This message was self-deleted by its author

[ancianita]

This message was self-deleted by its author (ancianita) on Mon Aug 28, 2023, 01:35 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[keopeli]

1. I am NOT a fan of this anti-Democrat video commentary

I don't mind self-criticism or introspection. But, this video (opinion) uses issues and criteria that the author chooses to boil everything down to "democrats don't know how to lead" and are hypocrites. It ignores many intervening issues.

A journalist wants to say 'both sides' to bolster his bona fides. To me, this is weak sauce, inaccurate, and serious both-siderism.

Just a pathetic analysis with cherry-picked issues, explanations, and rebuttals.

[ancianita]

2. Understood. I think, however, that if we're a self-correcting and big tent party, that we

can also look at this criticism as giving examples of what we as a party need to improve in states where we have the power to do so.

I'm interested to read what you consider "intervening issues."

Just my opinion.

Also, I just found that CA has attempted to improve affordable housing. I haven't found anything about whether or not that's improved housing in San Francisco.

California is ending a rule that helped cause its housing crisis -- Gov. Newsom signed bills ending single-family-only zoning, a step toward addressing the housing crisis.

https://www.vox.com/2021/9/17/22679358/california-newsom-duplex-single-family-zoning

While overhauling single-family-only zoning might sound revolutionary, the bills are gentle attempts at increasing density: legalizing duplexes and quadplexes and making it easier to build small apartment buildings that provide up to 10 homes. This doesn’t mean single-family homes are outlawed or can no longer be built, but it provides homeowners the option to convert their homes into duplexes or sell their homes to people who want to do so. Before now, it was illegal for someone to convert their home to a duplex on a lot zoned for single-family zoning. Not anymore.

This isn’t a panacea for housing production. UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that SB 9 (the bill that legalizes duplexes) will “modestly accelerate the addition of new units relative to the status quo.” Other laws that restrict the building of new and more affordable homes are still in effect — in particular, local laws around minimum lot sizes will continue to make it illegal to turn single-family homes into duplexes if the existing lot is too small to subdivide while still adhering to the size regulations.

[keopeli]

6. As succinctly as possible...

Example: homelessness. Repubs like to blame homelessness on 'liberal policies'. Those of us old enough know that Reagan caused the problem we live with today. The unhoused go to blue states because they know they have a chance there. Many states (blue) have tried policy solutions to homelessness with mixed success. When a policy does not solve the problem or creates another, they try again. Repubs, otoh, don't even try to fix the problem in their states (yes, it's everywhere, not just SF, CA).

So while Dems try to solve homelessness (and fail many times), Repubs don't try at all. Is that hypocrisy? Is that bad leadership? I think not.

Intervening issues: While trying to solve one problem, another unrelated issue arises that either distracts (i.e. covid, disasters, etc) or negates progress (i.e. economy, personnel, interlopers, etc).

As I said initially, it is our job to self-reflect and improve. (That's leadership!) However, this particular commentary is not a reflection of that type of effort. It ignores important caveats and information to make the issue seem simple. (Dems want to deal with homelessness, yet it is on the rise and we see no results! See, Dems are hypicrites!)

I'll sit with you all day and consider serious issues and possible solutions. I don't believe that is the intent of this video. Rather, it's a way for this NYT journalist to appear "fair" and "hard on both parties equally". I really hate that. It's not a problem/solution discussion. It's just a rant against the Dems.

(I imagined that this journalist is a Dem who is trying to 'be hard on Dems' for his own ego rather than a means of educating and engaging the public. I could be wrong, but I've seen this problem many times.)

Thanks, Ancianita!

[dpibel]

3. This video is almost two years old

Why are we looking at it?

Posted on YouTube Nov 9, 2021.

I have a recollection that this has been posted before. I'm not immediately able to find previous iterations, but I think it's been hashed out. Here's a post that seems to say it got juried when it was posted before.

Just a quick observation, since I don't think my puke factor can handle watching the whole of this spew:

He's on about Washington having a regressive tax system. No shit, Sherlock. It's been that way since approximately forever.

At this instant, Democrats hold the trifecta in Washington. By a bare, tiny margin.

With a couple of Sinema/Manchin types.

And with that, Democrats are supposed to wave a magic wand and institute an income tax?

Put another way: Based on one example I'm pretty familiar with, this guy is full of shit.

[ancianita]

4. True. That means it's ten months after Democrats won.

I thought we could consider fact based criticism here. I'm okay with initially negative reactions; I myself felt the pain but also decided that he wasn't wrong in his examples.

If you can provide evidence that we've made important changes based on our party platform, in some of these noted trifecta states, I'll withdraw this video as outdated opinion.

[dpibel]

5. Seriously?

What part of the state of the "trifecta" in Washington are you not understanding?

The fact of a slight majority does not provide magical powers. It's still politics.

From time to time, someone proposes an income tax in Washington State. Then they get mobbed and don't say that again.

[ancianita]

8. Seriously about the general facts of trifecta states beyond WA.

Because this vid's two years old, why should these issues suddenly be dismissed as somehow not recent enough, or relevant to just you? Why would your one example (he's full of shit) justify dismissing the factual basis of unsolved problems in other Democratic trifecta states?

IL, where I come from, has not changed its county tax-funding of school districts, but it should.
I don't keep up with IL from Florida, but given JB Pritzker's high standing in the Democratic Governors Association and his big popular vote win, why he and the Democratic legislature haven't seemed to move toward new funding legislation for rural school systems in the state is puzzling and not in sync with our party platform goals.

Cook County's Chicago Public Schools -- its own independent school district from the state -- could also use an improved funding model for its smaller districts of the South and West side schools. Chicago, like the state, can afford what it wants to afford.

I consider his criticisms relevant to IL, and am more than willing to see cited improvements from Democratic states that would prove his opinion is outdated. At this point, your WA example implies that it's one of them to take into account.

[dpibel]

12. I guess we're talking past each other

I'm saying that this doofus is bashing straw men.

His question is: "Why haven't the Dems done what they said they want to? They have the trifectas!!!1!?"

I am saying that the mere existence of a trifecta does not equal power to change things at will.

The housing situation in California is the product of years of policy and legislation, both state and Federal. He cites NIMBYism, which is surely a thing.

But it's utterly disingenuous to say, "Look! The Dems are in power. Why isn't everything fixed?"

The doofus is also cherry-picking. "Lookit these Bleeeoooo states! They're not perfect. QED Dems are hypocrites."

BTW: California isn't the only state with housing issues. It's one of fifty with housing issues. Washington isn't the only state with funding issues, it's one of many.

But California has a lot of good things going on that red states don't. So does Washington. So, as you point out, do other states.

This opinion piece, NYT imprimatur and all, is pure right-wing talking points.

[ancianita]

16. Thank you. Your post is important for what it says about criticisms of the party, all to the good.

Often I'll come across these 'thoughtful' takes on Democratic governance, and it's good to show discernment about his claims that don't make a sufficient case for Democratic hypocrisy.

We need this kind of command of accomplishment vs inertia, and wisdom vs cynicism as media has been prone to horse race hype in general elections.

[emulatorloo]

7. ++++

[emulatorloo]

10. Johnny Harris: A Story of YouTube Propaganda

This is the video from the thread Dpibel linked above. The thread was posted when time the old video you posted today was taken down by a DU jury in 2022.

It is a long video, but it is easy to navigate.

Johnny Harris: A Story of YouTube Propaganda

?

Personally I find the bothsiderism pumped out by the New York Times very tiresome, and I don’t need a reminder of their old “greatest hits,” no matter how well-meaning your intentions. Their breathless “exclusive!” promotion of that RW hatchet job, CLINTON CASH, was the last straw for me.

[ancianita]

13. Fine. If you're saying the NYT video opinion section allows itself to have

a questionable journalist with WEF's sponsorship, this seems to sit next to much of the criticism we've leveled at the print NY Times in the past.

If what you're getting at is that the NYT allows global influence, I think I take your point. (?)
Would you criticize any other posts from the NYT from this standpoint?
Examples: is the NYT or any for profit news organization accountable for who it does business with? Is the NYT's editorial office accountable for getting weekly CIA clearance on what it covers about that agency? Is what it covers some kind of approved propaganda?
Who is this critic, Tom Nicholas, that he can label a journalist funded by the WEF as a propagandistic tool of the funder? He's a Harvard economist? And...expert on journalism and propaganda?
If Harris isn't a journalist, why would the NYT video opinion team allow him on their platform?


Regarding Harris' credibility, is there factual merit to his criticism of how this party "don't show up" in states where they hold power to meet party platform goals?
Or are we going to dismiss thos facts based on critiques of its source?
Aren't opponents supposed to be listened to by this party?

You post this in a helpful way, and it's much appreciated, which is why I have more questions about how wide ranging our discussions can be when addressing our party's flaws.
Yes, at least we try. Trying long enough leads to accomplishments. Harris acknowledges that.

So I thought that the issue here is about the Democratic trifecta states where the party can accomplish more. Is there merit in that issue? I thought so, which is why I thought this fact-based opinion piece had merit.

Thank you for presenting context.

[emulatorloo]

15. I think it is good to discuss party flaws but I think we can do it better without centering it

on someone who appears to be a bad faith actor.

[dpibel]

17. Response to some of your questions

You ask: "If Harris isn't a journalist, why would the NYT video opinion team allow him on their platform?"

Answer: That's why there's a separation between news and opinion in newspapers and other such media. You can check out the NYT opinion page--there are all sorts of people published there who are not journalists. Politicians, for instance.

You ask: "Regarding Harris' credibility, is there factual merit to his criticism of how this party "don't show up" in states where they hold power to meet party platform goals?"

Answer: You seem to be taking my arguments as purely ad hominem. What I have been trying to say (apparently without sufficient clarity) is that what he is presenting may be facts, but they are not being used to make a legitimate argument. "There are homeless people in San Francisco" is a fact. What it is not is proof of some generalized failure of the Democratic Party. Now I think about it, the answer to your question is "No. There is no factual merit to his criticism of how this party 'don't show up.'" As I, and a few others, have pointed out, the mere fact of holding all three branches of government does not create the power to erase generations of policy.

You ask: "Or are we going to dismiss thos facts based on critiques of its source?"

Answer: As a first matter, you're assuming your predicate. That is to say, you've answered (to your satisfaction) your immediately preceding question with a resounding "Yes! There is factual merit!" You need to take into account that the existence of facts does not immediately make valid any conclusion or assertion made based on those facts. This Harris dude is not, after all, the source of the facts at issue (homelessness, tax disparity, whatever else he's on about). He's the source of misleading conclusions which he claims follow inexorably from the facts.

You ask: "Aren't opponents supposed to be listened to by this party?"

Answer: Not if they are clearly spinning a web of delusion.

You state: "So I thought that the issue here is about the Democratic trifecta states where the party can accomplish more."

My Response: Can you point me to where Harris provides a scintilla of evidence that Democrats are willfully refusing to address these issues. I swear I watched this whole meshugas when it was first posted. I don't have the patience to listen to this guy sneer for 15 minutes. What I did watch was pure "Democrats claim to care about homelessness, but there's still homelessness in California!" That's not an argument, it's solipsism.

[keopeli]

18. You said it better than I did. Well done. "It's solipsism."

[lapfog_1]

11. let's talk about taxes and living in CA

I'm a very well paid Californian. I get both a decent ( more than decent ) salary in my job, benefits that would be considered top of the line, employer contribution to my 401k, and, on top of that, RSU (restricted stock units) in one of the hottest stocks in the world right now. I have been very fortunate. I don't mind paying taxes on my income. I am not a millionaire or billionaire.

I don't own a home, I am not married, and I have no children ( I actually have one child that I "adopted" after she became an adult and I pay her college tuition ).

I pay nearly 47 percent of my income in income tax. If I spend the money left over, I pay another 8.5% in sales tax, and then there are the taxes I pay on housing ( my rent for my studio apartment is nearly $2400 a month but that does include some utilities like water, sewer, power, and basic internet ... and property taxes ).

Again, I don't mind. It is part of living the values that I have. Everyone that comes after me deserves the things I had... a safe home, a decent public education, etc. My parents were very poor, but they did manage to keep a roof over my head and I attended a good public school system. For college, I got what was then called a "full ride" scholarship to a good university ( University of Kansas - Go Jayhawks ). My tuition was paid, my housing and food was paid, and I worked summers in high school enough to buy my first car ( a very old Volkswagen Beetle ). I have no issue with forgiving those who have incurred student loan debt... tuition is so very much higher now. My "kid" is currently enrolled at UC Davis, has many scholarships... and I still send her $2500 / month to keep her from getting into the student loan debt trap. She comes from an even poorer family than when I grew up, but she is very bright and studies hard and, knock on wood, is getting almost all 4.0 scores from her classes.

Now... some would like to increase the taxes on people that make the money I make... again, I am considered well off, certainly part of the 5% if not even higher... I give do give money to various causes ( DU, Democrats, Ukraine, various charities, etc ).

I would be very happy if everyone who earns more than me, whether it is in capital gains or regular income, paid as much as I do in taxes. I would also end the subsidize housing by ending the deduction for interest payments and end the deduction for children and spouses. These are things where the government is trying to be social engineer by declaring "nuclear families are worth more than you single people and should have huge tax breaks because they have a stay-at-home spouse and purchased a single family residence". This has been unfair to me and people like me since I first was employed.

End cap gains taxes... if you own something of value and it increases more than the rate of inflation... and you sell it, you should pay income tax on that gain if the gain was more than the rate of inflation. The tax rate should be the same as income tax.

End interest payment deductions. Housing should be like every other thing you buy...

End deductions for dependents. Why should I pay more in taxes to raise your children? I don't mind paying for their education in public schools as I appreciate the need for those who will inherit our world. But each person who decides to have a child should understand the costs associated with it (food, shelter, clothing, etc). This is much like getting a pet. You have to pay for it.

I believe in a progressive tax code. I think those making under $70K here in california should not have to pay any federal or state tax ( except for sales tax ). Everyone should pay their own tax on the money they make. And the tax code should, in fact, put the IRS and the tax prep people out of business. We don't need so many loopholes and special cases and complex tax returns. The whole tax industry is a negative drag on our economy. It produces nothing of value.

But don't talk to me about raising my taxes. I am paying so much now that my retirement is going to be delayed until 68 or longer. And then I hope I don't live another 20 or 25 years. I am scared "to death" of outliving my retirement income.

[ancianita]

14. Thank you! I love this, and agree with your take on taxes.

Do Democrats in CA's statehouse (or in Congress, for that matter) think along these lines? I don't think so.

I'd have thought that as soon as CA had a surplus it would lower taxes for your class and below. But I gather it hasn't.

When we pride ourselves on budgeting and good governance, the priorities of the party platform don't seem apparent at state levels.

I've met a number of young people who have to leave CA because they can't afford to live independently there. Yet, there's no excuse for CA to have such a high cost of living that goes along with its liberal policies... almost as if the message is that liberal states should cost more. Same in Illinois. Ugh.

[keopeli]

19. I've spoken to/heard from many, many Dems (including electeds) that agree with this philosophy.

Of course there are some who are tax hawks. There are some GQPers who agree, too. (very few, but I know one GQP US Rep personally who feels this way, so they are out there.

The point is that there are more than you think. The problem is that we hear the squeaky wheel and think it represents the majority. It almost never does.

Blessings to you!

[ancianita]

20. I hear you. Thanks.

Blessings to you, as well! :