Is the left prepared to beat a socially liberal right?

[TGLS]

I don't see social welfare as strictly necessary for a socially liberal right. Simply moving off of conservative stances on Abortion, LGBT, Racial Issues, etc. would probably win points. Negative income taxes on the poor, balanced budgets, and cap and trade or a revenue-neutral carbon tax could differentiate them from the Democrats, while keeping them fundamentally on the right. Maybe university vouchers or tax credits to lower costs of education for the poor.

[Rasp]

I'd like to see the Left, and the more reasonable elements of the Right, rally around a strong push for Basic Income, affordable housing, Universal Medicare, and Tuition Free College. Of those, Basic Income at least would probably net considerable Right wing support as well, if only as a way of cutting red tape and cutting back on the number of social programs.

Basic universal income is a problem because - there needs to be a distinction between a poor family who needs it and a rich asshole living large off a trust-fund but technically not producing any income. just because you aren't generating income doesn't mean you need it and just because you are generating income doesn't mean you're being paid more than barely enough not to starve - a negative tax that took more than income into account would probably be a more nuanced solution. add in a higher minimum wage tied to inflation and you'd have the start of something workable.

The same doesn't really apply to medicare which could be universal with few consequences because those who can afford better coverage probably won't use it or if its set up right would be paying for more than they use through taxes anyway.

One of the big problems with welfare programs is the cut-offs are hard to define if you're making - made up numbers- $152k a year and are paying out the ass for medical coverage through obamacare because you don't qualify for medicaid because you're making more that $150k a year - if you were just a bit poorer you'd get getting it for free and you really NEED that program but you keep getting rejected because you're just slightly over the line. Such a tale is quite common these days - people who need help because they cant afford to live with a job because they aren't paid enough to live but too much to qualify for aid.

We need a Newdealesque massive rework on this one and you'd need someone who can speak to that and the politicians that can are vilified by the corporate media and the party elites on both sides. For example there has been a push for HR676 that is languishing in the house because neither side will touch it so long as insurance companies are funding their next campaign. it's going to take a heavy threat to get them on board with it and there are still lazy son of bitches not calling their house rep about it.

[Karha of Honor]

If you can move, switch jobs etc.. you are not oppressed.

Yeah, that's definitely feasible for, say, the average minimum wage single mother.

And move, yeah. Try leaving the country you're in, and the same Rightists who say that if you don't like the way things are you can leave, will scream about dirty criminal terrorists immigrants coming to take our jobs.

You take away peoples' options systematically, and then tell them they have freedom of choice.

How many?

Don't be facetious. You and I both know that its impossible to give a single hard number (other than "everybody").

Everyone is the victim of discrimination at some point in their lives. Everyone.

Some get it worse than others, and who gets it worse varies, and to what extent, varies by local, demographics, and political/cultural climate.

They scream less than almost any other country considering the makeup of US demographics and the long history of immigration into the US.

So the press and legsilatures need to do something about something that cannot be quantified in any way?

[TGLS]

Basic universal income is a problem because - there needs to be a distinction between a poor family who needs it and a rich asshole living large off a trust-fund but technically not producing any income.

As I understand it, making money off of investments or withdrawing from a trust fund still is taxable revenue, so unless you're taking money out your mattress, your still getting taxed.

[Rasp]

Basic universal income is a problem because - there needs to be a distinction between a poor family who needs it and a rich asshole living large off a trust-fund but technically not producing any income.

As I understand it, making money off of investments or withdrawing from a trust fund still is taxable revenue, so unless you're taking money out your mattress, your still getting taxed.

Maybe in the case of investments that counts as income if they invest otherwise - He'd also be drawing from the basic universal income because he's not generating personal income. You cant just give everyone a universal basic income there needs to be a line - why should that asshole be drawing a goverment income check when he doesn't need one?

[TGLS]

I might be wrong, but I think the investment income counts as personal income (at least where I live; tax reform might as well happen with the negative income tax).

[The Romulan Republic]

If you can move, switch jobs etc.. you are not oppressed.

Yeah, that's definitely feasible for, say, the average minimum wage single mother.

And move, yeah. Try leaving the country you're in, and the same Rightists who say that if you don't like the way things are you can leave, will scream about dirty criminal terrorists immigrants coming to take our jobs.

You take away peoples' options systematically, and then tell them they have freedom of choice.

How many?

Don't be facetious. You and I both know that its impossible to give a single hard number (other than "everybody").

Everyone is the victim of discrimination at some point in their lives. Everyone.

Some get it worse than others, and who gets it worse varies, and to what extent, varies by local, demographics, and political/cultural climate.

They scream less than almost any other country considering the makeup of US demographics and the long history of immigration into the US.

The US government under Trump is openly hostile to immigration from all quarters (though particularly Muslims). Do you deny this?

So the press and legsilatures need to do something about something that cannot be quantified in any way?

I did not say that it cannot be quantified in any way. I said that its a universal problem, and who is affected worst by it varies from one situation to another.

Also, I note that you did not address or refute my point about the lack of economic opportunity and choice in any way.

[Draco Dracul]

Of course we are, because they are an irrelevant group that is at worst irrelevant and at best sucks away votes from the republican party.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course we are, because they are an irrelevant group that is at worst irrelevant and at best sucks away votes from the republican party.

Essentially, a "socially liberal right" (if not an outright contradiction) is something that, for practical purposes, largely doesn't exist, certainly not as a political force in contemporary America.

I suppose you could have fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal on issues of drugs, civil liberties, etc., which is what a sincere and ideologically consistent libertarian would be, I suppose. But that is simply not a major force in modern American politics (regrettably).

If such a thing emerged... well, the Left would have to beat them on economics, I suppose, which would likely mean adopting a strong progressive and/or socialist stance.

[Karha of Honor]

Of course we are, because they are an irrelevant group that is at worst irrelevant and at best sucks away votes from the republican party.

Essentially, a "socially liberal right" (if not an outright contradiction) is something that, for practical purposes, largely doesn't exist, certainly not as a political force in contemporary America.

I suppose you could have fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal on issues of drugs, civil liberties, etc., which is what a sincere and ideologically consistent libertarian would be, I suppose. But that is simply not a major force in modern American politics (regrettably).

If such a thing emerged... well, the Left would have to beat them on economics, I suppose, which would likely mean adopting a strong progressive and/or socialist stance.

How IS IT AN OUTRIGHT CONTRADICTION? YOU DON;T DEFINE LEFT AND RIGHT Bight based around economics? You think a 100% socially conservative right elected Trump? The dems were terrible on civil liberties and yet they are socially liberal even if they are slipping into authoritarianism increasingly. I am not sure why civil liberties are part of the social liberal package minus the extreme restriction of them.