depressing the middle and the left is a victory, because his MAGAts will all come out and vote.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The flameout of Gary Hart campaign is interesting to read about! I mean, in an 80s kinda way, it’s pretty quaint compared to modern scandals.
Even today, there’s something special about a candidate daring reporters to watch his house he’s so clean, then gets busted by reporters watching his house.
Tim Ryan might be our kamikaze candidate to try to take aim at Biden's age, in a bit of surprise.
"I think Biden is declining. I don't think he has the energy. You see it almost daily. And I love the guy."
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+10
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I'm honestly more worried that if Biden is our nominee, we may win but we won't get the House/Senate.. which is by far the most important electoral element of 2020.
I’m pretty much convinced that if Biden is the nominee, he’ll lose.
I don't know if he will lose, but I think the polling on the head to head (which almost consistently has Biden withe the highest margin) would be proven wrong.
Can't think of a top 5 candidate that would have a harder time than Biden of beating Trump. There's just so much shit on Biden, and Trump loves playing in shit. That it's hypocritical won't stop him from going after Biden for Anita Hill. Crap like that.
"We both suck!" is a winning message for Trump against Biden. Cause depressing the middle and the left is a victory, because his MAGAts will all come out and vote.
True. He could win just on the strength of not being Trump, but that’s not something I want to bet on and he really just doesn’t understand the current state of politics.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Posts
The obvious racism and xenophobia is all there is. There is no more pretense. No more grand illusion. Just fetid, pulsating hate.
You need to just stop
Like can you just not
Talk about fucking purity testing
You need to calm down
Like, "Hey, overpopulation, here is a thought I have, let's talk about it in general!" is perfectly fine.
He was voicing support for reproductive rights, was wrong on the details of the topic of climate change. Oh well, it was clumsy. Even an anti-Sanders person like me isn't going to care that much about that.
edit2 removed the non-candidate part
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Done
it's another piece of the Dem proposal slate that's missing. Warren's plan, so far as I'm aware, does nothing for single-income families. The solution needs to be multifaceted, not exclusively geared toward making sure that you can afford daycare for your two-income household.
I'm a little too caught up right now but it seems unlikely to me that Warren's overall plan somehow leaves single income/parent households in the lurch.
Unless you have some grievance with how a two parent/single income household is going to fare. I'd ask you to expand on that if you may.
That's the issue, yes. It's a longstanding gripe of mine, so I don't figure anything will ever get changed... but support for a stay-at-home parent that's roughly equivalent to childcare allowances made for two-income families ought to be a part of any package. Two-parent, single-income families are going to be basically ignored as usual.
To put it in personal terms, Belasco did about $1.5mil in unpaid work over the course of 20 years of childrearing, and childcare proposals that ignore the value of that contribution or neglect to lessen the burden of raising a family on just one income, while putting effort into defraying the cost of a choice to use daycare and enable two-income families more easily, make me disappointed.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
spool isn’t talking about single parent homes, he’s talking about two-parent-single-earner homes where one of the parents is handling daycare duties at home.
Warren’s plan is very ambitious, and also not designed to do anything for those families. It’s not an oversight, direct subsidies are just not the solution they set out to provide. The plan is a universal child care system. They haven’t ruled out maybe doing subsidies/credits in the future, but it’s also just not part of the plan.
I would say warrens economic plans indirectly support single parent income families because for the most part its not economically viable for one parent to be the only income. If peoples wages rose this becomes more viable.
As someone who currently gets fucked in the ass by childcare costs and has a laughable subsidy from the government on it I welcome someone finally doing something about those costs.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Weeps 2400$/monthishly
Kind of absurd that it costs more than a house (Depending on market, but)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
(It costs as much as my mortgage and taxes)
He’s a really hard worker
I still haven’t figured out how to make this make sense to my wife. She’s all about people earning a living wage until it’s the person we trust to keep our kid alive.
Damnit Josh
That movie also features “he’s dead tired” and “I let him go”
The issue is that in any sane governmental system the Democrats would be a coalition of about eight different parties and there are an actually unreasonable number of people who will turn their nose up at a candidate if he doesn't meet their standards for the only thing they care about.
The party lacks a coherent ideological core, always has, and it is a Real Problem given the myopia of the base.
Coalition based governments are mostly a myth and when they exist are generally deeply dysfunctional
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I feel like this needs a citation, assuming it is allowable in the thread
EDIT: It also doesn't really refute Monwyn's point about the nature of the Democratic Party's big tent as the result of America's multitude of electoral dysfunctions.
Even today, there’s something special about a candidate daring reporters to watch his house he’s so clean, then gets busted by reporters watching his house.
But he just got into trouble for doing it a litttttle too publicly and that was as at as anyone wanted to look
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Would this be a place where Universal Basic Income could help? Like UBI as a stipend for new families seems more palatable than UBI for everyone.
That's just the sort of thing where Warren's plan would assist not in helping that family continue as is but with less financial stress, but instead help the wife leave her kid with someone else for most of the day and go work.
Whether that's better or worse is a whole other topic, but it definitely is a situation where her policies prefer and incentivize the two-worker + childcare model, rather than the "one parent raises the child" configuration.
The genie is kind of out of the bottle on mom or dad staying home until maybe we go full UBI/acknowledge where automation is about to take us
A lot of this is due to the wage stagnation. Basically general redistribution raising the wealth of the middle and allow a family to live off a single income.
The reality is the nuclear family which is still an rather new thing in human society/US culture was only really a thing due to the wealth and growth in the post war era. And in reality we are slowly moving back to the need of a community/expanded family not the nuclear family to raise kids because it makes more economic and organizational sense. Which also probably includes creches and publicly funded childcare.
The best two policies to help families with a stay at home parent is either universal basic income so the stay at home parent is bringing in resources or overall shifting the economy to allow a single income to support a family. Warren's plans do effect the latter.
At this point we as society should probably shift how we think of the family just like we did 70 years ago and move away from the nuclear family back to a broader definition/communal definition of family and child care.
Creches and publicly funded childcare is not a community model though. It's a corporate model that doesn't create any sort of a community. The social connections that would be necessary for a group of families to be comfortable with members of that group sharing childcare duties do not exist in the Warren model. Edit: I don't think her other plans get us anywhere toward the possibility of a single-earner model either... for that to be true, she'd have to be offering e.g. M4A tax increase scales that ease the burden on those kinds of families. A general relief from wage stagnation does nothing of consequence to make single-earner, dual-households easier or more viable - there's no plan to try and hold down CoL increases for example. Her message to working parents is very much "if you want to work, we'll help! If you don't, well, good luck out there".
Redtide you're right that it's increasingly hard to pull that setup off. We managed it starting in the mid 90s and it was hard af even then, with the huge advantages of the tech revolution creating completely new economic sectors around us. Certainly though, creating new and more powerful incentives to move even further the opposite direction only make it harder. I wouldn't go as far as saying that her plan is "pro-woman, anti-mom" but if you took a wide angle photo they'd be in the same frame.
edit 2: that doesn't make Warren any worse than the rest of the candidates though - they're all equally afk on this topic.
Don't need to tell you the answer from the Clinton team:
Hindsight being 20/20, a more accurate (though still morally questionable) advice would be: "If you go there, he's going to pull the Bill card. And you are going to lose". But that's not what Biden is saying.
The problem in what you're looking for is something that Mazz touched on. You're essentially looking for a reordering of society to something resembling what was possible for everyone but the poorest folks back in the postwar era.
Which at the time wasn't something that was designed (though it was encouraged) but was a byproduct of a level of prosperity that would be impossible to replicate (unless we become post energy/scarcity a la Star Trek).
The only way we can put it more in reach is basically pairing UBI with a bunch of measures that alleviate the downward stress on the working class. Warren's plans at least address more then half of this equation.
I don't know if he will lose, but I think the polling on the head to head (which almost consistently has Biden withe the highest margin) would be proven wrong.
Can't think of a top 5 candidate that would have a harder time than Biden of beating Trump. There's just so much shit on Biden, and Trump loves playing in shit. That it's hypocritical won't stop him from going after Biden for Anita Hill. Crap like that.
"We both suck!" is a winning message for Trump against Biden. Cause depressing the middle and the left is a victory, because his MAGAts will all come out and vote.
Also a Yacht called Monkey Business
True. He could win just on the strength of not being Trump, but that’s not something I want to bet on and he really just doesn’t understand the current state of politics.
Republicans wouldn't be retiring if they thought that was a realistic possibility.