TTLG|Jukebox|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long with Biden be president?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term

    9 36.00%
  • 2 Terms

    6 24.00%
  • Impeachment

    2 8.00%
  • Incapacitated

    8 32.00%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 77

Thread: Biden

  1. #51
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    It's really funny I'm reading my book on the history of the Afghanistan war while y'all are having this discussion.
    A few notable things...

    - Most of what we call "Taliban restrictions" were actually originally put into place by the US-supported mujahedin, what largely became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban inherited what they put in place; they were just more violent in enforcing it. Also worth noting that during the Soviet occupation, there were really only two options, you were either communist calling for social revolution or mujahedin calling for Taliban-like restrictions. There wasn't any middle position. In the big scheme of things, the US wanted to oppose the communist gov't because of the geopolitical situation with the USSR, but in retrospect it's pretty clear Afghanistan was better off developing under that gov't over the long term than the mujahedin & Taliban that came after it, which was the only viable alternative. The US imagined there was a liberal alternative and tried to make it float for 20 years, but I think the US pull out showed what a paper tiger it had been all along. (Edit: I should add that the communist gov't couldn't stay in power without USSR support, so that was never really a viable option either.)

    - The Afghanistan faction that was actually selected by consensus of the other Afghanistan factions was the previous monarch's faction, because that represented the last hold on stability the country had had before the Soviets came in. (BTW, democracy doesn't really work in Afghanistan. You have think in terms of tribal politics & consensus positions. We call them warlords, but that's how their entire system operates., according to this book anyway.) The US occupying force didn't care and installed Karzai's camp anyway, because they wanted so much to show it wasn't N vs. S. Also worth noting that Karzai had just been a small-time humanitarian worker based in Pakistan all through the Soviet occupation, so he was a complete outsider to everyone, although his stock rose quickly when his group, along with some US bombing, broke the back of the Taliban in a key battle that was a lot closer than they knew at the time. But he didn't mean much to the tribal politics that really determines what happens in the country.
    Last edited by demagogue; 23rd Feb 2022 at 01:51.

  2. #52
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2004
    Location: Los Santos
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    Speaking of Afghanistan: Can someone explain how the US administration justifies stealing 3.5 Billion Dollars from them?
    https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...njust-n1289166
    Basically nailing the coffin shut on regular Afghans. Afghan central bank was created by US, modeled on the FR, its funds held primarily within US banking system. Now that that strategic forward location meant to threaten both China and Russia became untenable, Afghan collaborators are thrown away like used napkins, like the Kurds before them. And it's not just the 3.5 billion, it's all 7 billion. The other 3.5 will be funneled through US-funded NGOs and 80-90% of it will be lost to "administrative costs." Honestly it's worse than the drone strike that killed that family with small children immediately following the pullback. Without that money, basic services needed to meet daily needs are halted. This is gonna starve/kill in the hundred thousand.

    Biden, Trump, Dem, Rep, all the same. Voters have no effect on US foreign policy and very little effect on domestic policy. It's like the bartender in Deus Ex said, Americans are so afraid of big government, now has no government. All we got are institutions that have been captured by private interests, keeping up the appearance of "democracy" like the political christianity that it is.

    Lastly I just want to say that it's funny how the resistance to the elite domination seems to be coming from the right. I suspect it has a ton to do with neoliberalism coming to the fore in the 90s and the US propaganda moving to capture the energy coming out of Progressivism as it became mainstream discourse. Globalization also left behind a lot of working class whites in rural areas who still hung onto the idea that their skin color allowed them privileged access to resources. It's a case of one form of control undermining another. It's just a shame so many people are simply not smart enough to understand how the game is being played that insanities like QAnon are proliferating. People know something is wrong, but they don't understand what or why, so they turn to sayers and prophets. In times of peril, people start to rally around fundamentals - 100 years ago Chinese rallied around a collective Civilizational identity to fight off the western colonials; middle-easterners rallied around their Islamic religion; whites in the south are increasingly rallying around white racial identity. There's a not-zero chance US could be tore apart by the competing forms of control in the coming decades as political violence increases.
    Last edited by Jashin; 23rd Feb 2022 at 15:33.

  3. #53
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Dear lord I didn't want to get into anything lengthy (said the military) but I already mentioned much of what you are saying, just in a less wordy way. I said it wasn't the decent thing to do right? Your last sentence is confusing BTW. The US deposed the Taliban and then took the money to a NY bank? They were never fully deposed countrywide but I don't understand the timeline. This is the one thing you have said that I didn't know.
    The timeline is as follows, as far as I understand it...

    The US supported the Northern Alliance in the civil war, overthrew the Taliban, propped up a government (or at least played a large part behind the scenes, however you want to put it).
    This new US propped up government started collecting and making money and subsequently held some of it in NY.
    The US propped up government collapsed after US decided it was becoming too inconvenient to stay there for domestic politics.
    The Afghan government still had money in NY.
    The US seized that money.
    The US decided they wanted half of the Afghans' money for themselves, because the Afghans didn't fight sufficiently hard enough or magically turn into a democracy or whatever.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    A faction that lacks popular support? They were a faction that was ELECTED and therefore the most popular. They weren't even the one WE most favored. And again, I don't see anything wrong with protection money when it saves lives, ours and little kids we are giving candy to when they decide to bomb us as we hand it out.
    If they were so popular, why were they losing the civil war? At the time the US swooped in, they controlled a tiny portion of Afghanistan in the north, less than 10% of the country.

    A lot of the money poured into Afghanistan went to the notoriously corrupt government and lined the pockets of various private interests and some of the very people you were fighting. That's the problem with paying protection money -- it goes to the people you need protection from. Also, if you have to pay protection money just to stay somewhere, I would say it's a bit of a sign that you're not particularly welcome there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Sunny outlook? All I stated were facts and I don't find anything about war sunny. It's true you can't force democracy on people hence why I said what I did about the cities verses countryside. I think there were a fair few who have gotten the idea it's not cool to shoot girls in the head for going to school in the cities and would be happy to vote their leaders in there. You disagree? Also how did we all see the Taliban starting up a helicopter if we blew holes in them? That was one of the things the Republicans blew their shit over. We left perfectly functioning equipment. Parts? Really? You wanted a warehouse of parts left for the Taliban? Maybe if the Afghan army had stood up to them we could have supplied them as needed but just handing them over to the Taliban who walked right in hardly seems wise.

    LOL at the using my words bit but I had already said what you said before you did. Go back and read it. It's still there. I just was not entirely anti US or as wordy. Is that how the colonials do it? The only thing new was the holes in helicopters thing which is wrong anyway as far as I know. The reason I got your goat about Russian propaganda is because you were being entirely slanted and I think you know that. With the taking of Ukraine I've seen such propaganda from them, just completely slanted. I know what we were trying to do in Afghanistan and we lost so much money and so many good men trying. Then came Trumps dumb ass. We had to get out after he did that. Not that we didn't need to anyway, just not completely capitulating to the Taliban.
    And the reason I got your goat about colonialism is that your position seems to be that the US are mostly the good guys, whereas in other parts of the world (especially South America and the Middle East) you're at best seen as the less bad guys. If your soldiers weren't torturing prisoners and literally pissing on the dead, if you didn't constantly supply weapons to all sides and abandon your allies in the region on a whim, you might have more of a moral high ground and less people like me would be, as you say, anti US.

    I mean, I don't even have anything particularly against the US. I am one of the people who sees the US as the lesser evil, actually. But I'm not willing to completely overlook US misdeeds either or the impact they have on the world. Of course my viewpoint on US actions is slanted, because my people have been the subjects of various colonial powers for a long long time. And these things always coated in ideals and nice language. Building a bright new future. Bringing civilisation to the pagans, etc. Robbers of the world ... they make a desert and call it peace.

    The idea that you're going to invade a country and expect them to become a pro-US democracy after you train them and build a few (not nearly enough) hospitals and so on is pure hubris. This is not a problem you can solve by training savages not to shoot girls in the head for going to school. This is a problem of one of the least developed regions in the world that has been always ruled by tribal politics and splintered into different ethnic groups not being easily changed by a foreign power against their will.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    I was asking who was giving money to the Taliban. They were pre 2001. Who would? It was an appeal to think of who would. I can think of who. Can you? If there is a way to give the money to the people of Afghanistan without it going to the Taliban now I'm all for it. Not that anything I think makes a damn to anyone in power.

    Wait... POST 2001? That was us. 5.8 trillion all together and not intended for the Taliban at any point in time. I guess I'm confused about the timeline for this particular money.
    I don't really get why you're asking about giving money to the Taliban, but Pakistan was one of the largest contributors for the war on their side prior to them being overthrown. The Taliban government wasn't recognised at all internationally, except by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan.

    Also, you keep talking about 5.8 trillion, but very little of it went to Afghanistan for the purposes of rebuilding it, though? From the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Afg...combat-mission

    Between 2001 and 2009, just over $38 billion in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan was appropriated by the U.S. Congress. More than half the money went to training and equipping Afghan security forces, and the remainder represented a fraction of the amount that experts said would be required to develop a country that had consistently ranked near the bottom of global human development indices. The aid program was also bedeviled by waste and by confusion over whether civilian or military authorities had responsibility for leading education, health, agriculture, and other development projects.
    Most of the money went to pay for the increased budget of the Pentagon, medical costs for veterans, equipment for US military, etc. And a huge part of it is being spent on paying interest on the loans the war was funded with, because it wasn't funded with tax money or war bonds.


    https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...stan-2001-2022

  4. #54
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Also, if anyone's interested about what it takes to get and keep a democracy and the successful and not so successful examples of it, the excellent Yale lecture series I already linked above also went into it a bit (relevant bit starts at about 29 minute mark):


  5. #55
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Heh, FOX News came up with a really original take on the State of the Union.

    Biden got criticized for not humanizing the speech by FOX pundit Dana Perino. The exact example was where he mentioned the kid on insulin, and mentioned it was the kid's birthday.

    But, Biden *why didn't you sing happy birthday* you inhuman monster? Checkmate Liberals.

  6. #56
    Member
    Registered: May 2004

  7. #57
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    If they were so popular, why were they losing the civil war? At the time the US swooped in, they controlled a tiny portion of Afghanistan in the north, less than 10% of the country.
    I don't think popularity had a whole lot to do with that.

    Pakistan armed up one of the warlords, that guy attacked Kabul and basically flattened half the city. Meanwhile Iran was backing another faction, and Saudi Arabia backing yet another faction. War ravaged the nation. It was after this time that the Taliban swept the nation. Most of that was precipitated by foreign powers basically destroying the interim government (which included Massoud) because they all wanted power by backing their chosen rival warlord.

    A lot of people overlook this second phase of foreign meddling. It wasn't the case that once the Soviets and Americans both decided "fuck this" that everyone went home and left Afghans to themselves - there was actually a second phase where all the minor powers saw an opportunity to basically put their own puppets in. that was the background to the Taliban.

    The places under direct control of Massoud were some of the only places where normal life was continuing. So that was Massoud's basic claim to fame as the go-to guy that we should let run the nation. He was the only one not fucking shit up: you could escape to his region and be pretty sure of not being beset upon by psychotic thugs or drafted into a slave army.

    As for the Taliban, most of those were drawn from war orphans and refugees who were housed in ultra-orthodox religious schools known as madrassas. So they had a near endless supply of religiously indoctrinated young men who had virtually no outside world knowledge and who were displaced / disenfranchised. For those young men, the promise of joining the Taliban as a brotherhood and actually *mattering* must have seemed very tempting. So I'm not sure how much of that the term "popular" really encompasses in explaining why they won the civil war. They just had the best supply of cult-like combat-aged young men to draw from.

    Also, an important thing to keep in mind about Massoud, is that he *moved* the government to the northeast precisely so there wouldn't be widespread civilian casualties when the Taliban attacked Kabul. He probably could have held Kabul but there would have been perhaps 200000 dead people if he did that. The Taliban had already shown they were completely willing to shell civilian areas, and it would have been extremely bloody combat that could have stretched for months.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 5th Mar 2022 at 04:34.

  8. #58
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    While Massoud was pretty popular, some other commanders on his side were hated and despised in the areas they controlled, as much as (if not more than) the Taliban. People like Dostum, and even Nur after Massoud, employed far more authoritarian methods of control than him.

    Also, while Tajiks make up a sizeable portion of the population, Pashtun people are still the largest majority. And they were the ones who created the Kingdom of Afghanistan in the first place and without their support Taliban rule of a large portion of the country would not have been possible. Not to mention the Taliban managed to gain the support of many other, mainly rural ethnic groups.
    Last edited by Starker; 5th Mar 2022 at 13:25.

  9. #59
    New Member
    Registered: Feb 2022
    Highlights from SOTU (presented by group of people with a combined total age of 456 years)

    Biden and the geriatric ghouls behind him reminding republicans they aren't for defunding the police, honest really we love cops even though police reform was a key campaign issue he ran on.
    Biden spending first half talking about unleashing economic pain on Russia, Pelosi and Kamala standing and cheering as he says he is removing Russia from the international banking system. Yes! Make Russian civilians feel the pain! YAAAS!
    Biden touting elements of his infrastructure package that have been gutted by obstinance of his own party. Indeed, Joe Mancian was literally sitting in the audience with his republican friends as Biden was on stage boasting about his achievements that have been blocked by him.
    Biden disgustingly and unashamedly calling out little boy and using him as example for pricing caps on insulin and medicare negotiating drug prices with manufacturers - backpedaled the next day, little boy gets nothing. You get nothing. No explanation.
    Biden personally patting the butt of Intel ceo, gifting his company billions of dollars of taxpayer money for their hard work increasing their total net worth during a pandemic where your personal finances were destroyed, job gone etc
    Biden calling for $15 minimum wage - Next day said he supports "gradually" raising the wage to $15. No presidential force or backing.
    Not mentioned: Student debt forgiveness which Biden could do literally at the stroke of a pen and indeed promised he would do $50k of before the election. Sorry suckers lmao
    Not mentioned: Biden not able to pass ANYTHING, do ANYTHING or offer any vision or message to people despite holding the presidency, senate and house of reps. He's checked out, doesn't even get out of his chair, confuses Ukraine with Iran.

    he is getting so much worse and deteriorating before our eyes. Biden never had a stutter. Biden stuttering and "overcoming it in his youth" is a false story his campaign literally invented to cover for his mental screw ups. He managed okay, but that was the most he has been in front of the media in months and he was a swaying, stuttering mess and it's getting so infuriating that we have to pretend he is some savvy, sharp guy.

  10. #60
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    If you wanted someone besides Biden then you shouldn't have run a morally bankrupt lying cheating moron like Trump. The infrastructure bill is being broken into smaller packages that may pass and police reform is not defunding. But most of what you said is just lies or due to Republican obstruction. That kid? Yeah. Republicans are standing in the way of legislation being passed to help him- https://khn.org/news/article/raphael...slation-biden/ - but you say it was backpedaled. No. That is a direct lie. Go back to OAN.

    Oh and thanks new member AKA sock puppet.

  11. #61
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Judging by Takeiteasy's sign up-date, this February, he/she/it wasn't getting enough traction on YouTube and thought a gaming board was ripe for recruiting.

  12. #62
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    possibly an alt nick

  13. #63
    New Member
    Registered: Mar 2010
    takeiteasy,
    Sadly, there seem to be too many braindead leftists on here who will make excuses for Biden no matter what he does

  14. #64
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by boccaccio1812 View Post
    takeiteasy,
    Sadly, there seem to be too many braindead leftists on here who will make excuses for Biden no matter what he does
    Not true, person who showed up just to insult people. People here think even when they disagree. They don't worship Biden and often disagree with what he says or does unlike the way Republicans worshipped Trump and defended his every asinine easily disproved statement and morally repugnant action. You would know and acknowledge that if you were around more and were honest. Sadly you are not. Sadly you are just another Republican incapable of cogent discussion falling back on unimaginative and untrue insult.

  15. #65
    New Member
    Registered: Mar 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    unlike the way Republicans worshipped Trump and defended his every asinine easily disproved statement and morally repugnant action.
    The fact that you think this about republicans / Trump supporters shows you don't actually understand them very well. The majority of republicans I've known have been critical of Trump even if they supported him, some didn't support him at all. It just comes across as out of touch when people make this claim that basically all republicans "worship" him.

    And before you start making too many assumptions about me, I considered myself more left-leaning until maybe 5 years ago when I started to recognize the blatant lies from the leftwing media and the hostility / censorship towards anyone with a differing opinion. It's just getting really old now

  16. #66
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by boccaccio1812 View Post
    And before you start making too many assumptions about me, I considered myself more left-leaning until maybe 5 years ago when I started to recognize the blatant lies from the leftwing media and the hostility / censorship towards anyone with a differing opinion. It's just getting really old now
    What leftwing media? You mean the giant corporations who are funded by other giant corporations?

    I can't see how if you didn't think they were objective enough you'd somehow gravitate in the direction of FOX News. FOX News is straight up a propaganda arm of a specific political party. It's like Pravda was in the USSR. Big Business was lying to you so you tuned into nightly party propaganda broadcasts instead to get the real scoop?

    Relevant Documentaries:

    The Brain Washing of My Dad (Family Documentary). Note this is Pre-Trump, Pre-QAnon etc. The current shit is just this, but accelerated:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS52QdHNTh8

    Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74oHhU5MDk

    Also: "biden lovers" really? Looking through the start of this thread about the most positive thing was that he's a geriatric dodderer but marginally less awful than Trump, and then pointing out how "less awful than Trump" is a super low bar to even cross.

    I really haven't heard even a single person who's ever said Biden was their first choice, let alone even a "biden lover". About the best way to describe is that Biden is a shit sandwich, but the alternative was a broken glass sandwich, so people chose the shit sandwich.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 4th Apr 2022 at 07:29.

  17. #67
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by boccaccio1812 View Post
    The fact that you think this about republicans / Trump supporters shows you don't actually understand them very well. The majority of republicans I've known have been critical of Trump I considered myself more left-leaning until maybe 5 years ago when I started to recognize the blatant lies from the leftwing media and the hostility / censorship towards anyone with a differing opinion. It's just getting really old now
    But now that the right is building a monopoly on blatant lies and armed to the teeth hostility, you see no value in switching back, or going neutral. You double down for T***p instead.

    One cannot support T***p to any degree and demand political nuance from across the aisle at the same time. That is industrial scale hypocrisy right there.

  18. #68
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Biden is like this era's Jimmy Carter: lackluster and uninspiring even on his best days, but there's a feeling of grand relief that we've at least stopped the profuse bleeding and (hopefully) stabilized the political situation enough to get our affairs into some basic order and (even more hopefully) make sufficient preparations for avoiding an even greater insurrection attempt in the next election.

  19. #69
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by boccaccio1812 View Post
    The fact that you think this about republicans / Trump supporters shows you don't actually understand them very well. The majority of republicans I've known have been critical of Trump even if they supported him, some didn't support him at all. It just comes across as out of touch when people make this claim that basically all republicans "worship" him.
    Funny but the ones I know love him so much they come into forums and alienate everyone right away by calling people "braindead leftists" right off the bat without provocation or any semblance of truth.

  20. #70
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    BTW some analysis by David Pakman (video is 7 minute)



    Unemployment fell from 6.8% since Biden was sworn in, to 3.6% now.

    However many more polled Americans believe unemployment went up, not down. Only 28% of surveyed respondents actually correctly stated that unemployment fell. This is not a opinion thing: it's a matter of fact.

    Trump, recall was boasting about record low unemployment when it was 3.5%

    So the supposed "pro-Biden" "liberal" media bias isn't doing a whole lot to actually inform people of things that are actually going well under Biden.

    The difference is that if this was FOX and a Republican was in, they'd be having nightly reports about how well the unemployment figures are going, and almost zero coverage of things like fuel prices. But you don't get anything like that sort of constant "boosterism" style reporting on CNN. For example, right now on the front page of CNN the only Biden stories are one about Trump digging for dirt on Hunter Biden, and one about how Obama overshadowed Biden at the recent press conference. There are literally no "Biden is the great leader and here are all the great things Biden is doing" articles, even though they COULD easily put one of those together by churning out reports and opinion pieces highlighting the great unemployment numbers.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 5th Apr 2022 at 23:40.

  21. #71
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Ugh, I hate still seeing that odious podium placard that still has "88" plastered on it as if people don't know that's transparent white supremacy code for "Heil Hitler" (and "22" is victory or what other word do you think "V" is for?) with the flimsiest basis for plausible deniability.

  22. #72
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    This channel I found recently had a pretty good video on the topic of who's to blame for Afghanistan that also included a list of people not to blame for it (SPOILER: Biden is not on it):


  23. #73
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    EDIT: that Gutfeld, what a riot of a show. The right wing really know how to match it with the Late Show comedy-wise. Seriously, right wing "comedy" is just spin-the-wheel-of-hate then make a snarky remark at that group or person.

    Not Biden related, but Clinton stuff, so close enough

    I was having a discussion elsewhere and a guy was saying that liberal in America means the same as "neoliberalism". However the guy also just switched interchangeably with "the left" through the discussion. Yes, all those well known left-wing neoliberals.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

    Neoliberalism, or neo-liberalism, is a term used to signify the political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism. A prominent factor in the rise of conservative and libertarian organizations, political parties, and think tanks, and predominantly advocated by them, it is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.
    Yes, all those things which fully sum up the Democrats.

    Then the guy pointed to how Clinton signed away Glass-Steagel, so that proves the liberal left was behind that. Umm well ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%...0%93Bliley_Act

    Pushed by Republicans, written by Republicans, overwhelmingly passed by Republicans. That's a Republican baby for sure. What Clinton did was *fail to veto it*. There's a difference between the criticism "Clinton failed to push back against Republican deregulation!" vs "look at those crazy Democrats and their zeal to deregulate everything!" whenever this stuff explodes in everyone's faces.

    Oh and then the guy was like, well the left did NAFTA so there!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...rade_Agreement

    [image] Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, at the initialing of the draft North American Free Trade Agreement in October 1992.

    Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990, the leaders of the three nations signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.[18] The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
    So It was already a signed international treaty before Clinton was even sworn in. This was Clinton's main addition:

    Before sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton added two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, and to also allay the concerns of many House members. The U.S. required its partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.
    I'm pretty sure there's plenty to criticize Clinton for but if the only things that they can come up with is that Clinton didn't sufficiently crush the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and didn't renege on the NAFTA treaty created by Bush, then I'm not sure how this exactly proves that left-wing Democrats were behind neoliberalism.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 6th Sep 2022 at 21:58.

  24. #74
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    This article is really good. Well written and interesting, it covers the rise and fall of different economic paradigms through the US's history and ties that into what's happening right now.

    This might explain some of the escalated vitriol: neoliberalism's core ideas are under threat for the first time in basically whenever.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ssive-00055653

    I want to change the paradigm,” declared Joe Biden — not once, but three times — during his first press conference as president, back in March 2021. Biden was talking about his economic agenda, but what exactly he meant by “changing the paradigm” wasn’t particularly clear. “We start to reward work, not just wealth,” he said by way of explanation.

    But a year and a half later, with the ink now dry on the Inflation Reduction Act — the third major piece of economic legislation to pass across Biden’s desk, along with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act and the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — Democrats’ recent legislative victories have some in Washington asking: Are these new policies harbingers of a more fundamental change to America’s prevailing economic order?
    To summarize this, but this doesn't really explain the whole article:

    neoliberalism = "top down" economics. Make the guy at the top richer and wealth will trickle down.

    welfare = "bottom up" - help the poorest, then that will rise everyone's boat. Though the article is more of a critique of neoliberalism, since that is in fact the dominant paradigm in the USA.

    new paradigm = "middle out" - build up a strong middle class, institutions and values

    So the idea here is that (1) helping the rich, we've clearly seen that doesn't help. And that (2) things like welfare and food stamps, while helpful and necessary, those are only a band-aid measure, not growth measure. people need opportunity to get out of those situations long-term, and there being a strong middle-class economy actually provides those opportunities.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 10th Sep 2022 at 22:41.

  25. #75
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    The problem with all our economic paradigms is they are based on growth.

    The only way to grow now is to offload the negative results on poor people and poor nations (aka brown people) or push the crisis into the future where the generations a'comin' can deal with it... or not.

    Or we could all move to Mars!! Let's do it, Honey!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •