Looking to the future - 'Abundance'

[sekker]

I cannot think of a singular voice who has been capturing my political journey better than Ezra Klein.

I have not gotten his book called 'Abundance', but I will after listening to this intro and origin story. I love the name - I've been using the concept of an 'abundance' mindset vs 'zero sum game' for much of my life.

The bottom line - I am a social progressive, fiscal conservative and builder. I have voted Dem in every Presidential election so far. My former mentees (I am in academia) span the cultural and gender spectrum. They are awesome and are moving the needle to make the world a better place.

However, one reason I was fine moving from a blue state to red was the ability to build. I watched friends in a blue city in Minnesota go through hoops after hoops to do simple things like repaint their restaurant. You might say, 'that's an exaggeration'. No - it's not. Red states have outbuilt blue in new housing, and I moved to one of the few real cities in the country where housing prices have DROPPED the last two years because supply is increasing.

I do not see a lot of positive views on what we (as traditioal Dems) WANT to see in the future. While I truly appreciate AOC and Bernie, I'm not a Communist or strong Socialist. So I am posting this here for those who want to debate HOW to build. If you want to focus on what NOT to to, or how to go back in time (both of which are your right) - you will be disappointed. This is a good listen, especially about how the NIH paperwork and ancient processes completely bog down new biotech advances.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/th...0700245818

[anonymouse1]

Abundance is one, important part. It's necessary but not sufficient. You also need reform of the Cabinet Departaments/Agencies Ala Jen Pauli/Dan Davies, and you need good messaging, and you need local organizing,

[SteveG]

Extracted article in this month's Atlantic magazine

[Speedy]

Personally I think the present, or the recent past up to November, was just fine. We were headed down the right path. But when things are going well people tend to vote their wedge issues - meaning they vote Republican because that party’s propaganda machine has no parallel and never will.

[sekker]

anonymouse1 wrote:
Abundance is one, important part. It's necessary but not sufficient. You also need reform of the Cabinet Departaments/Agencies Ala Jen Pauli/Dan Davies, and you need good messaging, and you need local organizing,

Klein and his co-author goes into each of these topics.

The Democrats need to be messaging what they are FOR.

I say 'they' as I am not a fan of the extreme goals of the far left, which seems to me to be the main messaging right now.

Call me more of a 'Warren Buffet' political view - he has always said he should be paying as much (as a percentage) of his income as his secretary. Is that what AOC means 'tax the rich'? Don't think so.

[mattkime]

sekker wrote: . Is that what AOC means 'tax the rich'? Don't think so.

It’s exactly what she means.

[pdq]

sekker wrote:
[quote=anonymouse1]
Abundance is one, important part. It's necessary but not sufficient. You also need reform of the Cabinet Departaments/Agencies Ala Jen Pauli/Dan Davies, and you need good messaging, and you need local organizing,

Klein and his co-author goes into each of these topics.

The Democrats need to be messaging what they are FOR.
Srlsly?

What was Trump FOR? Not immigrants. Not women. Not those struggling. Not for Ukraine. It was all about Trump, Trump, Trump. Only I.

What were his goals? Pulling out of NATO. Letting Putin have Ukraine. Seizing Greenland and Panama and Canada, apparently.

Cruelty. Taking it out on other people. More tax cuts for the most fortunate.

Dems message like crazy. They are for equality, a decent chance for young people to afford education, homeownership, a good life. They want to preserve Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, all things they delivered; all things the GOP would like to tear down. They produce detailed plans and proposals and put them on their campaign pages.

But sadly, that’s all for naught. People can’t be bothered; they seem to like negative campaigning better. And especially the easy suggestion that their problems are all due to the other.

Meanwhile, when the Voughts and Millers of the world assemble their plans, and the world hears of them, candidates like Trump say they’ve never heard of them, that they have nothing to do with that. And then when elected, they appoint those people to leadership positions, where they follow that plan to the letter or beyond.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I dislike this kind of brain-dead analysis, especially that which says Dems should move to the Right. No thanks. We have enough jerks in leadership positions in this country.

I say 'they' as I am not a fan of the extreme goals of the far left, which seems to me to be the main messaging right now.

Call me more of a 'Warren Buffet' political view - he has always said he should be paying as much (as a percentage) of his income as his secretary. Is that what AOC means 'tax the rich'? Don't think so.

Why don’t you think so? I would guess she would be delighted if the Buffet rule came true. It would go a hell of a lot farther toward solving our problems that DOGE, which will very likely make them worse.

[Speedy]

mattkime wrote:
[quote=sekker]. Is that what AOC means 'tax the rich'? Don't think so.

It’s exactly what she means.
Yes!

[sekker]

Speedy wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
[quote=sekker]. Is that what AOC means 'tax the rich'? Don't think so.

It’s exactly what she means.
Yes!
You both took my comment out of context. Why?

If you take the time to listen to the podcast for a discussion, I will happily engage.

[gabester]

sekker wrote:
You both took my comment out of context. Why?

If you take the time to listen to the podcast for a discussion, I will happily engage.

OK, sekker... You said:

sekker wrote:
Warren Buffet... has always said he should be paying as much (as a percentage) of his income as his secretary. Is that what AOC means 'tax the rich'? Don't think so.

What do you think AOC means by 'tax the rich'? Is there really a serious difference between Buffet paying the same rate as his secretary - likely somewhere between 15-25% and what you think AOC means whether that's at 35% or 95%, versus the trivial rate he currently actually pays (likely less than 10%?) Any increase on billionaire's tax payments to be equivalent to what "normal" people pay would be a substantial increase of something like 50-500%.

Yes, this does seem to be an aside from listening to the podcast and getting to the meat of a discussion on how to build, but it's hard not to get sidetracked