Dems Rebuild

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour 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.

Soo.... when Clinton had a surplus in 1998, that was actually a sign that everything was horrible?

Sorry, not totally buying your MMT theory to the extent you have discussed it here.

[Danny Bateman]

4 hours ago, funhusker said:

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?

 

I mean, no one is seriously suggesting we just buy everyone everything they need or everyone stops paying taxes altogether. That's the worst possible interpretation of what RedDenver is talking about. 

 

But think about it. Since Reagan AT LEAST (so going on four decades now) Republican fiscal policy is to cut taxes without a damn thought about how to pay for it. Deregulate without any plan to deal with the long-term consequences. It all boils down to squeezing the orange for the short-term gains, without any type of plan for the long-term. The plans they propose to help curtail deficits (cutting or privatizing Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security, mainly) are incredibly unpopular, so they pretend like they're going to do them for a while until they quietly let those efforts die because they know they're so toxic for voters.

 

Why is it that only after they pass the baton off to a Democratic administration before people start to complain about the debt and deficit again?

 

Personally I would much rather Democrats give me and other people stuff that improves our lives in a real, tangible way (healthcare, jobs, infrastructure) rather than watching Republicans continue to give stuff to rich people and Big Business while people like me get left out in the cold. AND THEN have the GOP make a feckless, half-hearted attempt at taking the marginal benefits the common man already has away to pay for more gains for their donors.

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

I mean, no one is seriously suggesting we just buy everyone everything they need or everyone stops paying taxes altogether. That's the worst possible interpretation of what RedDenver is talking about. 

 

But think about it. Since Reagan AT LEAST (so going on four decades now) Republican fiscal policy is to cut taxes without a damn thought about how to pay for it. Deregulate without any plan to deal with the long-term consequences. It all boils down to squeezing the orange for the short-term gains, without any type of plan for the long-term. The plans they propose to help curtail deficits (cutting or privatizing Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security, mainly) are incredibly unpopular, so they pretend like they're going to do them for a while until they quietly let those efforts die because they know they're so toxic for voters.

 

Why is it that only after they pass the baton off to a Democratic administration before people start to complain about the debt and deficit again?

 

Personally I would much rather Democrats give me and other people stuff that improves our lives in a real, tangible way (healthcare, jobs, infrastructure) rather than watching Republicans continue to give stuff to rich people and Big Business while people like me get left out in the cold. AND THEN have the GOP make a feckless, half-hearted attempt at taking the marginal benefits the common man already has away to pay for more gains for their donors.

This is what I'm getting at.  I don't think either is good.  Tax reductions and new services should BOTH be funded somehow.  I applaud Pelosi's efforts to try.

 

I'm not going to rail on and on about a Republican tax bill that isn't paid for and then turn a blind eye to Medicaid for all that isn't paid for.  I don't expect a balanced budget amendment (as RedDenver said, that would be unnecessarily complicated) but I also think we have to be thoughtful of what can really be afforded without screwing up long term plans.

[Danny Bateman]

23 minutes ago, funhusker said:

This is what I'm getting at.  I don't think either is good.  Tax reductions and new services should BOTH be funded somehow.  I applaud Pelosi's efforts to try.

  

I'm not going to rail on and on about a Republican tax bill that isn't paid for and then turn a blind eye to Medicaid for all that isn't paid for.  I don't expect a balanced budget amendment (as RedDenver said, that would be unnecessarily complicated) but I also think we have to be thoughtful of what can really be afforded without screwing up long term plans.

 

I fear you're just in a shrinking constituency. I'd love to agree with you and prioritize well-fleshed out policies that are researched and backed up by logical spending plans that make sense.

 

But I feel like the people who just want things and don't want to worry about the details are winning out. There's a big chunk of people that want right-wing policies without worrying about how to pay for them. There's another chunk of people who want leftist priorities without worrying about how to pay for them. They ultimately want different things, but neither seem overly concerned about how to finance things.

 

I could be wrong, but it just seems like the group of people who are less concerned with the specific policies than making sound fiscal decisions is dwindling. At the very least it seems like the other groups have more sway right now.

[funhusker]

20 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

I fear you're just in a shrinking constituency. I'd love to agree with you and prioritize well-fleshed out policies that are researched and backed up by logical spending plans that make sense.

 

But I feel like the people who just want things and don't want to worry about the details are winning out. There's a big chunk of people that want right-wing policies without worrying about how to pay for them. There's another chunk of people who want leftist priorities without worrying about how to pay for them. They ultimately want different things, but neither seem overly concerned about how to finance things.

 

I could be wrong, but it just seems like the group of people who are less concerned with the specific policies than making sound fiscal decisions is dwindling. At the very least it seems like the other groups have more sway right now.

I fear you are 100% correct.

[RedDenver]

11 hours ago, funhusker said:

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?

I'm not saying there's no consequences for running perpetual deficits or that we never have to pay for anything and everything should just be free - that's crazy. I'm just saying that there's theory out there you can research about how government spending and deficits isn't as simple as balancing a checkbook, and there are mechanisms that apply to government spending that don't apply to our normal financial experiences (most notably - being able to create money).

 

11 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Soo.... when Clinton had a surplus in 1998, that was actually a sign that everything was horrible?

Sorry, not totally buying your MMT theory to the extent you have discussed it here.

You'll have to read up on it if you want to know all the details. There's lots of stuff online. (I'm not an expert, so my apologies if I've gotten some of the details wrong.)

 

Here's a chart to hopefully better explain what I said before (and Clinton's surplus years are in there too):

[Danny Bateman]

Cory Booker has taken the gloves off. Bravo. 

 

Republicans are once again playing dirty and trying to hide documents that would make their ideal choice look bad. Good for Booker for exposing them in their dishonesty.

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

I just donated for the first time this year. I sent $5 to Heitkamp in North Dakota. She seems like the biggest underdog right now. My girlfriend decided to match me when I explained why I wanted to send her some money. I thought she made the right choice on Kavanaugh when it wasn't easy and her rationale was very strong. A politician actually being principled was nice to see. And the fact that I'm tired of seeing progressives try to cannibalize red-state Dems they need to enact any liberal policies. 

 

@Moiraine where did you wind up sending money when you asked for suggestions before?

[Moiraine]

5 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

I just donated for the first time this year. I sent $5 to Heitkamp in North Dakota. She seems like the biggest underdog right now. My girlfriend decided to match me when I explained why I wanted to send her some money. I thought she made the right choice on Kavanaugh when it wasn't easy and her rationale was very strong. A politician actually being principled was nice to see. And the fact that I'm tired of seeing progressives try to cannibalize red-state Dems they need to enact any liberal policies. 

 

@Moiraine where did you wind up sending money when you asked for suggestions before?

 

 

Basically everyone we talked about. It was 12 candidates. I don’t remember them all.

 

My favorite is Stacey Abrams but her election doesn’t affect me a lot. I love listening to her talk.

[Danny Bateman]

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Basically everyone we talked about. It was 12 candidates. I don’t remember them all.

 

My favorite is Stacey Abrams but her election doesn’t affect me a lot. I love listening to her talk.

 

Yeah she seems pretty great. I think she's got a bit of an uphill battle even though Georgia is slowly becoming more purple. It's such a shame to see her opponent trying to rig things in his favor by not processing disproportionately AA voter registrations prior to November. 

 

Don't know if you're interested, but I noticed she's got a live AMA going on over on Reddit right now.

[Moiraine]

4 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Yeah she seems pretty great. I think she's got a bit of an uphill battle even though Georgia is slowly becoming more purple. It's such a shame to see her opponent trying to rig things in his favor by not processing disproportionately AA voter registrations prior to November. 

 

Don't know if you're interested, but I noticed she's got a live AMA going on over on Reddit right now.

 

 

I could see her as president 10 years from now.

[Danny Bateman]

20 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I could see her as president 10 years from now.

 

Her or Beto are my favorite candidates running now in terms of long-run presidential viability right now. Obama was generational but in general I feel like people from purple states have broader appeal on the national stage. Definitely helps if the person is semi-young, too. I don't see a lot of our political dinosaurs having good presidential potential moving forward.

 

Edit: And she's funny!

 

Quote

Q: I'm going to ask you a very personal and intimate question. If you're uncomfortable answering, I understand. However, I'd like to note that voters will be prying into these sort of details if you are elected. What are you planning to dress up as on Halloween?

A:  Georgia's 83rd Governor. 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[mrandyk]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I voted for him already. He's got some serious traction. Really seems like a guy that can bring the people together. It's too bad the people who look no further than the letter 'R' on the ballot will likely keep him out of office.

[Danny Bateman]

Uphill battle to persuade voters when news orgs keep focusing on Trump priorities...