Vox probably didn't come up with the baby bonds as racial redistribution on its own. It's most likely that Booker framed it that way to Vox and Vox ran with it. What's funny about 'the race card' is that logistics of the baby bond is wholly race neutral. It's universal, but since there's such a white black wealth disparity making wealth more equal will necessarily be a net transfer from white to black citizens. You don't have to frame it that way if you don't want, you can frame it as equality or whatnot, but it's a matter of framing the policy, not that the policy itself is extreme. The converse (inverse? I'm never going to get this right) happens when a Democratic politician frames a universal policy as universal and egalitarian and Republicans hype up that policy as give away to minorities because, again, a universal egalitarian policy will necessarily have that effect.

Trucks in general and especially the F-Series have done well for a long time and will continue to do so until industrial usage change.

I am pulling this directly out of my ass but I feel that as a whole, your average person is more attentive to the affects of global warming than they were in 2016.

No, I didn't. That's an awful misinterpretation of my post. There's no point in talking about this if you're just going to decide what my position is no matter what I say and then argue against contentions I don't hold. I was careful in the first post, and explicit in the second post, that the redistribution isn't problematic for his campaign. I even said I don't know if his plan is more or less redistributive than other Dems'. Read my posts before you reply to them.

Do you think Booker would be chagrined by the Vox piece that was dripping with invidious racial comparisons? Or would he himself describe his "baby bond" plan as a means for racial wealth redistribution?

Original Position, this is what reasonable thinking looks like.

lol invidious racial comparisons

America is in love with cars and trucks. Irregardless of the “plans” political candidates campaign on, the average joe knows that:

climate change policy == higher taxes on energy consumption.

A whole lot of folks in the USA like to drive gas guzzlers and at the end of the day don’t want to pay more for gas.

You said:

You said Booker's wealth redistribution plan is a misstep. You've also said that you think the framing by Vox about it in racial terms is a mistake. I don't care about the second claim here, the Vox framing is for its own audience, not a general election audience. My objection is to the bolded claim. If you want to withdraw that claim, or if you misspoke and want to clarify your original statement, fine, do so.

No.
Depends on the audience.

From Booker's site:

Cory believes in an economy that values American workers and benefits everyone, not just the privileged few. His baby bonds proposal, the American Opportunity Accounts Act, would virtually close the racial wealth gap by funding a federally-backed savings account for every child born in America that grows with them as they grow up, ensuring that all children born in this country are afforded the opportunity for upward mobility.

I wouldn’t call that “playing the race card.” But considering what he’s proposing is essentially the same as our means-tested welfare programs, which do disproportionately benefit minorities at least on a per capita basis I’d guess, he is framing it differently than we tend to frame programs that do the same. But closing "the racial wealth gap" isn't "playing the race card" in my mind because I think it's something we all know exists and should be remedied. And like OrP mentioned it's doing so in a race neutral way by helping poor white kids in contrast to Affirmative Action.

It's completely clear in the first post, and reiterated in the next post I made. How many times do I have to say it's not the plan per se, but his pushing of it as taking from whites and giving to blacks? Seriously, OrP, how many times do I have to say that before you understand it? I can't tell if you're being disingenuous or if you're just so biased and stubborn that you're unable to understand the simple point I'm making.

When I say the plan is a misstep, the plan I refer to is the pushing of his "baby bonds" act as racial redistribution. I can see you're trying to cavil by acting like I'm saying the AOAA in and of itself is bad, even though I've said clearly a couple times now that I'm agnostic regarding the AOAA itself, and in the hands of less race-obsessed politicians, the AOAA may be good for their campaigns.

Here's an analogy:

Mike Tyson says he's going to try to keep distance from Lennox Lewis in their upcoming fight and win by racking up points with his jab.

I say this plan is a misstep. Tyson is short and implementing this plan will not work for him.

Then you come in and tell me that keeping distance and jabbing is a good plan that many fighters have used successfully.

Then I say I don't have anything against keeping distance and jabbing per se, just that it won't work for Tyson.

You go back to my first statement and highlight that I say that the plan of keeping distance and jabbing is a misstep and ask me if I want to retract my statement.

I wonder if I should ever bother talking with someone so faithless or slow.

Most people can at least cherry-pick an entire sentence to misrepresent someone with, leaving out all the clarifying explanation. You cherry-pick a clause (the bolded), and quote the rest of the sentence that gives the explanation.

Let me know if I need to explain any of this again.



You can't get away with being that two-faced in today's environment of global media. If Booker posts a tweet about this act, everyone sees it, and it's part of his official platform. If he describes it like Vox does, as a racial wealth redistribution act, then he'll be quoted on that and the die is cast. So I'll ask you again: Would he describe it as a racial wealth distribution act?

Okay. So to clarify, you are agnostic about the baby bond proposal being a positive or negative. However, you think it'll be bad for Booker in particular because the way he'll market it is as a racial wealth redistribution plan, which you think will cost him votes or support.

Fine. My view is that the baby bond plan won't make a big difference one way or the other for Booker's campaign, either in the primary or general election. I don't think most voters pay much attention to policy in the general, and while I think most Democrats would support this plan, I don't think they'll be super enthusiastic about it either.

I don't think Booker's campaign is harmed by the Vox article either. This is a relatively minor article from a boutique ideological website published more than two years before the election. I also don't think Booker is likely to emphasize the effects of his plan on the racial wealth gap in a way that would provoke more pushback from white people than he'd get anyway.

For instance, here is an interview of him from back in November by Yahoo Finance about this plan where this question is brought up. Watch it if you want to get a sense of how he'll handle this question (start at 3:25 for the racial aspect in particular). To my ear, he is trying to frame his plan as a plan that benefits all Americans, white, black, or otherwise, and de-emphasizing the effects on the racial wealth gap, while at the same time emphasizing the lack of fairness historically in the rules by which black people have had to play in acquiring wealth. That doesn't seem like a framing that will garner more heat than normal from conservatives or Republicans.

I would be surprised, just because most competent center-left politicians have trained themselves to not use the term "redistribution" because it freaks out the right and center so much. Instead, he'll talk about closing the wealth gap, or reducing wealth inequality between the races. It will likely be the right-aligned media that will typically describe his plan as a racial redistribution plan.

You're overreacting. I interpreted your statement in a way different than you intended. Fine, correct me and let's move on.

Why doesn't Booker just create a charity to effect something like a baby bond idea now?

IIRC, there are something like 500,000 - 600,000 inner city kids born annually. $50-60 million per $100 in value of individual bonds.

Each kid gets a social security number at birth anyway. Put the bond on their name/number.

Why not do it as a policy?

He could start today.

Or he could just keep talking about it...

At the moment, there appears to be almost no chance of him becoming president in 2020 (who knows about 2024).

Why wait?

(Unless he merely wants a campaign talking point.)

Booker is a US Senator and so has proposed legislation to make the baby bonds bill law. So he already is starting today. I don't agree that he has no chance of becoming president in 2020.

As a general point, I'd say the expectations for public policy are different from charity and so I don't know that baby bonds makes sense as philanthropy. Since charity is a gift, you don't need to worry about public support and fairness in a way you do with government policy. So philanthropy can be more narrowly targeted than public policy. I'll also point out that as mayor of Newark, what you are proposing is exactly what Booker did, using over $200m in private donations he raised to improve education in Newark.

He obviously can't start today if he wants to use taxes to create a wealth fund. He'll need Congress to pass a law to do that.

Is his bill going anywhere or is it DOA?

I don't get the point about wanting it to be a public policy. If it's a good idea (it seems to be), why wait... Just get it done, in whatever way works now. It can always become public policy at a later date.

And if he did go the charity route, he would have a ready made "I get things done" talking point for the campaign trail.

Seems like no downside to just making it happen.

So don't do do something good because you can't figure out how to make the taxpayers pay for it at the moment, even though other funds are available?

Seems unnecessarily short sighted.

I don't really care if he does it on it on his own time.

This program will cost $80b p/year. I'm doubtful that Booker could raise even $1b in private donations for this program. Thus, if it is a good idea, the best way for him to just make it happen is to try to get federal funding for it. Proposing legislation for it and trying to raise the profile of that legislation by running for president seems to me the likeliest way of just making it happen.

It's a bit dated but...

http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm
Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. (Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine)

Julian Castro is another long-shot candidate for President. He is a former mayor (of San Antonio) and is a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Obama. A couple days ago he released a plan to lessen lead poisoning.

Highlights:
-Direct $5b p/year for 10 years to remove lead in paint and soil in highest need communities.
-Pass the Home Lead Safety Tax Credit
-Mandate lead risk-assessments and testing for homes and buildings constructed before 1978 prior to their sale.
-Increase funding for the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program by $100m p/year.

There are a bunch of other ideas that would have to be done by state and local governments here (eg require blood lead level testing for newborns and children until the age of 2).

Castro has little chance of winning, but I hope whoever wins takes up these or related policies - getting rid of lead exposure risks is excellent policy.

lol what a clown show

Some interesting bits in this interview with Julián Castro

Biden talking to wealthy donors

Biden 2020, Nothing Has to Change

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...onize-the-rich