politics

People are reacting to the headline, but the article is basically the opposite of what most people assume. This is The Atlanic. Their problem is that the Democrats aren't doing enough austerity.

Tbf, the US is heading towards a debt crisis. However, the reason for that is because of the absurdly bloated military budget and pointless adventurism, while the article frames it entirely in terms of "taxes are too low and we spend too much on social programs." How are the Democrats supposed to win without promising the voters anything? This is never addressed. But that's apparently the lesson the author thinks they should learn. Run on austerity, if you somehow manage to win, prioritize the debt - and then when they inevitably lose the next election because everyone's lives got worse, the Republicans will have more money to play with to fund things like ICE and the Iran War.

It's nonsense. Winning means promising QoL improvements and following through on them. Yeah the debt is a problem, but that's exactly why military cuts are necessary. Trying to solve the debt problem just creates a political problem, it's the sort of thing to worry about once you've already secured power.

God I hate The Atlantic. Good point, but they still had to shoehorn in

Both senators have promised to cover the cost with taxes on corporations and very rich households. But even if that were to happen, it would jeopardize everything else voters expect from the Democratic Party, such as expanding health-care access and investing in clean energy. There is a mathematical limit on how much additional revenue can be generated from raising taxes on high-income households,

Note that in one sentence they lump taxing corporations and rich households together, and then 2 sentences later they dismiss raising taxes on rich households to dismiss both prospects.

Note how they lump billionaires with "rich households," then dismiss taxing billionaires using a consultancy report on households earning over $400k instead of any rigorous economic analysis of taxing literal billionaires.

Note how even the consultant-written report calls taxing rich households a half-step, and that we need that AND MORE. The Atlantic is using a critique saying a tax hike isn't good enough to say that a tax hike isn't good. Note how they implicitly truncate the "enough."

Note how the consultant-written report has an entire section on the social good even the half-step measure will bring, and that The Atlantic will not report on this at all.

Note how at every step they implicitly push and reinforce the notion that anything beyond milquetoast neo liberalism with a veneer of progressivism is too far, even in an article criticizing democrats for doing the same.

Someone pointed out that things make sense when you realize democrats and republicans have the same bosses. I want to add, The Atlantic also has the same bosses.

They aren't dumb, they just have different priorities than you do. Once you come to terms with that, you'll see things differently.

They’re still trying to court republicans, when they should be going for non-voters.

They still haven't learned from their mistakes in 2016.

Most of the Dnc just needs replaced. And a lot of voters are working on it.

Illinois is looking like we have a nice un corrupt candidate to replace dicky durbin for his senator seat.

Juliana. She had no pac or aipac donations.

She has stocks but said she would sell them all. (We will see).

But either way. A good step in the right direction.

What agenda?

Have they tried courting the gen z vote by tacking 6-7 onto a campaign page for a candidate that already lost?

Learn?

-Democrats!

Ok, sure. Can we purge the warmongering party of rapists and pedophiles, then focus on rebuilding?

Trying to renovate the loungeroom while the kitchen and bedrooms are on fire.