The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

They're not all equally insane, and the false equivalency/appeal-to-centrism is as much a part of the problem.

 

There is not an equivalent in the Democratic Party to the anti-gay bigotry, complete opposition to taxation or the denial of entire fields of science. The GOP is not a 'conservative' party right now as much as it is a reactionary party. I'll link to this editorial in the WaPo again, and I'll note that one of the authors works for AEI, not exactly a pro-Democrat think tank.

Edited May 4, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

They're not all equally insane, and the false equivalency/appeal-to-centrism is as much a part of the problem.

 

There is not an equivalent in the Democratic Party to the anti-gay bigotry, complete opposition to taxation or the denial of entire fields of science. The GOP is not a 'conservative' party right now as much as it is a reactionary party. I'll link to this editorial in the WaPo again, and I'll note that one of the authors works for AEI, not exactly a pro-Democrat think tank.

 

Yeah because there aren't liberals totally opposed to a specific sub-set of people (any corporate white male with money) or don't view government's role as an extreme (ummm, socialism).

 

And yes, this party is reactionary, just like the democrats from 2000-2008 or *SHOCK* any party not in power trying to get into power during an election cycle. Your short term memory on this stuff just kills me sometimes.

[StrangeSox]

That's exactly the lame false-equivalency crap I'm talking about!

 

"Any corporate white male with money," really? How many trillions have the banks been given under Obama's watch? How have their profits been lately? Can you actually name anything comparable to the numerous anti-gay bills and actions from the GOP? Aside from Bernie Sanders, can you actually name anyone in the US Congress who is actually a socialist?

 

Did you bother to read that editorial? Or the letter from a life-long GOP staffer last year that said pretty much the same thing? Or anything from Frum or Barlett or any of the other apostates who have been cast out of the party by the radicals currently controlling it? I'd LOVE it if the Democrats had been a bunch of leftist radicals at any point in my life, but they haven't come anywhere close.

[southsider2k5]

That's exactly the lame false-equivalency crap I'm talking about!

 

"Any corporate white male with money," really? How many trillions have the banks been given under Obama's watch? How have their profits been lately? Can you actually name anything comparable to the numerous anti-gay bills and actions from the GOP? Aside from Bernie Sanders, can you actually name anyone in the US Congress who is actually a socialist?

 

Did you bother to read that editorial? Or the letter from a life-long GOP staffer last year that said pretty much the same thing? Or anything from Frum or Barlett or any of the other apostates who have been cast out of the party by the radicals currently controlling it? I'd LOVE it if the Democrats had been a bunch of leftist radicals at any point in my life, but they haven't come anywhere close.

 

Jan Schakowksy.

 

I actually saw her speak at a Democratic Socialists event years ago. She claimed to be a proud socialist.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's exactly the lame false-equivalency crap I'm talking about!

 

"Any corporate white male with money," really? How many trillions have the banks been given under Obama's watch? How have their profits been lately? Can you actually name anything comparable to the numerous anti-gay bills and actions from the GOP? Aside from Bernie Sanders, can you actually name anyone in the US Congress who is actually a socialist?

 

Did you bother to read that editorial? Or the letter from a life-long GOP staffer last year that said pretty much the same thing? Or anything from Frum or Barlett or any of the other apostates who have been cast out of the party by the radicals currently controlling it? I'd LOVE it if the Democrats had been a bunch of leftist radicals at any point in my life, but they haven't come anywhere close.

 

Yeah, i'd say there's a pretty huge subset of the democratic party that hates pretty much anyone with money. See: occupy members. Maybe there aren't 6 candidates spouting ridiculous things about it like we just had with the GOP, but there wasn't a primary to fight over.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, i'd say there's a pretty huge subset of the democratic party that hates pretty much anyone with money. See: occupy members. Maybe there aren't 6 candidates spouting ridiculous things about it like we just had with the GOP, but there wasn't a primary to fight over.

I think you're much more likely to see an Occupy member vote Green than you are to see a Tea Party member vote libertarian. Although many people within the Occupy movement lean Democrat, its a lot less monolithic in terms of a voting bloc than you'd think. In fact, I'd wager that a huge chunk of Occupiers don't bother to vote at all.

[Y2HH]

They're not all equally insane, and the false equivalency/appeal-to-centrism is as much a part of the problem.

 

There is not an equivalent in the Democratic Party to the anti-gay bigotry, complete opposition to taxation or the denial of entire fields of science. The GOP is not a 'conservative' party right now as much as it is a reactionary party. I'll link to this editorial in the WaPo again, and I'll note that one of the authors works for AEI, not exactly a pro-Democrat think tank.

 

It's merely your opinion that the "entire" GOP is insane, but you're trying to state it as a fact. I'd argue that there are just as many crazy liberals running around out there, but because you believe what they believe, you don't see it as "insane". I think it's totally "insane" to spend like liberals want to spend...openly and freely, debt on top of debt. Most (if not "all") liberals feel Obama isn't spending enough. That, to me...is what's insane.

 

So, as shown, depending on your point of view, the opposing party can easily be seen as "insane".

 

Now...if anyone really bothered to think about it...I'd probably have to say it's not the GOP or the DNC that's insane...it's the voters. It's the sheep followers that keep voting these people into office, only to receive more of the same in return.

 

See a few "insane" democratic talking points, for example:

 

We shouldn't be giving 10 billion in tax subsidies to big oil! Meanwhile, lets ignore the fact that the tax code is so f***ed that a company like GE can file and owe 0$ in taxes, and actually receive a REFUND of 4 billion dollars...but hey...that 10 billion dollars we give big oil...WE NEED TO FIX THAT!

 

That's an insane talking point. Yea...fix the tax subsidies on big oil so the consumer can pick up the tab...all you did was move the burden from the "consumers tax dollars" to the "consumers wallets". It accomplished NOTHING.

 

They need to fix the tax code and shut the f*** up about everything else...the rest will fix it self when they fix that.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Y2hh,

 

I agree that there are silly people on both sides. But some of your statements are incorrect or just hyperbole.

 

Most (if not "all") liberals feel Obama isn't spending enough.

 

There is no way I can be considered a conservative, so I guess I have to be a liberal. I think that spending should be slashed, first up Department of Defense. The real issue in my opinion is that liberals are fine with slashing some spending and that happens to be the spending conservatives want to increase. Where as conservatives want to slash spending on areas liberals would prefer remain (not sure anyone is saying increase spending, I think most are saying that defense spending should be cut and that other programs should remain the same or slightly reduced.)

 

We shouldn't be giving 10 billion in tax subsidies to big oil! Meanwhile, lets ignore the fact that the tax code is so f***ed that a company like GE can file and owe 0$ in taxes, and actually receive a REFUND of 4 billion dollars...but hey...that 10 billion dollars we give big oil...WE NEED TO FIX THAT!

 

How is taxing corporations more not a liberal policy? I dont know many liberals who believe that the corporations should pay less taxes than people.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Y2hh,

 

I agree that there are silly people on both sides. But some of your statements are incorrect or just hyperbole.

 

 

 

There is no way I can be considered a conservative, so I guess I have to be a liberal. I think that spending should be slashed, first up Department of Defense. The real issue in my opinion is that liberals are fine with slashing some spending and that happens to be the spending conservatives want to increase. Where as conservatives want to slash spending on areas liberals would prefer remain (not sure anyone is saying increase spending, I think most are saying that defense spending should be cut and that other programs should remain the same or slightly reduced.)

 

 

 

How is taxing corporations more not a liberal policy? I dont know many liberals who believe that the corporations should pay less taxes than people.

 

1) Just because you aren't a conservative doesn't make you a liberal. And note that there is no "liberal" party. A modern liberal is merely a really far left democrat. See: Liberal | Democrat | Middle | Republican | Neocon. Not all republicans are conservatives, despite the party having hijacked the word as if they are. GW, for example, was a massive spender...so any attempt at calling him a "conservative" is f***ing stupid.

 

2) Yes, defense spending should be cut...again, this doesn't make you a liberal or a neocon, it makes you fiscally conservative. A word that belongs to NEITHER side.

 

3) I never said "tax corporations more", I said fix the tax code so they pay a fair amount. We have the first or second highest corporate tax in the world, but none of them pay near that amount because of all the holes in the tax code. Most US companies are paying in the single percentages, and some are paying less than 0% (see GE as an example). That's not about being "liberal"...that's about being fiscally sane.

 

4) No, none of the comments I made are hyperbole or incorrect...as I note you failed to point out a single "incorrect" statement. The only thing incorrect is that you misconstrued my entire post, or took it all out of context, whether on purpose or not.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

3) I never said "tax corporations more", I said fix the tax code so they pay what they should be paying now. Most are paying in the single percentages, and some are paying less than 0%. That's not about being "liberal"...that's about being fiscally sound.

The President has repeatedly proposed a tax system overhaul along these lines, including making it a major feature of a state of the union, it will go no where in Congress because it violates the pledge that virtually every Republican has taken that they will never raise taxes, ever, under any circumstance.

[Y2HH]

The President has repeatedly proposed a tax system overhaul along these lines, including making it a major feature of a state of the union, it will go no where in Congress because it violates the pledge that virtually every Republican has taken that they will never raise taxes, ever, under any circumstance.

 

The President proposes a lot of nonsense, but never does anything with it. A lot of bills "go no where" but they write them up and send them in anyway...funny I see no bill to reform the tax code...just a lot of talk.

 

Oh, and let's conveniently forget that they could have done it when they held their super majority, but did nothing instead. The republicans failed to stop their health care law at that time...just as they would have failed to stop that, too. Fact is, they don't want to reform the tax code...it's just easier to blame the republicans for it right now...exactly like you just did.

 

And finally, "fixing" the tax code isn't raising taxes. It's fixing the tax code.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

And finally, "fixing" the tax code isn't raising taxes. It's fixing the tax code.

Not according to Grover Norquist, and really, that's all that matters.

 

And seriously, 7 months with a 60 vote majority is not going to give enough time to overhaul the tax code.

[Soxbadger]

Everyone in America is technically a liberal as compared to a classic conservative like Michael Oakeshott. I am absolutely a "liberal" = "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." as opposed to a "conservative"= "Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion."

 

Now if you want to talk about political spectrum we would first need to define the words and then we would need to discuss. There is no correlation between any definition of "liberal" and massive spending. Now maybe you meant "L"iberal and were defining it in a certain way, but it just is impossible to know without actually defining the subset.

 

 

2) TRUE fiscal conservative. I may be, although it would depend on what definition of fiscal conservative we are using as there are many different variations of what that term means.

 

3) Well this just goes back to what did you really mean in your original statement about "liberal". Did you mean "L"iberal or "l"iberal. I was under the assumption that statement was referring to the US definitions.

 

4) Its not taking out of context, its just using words that have a variety of definitions without actually clarifying what you mean. I assumed you were referring to the US ideas of "liberal=Democrat" and "conservative= Republican", if you meant otherwise I just misunderstood.

[Y2HH]

Not according to Grover Norquist, and really, that's all that matters.

 

And seriously, 7 months with a 60 vote majority is not going to give enough time to overhaul the tax code.

 

Absolute bulls***.

 

They overhauled the entire health code in less time. Keep your liberal minded excuses coming, though...they make for great comedy.

 

And for the record, screw the republicans for blocking tax increases on corporations if that's what they're into doing.

 

Everyone on both sides needs to stop making insane excuses for their "parties".

[Balta1701]

Absolute bulls***.

 

They overhauled the entire health code in less time. Keep your liberal minded excuses coming, though...they make for great comedy.

 

And for the record, screw the republicans for blocking tax increases on corporations if that's what they're into doing.

 

Everyone on both sides needs to stop making insane excuses for their "parties".

Actually, no, it took 12+ months to overhaul the entire health code, during which time the Democrats had a Supermajority for ~7, after which point they lost it and it took an additional 3 months before they could finish the bill under reconciliation rules.

 

And if you really want to go for it...yes, the explosion in Medicare costs and 50 million uninsured Americans was a much bigger problem than fixing the Tax code, and it will be again when the Court tosses out the PPACA.

[Y2HH]

Everyone in America is technically a liberal as compared to a classic conservative like Michael Oakeshott. I am absolutely a "liberal" = "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." as opposed to a "conservative"= "Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion."

 

Now if you want to talk about political spectrum we would first need to define the words and then we would need to discuss. There is no correlation between any definition of "liberal" and massive spending. Now maybe you meant "L"iberal and were defining it in a certain way, but it just is impossible to know without actually defining the subset.

 

 

2) TRUE fiscal conservative. I may be, although it would depend on what definition of fiscal conservative we are using as there are many different variations of what that term means.

 

3) Well this just goes back to what did you really mean in your original statement about "liberal". Did you mean "L"iberal or "l"iberal. I was under the assumption that statement was referring to the US definitions.

 

4) Its not taking out of context, its just using words that have a variety of definitions without actually clarifying what you mean. I assumed you were referring to the US ideas of "liberal=Democrat" and "conservative= Republican", if you meant otherwise I just misunderstood.

 

I don't have the time to get further into it right now, but no, I don't believe the US definitions of those terms are accurate...at all.

 

Anyone that claims the former Republican administration in charge was conservative is crazy. They were quite the liberal spenders.

[Balta1701]

Anyone that claims the former Republican administration in charge was conservative is crazy. They were quite the liberal spenders.

Conservatism can never fail. It can only be failed.

[Y2HH]

Actually, no, it took 12+ months to overhaul the entire health code, during which time the Democrats had a Supermajority for ~7, after which point they lost it and it took an additional 3 months before they could finish the bill under reconciliation rules.

 

And if you really want to go for it...yes, the explosion in Medicare costs and 50 million uninsured Americans was a much bigger problem than fixing the Tax code, and it will be again when the Court tosses out the PPACA.

 

Fixing that tax code would result in HUGE returns on their tax revenue...probably enough to cover stuff like that. This idea that our government is incapable of doing multiple things at the same time is f***ing insane.

 

Stop making excuses for them.

 

There is no reason they couldn't have done both at the same time...or even more. These are highly paid individuals with more rest time/vacation time on their hands than anyone I know. They also get less done.

[Balta1701]

Fixing that tax code would result in HUGE returns on their tax revenue...probably enough to cover stuff like that. This idea that our government is incapable of doing multiple things at the same time is f***ing insane.

 

Stop making excuses for them.

 

There is no reason they couldn't have done both at the same time...or even more. These are highly paid individuals with more rest time/vacation time on their hands than anyone I know. They also get less done.

Then it is a tax increase.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

I don't have the time to get further into it right now, but no, I don't believe the US definitions of those terms are accurate...at all.

 

Anyone that claims the former Republican administration in charge was conservative is crazy. They were quite the liberal spenders.

 

And I agree with this, but we are a very very small minority, so I quit arguing about what the real definitions were about 7 years ago.

[Y2HH]

Then it is a tax increase.

 

I disagree. It's the tax they're supposed to be collecting now...so as far as I'm concerned it's not an increase...it's a fix of a broken system.

 

And if republicans won't fix the tax code, they're stupid, and need to be held accountable accordingly. That doesn't mean the democrats shouldn't try anyway...and when/if they fail...try again...and again. I don't care how many times they try and fail...that's why the people elected them. They need to do their jobs.

 

I think the worst thing we can allow our government to do is "not bother" because "it won't pass for " anyway. For example, not bothering to try to overhaul the broken tax system because the Republican dominated congress will just block it. Both parties need to start being held accountable...but it's impossible to do that when the vast majority of the nation votes with them regardless of what's happening at that current era of time.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

And I agree with this, but we are a very very small minority, so I quit arguing about what the real definitions were about 7 years ago.

 

And that's 99% of the problem we face as a nation.

 

Edit: And I apologize for not defining how I view liberalism and conservatism...

Edited May 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Conservatism can never fail. It can only be failed.

 

lol

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, i'd say there's a pretty huge subset of the democratic party that hates pretty much anyone with money. See: occupy members. Maybe there aren't 6 candidates spouting ridiculous things about it like we just had with the GOP, but there wasn't a primary to fight over.

 

Occupy members are not a subset of the Democratic party and do not hate anyone with money.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It's merely your opinion that the "entire" GOP is insane, but you're trying to state it as a fact. I'd argue that there are just as many crazy liberals running around out there, but because you believe what they believe, you don't see it as "insane". I think it's totally "insane" to spend like liberals want to spend...openly and freely, debt on top of debt. Most (if not "all") liberals feel Obama isn't spending enough. That, to me...is what's insane.

 

So, as shown, depending on your point of view, the opposing party can easily be seen as "insane".

 

Now...if anyone really bothered to think about it...I'd probably have to say it's not the GOP or the DNC that's insane...it's the voters. It's the sheep followers that keep voting these people into office, only to receive more of the same in return.

 

Not all points of view are equally valid, of course. How about that article I've linked co-written by someone from AEI, a pro-corporate conservative think tank?

 

See a few "insane" democratic talking points, for example:

 

We shouldn't be giving 10 billion in tax subsidies to big oil! Meanwhile, lets ignore the fact that the tax code is so f***ed that a company like GE can file and owe 0$ in taxes, and actually receive a REFUND of 4 billion dollars...but hey...that 10 billion dollars we give big oil...WE NEED TO FIX THAT!

 

How is this "insane" to want to stop oil subsidies, which would be a relatively easy fix? You can advocate for starting somewhere as a starting point for tax reform. Promoting one thing does not mean that you are ignoring everything else.

 

Is this comparably "insane" to the anti-gay bigotry from the GOP? Or the absolutely-no-tax-revenues-increase-EVER pledge that most of them sign?

 

That's an insane talking point. Yea...fix the tax subsidies on big oil so the consumer can pick up the tab...all you did was move the burden from the "consumers tax dollars" to the "consumers wallets". It accomplished NOTHING.

 

They need to fix the tax code and shut the f*** up about everything else...the rest will fix it self when they fix that.

 

Eliminating oil subsidies is a part of fixing the tax code. Do you think it'd be more pragmatic to address what may possibly stand a chance of passing Congress instead of only proposing huge reform packages that have no hope of passing?

 

Is there anything comparably insane to the GOP candidates saying they'd turn down a budget deal that was 10-1 spending cuts vs. revenue increase? Is there anything comparably insane to the opposition to the Grand Bargain proposals that Boehner and Obama tried to work out over the summer but were stridently opposed by House members? Comparable to being one of if not the only major political party in the developed world the rejects the entire field of climate science outright?