Understanding the Liberal Mindset

[theprestige]

aka. bigger government.

I'd argue that the local government taking a step back from its draconian permitting process for new development, and giving developers more freedom to just build, would be smaller government.

aka. bigger government.

More engaged and responsible government. It's also not clear to me that replacing non-profits with a government agency to do the same job with more transparency and lower costs, constitutes an increase of the size of government. But at least now you're finally clear on the fact that I do not oppose all government agencies.

aka. social services.

Social services that actually work. But at least now you're finally clear on the fact that I do not oppose all social services.

aka. bigger government.

Government that works.

aka. socialised education.

Socialized education that actually educates. But at least now you're finally clear on the fact that I do not oppose all social services.

aka. better regulation aka. bigger government.

I don't see how you could possibly get that from "use windfalls for one-time projects, not new projects that will need ongoing funding". Things that require ongoing funding should be set up with ongoing funding, not started off with a one-time infusion of funds, with no provision for the following years.

I'm with you on that one, 100%.

Right on.

aka. bigger government.

Government stays about the same size, but the police department actually does its job, instead of spending all its time bickering with city hall and having the blue flu.

aka. socialised education.

See above.

I refrain from commenting on this one due to ignorance of your local politics.

Such ignorance has not historically been a deterrent, but suit yourself.

Anyway, welcome to the woke, liberal far-left! Turns out you've been on our side all along.

I'm advocating a limited government that focuses on doing the kinds of things that government should be doing, and doing them well, and doing them with transparency and accountability to the citizens.

What the woke, liberal far-left government in my city is doing is pretty much the opposite of what I'm proposing. What the woke, liberal far-left majority of voters in my city are voting for is more of the same.

The woke, liberal far-left in my city absolutely hates the idea of any kind of policing. Community policing = fascism. Traffic enforcement = racism. Public transit safety enforcement = fascism and racism. Half the reason our police force is feuding with the city is because the city has been absolutely woke, liberal far-left retards when it comes to law enforcement.*

Don't try to gaslight me into thinking that a well-funded, well-staffed, ever-present, highly active police force is in any way a woke, liberal far-left position.

 

[steenkh]

Woah, there comrade. Nobody needs more the a loaf of bread and some beans. And those people who have potatoes? Nobody should be that rich.

The taxation that has been on the table is not going to deprive anybody of their potatoes. As @arthwollipot said, you could tax these people (the insanely rich) 70% and they wouldn't even notice. And nobody is suggesting taxing anybody 70%.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If police departments would be paid for the work they do, they would get maybe 1% of their current budget.

Less if you consider the cost of litigating abuses.

Cops are welfare queens

 

[theprestige]

The taxation that has been on the table is not going to deprive anybody of their potatoes. As @arthwollipot said, you could tax these people (the insanely rich) 70% and they wouldn't even notice. And nobody is suggesting taxing anybody 70%.

"I only want to tax them an inch. We'll talk about taxing a mile if the inch doesn't get us there."

Raising taxes doesn't solve systemic problems. The inch will never get you there. As long as you're trying to solve systemic problems by raising taxes, you'll always end up taxing as much as you possibly can. It won't solve the problem, but at least you can tell yourself you had no choice but to tax people at 70%.

Honestly I'd welcome a 70‰ wealth tax on the highest brackets, if it were attached to a coherent and plausible plan to fix systemic problems. And if it were set up to expire once those problems were solved.

 

[theprestige]

If police departments would be paid for the work they do, they would get maybe 1% of their current budget.

Less if you consider the cost of litigating abuses.

Cops are welfare queens

@arthwollipot see what I mean? You're trying to tell me I'm on the side of this nonsense.

 

[steenkh]

I'd argue that the local government taking a step back from its draconian permitting process for new development, and giving developers more freedom to just build, would be smaller government.

We ave seen such policies in action: houses built to prevent community access to desirable land, like beaches, smashing medieval cities with high-rise buildings, and creating inhuman, desolate cityscapes.

More engaged and responsible government. It's also not clear to me that replacing non-profits with a government agency to do the same job with more transparency and lower costs, constitutes an increase of the size of government. But at least now you're finally clear on the fact that I do not oppose all government agencies.

And you are right about that. In Denmark, right-wing governments privatised shelters, homes for the old, and handicapped. The result has been a string of scandals where the owners provided little, or any service, but took huge payments for it. Non-profit, or profit: the opportunity to enrich yourself is too good to miss for some.

I don't see how you could possibly get that from "use windfalls for one-time projects, not new projects that will need ongoing funding". Things that require ongoing funding should be set up with ongoing funding, not started off with a one-time infusion of funds, with no provision for the following years.

I would vote for that, But politicians usually only look forward to the next election.

I'm advocating a limited government that focuses on doing the kinds of things that government should be doing, and doing them well, and doing them with transparency and accountability to the citizens.

But isn't the snag here that everybody can agree on that, but it is much more difficult to actually implement it?

The woke, liberal far-left in my city absolutely hates the idea of any kind of policing. Community policing = fascism. Traffic enforcement = racism. Public transit safety enforcement = fascism and racism. Half the reason our police force is feuding with the city is because the city has been absolutely woke, liberal far-left retards when it comes to law enforcement.

The problem could be that the police is not acting as the beneficial, neutral institution that it ideally should be. This is a problem in Denmark: I have an adopted brother who is black, and my family (not me) lived in a small town close to the border with Germany. The local policy often picked up my brother to "check if he was an illegal immigrant". These were the same policemen who did it several times, until my mother called the chief of the police, and they were reigned in.

A more recent example is a clash between the police and extreme left-wingers in Copenhagen where the police used excessive force to remove demonstrators from a private property. By excessive force, I am talking about beating demonstrators who are already down, and not offering resistance. Most people who are to the right of the extreme left think that the demonstrators should be removed, even by force, but we don't think that the police should act like violent hooligans.

Fascists and racists have an attraction to police because they get an opportunity to lord it over other people, just like fascists, and weapons nutters are attracted to the military. Creating a neutral police force is difficult, and I for one has no idea how it is done.

Don't try to gaslight me into thinking that a well-funded, well-staffed, ever-present, highly active police force is in any way a woke, liberal far-left position.

Then we don't have the U.S. kind of liberal far-left in Denmark, because nobody, not even the far left, has argued against this, but merely to remove fascism and racism from the police. In fact, the extreme left party in Denmark has just last week expressed their support for the new government that wants to strengthen the police.

 

[steenkh]

Honestly I'd welcome a 70‰ wealth tax on the highest brackets, if it were attached to a coherent and plausible plan to fix systemic problems. And if it were set up to expire once those problems were solved.

Welcome to the far left

 

[The Great Zaganza]

@arthwollipot see what I mean? You're trying to tell me I'm on the side of this nonsense.

I'm sorry?
I thought you were for accountable spending of taxpayer funds.
I must have been wrong.

Do you disagree that PDs should be paid by the actual work they do?
Do you think it makes sense that PD budgets are going up when crime rates are going down?
Do you think that a government agency should pay for the damage it causes to citizens?

Law Enforcement is not doing a good job, and it is not because of lack of money. Rape kits are not tested. Serious crimes are not being investigated with the resources needed. Training is lacking where it matters (i.e. not in shooting people).
And cops who got kicked out for violations and corruptions are instantly hired by another police department.

If it was any other government agency, you would be howling for mass layoffs and budgets cuts.


are you even aware of your blind spot?

 

[deverett]

This is all very wonderful. But what do you do when others don't share this viewpoint and nonetheless exploit your compassion and empathy? Do you think it's virtuous to be a sucker?

"regards empathy" I have usually taken the view, I do these things because they are the right thing to do, I don't care if I am punished for them, that seems inevitable.

 

[dirtywick]

"I only want to tax them an inch. We'll talk about taxing a mile if the inch doesn't get us there."

Raising taxes doesn't solve systemic problems. The inch will never get you there. As long as you're trying to solve systemic problems by raising taxes, you'll always end up taxing as much as you possibly can. It won't solve the problem, but at least you can tell yourself you had no choice but to tax people at 70%.

Honestly I'd welcome a 70‰ wealth tax on the highest brackets, if it were attached to a coherent and plausible plan to fix systemic problems. And if it were set up to expire once those problems were solved.

i think you're right about this, but not in the way you think.

you're right that taxation won't solve many of the issues you've been talking about. it provides the funds needed to solve those issues, but it does nothing for the issues themselves. in many cases, the united states needs some pretty serious reform, such as healthcare, education, law enforcement, and even the tax code itself.

but what taxation does do, though, is fix your budget issues. which is another major, major problem the united states is facing particularly how much revenue is going towards paying interest. and if you think it's purely an issue of cutting spending, i got some bad news for you in that every round of tax cuts they propose and eventually pass comes with a cbo report saying it's going to widen the deficit, and then it does. this has been particularly highlighted by the doge cuts, which cut billions in funding for all kinds of programs the right wing has been railing against for years, with a result of no appreciable effect on the deficit.

really, i think the doge stuff should have you second guessing a lot of the assumptions you've been making, but that's your dragon to slay

so i think in purely pragmatic grounds you'd have to be in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy and reforming tax code to actually be effective just based on budgetary reasons. congress sets a budget, then needs to collect enough revenue to cover it, and consistently fails at doing so. and that's absolutely on both sides

 

[theprestige]

Wrong thread

 

[theprestige]

Welcome to the far left

Nah, my tax proposal involves reason and accountability.

 

[steenkh]

Nah, my tax proposal involves reason and accountability.

Exactly, that is why I welcome you to the far left.

 

[theprestige]

We ave seen such policies in action: houses built to prevent community access to desirable land, like beaches, smashing medieval cities with high-rise buildings, and creating inhuman, desolate cityscapes.

We've seen such policies as you describe in action, but I am not talking about such policies. The permitting process here for new development is absolutely draconian. It goes far beyond preventing the things you describe. It prevents any new housing at all.

And you are right about that. In Denmark, right-wing governments privatised shelters, homes for the old, and handicapped. The result has been a string of scandals where the owners provided little, or any service, but took huge payments for it. Non-profit, or profit: the opportunity to enrich yourself is too good to miss for some.

Here, it's a left wing government that privatized these things, with the same results.

I would vote for that, But politicians usually only look forward to the next election.

But isn't the snag here that everybody can agree on that, but it is much more difficult to actually implement it?

That's a snag, yes. But the snag here is that arthwollipot really wants to paint me as a big-government progressive, via the canard that because I reasonably advocate for some government, I must be in favor of an expansive, wealth-redistributionist welfare state.

The problem could be that the police is not acting as the beneficial, neutral institution that it ideally should be.

That is very much part of the problem. The relationship between the city and its police department has been thoroughly poisoned by bad behavior and bad attitudes on both sides. Both sides need to take drastic steps, to effect reconciliation.

Fascists and racists have an attraction to police because they get an opportunity to lord it over other people, just like fascists, and weapons nutters are attracted to the military. Creating a neutral police force is difficult, and I for one has no idea how it is done.

Somebody must have an idea, because a lot of places have a better police force, and a better relationship, than my city does. A lot of the problem is that our very left wing electorate hates the idea of police, and so is not at all interested in reconciling, or fixing systemic problems with the police force, or doing anything at all to improve the policing situation in our city.

Then we don't have the U.S. kind of liberal far-left in Denmark, because nobody, not even the far left, has argued against this, but merely to remove fascism and racism from the police. In fact, the extreme left party in Denmark has just last week expressed their support for the new government that wants to strengthen the police.

See, this is a reasonable position, to me.

 

[theprestige]

Exactly, that is why I welcome you to the far left.

My direct experience of far left politics is that their extreme tax policies are focused on wealth redistribution without end, and are completely unconnected to any kind of plan or accountability for outcomes. I know you're looking for rhetorical jabs to throw at me, but I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to read and understand what I'm actually saying, instead of trying to twist it into a wisecrack at my expense.

 

[Norman Alexander]

My direct experience of far left politics is that their extreme tax policies are focused on wealth redistribution without end, and are completely unconnected to any kind of plan or accountability for outcomes. I know you're looking for rhetorical jabs to throw at me, but I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to read and understand what I'm actually saying, instead of trying to twist it into a wisecrack at my expense.

I would appreciate actual examples of this, please. Direct wealth distribution - some sort of Robin Hood policy.

 

[theprestige]

I would appreciate actual examples of this, please. Direct wealth distribution - some sort of Robin Hood policy.

I don't have any examples of this actually working, in a wealth-redistributionist sense. Like I said, the far left politics in my city are motivated by the idea of wealth redistribution through increased taxation. But they suck at actually doing any of it except the increased taxation.

 

[steenkh]

My direct experience of far left politics is that their extreme tax policies are focused on wealth redistribution without end, and are completely unconnected to any kind of plan or accountability for outcomes. I know you're looking for rhetorical jabs to throw at me, but I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to read and understand what I'm actually saying, instead of trying to twist it into a wisecrack at my expense.

Well, clearly the far left in your city and in Denmark is very different. I think it might be because our parliamentary system allows for more than two parties, and compromise leads to influence.

I thought the wisecrack was quite innocent, but I apologise that you feel offended.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I don't have any examples of this actually working, in a wealth-redistributionist sense. Like I said, the far left politics in my city are motivated by the idea of wealth redistribution through increased taxation. But they suck at actually doing any of it except the increased taxation.

Let me quote your post again:

My direct experience of far left politics is that their extreme tax policies are focused on wealth redistribution without end, and are completely unconnected to any kind of plan or accountability for outcomes.

And yet you don't have any examples of this.

From your description, I would suggest you have the cause and effect backwards. You have a situation of a city administration that has "high taxation", but you are not seeing what you expect to be the benefits of those levies. That is, your high taxes are not benefiting you personally. That situation is certainly worth debating. But because you don't like this, you are labelling the administration as "far left". It's your epithet, not really a appropriate description. Unless, and you have the video, the city administration has taken to sporting a hammer-and-sickle red flag, committed itself to the overthrow of capitalism, and sings The Internationale at all meetings??

 

[theprestige]

i think you're right about this, but not in the way you think.

you're right that taxation won't solve many of the issues you've been talking about. it provides the funds needed to solve those issues, but it does nothing for the issues themselves. in many cases, the united states needs some pretty serious reform, such as healthcare, education, law enforcement, and even the tax code itself.

My position is that it doesn't actually require a tax increase and a massive cash infusion, to reform a lot of these things.

but what taxation does do, though, is fix your budget issues.

Oh god, how I wish that were true. Our city council has been trying to fix budget issues for years, through increased taxation. The budget issues are worse than ever.

which is another major, major problem the united states is facing particularly how much revenue is going towards paying interest. and if you think it's purely an issue of cutting spending,

I don't think it's purely an issue of cutting spending.

i got some bad news for you in that every round of tax cuts they propose and eventually pass comes with a cbo report saying it's going to widen the deficit, and then it does. this has been particularly highlighted by the doge cuts, which cut billions in funding for all kinds of programs the right wing has been railing against for years, with a result of no appreciable effect on the deficit.

really, i think the doge stuff should have you second guessing a lot of the assumptions you've been making, but that's your dragon to slay

I never assumed the doge stuff would go down the way it did, so I don't really have any second-guessing to do on that front.

so i think in purely pragmatic grounds you'd have to be in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy and reforming tax code to actually be effective just based on budgetary reasons. congress sets a budget, then needs to collect enough revenue to cover it, and consistently fails at doing so. and that's absolutely on both sides

I'm not talking about the United States Congress. I'm talking about the Portland City Council, the Multnomah County Commissioners, and more distantly the government of the state of Oregon. More money won't stop Portland's budget problems. It will just shovel more money into the same wasteful and fraudulent systems that have caused so many of our budget problems.

It's like you really cannot conceive of a far-left government, voted in by a far-left electorate, might be very bad at its job.