2018 Democrats thread

[GoSox05]

 Centrist Democrats are now the great defenders of social justice? Please.

 

 

[Reddy]

53 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

I’m not sure what we are arguing here. Tip O’Neill vs. Pelosi?

In the end, distaste for Trump is going to drive the Dems as much as any single factor.  Moreso than anyone on the right will get worked up over Pelosi and Schumer, since both are essentially powerless at the moment...at least until the day AFTER the first Tuesday in November.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-slogans.html

We also don’t need to spends tens of millions of dollars sorting through 85 possible campaign themes.

A Better Deal hasn’t resonated, either.  Unless you’re a relative of FDR or LBJ.

 

 

3

Were you paying attention to what happened with the omnibus spending package?

[Reddy]

9 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

 Centrist Democrats are now the great defenders of social justice? Please.

 

 

1

Democrats are absolutely the party of justice in the American political system. Just because you sometimes don't get the changes as fast as you want, doesn't mean one part of the party "doesn't care" about those issues. For instance, DACA. Pelosi mentioned yesterday that in the omnibus negotiations, the GOP offered to do something on DACA if Dems would give them money for more ICE agents and resources to aid with deportation. Pelosi refused. Now the soundbyte that comes out is that Dems threw DACA recipients under the bus and didn't get anything for them in the spending package, but the TRUTH is that the changes to DACA that the GOP were offering would've made a difference to such a small number of people that the impact of this deal on undocumented immigrants would've been a huge net negative overall, even if the Dems got good press over it. So Pelosi told them to go to hell.

Tell me. Which is the correct implementation of social justice in that scenario? Taking the deal for the good headlines, or doing the right thing for undocumented immigrants even if it hurts you politically?

Edited April 25, 2018 by Reddy

[GoSox05]

Yeah, that's great, but where was she when Obama was deporting people at higher rate than any president in history?

 

 

Also, every Democrat should be calling for the immediate end of ICE.

[Reddy]

3 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Yeah, that's great, but where was she when Obama was deporting people at higher rate than any president in history?
 

1

Working on this:

'The DREAM Act bill, which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States upon meeting certain qualifications, was considered by Congress in 2007. It failed to overcome a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate.^[22] It was considered again in 2011. The bill passed the House, but did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.^[23][22] In 2013, legislation had comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school; this passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House.^[22]The New York Times credits the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama's decision to sign DACA.^[22]'

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

This article has it all.  That wonderful quote from the very good person, Margaret Thatcher.  Machine guns on top of a border wall to kill people trying to enter the country. 

Also, UBI is not socialist.

Have you noticed how there's not one single data point about how its bad, just a number of slogans about how it would make you feel like work was diminished? If that's the best kind of arguments that are made against something then I'll go ahead and be for it because the case against it is embarrassingly pathetic. 

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Have you noticed how there's not one single data point about how its bad, just a number of slogans about how it would make you feel like work was diminished? If that's the best kind of arguments that are made against something then I'll go ahead and be for it because the case against it is embarrassingly pathetic. 

It’s an emotional argument that resonates, particularly with the older generation that gave Trump 87,000 votes in 3 particular Rust Belt and Heartland states.

The Dems don’t have a great counter that doesn’t involve more government spending (when’s the last totally effective goernment-based jobs/training/retraining program that became legislation since FDR or LBJ?), higher taxes or passing on higher costs to consumers.

To just continue advocating higher taxes on the Top 1% to subsidize everyone else doesn’t resonate either, because half of America continues to believe those are the job creators and taxing them more heavily will have detrimental effects on the economy and hiring/wage rises.

The Earned Income Credit (Clinton) and doing the same with UBI are always going to be more palatable options to the public than what will be perceived to be a giveaway program to lazy Millennials.

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by caulfield12

[BigSqwert]

8 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

because half of America continues to believe those are the job creators and taxing them more heavily will have detrimental effects on the economy and hiring/wage rises.

 

 

Or more accurately, "half of the 58% of people who actually voted"

[GoSox05]

23 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

It’s an emotional argument that resonates, particularly with the older generation that gave Trump 87,000 votes in 3 particular Rust Belt and Heartland states.

The Dems don’t have a great counter that doesn’t involve more government spending (when’s the last totally effective goernment-based jobs/training/retraining program that became legislation since FDR or LBJ?), higher taxes or passing on higher costs to consumers.

To just continue advocating higher taxes on the Top 1% to subsidize everyone else doesn’t resonate either, because half of America continues to believe those are the job creators and taxing them more heavily will have detrimental effects on the economy and hiring/wage rises.

The Earned Income Credit (Clinton) and doing the same with UBI are always going to be more palatable options to the public than what will be perceived to be a giveaway program to lazy Millennials.

 

I bet the number of people who support taxing the richest 1% is higher than one would think.

[Jack Parkman]

8 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

It’s an emotional argument that resonates, particularly with the older generation that gave Trump 87,000 votes in 3 particular Rust Belt and Heartland states.

The Dems don’t have a great counter that doesn’t involve more government spending (when’s the last totally effective goernment-based jobs/training/retraining program that became legislation since FDR or LBJ?), higher taxes or passing on higher costs to consumers.

To just continue advocating higher taxes on the Top 1% to subsidize everyone else doesn’t resonate either, because half of America continues to believe those are the job creators and taxing them more heavily will have detrimental effects on the economy and hiring/wage rises.

The Earned Income Credit (Clinton) and doing the same with UBI are always going to be more palatable options to the public than what will be perceived to be a giveaway program to lazy Millennials.

 

I fucking hate when people say this. Is it too much to ask to have a similar quality of life and career prospects as our parents did? It seems so. Apparently if your entire life does not revolve around your career you're lazy. Apparently having a work-life balance is being "entitled" as well.  Ask anyone who has done that the price they paid in their personal life. Not to mention debt slavery in the form of student loans. The entire  economic system has turned into a predatory one. There is no give and take anymore. All give by the majority and all take by the economic elites.  All of the things that literally "Made America Great" were the result of borderline socialist policies by FDR and Truman, combined with the capitalist ideas of upward mobility. Nobody wants to talk about that though. For an economy to work properly, we need a healthy balance of socialist policies and capitalist policies. Going full stop one way or the other isn't going to work. Step #1 is destroying the cartels that control all of the distribution of goods and services in the US. Regional companies were a thing because it promoted a healthier economy. 

Edited April 26, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[caulfield12]

Well, there's no doubt Amazon and Wal-Mart enjoy unprecedented economies of scale.

There's also no doubt they have been the bane of small and medium-sized business across Flyover Territory...wiping out many small towns in the Midwest/Heartland, Southwest, Rust Belt and Deep South/Appalachia.

Of course, all of this is wrapped in the issue of tariffs and the unprecedented dumping of lots of cheaper Chinese-manufactured products onto the American market to allow the average consumer to afford (with credit, of course) a comparatively better life than would have been possible with 25-30% higher costs if all those same goods had been US-sourced.

[Texsox]

The job creators use the money that the middle and lower income wage earners spend to grow their businesses. 

[caulfield12]

 

In Seattle’s red-hot housing market, a group of millennial techies is using data skills to alter the look, and affordability, of their adopted city.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/26/seattle-housing-what-works-next-218058

“My generation is never going to have that.”

Edited April 26, 2018 by caulfield12

[GoSox05]

8 hours ago, Texsox said:

The job creators use the money that the middle and lower income wage earners spend to grow their businesses. 

"Job creators" are the new kings and queens.

[caulfield12]

8 hours ago, Texsox said:

The job creators use the money that the middle and lower income wage earners spend to grow their businesses. 

What about the five million American workers who have lost their jobs due to robotics, automation and outsourcing?

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence, according to Brynjolfsson, is a chart that only an economist could love. In economics, productivity—the amount of economic value created for a given unit of input, such as an hour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth and wealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On the chart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate lines represent productivity and total employment in the United States. For years after World War II, the two lines closely tracked each other, with increases in jobs corresponding to increases in productivity. The pattern is clear: as businesses generated more value from their workers, the country as a whole became richer, which fueled more economic activity and created even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, the lines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly, but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, a significant gap appears between the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the “great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he is confident that technology is behind both the healthy growth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.

[StrangeSox]

Corps have largely either been sitting on enormous piles of cash or using the money for stock buybacks and executive bonuses rather than reinvestment or widespread wage increases.

[Dam8610]

Thoughts?

[Balta1701]

"By failing to offer a clear alternative...."

"Here's a rant on police violence, private prisons, corruption, and living wage, within the space of about 12 words, superimposed upon a pill bottle because that's where I get sent to prison, inside a living wage pill bottle. Everyone will clearly understand these cogent points".

[Jack Parkman]

13 hours ago, Texsox said:

The job creators use the money that the middle and lower income wage earners spend to grow their businesses. 

This is the biggest lie in politics. They don't. They hoard it, and complain about regulations, wages, taxes, etc. while raking in millions. Economic elites are the aristocrats of the USA. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we can start tackling the problems. These people are the leeches of society. They take all and give little, and we're supposed to be grateful for the crumbs that we receive. 

Edited April 26, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Jack Parkman]

3 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

Thoughts?

The only way to stop the destruction of the US democracy is to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United. That decision has basically corrupted the system by legalizing bribery. Without overturning CU, we're basically going to turn into Russia. 

[Reddy]

3 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

Thoughts?

Trying to figure out how they do that as the minority in Congress, with a R Prez and conservative Supreme Court. ?

[Reddy]

Side note: I love that we can "like" posts now.

[Balta1701]

BILL COSBY INNOCENT !!!!!!!!!!

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 9, 2016 (Since deleted)

[Dam8610]

10 hours ago, Reddy said:

Trying to figure out how they do that as the minority in Congress, with a R Prez and conservative Supreme Court. ?

You're trying to figure out how Democrats could stop taking money from the for-profit private prison industry, fight for a living wage, or have a platform that offers a clear alternative to GOP corruption? No wonder the Democrats can't win elections consistently.

[Reddy]

11 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

You're trying to figure out how Democrats could stop taking money from the for-profit private prison industry, fight for a living wage, or have a platform that offers a clear alternative to GOP corruption? No wonder the Democrats can't win elections consistently.

You... haven't looked at the Democratic Party platform lately, have you?