• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Lame platitudes like “uniting the country” is the currency of those who don’t want things to really change. Those who are comfortable with the status quo. Those who would be OK with Biden coming in and accomplishing nothing.

“Normalcy” is the comfort zone of the OWG and should not be acceptable going forward.

Uniting the country and moving it forward do not need to be mutually exclusive.

And a return to “normalcy” does not necessarily mean status quo either.

A leader could manage to bring the country back to “normalcy” by not acting like a big bag of dicks on a daily basis while trying to champion very progressive policies.

It sounds like many Democrats are suspect of Biden’s policy chops and that’s fine but I don’t think you should lose sight of the fact that you need to win the electoral college and some senate seats before you can even really begin to think about bringing real policy change.

If you think pushing hard on progressive policy will make the difference by turning out the base, then I get it....but Democrats won the House in 2018 largely by flipping purple districts held by Republicans. Not sure why Democrats want to change the playbook heading into 2020.
 
Those Democrats weren’t running as Republican light though. They embraced some form of universal health care, increasing minimum wage, they were pro-life. Keep in mind how well progressive referendums did in red states as well.

Uniting the country is an empty promise. It won’t happen. And a candidate running on uniting the country doesn’t understand how corrosive the Republican Party is. Run on unity and get rebuffed by Republicans and they’ll blame Biden.
 
Pretty much every Democrat, including Joe Biden, embraces some form of universal health care and increasing the minimum wage.
 
Right. So it comes down to who people believe will actual push for progressive policies. Will it be the candidate whose goal is “unity” with people who want nothing less?
 
Uniting the country and moving it forward do not need to be mutually exclusive.

And a return to “normalcy” does not necessarily mean status quo either.

A leader could manage to bring the country back to “normalcy” by not acting like a big bag of dicks on a daily basis while trying to champion very progressive policies.

It sounds like many Democrats are suspect of Biden’s policy chops and that’s fine but I don’t think you should lose sight of the fact that you need to win the electoral college and some senate seats before you can even really begin to think about bringing real policy change.

If you think pushing hard on progressive policy will make the difference by turning out the base, then I get it....but Democrats won the House in 2018 largely by flipping purple districts held by Republicans. Not sure why Democrats want to change the playbook heading into 2020.

What part of the 2018 playbook screams OWG candidates to you?
 
 
Yep. Even his worst critics acknowledge his growth.

This take is, at least, borderline racist, imo. We call the white men who do this entrepreneurial.

Are all community-based developers aspiring slumlords? Should neighborhood development opportunities only go to corporate firms and non-profits?
 
Uniting the country and moving it forward do not need to be mutually exclusive.

And a return to “normalcy” does not necessarily mean status quo either.

A leader could manage to bring the country back to “normalcy” by not acting like a big bag of dicks on a daily basis while trying to champion very progressive policies.

It sounds like many Democrats are suspect of Biden’s policy chops and that’s fine but I don’t think you should lose sight of the fact that you need to win the electoral college and some senate seats before you can even really begin to think about bringing real policy change.

If you think pushing hard on progressive policy will make the difference by turning out the base, then I get it....but Democrats won the House in 2018 largely by flipping purple districts held by Republicans. Not sure why Democrats want to change the playbook heading into 2020.

Have you looked at the candidates, though? Outside of lazy April polling, what exactly does Biden bring to the table that other candidates don’t?
 
This take is, at least, borderline racist, imo. We call the white men who do this entrepreneurial.

Are all community-based developers aspiring slumlords? Should neighborhood development opportunities only go to corporate firms and non-profits?

Weird. I call the white men who do this slumlords. I think people should get the facts right about Pete’s administration and stop jumping to conclusions.
 
Right. So it comes down to who people believe will actual push for progressive policies. Will it be the candidate whose goal is “unity” with people who want nothing less?

I mean, at this point I’m down to treat registered Republicans like Confederates.
 
Weird. I call the white men who do this slumlords. I think people should get the facts right about Pete’s administration and stop jumping to conclusions.

What, short of being a developer (is she even a landlord) makes her an aspiring slumlord? Speaking of jumping to conclusions... I asked this awhile back, but you never answered.

There is a lot of “indigenous” redevelopment going on in supposedly blighted neighborhoods. You just don’t really hear about it in the media.
 

SlightMeagerIberianmidwifetoad-size_restricted.gif
 
What, short of being a developer (is she even a landlord) makes her an aspiring slumlord? Speaking of jumping to conclusions... I asked this awhile back, but you never answered.

There is a lot of “indigenous” redevelopment going on in supposedly blighted neighborhoods. You just don’t really hear about it in the media.

She was sitting on a distressed property. Where is the evidence she was an "indigenous redeveloper?"

It's a silly argument anyway. What's important here is the facts show Mayor Pete isn't some evil technocrat version of the Big Bad Wolf blowing down South Bend homes. He took criticisms from the community and adjusted his policies to the point that one of the critics mentioned in all the articles gave him credit for it and the other said his adjustments were evidence he would make a good President.
 
She was sitting on a distressed property. Where is the evidence she was an "indigenous redeveloper?"

I didn’t jump straight to calling her an aspiring slumlord.

There are a lot of barriers to redevelopment, e.g., redlining, but I don’t use the epithet slumlord lightly (since there are plenty of awful people who actually deserve the title based on their reported conduct).

It was a particularly uncharitable move from you because you called her that because you didn’t like the media criticizing your preferred candidate. The facts got out and he looks okay, but your rush to judgment (and continued quoting of her) still stands out as pretty classless when there is no evidence that she was sitting on a distressed property.

Again, there are plenty of local redevelopments, “flippers,” and mom and pop landlords that don’t get the “aspiring slumlord” label from you. Seemingly, just the ones whose quotes are used to criticize Mayor Pete.
 
Feel free to list when I was talking about someone who was sitting on a distressed property (and we know that because it was slated to be torn down) and didn’t call them an aspiring slumlord.

A lot of people eager to tear Pete down jumped to conclusions about this policy because of their worst (often legitimate) fears of gentrification. Let’s deal in facts on this thread.
 
Feel free to list when I was talking about someone who was sitting on a distressed property (and we know that because it was slated to be torn down) and didn’t call them an aspiring slumlord.

A lot of people eager to tear Pete down jumped to conclusions about this policy because of their worst (often legitimate) fears of gentrification. Let’s deal in facts on this thread.

Gentrification, yes, but we also know that the concept of “blight” tends to be thrown around pretty carelessly when discussing housing occupied by poor and minority communities. The fact that 639/1000 homes were saved suggests that Pete and his administration may have thrown around the label a bit carelessly, mistaking institutionalized disinvestment for blight.

I hear what you’re saying though and will drop it. Just don’t like trivializing the word slumlord.
 
That's very possible.
 
New cnn poll shows biden at 39%. Sanders in second at 15%
 
This NYT opinion piece by Matt Bruenig touches on the discussion we were having before about the progressiveness of the US tax code. I don't always agree with him, but find him clear-headed in discussions of the trade offs and costs that would be required to pay for Nordic style social programs/benefits.

One common refrain on the right and the center-left alike: Since the rich can’t foot the bill alone, are middle- and working-class supporters of a more socialized health care system really ready to pay as much for it as people do in some of the high-tax nations that have one?

The problem is, we already do, and we often pay more.

It’s true that by conventional measures, taxes on workers’ wages in the United States are comparatively very low and even very progressive, affecting the lowest-earning workers the least and taxing those who can afford it more.

But these measures obscure an important fact of American life: Unlike workers in many other countries, the vast majority of American employees have private health insurance premiums deducted from their paychecks. If we reimagine these premiums as taxes, we’d realize that Americans pay some of the highest and least progressive labor taxes in the developed world.

By combining data from the O.E.C.D. Taxing Wages model with data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we can see what percentage of each worker’s compensation — a figure that includes cash wages as well as the taxes and benefits employers pay on behalf of their employees — goes toward taxes and health care, and how progressive these payments really are. What this data shows is that lower-income workers, higher-income workers, single workers, and married workers with children all contribute around 40 percent of their pay toward taxes and health premiums. And when those health care costs are taken into account, the less well off no longer pay less than high-earners, as they do in taxes alone.

For instance, according to this analysis, when an American family earns around $43,000, half of the average compensation when including cash wages plus employer payroll tax and premium contributions, 37 percent of that ends up going to taxes and health care premiums. In high-tax Finland, the same type of family pays 23 percent of their compensation in labor taxes, which includes taxes they pay to support universal health care. In France, it’s 2 percent. In the United Kingdom and Canada, it is less than 0 percent after government benefits.


Moving from our system to a European-style system would make our overall system of taxes and health insurance payments much more progressive for the majority of Americans, because the elimination of private health premiums would more than offset the rise in formal taxes for all but the wealthy.

If we don’t move toward a European-style health program, we’ll remain stuck in a system where Americans, regardless of their incomes, pay ever larger amounts out of their paychecks to fund health care. The fact that we don’t call these payments “taxes” doesn’t change that fact, so it shouldn’t blind us to the best solutions.

D5UpkicX4AAee3b.png:large
 
Back
Top