Economy I <3 how (R)s just awkwardly ignore conversations about economics and their track record on it

[iwannabeadored]

Jack - I don't know what's going on with you that you refuse to care about the numerous disasterous economic indicators that have been getting worse and worse for decades.

Like, it just blows my fucking mind that you just don't care. Or you pivot to hiding behind vague grandiose claims like "well on the whole, things are better than they've ever been!"

People are working more hours on average in the US, than they have for at least a century. It's completely commmonplace for people to be holding 2 or 3 jobs and barely scraping by. That is not normal. That is not an improvement from decades gone by.

The relative cost of a home has skyrocketed. Secure housing is THE MOST important of all human needs, and my entire generation is being priced out of it. The home ownership rate for my generation is HALF of what it was for boomers at this same point in their lives.

The average American household is living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't even have a few hundred bucks for emergencies. Savings have vanished.

The relative cost of a degree, that thing you need to have a shot at a decent future, has skyrocketed and its trapping multiple generations in a cycle of debt that will prevent them from owning a home and/or building any kind of real wealth.

Like, seriously, what is it with you, that you're aware of all of this, you KNOW the indicators and data points that I'm talking about, and you just go "meh, who cares? More people have civil rights now and that means everything is objectively better"

Need I also remind you - that more than 50,000 Americans die every year because they're too poor to afford healthcare. That isn't a thing that exists among our peer nations. That sounds like a smashing success to you?

It's not. People are suffering economically, tremendously, and you sound like an out of touch alien when you try to gaslight them into believing they're not suffering.

And that's all just domestic issues!

Should we even get into the global network of murder that is required for your neoliberal system to work? How the first world uses the IMF to trap 3rd world nations in predatory loan deals to extract the country's natural resources while also paying themselves to do billions in infrastructure contracts? Should we talk about Coca-Cola using death squads to exterminate striking workers in Latin America? Should we talk about how neoliberal capitalism necessitates a permanent underclass of third world workers to exploit in order to remain profitable? Should we talk about the numerous regime change wars that have killed millions of innocent people, in order to remove and replace regimes that were not friendly to western capital? Should we talk about how neoliberalism is completely reliant on unequal exchange with developing nations in order to remain functioning?

Give me a break. "Smashing success". Yeah bro - tell that to the 1 million dead Iraqis who died so that Dick Cheney and Haliburton could get billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, while we simultaneously installed a regime that would submit their oil reserves to the control of western energy companies. Tell that to the nearly 200 labor organizers murdered by Coca Cola in Colombia alone. Tell that to Salvador Allende, who was deposed by a US coup because his socialism made him hostile to western capital. Tell that to Thomas Sankara, who was assassinated by the west for having the audacity to lift Burkina Faso out of the mud, nationalize their natural resources and invest the money back into the country, while pulling countless numbers of his people out of starvation and disease. Tell that to the 13,000,000 people that starve to death every year, when they live in a world that produces enough food to feed all of them. If you count millions and millions of dead innocent people as a "smashing success", then sure dude, it's been pretty grand.

Just in case you need a reminder -

It's great that more people (women and minorities) have civil rights and legal protections now. I'm not going to downplay that. But there is no universe in which that means things are actually better economically than in 1970.

How in the world do you look at this kind of data and say "no no no, don't let your lying eyes deceive you. things are actually better now than they were from 1950-2000, despite what all of the charts and all of the data say!"

I would say technology and the internet along with information has made the average person able to compete.

Pre internet, most information stayed with the wealthy only. The little guy stayed poor, it was very difficult to become rich

 

[iwannabeadored]

I mean, the data doesn't support that.

Seano decided the day Biden was elected that his life was worse off.

 

[Sinister]

Obviously there will always be those that try to abuse a program, but its pretty silly to not expect the government do something to keep business afloat after they shut down the country for half a year. And it did provide paychecks for a large portion of the population:
Across all 50 states, 72 percent to 96 percent of estimated small business payroll was covered by PPP loans.

Its also silly to call it a Trump bill when nearly every single democrat in congress voted for it.

H.R. 266: Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act -- House Vote #104 -- Apr 23, 2020

The federal government has enacted four main stimulus laws in response to the covid-19 pandemic. Here’s a brief rundown of what each of these legislative actions did. # Phase 1: …

www.govtrack.us

H.R. 1799 (117th): PPP Extension Act of 2021 -- Senate Vote #140 -- Mar 25, 2021

This vote was to extend the Paycheck Protection Program originally passed in 2020 in response to the SARS-cov2 pandemic.

www.govtrack.us

It's silly to argue that the Government should do something to keep businesses afloat, but not to do anything to assure that the customers of those businesses have money to spend on those businesses. Economy doesnt merely work if one class gets made whole while the other doesnt.

If I remember correctly these bills were part of packages where Democrats had to fight to the death to get us our $600 while Republicans openly spat on the idea of helping American citizens, wanting ALL stimulus to families cut and ONLY the corporate money to happen. Part of their "keep them working" ideology. Because, of course, that's the only value citizens have. In retrospect many economists have detailed how covid was used as a gigantic event of wealth transfer to the already wealthy, due to how much 0 obligation money they got.

These businesses still cut employees. Like I said, many large Casinos had to be struck against because of their outright refusals to rehire employees cut due to covid.

 

[Sinister]

I would say technology and the internet along with information has made the average person able to compete.

Pre internet, most information stayed with the wealthy only. The little guy stayed poor, it was very difficult to become rich

This is why the rapid monopolization of the internet started to happen, as well as a social demonization of a "free" internet.

 

[iwannabeadored]

This is why the rapid monopolization of the internet started to happen, as well as a social demonization of a "free" internet.

I agree. I really don’t know how someone can say things were better in the 50s with a straight face. Technology has been an equalizer. Yeah homes were cheaper and cost of things but access to comforts and tech has improved lives. There’s people in the hood with an iPhone

 

[iwannabeadored]

It’s pretty clear why the right demonizes education ; most of the idiots on this board don’t know how government works.

Blame bidenomics for inflation and ignore the entire world is suffering from inflation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree. I really don’t know how someone can say things were better in the 50s with a straight face. Technology has been an equalizer. Yeah homes were cheaper and cost of things but access to comforts and tech has improved lives. There’s people in the hood with an iPhone

Yeah, that's one of the craziest claims you see regularly, and it's based on ignorance of how things were. In 1940, about half of American homes lacked full indoor plumbing, and that was still at about one in six by 1960. Healthcare was cheap but that was basically because it was worthless. Household size was bigger and houses were smaller. It's really weird how many people seem to think Leave it to Beaver was a documentary. Gotta start that with Friends. In the '90s, a couple of waitresses could afford a massive, beautiful apartment in Manhattan.

 

[iwannabeadored]

Yeah, that's one of the craziest claims you see regularly, and it's based on ignorance of how things were. In 1940, about half of American homes lacked full indoor plumbing, and that was still at about one in six by 1960. Healthcare was cheap but that was basically because it was worthless. Household size was bigger and houses were smaller. It's really weird how many people seem to think Leave it to Beaver was a documentary. Gotta start that with Friends. In the '90s, a couple of waitresses could afford a massive, beautiful apartment in Manhattan.

My mom didn’t have her own laundry unit growing up, they didn’t own a phone. None of her family went to college. lol this insanity revisionist history is just hilarious. The only thing I can think of the majority were just white and feel threatened


This is the Bill Oreilly world view that the USA peaked in 1955. Yeah if you were white male and wealthy

 

[Mr Holmes]

It's silly to argue that the Government should do something to keep businesses afloat, but not to do anything to assure that the customers of those businesses have money to spend on those businesses. Economy doesnt merely work if one class gets made whole while the other doesnt.

If I remember correctly these bills were part of packages where Democrats had to fight to the death to get us our $600 while Republicans openly spat on the idea of helping American citizens, wanting ALL stimulus to families cut and ONLY the corporate money to happen. Part of their "keep them working" ideology. Because, of course, that's the only value citizens have. In retrospect many economists have detailed how covid was used as a gigantic event of wealth transfer to the already wealthy, due to how much 0 obligation money they got.

These businesses still cut employees. Like I said, many large Casinos had to be struck against because of their outright refusals to rehire employees cut due to covid.

Ensuring people still got paychecks was the government doing something to assure customers had money to spend. It was and still is a better plan then letting more people get laid off.

But you're right, the whole covid thing was a mess and a huge transfer of wealth. The country shouldn't have been shutdown for as long as it was. It was mostly republican governors that lifted their restrictions first and allowed things to get back to normal.

 

[blackheart]

First guy: "Really I think it just highlights that suppression of socialist alternatives to capitalism inevitably leads to the rise of the far right, some demagogue claiming to be anti establishment whilst in reality being up to his neck in corrupt establishment ties."

You: "
When people feel that they have absolutely no way to address their material concerns and conditions through their vote and elected representatives, you are cutting off society's pressure release valve. It's supposed to be: things are bad => people vote to make things better => things get better => pressure is released and homeostasis is achieved => the cycle restarts

But instead you have a one-party state with two different branches - the doomsday fascists and the incremental soft fascists. So people have nowhere to turn to with their vote to actually address their material conditions. So then the cycle just becomes: things are bad => people vote in 1 of the 2 branches of the fascist party => things get even worse => people become more angry/violent/discontent/radicalized, because things are bad and getting worse => people vote in 1 of the 2 branches of the fascist party => things get even worse => etc., => etc.

Sounds to me like you're suggesting that the left isn't extreme enough so they vote for the far right. Which does sound too obviously bad to be your position, which is why I invited you to explain.

Yeah, you really struggle with reading comprehension my friend. You keep taking my analysis (which isn't even my own original thought. It's something that's been written about extensively) about a general societal trend, and making it about the left.

I said when PEOPLE feel that they have no options for addressing their material concerns they will X, Y, and Z. You, choosing to be as obtuse and uncharitable as possible, saw that and went "Sounds to me like you're suggesting that the left isn't extreme enough so they vote for the far right". I can keep explaining myself in completely black and white crystal clear terms, and you're going to keep misrepresenting or deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying.

PEOPLE/SOCIETY AT LARGE will turn to fascism in search of remedies for their material conditions, when they have no party that is capable and/or willing to address their material needs. Is that clear enough? Do I need to write an entire fucking paper explaining this to you? Do you know what the LEFT vs PEOPLE/Society is? Do you understand the distinction? Holy fucking shit dude.

But that's just a windier way of saying the same thing, no? If Democrats moved to the left, they'd somehow get more votes from rightists. As I said, that sounds insane--taking a normal tendency people have to think of their own views as being more common than they are, adding a bunch of epicycles and coming up with a funhouse version of reality.

Yeah, your argument responding to a deliberately obtuse interpretation of what I'm saying, makes sense.

No - if democrats moved to the left and actually fought for policies that would improve American's lives, they'd get more votes from the center AND they would motivate more liberals and leftists to turn out to vote. Again - have I explained that in extreme black and white terms enough for your fucking autistic ass to understand what the fuck is being said? The democrats complete unwillingness to vote for material improvements for common folk in this country, is what is driving centrists to either not vote, or vote for the right. It is also what is driving down turnout for democrats/libs/the left. At no point, did I say ANYTHING that would lead someone to believe that I said "If Democrats moved to the left, they'd somehow get more votes from rightists".

First, I don't necessarily buy the premise. Trump's wins (in the 2016 nomination contest and presidential election) were largely a result of rhetorical moderation (suggested progressive changes in taxes, promised no cuts to entitlements, presented as liberal on foreign policy, promised an expansion of gov't-provided healthcare), and he was perceived as the more-moderate candidate by most general-election voters. The fact that his actual governance was far to the right of his rhetoric just shows that people got conned, and his attempts to scrap democracy to stay in power is more of a personal quirk (and I think a lot of rightists would have supported similar efforts by W if it were necessary). The increasing disconnection from objective reality is a function of widespread rightist mistrust in neutral information sources along with alt-info spheres that promote false beliefs.

LOLOLOL - FASCISM ISN'T GROWING GLOBALLY OR DOMESTICALLY????? LOLOLOLOL. There's no way. There's no fucking way you're being honest and good-faith. There is just no fucking way.

For the first time in American history, a sitting president refused to concede an election that he lost, and incited/planned an insurrection to stop the certification of the vote. Donald Trump and the Republicans have openly put out a plan to explicitly enact fascism if/when they are elected again. Fascist parties around the world are gaining in prominence and power. Holy fuck man - mainstream respected liberal thinkers are writing about this shit.

We could have a god damn comet falling out of the sky and Jack would be there to gaslight and lie to everyone about the existence of the comet, I swear to god.

You're just kind of making this up. Obviously anyone who pays attention knows there's a huge difference in economic and foreign policy.

Yeah the difference is who's going to be more extreme about either of them. That isn't a real difference. Liberals/democrats want to do nothing about the economy. Everything is good and a-ok - just like you've expressed time and time again. We don't need to reverse the Trump or Bush tax cuts (how come democrats haven't had a SINGLE push for reversing the trump tax cuts? How come they haven't even fucking mentioned it????????) We don't need to do anything about Citizens United. We don't need to do anything about healthcare. Everything is gravy-baby to you liberal psychotics. On the other hand you have republicans who want to keep doing exactly what we're doing, but make it even worse. More tax cuts. More deregulations.

Both parties want to maintain the US as a global imperial super power. Both want to keep current levels of military funding and increase it, every single year. Both want to maintain America's presence as being world police.

That isn't a difference in economic or foreign policy. It's just a matter of degrees of extremity.

"The Jihad party wants to launch our nukes at the infidels in one year's time"
"Well the super Jihad party wants to launch our nukes at the infidels tomorrow."

Jack - "there are real serious policy differences between these two parties"

Well, no, it's that the Dems are a left party relative to the norms in the developed world.


You cannot possibly believe that. Fascism = strong support for democracy and civil liberties?

Chomsky has been cited a lot on linguistics. There's actually a long history of respected scientists with kooky views outside their discipline.

I've really fucking had it with you dude. Let's set up a discord debate. There's zero chance that you can actually defend your deranged bullshit in real time. We'll do it privately, and then post it in here. How's that sound?

 

[blackheart]

My mom didn’t have her own laundry unit growing up, they didn’t own a phone. None of her family went to college. lol this insanity revisionist history is just hilarious. The only thing I can think of the majority were just white and feel threatened


This is the Bill Oreilly world view that the USA peaked in 1955. Yeah if you were white male and wealthy

Hey - your mom didn't have a w/d in her unit and she didn't own a phone or go to college. That means that it's totally ok that millenial home ownership is half of what it was for baby boomers at the same time. That means that things are actually better now, when homes are 10-15x the average income, compared to when homes were 2x the average annual income.

Things are actually better now, when the cost of college tuition has gone from free/mostly free to being a massive debt trap that extracts people's income for their entire lives. Yeah bro, totally. The existence of iPhones means that every single economic indicator being in decline, doesn't actually matter. Fucking HILARIOUS that you would compare me to Fox News/Bill O Reilly when YOU are the one trotting out the classic fox news talking point - "people have cell phones and flat screen TVs now!! How can things be bad if that's the case????"

You roll out the fox news talking points while accusing me of being a Bill O'Reilly revisionist. I'm sure the irony is lost on you


The existence of indoor plumbing and iPhones means that ALL declining economic indicators are actually lies! When my father was purchasing homes at 24 years old on an entry level blue collar income, things were actually much much worse than now, when I'm working in management for a multinational corporation with a college degree and can barely afford my rent with a roommate!

All of the charts and graphs displaying decades of declining economic indicators are all actually a deep state psy op lie!!!

Also - how fucking old are you for your mom to not have had indoor plumbing??? What the hell? My dad is 76 and came from a poor working class Irish family with 7 siblings and they had indoor plumbing. What in the world???

And honestly - shame on @Sinister for liking your post - he knows better.

 

[iwannabeadored]

Hey - your mom didn't have a w/d in her unit and she didn't own a phone or go to college. That means that it's totally ok that millenial home ownership is half of what it was for baby boomers at the same time. That means that things are actually better now, when homes are 10-15x the average income, compared to when homes were 2x the average annual income.

Things are actually better now, when the cost of college tuition has gone from free/mostly free to being a massive debt trap that extracts people's income for their entire lives. Yeah bro, totally. The existence of iPhones means that every single economic indicator being in decline, doesn't actually matter.

No wonder why your broke. Your dumb ass sees the iPhone as a toy, and not as access to information which in previous generations was inaccessible. You really are dumb as shit

Fucking HILARIOUS that you would compare me to Fox News/Bill O Reilly when YOU are the one trotting out the classic fox news talking point - "people have cell phones and flat screen TVs now!! How can things be bad if that's the case????"

You roll out the fox news talking points while accusing me of being a Bill O'Reilly revisionist. I'm sure the irony is lost on you


The existence of indoor plumbing and iPhones means that ALL declining economic indicators are actually lies! When my father was purchasing homes at 24 years old on an entry level blue collar income, things were actually much much worse than now, when I'm working in management for a multinational corporation with a college degree and can barely afford my rent with a roommate!

All of the charts and graphs displaying decades of declining economic indicators are all actually a deep state psy op lie!!!

What charts show decline? Poverty world wide is on the decline. You’re in your feelings and not coming with facts.

Also - how fucking old are you for your mom to not have had indoor plumbing??? What the hell? My dad is 76 and came from a poor working class Irish family with 7 siblings and they had indoor plumbing. What in the world???

And honestly - shame on @Sinister for liking your post - he knows better.

 

[blackheart]

No wonder why your broke. Your dumb ass sees the iPhone as a toy, and not as access to information which in previous generations was inaccessible. You really are dumb as shit

Ahahahahaha. Ok now I now you're literally ancient. Yeah man - the iPhone unlocks the secrets to the universe. You're probably 105 years old and you still think you can buy a home if you just get a job.

What charts show decline? Poverty world wide is on the decline. You’re in your feelings and not coming with facts.

Idk man - try reading the thread and the multitude of charts I've posted within it. You're too insignificant and stupid to get me riled up enough to post the exact same charts twice in the same thread.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Since Donald Trump's presidency it has been "mainstream" or pre-dominant in the Republican party to signal fake populist and anti-establishment rhetoric.

"Drain the swamp!"
"Down with the elites!"
"Down with the establishment!"

But am I crazy here, or have any of you other leftists or centrists (liberals) noticed that in general, righties/reactionaries/conservatives/republicans/MAGAts will shy away from conversations/discussions/debates about the Republican party and/or Trump and how their economic track record has served/continues to serve the "elite" and the "swamp"?

Like, I swear to god, 95% of the time that I see a lib or leftie remind a chud that Trump's only major legislative "accomplishment" was a massive tax cut for the elite and a tax increase on the middle class, the rightie does not reply or if they do they reply without addressing that specific point. They want to constantly virtue signal that they're against the elite, but they can't actually point to anything that Trump has done to hurt/harm/negatively affect the "elite".

The same thing applies any time you talk about the Republican track record on destroying American manufacturing and sending jobs to China by the millions. Its crickets every time, or diversion to talking about something else.

For a constructive way for righties to respond to this thread, can you elucidate me on your understanding of the following subjects and definitions?

1. What is the "elite" to you? Is this just a shadowy cabal that exists as an amalgamation of all of the groups you don't like (Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Black people, Hispanic people, atheists, LGBT people, globalists, etc.)? Is that the elite? Is it wealthy people but only the wealthy people in New York, LA and DC? Do you adhere to society's general understanding of the elite since the beginning of time, as just generally being the economically/financially wealthy upper strata of society? Please, provide a detailed lengthy explanation of who the "elite" is. The floor is yours. Let your freak flag fly and write me a novella about who the elite are. I'll read all of them. One word to one sentence responses are just concessions that you don't even have a good idea of who it is you're screeching about all the time.

2. Name me one single thing that Trump has done to substantially hurt the people you've defined as the "elite", and also explain how what he did, substantially hurt the elite. So A) I'm looking for substance. It needs to be a policy, or legislative accomplishment, or something substantial. Not "oh he said fuck Hunter Biden and that hurt the elite haha owned!". No. What did Trump do that materially, substantially, significantly, harmed your definition of the elite? And B) explain, in detail, how what he did, hurt the elite.

Lastly, look at my meme where you are the NPC soyjack and I am the actual anti-establishment chad:

edit - [6] pages in and not a single rightist willing to give us their definition of the elite, and how Trump has done something to harm them. Who's going to step up? How many pages in can we get with righties doing exactly what I'm accusing them of in the thread title? The evidence is piling up with each page. Come on boys!

TLDR but what s chud? I keep on seeing this word.

 

[blackheart]

TLDR but what s chud? I keep on seeing this word.

It's a term lefties use for righties, righties got tired of being called it so they started doing "nuh uh you are!" And using it back. As an acronym it means cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers. But no one really knows that. It's just a funny word to call righties.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

It's a term lefties use for righties, righties got tired of being called it so they started doing "nuh uh you are!" And using it back. As an acronym it means cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers. But no one really knows that. It's just a funny word to call righties.

So kind of like when woke types started calling back conservatives cucks?
That chud acronym sounds like something a 11 year came up with.

 

[blackheart]

So kind of like when woke types started calling back conservatives cucks?
That chud acronym sounds like something a 11 year came up with.

the acronym is from a 1984 Sci fi horror of the same name.

It's a pretty funny co opting of a term. You're probably too close to it to see the humor. But conservatives are essentially cannibalistic toward their fellow man. They don't care for striving toward a better world. They have a psychological drive toward cannibalizing society and making everything worse. Humanoid = not human but human like. Underground dwellers = invokes imagery of psychotic 45 year old neo nazis living in moms basement, furiously posting on 4chan.

 

[badascan]

I can say, I made more money during the Trump years and paid less taxes than I had previously, as a middle/upper middle class blue collar worker... I'm making even more money now (though the purchasing power is greatly decreased) and seemingly paying way more taxes... And you TS, might identify me as a "rightie" or whatever pejorative you'd like to use...

 

[Sinister]

Hey - your mom didn't have a w/d in her unit and she didn't own a phone or go to college. That means that it's totally ok that millenial home ownership is half of what it was for baby boomers at the same time. That means that things are actually better now, when homes are 10-15x the average income, compared to when homes were 2x the average annual income.

Things are actually better now, when the cost of college tuition has gone from free/mostly free to being a massive debt trap that extracts people's income for their entire lives. Yeah bro, totally. The existence of iPhones means that every single economic indicator being in decline, doesn't actually matter. Fucking HILARIOUS that you would compare me to Fox News/Bill O Reilly when YOU are the one trotting out the classic fox news talking point - "people have cell phones and flat screen TVs now!! How can things be bad if that's the case????"

You roll out the fox news talking points while accusing me of being a Bill O'Reilly revisionist. I'm sure the irony is lost on you


The existence of indoor plumbing and iPhones means that ALL declining economic indicators are actually lies! When my father was purchasing homes at 24 years old on an entry level blue collar income, things were actually much much worse than now, when I'm working in management for a multinational corporation with a college degree and can barely afford my rent with a roommate!

All of the charts and graphs displaying decades of declining economic indicators are all actually a deep state psy op lie!!!

Also - how fucking old are you for your mom to not have had indoor plumbing??? What the hell? My dad is 76 and came from a poor working class Irish family with 7 siblings and they had indoor plumbing. What in the world???

And honestly - shame on @Sinister for liking your post - he knows better.

He's not wrong about technology being a gamechanger. I grew up when you had to talk on phones attached to a wall in your kitchen, and before video games were an industry where a kid sitting on his ass all day could become a millionaire. There was a VICE special about how the children of coal miners are actively transforming dead coal towns by making money with their phones, kids in their late teens and early 20's floating entire households with their incomes. That's the part I liked, technology has been transformative.

However, I did mention that the corporations have almost immediately swooped in to pilfer these profits, to gatekeep this economic access behind paywalls. Thankfully the FTC is actually fighting them over it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, you really struggle with reading comprehension my friend. You keep taking my analysis (which isn't even my own original thought. It's something that's been written about extensively) about a general societal trend, and making it about the left.

I said when PEOPLE feel that they have no options for addressing their material concerns they will X, Y, and Z. You, choosing to be as obtuse and uncharitable as possible, saw that and went "Sounds to me like you're suggesting that the left isn't extreme enough so they vote for the far right". I can keep explaining myself in completely black and white crystal clear terms, and you're going to keep misrepresenting or deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying.

OK, so you're confirming my interpretation but you're mad. That's really what I'm getting from this. In reality, people vote for rightists because they have rightist views (moreso on cultural issues than economic ones, which is why the right tends to emphasize culture stuff more). It's actually the opposite of your claim. And, in fact, it's a luxury. When the economy is doing poorly, economic issues come to the fore and people are more likely to vote left (though there's also a strong element of bad times hurting incumbents that can counteract that effect).

No - if democrats moved to the left and actually fought for policies that would improve American's lives, they'd get more votes from the center AND they would motivate more liberals and leftists to turn out to vote.

Yeah, that's the fallacy I referenced earlier. "If X just agreed with me more, they'd win more elections." Everyone thinks that, and it's almost always wrong. If Democrats moved left, they'd lose votes because they are already to the left of the median voter. And, in fact, they have fought (successfully!) for lots of policies that improve Americans' lives. Just for example, we recently had a massive recession, and as a result of gov't policy, we A) headed off massive suffering and B) spurred an incredibly fast recovery to full employment.

Again - have I explained that in extreme black and white terms enough for your fucking autistic ass to understand what the fuck is being said? The democrats complete unwillingness to vote for material improvements for common folk in this country, is what is driving centrists to either not vote, or vote for the right.

That complete unwillingness is wholly imaginary *and* the analysis--that people vote for far-right candidates because the left isn't extreme enough--is really poor.

Just a tip: If you want to have a private discussion, it's better to come off as civil and sane.