Jump to content


Dems Rebuild


Recommended Posts


3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

At least she lost the primary.

 

2 hours ago, funhusker said:

That's what I was thinking.  Isn't that exactly how to rebuild?  Get rid of people that say or do stupid things?

 

I think giving someone like that 11% of the vote is exactly how you rebuild. Get rid of the awful people.

 

It's just sad she was ever able to hold elected office in the first place.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

I don't know what Democrats can do about this.

 

 

 

 

 

They can’t do anything if people in less populated areas are entrenched. I wouldn’t even say they’re entrenched in their political views. They’re entrenched in how they see the Republican party, even if that view is incorrect. We see people voting against their own interests, e.g. rural voters who are poor.

 

The purpose of the Senate is to give the less populated states more say.

 

The problem I have is people in these states also have the advantage in the House and the presidential election. And then a lot of the people who are overrepresented whine that they’re overlooked. Republicans are great at convincing people to be angry.

Link to comment

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

They can’t do anything if people in less populated areas are entrenched. I wouldn’t even say they’re entrenched in their political views. They’re entrenched in how they see the Republican party, even if that view is incorrect. We see people voting against their own interests, e.g. rural voters who are poor.

 

The purpose of the Senate is to give the less populated states more say.

 

The problem I have is people in these states also have the advantage in the House and the presidential election. And then a lot of the people who are overrepresented whine that they’re overlooked. Republicans are great at convincing people to be angry.

 

I recently took part in a good discussion on Reddit about why the GOP is thought to be better on debt/deficit issues than the Democrats. It kind of came to the same conclusion as the bolded - people just at one point associated the party with fiscal responsibility and the perception has stuck in spite of decades of blowing up deficits and accruing massive debt.

 

I would say the purpose of the Senate should be to give smaller states EQUAL say. It obviously doesn't, though. And, as you noted, the Republicans as a party benefit massively from big districts covering lots of land but comparatively few people.

 

Any rural folks who complain that their interests aren't given enough say are just sadly misinformed.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

They can’t do anything if people in less populated areas are entrenched. I wouldn’t even say they’re entrenched in their political views. They’re entrenched in how they see the Republican party, even if that view is incorrect. We see people voting against their own interests, e.g. rural voters who are poor.

 

The purpose of the Senate is to give the less populated states more say.

 

The problem I have is people in these states also have the advantage in the House and the presidential election. And then a lot of the people who are overrepresented whine that they’re overlooked. Republicans are great at convincing people to be angry.

Be careful assuming people are voting against their own interests. Here's a talk by Mark Blyth at UNL about that very thing (he concludes that they don't really):

Why People Vote for Those Who Work Against Their Best Interests

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
56 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I quickly glanced through the article, so maybe I missed another point.  But it seems to me she plans to reinstate the "pay-go" rule the requires new spending to either be offset by cuts or new taxes.  If it handcuffs policies that no one is interested in actually funding, good!

 

EDIT:  From the very last paragraph:  “Instead of vowing budget chastity, Democrats should be articulating an agenda that excites voters so that they can unleash the full power of the public purse on their behalf.”  

 

This Sounds a lot like 'let's just promise people a bunch of free stuff'.  A stereotype pushed by the GOP that I'd hoped wasn't really the thought process of responsible government.

 

Link to comment

47 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I quickly glanced through the article, so maybe I missed another point.  But it seems to me she plans to reinstate the "pay-go" rule the requires new spending to either be offset by cuts or new taxes.  If it handcuffs policies that no one is interested in actually funding, good!

 

EDIT:  From the very last paragraph:  “Instead of vowing budget chastity, Democrats should be articulating an agenda that excites voters so that they can unleash the full power of the public purse on their behalf.”  

 

This Sounds a lot like 'let's just promise people a bunch of free stuff'.  A stereotype pushed by the GOP that I'd hoped wasn't really the thought process of responsible government.

 

The Republicans haven't followed the "pay-go" rule, but the Dems should? It's a good way to not get elected. Basically we're seeing that the establishment Dems are really the old Republicans back when they cared about balancing the budget.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The Republicans haven't followed the "pay-go" rule, but the Dems should? It's a good way to not get elected. Basically we're seeing that the establishment Dems are really the old Republicans back when they cared about balancing the budget.

Repubs the big spenders and a Dems the penny  counters  - who would have thought.  although in truth - for the repubs it was all image - they too were always big spenders but on different issues.  As long as they could paint Dems as 'bleeding heart liberals' they thought they could get by wt their big spending ways by pointing the finger towards the Dems.  Slight of hand. Both parties have gotten us to the 20 trillion debt level.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

The Republicans haven't followed the "pay-go" rule, but the Dems should? It's a good way to not get elected. Basically we're seeing that the establishment Dems are really the old Republicans back when they cared about balancing the budget.

You're absolutely right the Republicans haven't followed it.  "Whataboutism" has been defined over and over again in this forum, so I won't rehash it.  But that among other reasons is why I don't plan to vote for any of them.  I will also not be excited to vote for a Dem that promises the world but has no plan to make it feasible. 

 

PS: I'm totally ok with paying more taxes if it means my medical insurance bill goes away.  I'm totally okay with more taxes if it means my kids won't be saddled by student loans.  I'm okay with more taxes if it means my wheels won't get ruined on the drive to work by potholes, or even worse I die in a bridge collapse.  We don't have to raise taxes, we could cut military, cut corporate subsidies, among many other plans.  But I feel our elected officials should be able to account for how they will fund ideas.  Just my .02

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, funhusker said:

You're absolutely right the Republicans haven't followed it.  "Whataboutism" has been defined over and over again in this forum, so I won't rehash it.  But that among other reasons is why I don't plan to vote for any of them.  I will also not be excited to vote for a Dem that promises the world but has no plan to make it feasible. 

 

PS: I'm totally ok with paying more taxes if it means my medical insurance bill goes away.  I'm totally okay with more taxes if it means my kids won't be saddled by student loans.  I'm okay with more taxes if it means my wheels won't get ruined on the drive to work by potholes, or even worse I die in a bridge collapse.  We don't have to raise taxes, we could cut military, cut corporate subsidies, among many other plans.  But I feel our elected officials should be able to account for how they will fund ideas.  Just my .02

There's also a lot of theory that balancing the budget every year or every change in expenditures isn't a good idea for a federal government. Modern monetary theory (MMT) does a good job of explaining why. The extremely basic idea is that the federal government can create money (so it can't ever miss a payment) and the sum of personal, business, and government exchanges (spending and saving) must sum to zero. So if people and businesses are net saving money, then government must be running a deficit - and the government can always run a deficit unlike businesses or individuals.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

There's also a lot of theory that balancing the budget every year or every change in expenditures isn't a good idea for a federal government. Modern monetary theory (MMT) does a good job of explaining why. The extremely basic idea is that the federal government can create money (so it can't ever miss a payment) and the sum of personal, business, and government exchanges (spending and saving) must sum to zero. So if people and businesses are net saving money, then government must be running a deficit - and the government can always run a deficit unlike businesses or individuals.

But there has to be a "limit", right?  I understand that a balanced budged every year is a pipe dream with the differences in tax revenue alone.  But if deficits aren't a concern, why do we not have Medicaid for everyone now?  Why doesn't the government buy everyone a house and car?  Why pay taxes at all?

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...