Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and the "Green New Deal".

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.

Clinton had already vetoed two welfare reform proposals passed by congress and risked not being reelected and someone else signing it for him. Removing the ability for able bodied people to choose welfare eliminated a lot of abuse in the system, and the excess funds that elimination created was poured back into the DHS in the form of the children's health insurance program which covered millions of children. Eliminating abuse also lifted the social stigma of people on welfare. There's a reason why Clinton's welfare reform is a problem now. At the time it received heavy bipartisan support, though somewhat criticized for forcing people into low paying jobs, but back then a household of four with two minimum wage incomes was a household above the poverty level; now it's generally not.

All good, but, once again, it wasn't a reshuffling of priorities. He rolled over and took a conservative position because it was politically expedient for him to do so.

[Jack]

I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.

Clinton had already vetoed two welfare reform proposals passed by congress and risked not being reelected and someone else signing it for him. Removing the ability for able bodied people to choose welfare eliminated a lot of abuse in the system, and the excess funds that elimination created was poured back into the DHS in the form of the children's health insurance program which covered millions of children. Eliminating abuse also lifted the social stigma of people on welfare. There's a reason why Clinton's welfare reform is a problem now. At the time it received heavy bipartisan support, though somewhat criticized for forcing people into low paying jobs, but back then a household of four with two minimum wage incomes was a household above the poverty level; now it's generally not.

All good, but, once again, it wasn't a reshuffling of priorities. He rolled over and took a conservative position because it was politically expedient for him to do so.

Actually he's the one who made the campaign promise of ending welfare as we know it. He's the one who placed welfare reform at the center of his campaign promising the public what he ultimaely delivered. He's also the one who let his administration drag their feet for four years never creating a welfare reform plan while allowing a republican controlled congress to take the lead and do it for him. Does it need a reevaluation a full generation later? Yes.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.

Clinton had already vetoed two welfare reform proposals passed by congress and risked not being reelected and someone else signing it for him. Removing the ability for able bodied people to choose welfare eliminated a lot of abuse in the system, and the excess funds that elimination created was poured back into the DHS in the form of the children's health insurance program which covered millions of children. Eliminating abuse also lifted the social stigma of people on welfare. There's a reason why Clinton's welfare reform is a problem now. At the time it received heavy bipartisan support, though somewhat criticized for forcing people into low paying jobs, but back then a household of four with two minimum wage incomes was a household above the poverty level; now it's generally not.

All good, but, once again, it wasn't a reshuffling of priorities. He rolled over and took a conservative position because it was politically expedient for him to do so.

Actually he's the one who made the campaign promise of ending welfare as we know it. He's the one who placed welfare reform at the center of his campaign promising the public what he ultimaely delivered. He's also the one who let his administration drag their feet for four years never creating a welfare reform plan while allowing a republican controlled congress to take the lead and do it for him. Does it need a reevaluation a full generation later? Yes.

Not disagreeing with you. Yes, it needs serious reevaluation. The dismantling of the labor movement needs serious reevaluation as well. But it was not a reshuffling of priorities. That's the point I'm making. I don't know enough about US politics to give you more examples. In Australian politics I can give you lots of examples for both parties.

[Jack]

I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.

Clinton had already vetoed two welfare reform proposals passed by congress and risked not being reelected and someone else signing it for him. Removing the ability for able bodied people to choose welfare eliminated a lot of abuse in the system, and the excess funds that elimination created was poured back into the DHS in the form of the children's health insurance program which covered millions of children. Eliminating abuse also lifted the social stigma of people on welfare. There's a reason why Clinton's welfare reform is a problem now. At the time it received heavy bipartisan support, though somewhat criticized for forcing people into low paying jobs, but back then a household of four with two minimum wage incomes was a household above the poverty level; now it's generally not.

All good, but, once again, it wasn't a reshuffling of priorities. He rolled over and took a conservative position because it was politically expedient for him to do so.

Actually he's the one who made the campaign promise of ending welfare as we know it. He's the one who placed welfare reform at the center of his campaign promising the public what he ultimaely delivered. He's also the one who let his administration drag their feet for four years never creating a welfare reform plan while allowing a republican controlled congress to take the lead and do it for him. Does it need a reevaluation a full generation later? Yes.

Not disagreeing with you. Yes, it needs serious reevaluation. The dismantling of the labor movement needs serious reevaluation as well. But it was not a reshuffling of priorities. That's the point I'm making. I don't know enough about US politics to give you more examples. In Australian politics I can give you lots of examples for both parties.

Now am lost. There were only a couple of points of welfare reform Clinton disagreed with and he said so when he signed it. Welfare reform was a priority. Maybe am just misunderstanding the point being made. No worries though, wouldn't want to project my understanding of US politics on your country either.

[odeon]

There's a problem with compromise.

You can either dig your heels in or you can meet the other side halfway in order to get stuff done.

Imagine a situation where you have a nominally right-wing party and a nominally left-wing party. The left-wing part keeps on compromising and moving closer to the centre. The right-wing party responds by.... moving further and further to the right.

After a while the compromises of the left have actually dragged it so far to the right that it has gone way past the centre and is now further to the right than the right-wing party was when they got started. The right-wing party, on the other hand, has kept moving so far to the right that the rest of the world is starting to draw comparisons with the Third Reich.

The left-wing party is now in a situation where anyone who actually gives a fuck about working people, and wants billionaires to pay some tax, and who doesn't want to destroy the planet in pursuit of profits.... starts to look like an extremist even by the standards of the formerly left-wing party. And then when they start to finally dig their heels in over the more extreme measures that the far-right wants to implement.... they get accused of not wanting to compromise any more.

Some of this is happening in Sweden.

I think it's fantastic Sweden has official designated parties for their nazis and commies.  The US should do that too. Not only would it make them easier to identify in the government, but also otherwise they just fall to the left and right and make the rest of leaders in the two party system look worse than they already are. 

Oh, trust me. Most of the leaders in our system look bad, too.

Ours are so bad that we change them every other week. Just about.

Here you vote for a local candidate and the party with the most candidates gets to choose a leader. Of course a big factor in most people's votes is who the leader of the party is at the time of the election. But they can choose a new leader any time they want, the voting public gets no direct say in who will be the head of government.

Did I mention that our leaders are really bad?

I think you may have touched on the subject. And this is what we do, too.

[Calandale]

No, wasn't waxing philosophical. Rather thinking of the foundation of it all, economics, national defense, liberty, justice, social welfare. It pretty much all falls under those priorities, and deficiencies within any one of them are what tip the scales of priority. Don't view the center moving around as much as circumstances can dictate how far people are able to stray from it.

Economics - big shifts here. Trickle down was the huge, apparently fallacious, move back from the accepted
understanding that lasted through the mid 20th century by both parties to a position essentially from the 1920's.

National Defense - both parties are largely in alignment here, although the blunders at the beginning of the
millenium caused fringe members on both sides to question some of the military adventurism.

Liberty - both sides seem to be for it - unless it breaks with 'good behavior'. Whatever the ideological
fad of the party is as to what is 'good behavior' seems more of a distinguishing feature. Hard to draw
any solid lines here.

Justice - Until very recently, the nation as a whole bought into the idea of rule of law. Now, that has become
a partisan issue - the law should only apply to your political enemies. At least they still seem in agreement
at heart though - even if the degree may differ.

Social Welfare - here we do see a significant difference, at least in the post New Deal structure. True laissez faire
was gone already, but the question was where should the largess go. That struggle has largely been at the heart
of the differences. Prior to the New Deal, things were more muddled - as with most issues.

Reganomics could be called a desperate move in desperate times. Same with Obama and unemployment rates reaching near what they were in the early 80's. Neither shifted their party; they played the hand of circumstances they were dealt.

Uhm...okay. I don't know WHERE you get your reality from, but it's not the world anyone
aware of politics in the last 40 years does. I don't think we share enough grasp of the
same existence to discuss things rationally.


If you're going to make statements like "Reagan did not shift the Republican Party," it's like saying
"the dinosaurs never died out." I respect your thinking enough not to absolutely dismiss this, but
you're going to have to back this up, or you just sound like a loon.

[odeon]

No worries though, wouldn't want to project my understanding of US politics on your country either.

Does this mean that you follow Australian politics?

Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

If you're going to make statements like "Reagan did not shift the Republican Party," it's like saying "the dinosaurs never died out."

Dude, who told you the dinosaurs died out?

The big ones without wings died out, sure.

[Jack]

No, wasn't waxing philosophical. Rather thinking of the foundation of it all, economics, national defense, liberty, justice, social welfare. It pretty much all falls under those priorities, and deficiencies within any one of them are what tip the scales of priority. Don't view the center moving around as much as circumstances can dictate how far people are able to stray from it.

Economics - big shifts here. Trickle down was the huge, apparently fallacious, move back from the accepted
understanding that lasted through the mid 20th century by both parties to a position essentially from the 1920's.

National Defense - both parties are largely in alignment here, although the blunders at the beginning of the
millenium caused fringe members on both sides to question some of the military adventurism.

Liberty - both sides seem to be for it - unless it breaks with 'good behavior'. Whatever the ideological
fad of the party is as to what is 'good behavior' seems more of a distinguishing feature. Hard to draw
any solid lines here.

Justice - Until very recently, the nation as a whole bought into the idea of rule of law. Now, that has become
a partisan issue - the law should only apply to your political enemies. At least they still seem in agreement
at heart though - even if the degree may differ.

Social Welfare - here we do see a significant difference, at least in the post New Deal structure. True laissez faire
was gone already, but the question was where should the largess go. That struggle has largely been at the heart
of the differences. Prior to the New Deal, things were more muddled - as with most issues.

Reganomics could be called a desperate move in desperate times. Same with Obama and unemployment rates reaching near what they were in the early 80's. Neither shifted their party; they played the hand of circumstances they were dealt.

Uhm...okay. I don't know WHERE you get your reality from, but it's not the world anyone
aware of politics in the last 40 years does. I don't think we share enough grasp of the
same existence to discuss things rationally.


If you're going to make statements like "Reagan did not shift the Republican Party," it's like saying
"the dinosaurs never died out." I respect your thinking enough not to absolutely dismiss this, but
you're going to have to back this up, or you just sound like a loon.

If I just slapped you on the back and agreed with the first thing you said, then we wouldn't have been talking the past two weeks and I'd have nothing to post on this website. Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.

[Jack]

No worries though, wouldn't want to project my understanding of US politics on your country either.

Does this mean that you follow Australian politics?

Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.

Not in the context you're probably asking, no. Can barely muster the energy to follow my own and in real life refuse to discuss it. Though to me following national politics means attempting to be aware of what congress is doing, researching stats on the issues, although that does include some sensationalism in the news. My interest in other countries is also the only thing that's really interesting about my own, fundamental civics, not active politics. I also realize what I do perceive of other countries is removed and likely skewed; for example when MOSW explained to me how Australian immigration policies are an outside misconception.

[Calandale]

Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.

Ok, this IS ridiculous. The party can shift drastically, whilst remaining more committed to one issue
than the opposing party.

I've seen you do this before too. I THINK we were having a reasonable discussion, but then
you become so entrenched and intransigent about not being wrong about some thing, that it
more or less destroys whatever value of what you've said previously, by making you seem an
utter fool.

It is unwise.

[Jack]

Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.

Ok, this IS ridiculous. The party can shift drastically, whilst remaining more committed to one issue
than the opposing party.

I've seen you do this before too. I THINK we were having a reasonable discussion, but then
you become so entrenched and intransigent about not being wrong about some thing, that it
more or less destroys whatever value of what you've said previously, by making you seem an
utter fool.

It is unwise.

Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda. I don't mind being wrong, so you're right and I'm wrong. If I cared about appearing a fool here, I wouldn't also post as a gopher.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.

That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.

[odeon]

The two have actual agendas? OMG, when did that happen?

[Calandale]

The agenda's the same. Acquire and keep power.