Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Fugus]

It's convenient to people to ignore the experiences of those disadvantaged by the system they support.

It was a golden age!
Unless you were black.
Really, anything non-white. Note we've conveniently set the date to immediately after the most egregious anti-Semitic shit.
Or a woman. Really not a great time for women, even if steps were made.
Definitely not for immigrants.
Or Korea/Vietnam draftees.
Definitely hell if you weren't cisgender or heterosexual.
But hey, if you were part of the minority of cishet white dudes who weren't being drafted and killed overseas, golden age!

When I was referring to the golden age, I was talking about the economic part where unions were strong and the wages were good as well as the top tax rate.

The racist and sexist stuff was there too, but I wasn't talking about a return to that, THAT is the part of the golden age that the GOP wants to return to though. The GOP doesn't actually want to return us to the golden age economically either honestly.

They want to return us to the Gilded Age.

[D3thray]

When I was referring to the golden age, I was talking about the economic part where unions were strong and the wages were good as well as the top tax rate.

The racist and sexist stuff was there too, but I wasn't talking about a return to that, THAT is the part of the golden age that the GOP wants to return to though. The GOP doesn't actually want to return us to the golden age economically either honestly.

They want to return us to the Gilded Age.

Could argue we’re in another Gilded Age already

[Shadowferal]

Yeah, we had strong unions on the top marginal tax rate was like 90% but we had a strong economy and workers were able to live off their labor. Was from 1945 to around 1970's. You can actually google it, it wasn't just some modern slang it was a definite period of time that earned that label.

Republicans can't claim that. And I'm certain that they would never look to Ike as exemplary of the gop.

[Ivanstone]

When I was referring to the golden age, I was talking about the economic part where unions were strong and the wages were good as well as the top tax rate.

Unions engaged in their fair share of racist and sexist behaviour. Housing was subsidized if you were white and there was less competition for space in general. This kept costs lower. America also didn't have to rebuild themselves unlike almost every other industrialized nation.

I do like the 90% marginal tax rate but that was largely to pay off WWII and I imagine most of the war bonds holders were wealthy.

[Fugus]

Unions engaged in their fair share of racist and sexist behaviour. Housing was subsidized if you were white and there was less competition for space in general. This kept costs lower. America also didn't have to rebuild themselves unlike almost every other industrialized nation.

I do like the 90% marginal tax rate but that was largely to pay off WWII and I imagine most of the war bonds holders were wealthy.

I understand the racist parts of it, those parts I would want to leave there. I said "The Golden Age of Capitalism" with the capitalism being the emphasis, not "Make America Great Again".

You can still have the economic parts while leaving the racist parts behind.

- - - Updated - - -

Republicans can't claim that. And I'm certain that they would never look to Ike as exemplary of the gop.

Exactly my point, they claim to want that outcome while fighting the policies that achieved it and pushing for policies that return us to the Gilded Age, not the Golden Age of Capitalism.

[Endus]

When I was referring to the golden age, I was talking about the economic part where unions were strong and the wages were good as well as the top tax rate.

Unions were only "strong" relative to other eras. The workers were still exploited and abused like hell, and it's a process that declined pretty steadily throughout that era. The minimum wage and the reforms it was intended to bring about were hamstrung from the start to prevent the workers from ever achieving that intended level of support and protection.

Even on strict economics, it was a shitshow of a period, and only stands out given how much worse the Depression and the economic collapses of the '70s through to today have been for the working class, bookending it.

And again; for cishet white men. The same slight bump was not shared equally across all groups. Women in particular faced a hell of a lot of persecution in workplaces during this era.

The top tax rate also had a hell of a lot more exemptions, and nobody functionally paid 90%. More like ~40%; https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-t...950s-not-high/

[Fugus]

Unions were only "strong" relative to other eras. The workers were still exploited and abused like hell, and it's a process that declined pretty steadily throughout that era. The minimum wage and the reforms it was intended to bring about were hamstrung from the start to prevent the workers from ever achieving that intended level of support and protection.

Even on strict economics, it was a shitshow of a period, and only stands out given how much worse the Depression and the economic collapses of the '70s through to today have been for the working class, bookending it.

And again; for cishet white men. The same slight bump was not shared equally across all groups. Women in particular faced a hell of a lot of persecution in workplaces during this era.

The top tax rate also had a hell of a lot more exemptions, and nobody functionally paid 90%. More like ~40%; https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-t...950s-not-high/

I understand it wasn't as good as it could have been or as good as it should have been. You admit it was still better than what preceded it and what came after which is why they claim to want to return to which is still an improvement to now ECONOMICALLY.

You can want a return to at least that level of economic improvement compared to now without also wanting the racist and sexist things that also existed at the time.

You don't think I am talking about wanting the sexist or racist stuff back or I am talking about not wanting better than that I hope.

[Endus]

I understand it wasn't as good as it could have been or as good as it should have been. You admit it was still better than what preceded it and what came after which is why they claim to want to return to which is still an improvement to now ECONOMICALLY.

Again, that supposed economic improvement was not shared across the population. It's fundamentally a myth, not a reality.

Pointing to how good one specific minority sub-group has things, at the direct expense/consequence of other groups, is not an argument of an economic "golden age". It's like claiming that the American South pre-Civil War was hugely productive in per capita terms, since you conveniently don't count slaves as people and thus all their productivity is assigned to their owners.

You're talking about a supposed "golden age" when poor kids were shuffled off to foreign wars to die for the benefit of local shareholders, when black Americans and women were still being treated horrendously and unfairly in employment matters, and so on. It isn't just a matter of "not a golden age when compared to today", it's "couldn't be considered a golden age unless you're a middle-class-or-better white dude", the minority who was reaping the benefits at the time.

You can want a return to at least that level of economic improvement compared to now without also wanting the racist and sexist things that also existed at the time.

Given that the supposed "economic gains" were entirely predicated on the rampant injustices, by paying black and female workers reduced wages just as a super obvious example, no, you really can't. Those gains were fundamentally predicated on that exploitation.

You don't think I am talking about wanting the sexist or racist stuff back or I am talking about not wanting better than that I hope.

I don't think you want the bigotry back. I think you're refusing to recognize that there was no "golden economic age" that wasn't directly attributable to said bigotries; that the benefits were enjoyed only by the few, at the expense of those others. It's a lot easier for a male manager to get paid 30% more when all his female and minority staff are being paid 30% less, and providing no threat of advancement to or beyond his position.

[Fugus]

@Endus

So you are saying that the economic improvement of the Golden Age of Capitalism was impossible to have improve anything beyond the white male cross section of the populace? That is a little bleak.

So you are saying that giving us strong unions, living wages or raising taxes on the top won't have a substantial improvement and gains for the nation and it's people as a whole?

The gains weren't BECAUSE of the injustices caused on the minorities, women and the poor as far as I know. Paying women less didn't lead to men getting paid more.

A man being able to graduate highschool and make a living and retirement in a profession wasn't predicated on a woman making less or minorities being treated like crap. You sound like you are trying to say that the Golden Age honestly was no better than the Gilded Age because the gains from the improvements didn't come from higher taxes on the rich or strong unions or living wages but instead the gains of the golden age were built on the backs of minorities and women.

Sorry man, I don't buy it.

I am not saying the Golden Age was some paradise that had no issues, no one is saying that. But saying that living wages, strong unions, and increased taxes on the rich to pay for social programs did lead to strong economic growth and increased standards of living.

Are you saying that having those policies without the racist shit would be unsustainable?

Edit:

We know the improvements weren't spread across all demographics, it wasn't spread across all demographics before then either. The situation did improve though overall, and without all the racist shit could have even been better.

No one is saying that the racist shit didn't exist, no one is saying that, what I am doing is referring to the golden age of capitalism for what it was, a period of strong growth. It could have been better without the racist crap that happened and no one is saying otherwise. Just like no one is denying the racism was there and held us back as a nation. But the economic policies were in place then and their impact is what I am talking about when they were implemented.

[Endus]

@Endus

So you are saying that the economic improvement of the Golden Age of Capitalism was impossible to have improve anything beyond the white male cross section of the populace? That is a little bleak.

I'm saying the idea that it was a "Golden Age of Capitalism" at all is a myth fundamentally perpetrated on the assumption that the only people who need to be assessed to determine that are white men; all other groups are not relevant to assessing economic health and prosperity and can be summarily ignored.

Once you start including them, the idea that it was some kind of "golden age" collapses and the myth is exposed as the fraud that it is.

So you are saying that giving us strong unions, living wages or raising taxes on the top won't have a substantial improvement and gains for the nation and it's people as a whole?

They would.

Unions at that time weren't terribly strong overall, there was no living wage system, and taxes on the top levels weren't meaningfully higher than they are today, as I already demonstrated.

This is kind of what I'm driving at; you're presenting myths of a time that never happened, and they don't hold up to scrutiny.

The gains weren't BECAUSE of the injustices caused on the minorities, women and the poor as far as I know. Paying women less didn't lead to men getting paid more.

Men were valued more, as seen in the discrepancy. We also know that there was a closer tie between productivity and wages overall, since that disconnect didn't occur until the late '70s. For those two things to be true, male staff were getting paid higher than they otherwise would have been, commensurate with lower pay to women and visible minorities, since that value wasn't being distributed directly to shareholders (yet).

A man being able to graduate highschool and make a living and retirement in a profession wasn't predicated on a woman making less or minorities being treated like crap.

Should probably take a look into the state of women's and ethnic minorities graduating high school and entering post-secondary education, as compared to white men, in those eras. Yeah, the ease with which a man could get into medical school and become a doctor was very much predicated on ensuring almost no ethnic minorities or women could enter the programs. Those slots weren't without limit, y'know, and women and ethnic minorities weren't enjoying the same outcomes. You really need to start recognizing that it wasn't "a man", here, but very specifically "white men".

You sound like you are trying to say that the Golden Age honestly was no better than the Gilded Age because the gains from the improvements didn't come from higher taxes on the rich or strong unions or living wages but instead the gains of the golden age were built on the backs of minorities and women.

Sorry man, I don't buy it.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...en-age-108013/
https://truthout.org/articles/the-go...-secret-coups/

You can't seriously tell me black women of the 1950s or so were having the best times ever and reached economic successes the likes of which they'd never see again.

I am not saying the Golden Age was some paradise that had no issues, no one is saying that. But saying that living wages, strong unions, and increased taxes on the rich to pay for social programs did lead to strong economic growth and increased standards of living.

For white men, and their families.

Not for single white women or anyone else.

They also never had a living wage standard in that period, unions were only "stronger" in relation to prior eras, and the taxes on the wealthy were not meaningfully higher, as I already debunked.

Are you saying that having those policies without the racist shit would be unsustainable?

I'm saying those policies are myths that never existed.

You're citing the vast herds of unicorns that galloped across the Prairies as proof of the existence of unicorns.

[Fugus]

@Endus

The whole thing behind the "Golden Age of Capitalism" is their strong growth. That wasn't a myth. It wasn't shared by all and was heavily skewed in favor of white men, but it was still strong growth compared to what came before and after it. Did it not? I am not calling it "The Golden Age of Capitalism and Equality" or anything like that. We can see the economic growth per year, and it was overall higher during those times.

And looking at the top tax rates, they were over 90% till the 60's where they still stayed at 70% till the 80's. And the disconnect you mention that happened in the 70's between productivity and wages, the Golden Age is also said to have ended in the 70's as well.

The tax rate isn't a myth, the economic growth, isn't a myth. It's a matter of public record. And it being easier to get a job as a white man didn't mean that wages had to go down when it wasn't a white man doing it.

Economic growth by Year from 1930 to 2019
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tes-1930-2019/


The growth didn't rely on slave labor to boost the wages of white men, that was the work of the push from the unions and all the work from those who fought to get out of the gilded age.

I understand that racist crap still happened, but the growth itself wasn't built on it or that growth would have never occurred anymore than in the prior years. And you agree that Unions were stronger then than they were prior, and how did they compare afterward?

Saying that white men had an easier time to get jobs back then than a woman or a minority, I agree, but that didn't mean the working class was paid more because white men were the main ones they would hire. The minorities got shafted, but by no means didn't their existence somehow give the white guy a pay raise.

The policies weren't a myth because I wasn't referring to policies that weren't a matter of public record, the upper tax brackets are public record, the economic growth is a matter of public record.

About the only thing I can't verify at the moment is Union participation because I am about to log soon and I haven't managed to find a chart going back prior to 1983 but I am pretty sure that union participation was higher from the 1940s to the 1970s than they were prior and after.

Edit: AFK, night man, will probably check back tomorrow. Happy New Year.

[Endus]

@Endus

The whole thing behind the "Golden Age of Capitalism" is their strong growth. That wasn't a myth. It wasn't shared by all and was heavily skewed in favor of white men, but it was still strong growth compared to what came before and after it. Did it not? I am not calling it "The Golden Age of Capitalism and Equality" or anything like that. We can see the economic growth per year, and it was overall higher during those times.

That high growth is a "golden age" when that growth is only enjoyed by the entitled classes kind of argues against the concept of it being a "golden age" from the perspective of anyone not part of those classes.

And looking at the top tax rates, they were over 90% till the 60's where they still stayed at 70% till the 80's. And the disconnect you mention that happened in the 70's between productivity and wages, the Golden Age is also said to have ended in the 70's as well.

Are you really going to make me explain the difference between nominal and effective tax rates?

[Shadowferal]

Exactly my point, they claim to want that outcome while fighting the policies that achieved it and pushing for policies that return us to the Gilded Age, not the Golden Age of Capitalism.

Ok.. I see..everyone was benefiting..gotcha.

I won't comment on the social issues...countries go through growing pains...thats a given.

[Breccia]

Pence files motion to block Biden vaccine mandate.

Because freedom.

To be fair, Pence doesn't strike me as an anti-vaxxer. Nobody who touches space shit like fits the "I don't believe in science" bullshit QAnon stuff. This appears to be "Biden doesn't have the Constitutional authority" and I'm actually okay with that question being answered.

[Edge-]

Pence files motion to block Biden vaccine mandate.

Because freedom.

To be fair, Pence doesn't strike me as an anti-vaxxer. Nobody who touches space shit like fits the "I don't believe in science" bullshit QAnon stuff. This appears to be "Biden doesn't have the Constitutional authority" and I'm actually okay with that question being answered.

Honestly I think despite having already balled himself hard a few times and now having the angelic singing voice of the mezzo-soprano castrati, he honestly believes he has a meaningful future in the Republican party/politics.

[Breccia]

he honestly believes he has a meaningful future in the Republican party/politics.

Yes, well, he also honestly thinks homosexuality is learned behavior that can be converted. He's still wrong. The Republican Party still can't run without the Party of Trump and the Party of Trump had a literal lynch mob to kill "traitor" Pence.

In any event, it'll be interesting to see how Trump's stacked court rules on this. If they say the President lacks the authority to do this, I'll just have to shrug and accept that.

- - - Updated - - -

conversion therapy

I don't think he considers that science, he considers that faith. Even as I type that I realize it doesn't actually refute your point.

[tehdang]

Pence files motion to block Biden vaccine mandate.

Because freedom.

To be fair, Pence doesn't strike me as an anti-vaxxer. Nobody who touches space shit like fits the "I don't believe in science" bullshit QAnon stuff. This appears to be "Biden doesn't have the Constitutional authority" and I'm actually okay with that question being answered.

Motion to file an amicus brief, though?

He's not in the lawsuits, nor in any office where he could direct an AG to file a motion in a case they're making. He's powerless and a bystander to actual people trying to reverse federal mandates (2 cases so far as I know), and has equal power to me in this case (I could also "motion to block," in reality just filing an amicus brief in same manner).

To be perfectly clear, if they accept the amicus brief (purely up to discretion) nothing actually happens because it isn't a motion with any force whatsoever.

[Breccia]

To be perfectly clear, if they accept the amicus brief (purely up to discretion) nothing actually happens because it isn't a motion with any force whatsoever.

Thanks for clarifying. So I guess he's just saying "hey, if anyone sues, count me in"?

[BlackDruid96]

I just can't imagine being so completely chickenshit you won't just come out and say "Fuck Joe Biden", if that's what you mean.

Fuck Joe Biden. See? It's not hard. Nobody gives a shit. And yet, people are such fucking cowards they're gonna dogwhistle it and pretend they're being sneaky.

It's not about being sneaky, it's about 2 things, the fact the media tried to cover up the chant with a lie and it let's you get past the censors. I know it isn't as brave as holding a bloody severed head like they did with Trump, but there you have it.

[Machismo]

It's not about being sneaky, it's about 2 things, the fact the media tried to cover up the chant with a lie and it let's you get past the censors. I know it isn't as brave as holding a bloody severed head like they did with Trump, but there you have it.

"Trump's a rapist."

See, that's a much better catchphrase.