ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted August 1, 2022 ATRL Moderator Posted August 1, 2022 37 minutes ago, Kassi said: The reason I’m pushing @ClashAndBurn on this is because when the facts change, smart people are supposed to change their minds. I was also on the BBB bandwagon thinking Manchin was debating in bad faith, but he was legit on the ball. And could be argued, based on the sequence of events that the rest of the caucus was debating in bad faith (they weren’t of course, they just had a blind spot): June 2021: Manchin tells Schumer that he’s willing to embrace up to $1.5 trillion in new spending if it is fully paid for with excess revenue dedicated to reducing the deficit. July 2021: Schumer keeps that quiet, and leadership moves forward with $3.5 trillion in new spending. August 2021: The caucus fights it out in the press and eventually settles on $1.7 trillion September 2021: Pelosi moves a bill that uses phase-out gimmicks to try to generate a $1.7 trillion score for what was really intended to be $3.5 trillion worth of new programs. October 2021: Manchin calls foul on the proposal, setting the stage for negotiations on crafting an actual proposal that would fit the criteria Manchin outlined to Schumer back in June. November 2021: Democratic leaders press pause on the process (to reign in the public discourse and secretly revisit it… well now) All this time, Manchin is ranting about inflation and how he thinks it’s likely to be worse than Biden or the Fed are saying — and then inflation did turn out to be worse than Biden or the Fed was saying. Given this timeline in hindsight, it’s easy to make the argument that Manchin was acting in perfectly good faith (he’s even back at the table now), while Schumer was acting in bad faith and the White House was showing bad judgment about the economic situation. There's a lot to unpack here. But I'm mostly interested in clarifying one thing: are you (for once) criticizing Schumer, Pelosi, and Biden in order to defend... Joe Manchin?
Kassi Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said: He's "on the ball" only if you assume that the only cause for inflation is government spending. Some of it might have been, but the much worse, more prevalent factors involved are the following: Supply chain breakdown due to American companies outsourcing their labor/production overseas for cheap Energy prices surging due to people not staying locked in their homes and generally traveling more Energy prices surging due to sanctions on Russian oil limiting the supply that the West would accept, making OPEC oil more expensive Food prices surging due to America helping the world's largest exporter of grain prolong a war that it can't possibly win outright None of this is factored in by the Elites in American government and media because they want to keep their cheap outsourced labor, they want workers to suffer under recession so that unions can be busted again, and they want the Russo-Ukrainian war to be drawn out as long as possible down to the last Ukrainian's life in order to enact regime change against Putin. That's why austerity and the Federal Reserve (headed by a Trump appointee that Biden willingly kept) raising interest rates are the only solutions being offered. That's why you yourself are exhorting praises upon Joe Manchin for making Democrats appear incapable of governing and making the Republicans look like the more sane, stable party for voters to flock to in November. Sure, all the things you listed are widely recognized supply shocks. And last I checked, all of it is factored into the public discourse. I even remember you making fun of Biden for tying rising gas prices to Ukraine's invasion. So that factoring directly came from the White House. Long story short, pandemic + war = supply issues. Fine. We know that half of the picture. However, the view that the presence of supply shocks means that there’s no demand-pull is patently wrong. Ignoring all other details and looking at just economy-wide aggregate spending, after crashing during the shutdown, there was a rapid recovery in spending that overshot forecasts based on pre-pandemic trends. The reality of this excess demand is what we're talking about here. By tamping down on additional cash infusions that would consequently go into chasing more goods (before the supply chain could catch up), inflation would invariably have gone up faster and for much longer. Also, apart from austerity aimed at poor people, the other approach is to go at it aimed at rich people. Which was the point of the tax increases you even recognize Manchin was pushing for. I mean, you mentioned it disparagingly as if Manchin had coordinated "mutually-exclusive" demands with Sinema, but the truth is, someone concerned about demand-pull inflation WOULD look at slowing demand growth. In this case, he thankfully wasn't advocating to cut programs, but rather target the hardships of austerity on people most able to bear it...the rich. Alls I'm saying is if you're going to kii over inflation hurting Biden, then, on some level, you have to admit that progressives had it completely wrong and Manchin saved them the entire Democratic caucus from falling off that cliff.
ClashAndBurn Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 10 minutes ago, Kassi said: Sure, all the things you listed are widely recognized supply shocks. And last I checked, all of it is factored into the public discourse. I even remember you making fun of Biden for tying rising gas prices to Ukraine's invasion. So that factoring directly came from the White House. Long story short, pandemic + war = supply issues. Fine. We know that half of the picture. However, the view that the presence of supply shocks means that there’s no demand-pull is patently wrong. Ignoring all other details and looking at just economy-wide aggregate spending, after crashing during the shutdown, there was a rapid recovery in spending that overshot forecasts based on pre-pandemic trends. The reality of this excess demand is what we're talking about here. By tamping down on additional cash infusions that would consequently go into chasing more goods (before the supply chain could catch up), inflation would invariably have gone up faster and for much longer. Also, apart from austerity aimed at poor people, the other approach is to go at it aimed at rich people. Which was the point of the tax increases you even recognize Manchin was pushing for. I mean, you mentioned it disparagingly as if Manchin had coordinated "mutually-exclusive" demands with Sinema, but the truth is, someone concerned about demand-pull inflation WOULD look at slowing demand growth. In this case, he thankfully wasn't advocating to cut programs, but rather target the hardships of austerity on people most able to bear it...the rich. Alls I'm saying is if you're going to kii over inflation hurting Biden, then, on some level, you have to admit that progressives had it completely wrong and Manchin saved them the entire Democratic caucus from falling off that cliff. That's the thing though. There's never any austerity for the rich. As we saw with PPP, almost ALL of that went to enriching the 1% and doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. their net worths. Our government failed to provide oversight and willingly took part in the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history. Funny how none of the neolibs (talking about the actual ones on reddit) ever complain about that, but they get incensed whenever student loan forgiveness is brought up. They literally seethe over and call it.... a regressive, upward transfer of wealth when the PPP disaster literally just happened and they said not a single word about fuckers like Mueller, She Wrote scamming the government out of thousands of dollars in pandemic loans that got completely forgiven.
Kassi Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 1 hour ago, Bloo said: There's a lot to unpack here. But I'm mostly interested in clarifying one thing: are you (for once) criticizing Schumer, Pelosi, and Biden in order to defend... Joe Manchin? Yes. Because, like I said, when the facts change, smart people are supposed to change their minds. I mean, it still speaks to Pelosi's skill as a leader that she was able to whip her caucus into following her off of a political ledge (though we saw it with the ACA, it's good to know she still has it).And also illustrates her sincere conviction to passing huge legislation while in power. All of which are great talking points against progressives trying to disparage her. But yeah, the lack of judgement across the entire Democratic establishment is kind of eye opening. And clues us in to the very salient point that progressives don't really have all of the "right" answers. Would BBB have held up in the long run? I think so... it did a lot of good things. But at the cost of massive inflation and a guaranteed spanking in the midterms, it could've been argued (and probably would have by ClashAndBurn, who literally digs for any anti-Dem angle) that Democrats can't govern responsibly. Then let's just say, for sh*ts and giggles, that we paired $3.5 trillion of BBB with $1.6 trillion in student debt forgiveness (i.e. up to $50k/person)... well... I'll let you tell me what happens when a family of 4 suddenly has $1,000*/month more to spend. *$500/month via CTC and $500/month via student debt forgiveness
Mean Trees Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 Not someone using Nominal GDP... And also using basic econ 101 nonsense??? One you go higher level, you learn a lot more.
Kassi Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 ^Girl, if you know sumn we don't, then post your analysis and go. The catty sniping isn't helping anyone. The Federal Bank had “higher level” economics and still couldn’t see the basic outcome of inflation = more money chasing fewer goods. The basics are the basics for a reason.
Communion Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 7 hours ago, Kassi said: I even remember you making fun of Biden for tying rising gas prices to Ukraine's invasion. Do you honestly think anyone would believe this? No one made fun of Biden for "tying gas prices to [more accurately] sanctions on Russia". He was mocked for acting as though prolonging the Russian-Ukrainian conflict was some inevitable truth and fact of time and so the response was to just call it "Putin's price hike" and ask people to tighten their wallets. That was a failure of leadership even if one thinks American adventurism is not bad and that we ought to continue to arm governments we previously had on our "possible corrupt, possible white supremacist terrorism" lists just 6 months prior because then the response to supporting Ukraine against Russia is finding ways to relieve those new shocks. Something he.... largely didn't do.
Kassi Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 As a genocide survivor, I don’t care to debate the pro-genocide parts of your post. In my view, any penny spent on giving Ukraine the weapons they need to blow up the army of rapists tearing through their country is money well spent. 1 hour ago, Communion said: the response to supporting Ukraine against Russia is finding ways to relieve those new shocks. Something he.... largely didn't do. Which is why we’re talking about falling gas prices. Keep up! Not to mention investments in chip manufacturing (CHIPS Plus), the reason behind new/used car inflation. And shipping reform (ORSA) to smooth out supply chain bottlenecks at ports. So, unsurprisingly, you’re wrong there too.
Communion Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 47 minutes ago, Kassi said: pro-genocide Yes, if you want to argue that Biden is pro-genocide by skirting his own sanctions on Russian oil by simply buying from Saudi Arabia who are just reselling marked up oil bought from Russia, sure. Not sure how this revelation of Biden actively contributing to the genocide of Ukrainians makes sense with your then blind stanning of the geriatric racist, but the incoherence of the centrist mind is not something I often want to sit and waste time on pondering. But yes, Russia still being given a backdoor into the oil and gas market means that the initial shock is thankfully weening off and prices are slowly going down, though we won't reach the lows that we saw even just last year for as long as Biden continues to do nothing regarding the price-gouging occurring and refusing to push for diplomacy between two nations that the Pentagon has actively said the US hopes does as maximum damage to one another as possible.
Vermillion Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 The Daily Beast has literally broken ALL the exclusives on Walker and Oz To the point where I wonder if they have someone formerly on the DSCC on their editor payroll
AlanRickman1946 Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 (edited) Edited August 1, 2022 by AlanRickman1946
Kassi Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 2 hours ago, Communion said: Yes, if you want to argue that Biden is pro-genocide by skirting his own sanctions on Russian oil by simply buying from Saudi Arabia who are just reselling marked up oil bought from Russia, sure. Not sure how this revelation of Biden actively contributing to the genocide of Ukrainians makes sense with your then blind stanning of the geriatric racist, but the incoherence of the centrist mind is not something I often want to sit and waste time on pondering. But yes, Russia still being given a backdoor into the oil and gas market means that the initial shock is thankfully weening off and prices are slowly going down, though we won't reach the lows that we saw even just last year for as long as Biden continues to do nothing regarding the price-gouging occurring and refusing to push for diplomacy between two nations that the Pentagon has actively said the US hopes does as maximum damage to one another as possible. That’s such a misrepresentation of the dynamics. Please… be serious. Saudis are exporting their own oil, while using cheap Russian oil for their domestic production needs. It’s not ideal, but the US can’t exactly force them to stop taking advantage of the price differential between Saudi and Russian oil. Hence why Biden is also looking at incorporating crude supply from non-traditional partners like Venezuela into the mix. The global politics are complicated, no doubt. But what’s clear and simple is that the Sunrise Movement’s energy policies would exacerbate the situation 10 fold Another area of politics where leftists DON’T have all the “right” answers. The world isn’t ready to move on from fossil fuels, as people can barely manage temporary, modest hikes in prices. Pelosi was correct again about the “green dream” or whatever. As for Biden refusing to supposedly push for “diplomacy”, I wish you would just say what you mean: you want Biden to green light the genocide of Ukrainians because you’re a tankie.
rihannabiggestfan Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 But it makes sense why a racist like Biden wouldn't want to close the racial wage gap
Communion Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kassi said: That’s such a misrepresentation of the dynamics. It's really not. Saudi imports of Russian oil are up. India imports of Russian oil are up. It is now being resold marked up for profit to the West who are still getting the same product they are trying to boycott. This upsetting your sensibilities doesn't make it untrue. What an unserious and juvenile attempt to look at the world. I do have to admit it is a kii and a pleasure to see you literally whack out once in a corner and really go fully juvenile when you have no actual arguments left. Randomly mocking the Sunrise Movement? Giving Ben Shapiro teas of hoping anything sticks. Genuinely amazing to see you stumped and bothered. The childish name calling? "Tankie!!! Pro-genocide!!!"? Honey, the only one who is pro-genocide is you trying to defend the reality that as an American will you inherently be not only financially supporting the Saudi-led genocide of Yemenis but also now the Russian-led genocide of Ukrainians every single time you fill up your tank while also being price-gouged to be sold the same bloddy Russian oil twice. Better learn how to ride a bike. Edited August 1, 2022 by Communion
Kassi Posted August 1, 2022 Posted August 1, 2022 1 hour ago, Communion said: It's really not. Saudi imports of Russian oil are up. India imports of Russian oil are up. It is now being resold marked up for profit to the West who are still getting the same product they are trying to boycott. This upsetting your sensibilities doesn't make it untrue. What an unserious and juvenile attempt to look at the world. Please link to even ONE article where what you're saying is stated. I'd love to see which publication hangs their reputation on such easily refuted misinformation. Because that is quite literally NOT happening. Every market report has explicitly stated that the Russian oil is for Saudi's own consumption. The reality is there's a shift in oil trade patterns now where Saudi Arabia is helping Europe wean off of Russian crude, while Russia is pushing its supply toward Saudi Arabia (for their own use) and Asia. It's pretty cut and dry, none of this "resold" nonsense. 1 hour ago, Communion said: I do have to admit it is a kii and a pleasure to see you literally whack out once in a corner and really go fully juvenile when you have no actual arguments left. Randomly mocking the Sunrise Movement? Giving Ben Shapiro teas of hoping anything sticks. Genuinely amazing to see you stumped and bothered. The childish name calling? "Tankie!!! Pro-genocide!!!"? Honey, the only one who is pro-genocide is you trying to defend the reality that as an American will you inherently be not only financially supporting the Saudi-led genocide of Yemenis but also now the Russian-led genocide of Ukrainians every single time you fill up your tank while also being price-gouged to be sold the same bloddy Russian oil twice. Better learn how to ride a bike. If I were EVER in a corner, I guarantee that you would not be the one to put me there. The entire leftist worldview literally sits on shifting sands. Debates in here are like picking the lowest hanging fruit. I mostly do it to inform others who are prone to fall into irrational leftist thinking patterns. I'm mocking the Sunrise Movement cause they suck and this crisis has shown that restricting fossil fuel production is the worst emission-cutting strategy. Rendering their supposed "solutions" as improbable, while gutting their credibility in the process. And I've got nothing to be stumped or bothered about. Russia is as ready to accept a "peace treaty" as the Robert's Supreme Court was willing to accept a compromise on abortion. When you know your opponents, you don't have to make up fake solutions.
Recommended Posts