No fiscal platform. Sorry, but I might have to become a partisan. The death of the Republican party

[IGIT]

heya Trident!

Would ofs and could ofs....

Sorry, brodda, but 2006 gave them the Senate and the House and 2008 gave them the Executive also. I worked for that to happen, foolishly believing in the, what I know now to be superficial, rhetoric that was building against the Bush administration assault on American government.

woulda and coulda?

in the two years the Democratic party controlled both the executive and legislative branches, they did not lower taxes on the wealthy, they did not flee multilateral environmental treaties like they were radioactive, and they did not appoint conservatives to the SCOTUS.

until you can address any of the above, my point still stands.

The 2007 financial crisis was set-up under the Clinton administration, as we followed salacious stories of blow jobs and inter-uterin cigars, the future was mortgaged.

i didn't follow any of that tawdry stuff - it really held no interest to me. you followed it closely?

in terms of the great recession, i think its unfair to lay all of that GWB's feet, i agree. i do think the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act under Bush's tenure made things magnitudes worse by increasing the deficit, thereby exploding the debt - which really emptied the toolbox for Mr. Obama in 2009 when he had to tackle the economic catastrophe that ushered in his presidency.

I'm not buying ideas that the Dems wouldn't have done this or that.

that's fine, lol. if you honestly believe that a Democratic POTUS would put a conservative on the Supreme Court, slash taxes for the wealthy, or abandon the Paris Agreement.....ummmm.....well...

...you're an unusual fellow.

- IGIT

 

[trident]

heya Trident!



woulda and coulda?

in the two years the Democratic party controlled both the executive and legislative branches, they did not lower taxes on the wealthy, they did not flee multilateral environmental treaties like they were radioactive, and they did not appoint conservatives to the SCOTUS.

until you can address any of the above, my point still stands.



i didn't follow any of that tawdry stuff - it really held no interest to me. you followed it closely?

in terms of the great recession, i think its unfair to lay all of that GWB's feet, i agree. i do think the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act under Bush's tenure made things magnitudes worse by increasing the deficit, thereby exploding the debt - which really emptied the toolbox for Mr. Obama in 2009 when he had to tackle the economic catastrophe that ushered in his presidency.



that's fine, lol. if you honestly believe that a Democratic POTUS would put a conservative on the Supreme Court, slash taxes for the wealthy, or abandon the Paris Agreement.....ummmm.....well...

...you're an unusual fellow.

- IGIT

You are saying exactly what I have gotten sick of hearing from Democrats: We wouldn't have been as bad as that guy!

Give me some examples of Democrats taking up the fight for working Americans in the last 30 years, and then I'll listen. Til then, I've heard all this before.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You are saying exactly what I have gotten sick of hearing from Democrats: We wouldn't have been as bad as that guy!

Give me some examples of Democrats taking up the fight for working Americans in the last 30 years, and then I'll listen. Til then, I've heard all this before.

Yeah, your hitting sophie's choice right on the head of the nail. Do I reject the party who has abandoned the unions for lobbyists and campaign donations, and are institutionally corrupt, to allow another group that is absolutely hostile to organized labor to take power?

That doesn't exactly have a easy answer. I think I have taken a middle of the road kind of approach to it. I will vote for a new group of democrats to take power, but that requires Pelosi, and shumer, and obama, and clinton, to go the fuck away.

The Democrats fight to control the DNC chair, was a sign they didn't get the message. At the same point, we will get a say in who the leader of the party is come the 2020 elections. If we get a new regime in power of the DNC, I will give them a chance to prove through action that they deserve to be in power. If they dont, throw the bum's out again.

 

[Greoric]

An amazing shitpost considering the stripe of people with that philosophy "cheering" demonstrably give more to charity than the counter philosophy ... That is they don't virtual signal about how they're morally superior by obligating other people at the point of a gun to give on their behalf. Instead they help people in less well off positions with their own resources.

Not that you care about reality or facts. You're just a sheep and a parasite.

 

[IGIT]

'evening trident,

You are saying exactly what I have gotten sick of hearing from Democrats: We wouldn't have been as bad as that guy!

you're misquoting me if you feel that is what i said.

i'll repeat myself, just to clarify!

i care about the income gap, and believe that the Democrats would not have slashed taxes on the super wealthy.

i care about the deteriorating planet, and i feel certain the Democrats would not have pulled out of the Paris Accords.

i care about the judiciary - those judges tend to stick around for a long, long time. therefore, i feel great comfort in the certainty that the Democratic party would not put a stooge like Justice Scalia on the SCOTUS.

on a sidenote, i care hugely about the legalization of marijuana. i don't think this is a pressing topic for the nation - but the Democratic Party sees eye to eye with me on this issue.

at any rate...

...on these issues that i care about, the i'm simpatico with the Democratic party (which is not monolithic). if hearing these bland truths makes you sick, i don't want to tell you, my friend.

Give me some examples of Democrats taking up the fight for working Americans in the last 30 years, and then I'll listen. Til then, I've heard all this before.

eh?

the Affordable Care Act undoubtedly was a wealth transfer from those that have to them who don't. it's not single payor, and for those of you who want to see US pharmaceutical and biotech bought to its knees, its half a loaf.

i know the ACA got alot of grief when it was launched (i'm not its biggest fan, i'm greedier and wanted single payor. alas, Joe Lieberman, that schmuck), but the GOP has found it very difficult to replace it with something better.

during the eight years that Mr. Clinton was POTUS, the number of people living in poverty decreased by 6.5 million. if that doesn't sound like enough for you, President Reagan's tally on that statistic is 294,000. so Clinton did 22 times better than the GOP standardbearer of my lifetime, King Reagan.

Jimmy Carter's deregulation of the airline industry made it possible for ordinary people to fly, lol. i mean, think about it; even though commercial US flight had existed for over half a century, by the 1970s eighty percent of Americans had never been on an airpline - it was too expensive.

anyway, there are lots of examples...far more, too numerous to count, if you want to compare bills that are bought up from both parties.

we could talk for a while about how the Democratic Party is shit because it doesn't adopt the Sierra Club's platform...or Noam Chomsky's platform...or the Black Lives Matter platform, etc, etc.

i get it.

if your bitterness makes you want to vote for Jill Stein or give Trump another term or stay home on election day when the next neoliberal wins the nomination, have at it. that'll fix things.

- IGIT

 

[trident]

'evening trident,



you're misquoting me if you feel that is what i said.

i'll repeat myself, just to clarify!

i care about the income gap, and believe that the Democrats would not have slashed taxes on the super wealthy.

i care about the deteriorating planet, and i feel certain the Democrats would not have pulled out of the Paris Accords.

i care about the judiciary - those judges tend to stick around for a long, long time. therefore, i feel great comfort in the certainty that the Democratic party would not put a stooge like Justice Scalia on the SCOTUS.

on a sidenote, i care hugely about the legalization of marijuana. i don't think this is a pressing topic for the nation - but the Democratic Party sees eye to eye with me on this issue.

at any rate...

...on these issues that i care about, the i'm simpatico with the Democratic party (which is not monolithic). if hearing these bland truths makes you sick, i don't want to tell you, my friend.



eh?

the Affordable Care Act undoubtedly was a wealth transfer from those that have to them who don't. it's not single payor, and for those of you who want to see US pharmaceutical and biotech bought to its knees, its half a loaf.

i know the ACA got alot of grief when it was launched (i'm not its biggest fan, i'm greedier and wanted single payor. alas, Joe Lieberman, that schmuck), but the GOP has found it very difficult to replace it with something better.

during the eight years that Mr. Clinton was POTUS, the number of people living in poverty decreased by 6.5 million. if that doesn't sound like enough for you, President Reagan's tally on that statistic is 294,000. so Clinton did 22 times better than the GOP standardbearer of my lifetime, King Reagan.

Jimmy Carter's deregulation of the airline industry made it possible for ordinary people to fly, lol. i mean, think about it; even though commercial US flight had existed for over half a century, by the 1970s eighty percent of Americans had never been on an airpline - it was too expensive.

anyway, there are lots of examples...far more, too numerous to count, if you want to compare bills that are bought up from both parties.

we could talk for a while about how the Democratic Party is shit because it doesn't adopt the Sierra Club's platform...or Noam Chomsky's platform...or the Black Lives Matter platform, etc, etc.

i get it.

if your bitterness makes you want to vote for Jill Stein or give Trump another term or stay home on election day when the next neoliberal wins the nomination, have at it. that'll fix things.

- IGIT

A lot to go through here, but I'll start with: you sound young

You seriously can not be talking to me about the income gap. Clinton's Presidency and his policies had little to nothing to do with raising a statistical number of people out of poverty. He benefitted from circumstances out of his control.

The Judiciary was under attack during the Obama years as his nominations were stalled, and where was the fight, the real political fight, from the Democrats? I didn't see it. Nothing of meaning anyway. Some soundbites. Some, "You're not all crazy" moments, but nothing that mattered.

The Judiciary, AFA the SCOTUS goes, that's just become a great boogeyman to GOTV. Nevermind that the Democrats abandoned the working class in the nineties, nevermind that party loyalists will call you a purists negativo, WHAT ABOUT scotus?!?!

Yeah, fuckers, that's not on me the voter. That's on you to do what you were put in there for. You do it, you got my vote. But I'm not falling for this Judiciary trap again.

Obamacare is DoleCare repackaged. I'm not having this debate again about that bullshit giveaway to the cannibals at the health insurance empires.

Yeah, the GOP is much worse on climate issues. This sucks. I just had a brilliant idea. How about the Democrats act like people we can trust so they can get voted in and do something about the very real issues we are creating for this planet. They act like a bunch of broken betas. Maybe that's why people don't trust them. The truth is they are corrupt. And that's why they aren't doing what is needed.

Blah blah blah Noam Chomsky BLMs Jill Stein: Dude, I've heard it from all the no-neck party purists. Enjoy DC. It's nice even when you're a loser.

 

[trident]

'evening trident,



you're misquoting me if you feel that is what i said.

i'll repeat myself, just to clarify!

i care about the income gap, and believe that the Democrats would not have slashed taxes on the super wealthy.

i care about the deteriorating planet, and i feel certain the Democrats would not have pulled out of the Paris Accords.

i care about the judiciary - those judges tend to stick around for a long, long time. therefore, i feel great comfort in the certainty that the Democratic party would not put a stooge like Justice Scalia on the SCOTUS.

on a sidenote, i care hugely about the legalization of marijuana. i don't think this is a pressing topic for the nation - but the Democratic Party sees eye to eye with me on this issue.

at any rate...

...on these issues that i care about, the i'm simpatico with the Democratic party (which is not monolithic). if hearing these bland truths makes you sick, i don't want to tell you, my friend.



eh?

the Affordable Care Act undoubtedly was a wealth transfer from those that have to them who don't. it's not single payor, and for those of you who want to see US pharmaceutical and biotech bought to its knees, its half a loaf.

i know the ACA got alot of grief when it was launched (i'm not its biggest fan, i'm greedier and wanted single payor. alas, Joe Lieberman, that schmuck), but the GOP has found it very difficult to replace it with something better.

during the eight years that Mr. Clinton was POTUS, the number of people living in poverty decreased by 6.5 million. if that doesn't sound like enough for you, President Reagan's tally on that statistic is 294,000. so Clinton did 22 times better than the GOP standardbearer of my lifetime, King Reagan.

Jimmy Carter's deregulation of the airline industry made it possible for ordinary people to fly, lol. i mean, think about it; even though commercial US flight had existed for over half a century, by the 1970s eighty percent of Americans had never been on an airpline - it was too expensive.

anyway, there are lots of examples...far more, too numerous to count, if you want to compare bills that are bought up from both parties.

we could talk for a while about how the Democratic Party is shit because it doesn't adopt the Sierra Club's platform...or Noam Chomsky's platform...or the Black Lives Matter platform, etc, etc.

i get it.

if your bitterness makes you want to vote for Jill Stein or give Trump another term or stay home on election day when the next neoliberal wins the nomination, have at it. that'll fix things.

- IGIT

And I am not misquoting you dude. You're doing the game. "If you think we wouldn't have pulled out of the Paris Accords.... If you think we wouldn't widen the income gap... etc etc" all amounts to "That guy is WORSE!!!"

Just get a new schtick

 

[Lead]

Here is the clear choice. We can have trillion dollar deficits, corporate tax breaks, and increased defense spending, or you can have trillion dollar deficits, social spending, corporate tax breaks and increased defense spending.

If we are just saying fuck it. We aren't even pretending that we are ever paying it back, let's just run the deficit to 50 trillion, and fix everything. Free health care, free college, New roads, we will make the corporate tax rate 0%, and make income tax -10%. That's right the government will pay you 10% of your wages.

As far as increased spending goes, the only difference between Republicans and Democrats, is in whether or not we should use the national credit card for elite's, or should we use it for elite's and a little bit of social spending to throw some scraps to the unwashed masses.

I may have to abandon my illusion of choice platform here. Even the fucking corporate dems don't cut spending on children and old people, while writing blank checks to corporate america, and the MIC.

I agree the lines have shifted now to what should we put deficit spending towards rather than even how can we slow it down or stop it during good economic times. Since the 80's, politicians stopped giving a fuck. Clinton's era was promising and I do wonder what Bush's would've been without the WoT and also what an Obama third term would've looked like. This is a primary reason I can't support Trump. Populism is an enemy of fiscal responsibility.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I agree the lines have shifted now to what should we put deficit spending towards rather than even how can we slow it down or stop it during good economic times. Since the 80's, politicians stopped giving a fuck. Clinton's era was promising and I do wonder what Bush's would've been without the WoT and also what an Obama third term would've looked like. This is a primary reason I can't support Trump. Populism is an enemy of fiscal responsibility.

Populism is like any other ideology, it is a tool. The users intent determines whether it is good or bad.

When I hear you say populism is bad, what I hear is that people power is bad. That the tri-lateral commission was right, America was suffering from too much democracy.

 

[IGIT]

And I am not misquoting you dude. You're doing the game. "If you think we wouldn't have pulled out of the Paris Accords.... If you think we wouldn't widen the income gap... etc etc" all amounts to "That guy is WORSE!!!"

Just get a new schtick

hi Trident again,

i gave you some easy examples of how the Democrats have made life easier for the working and middle class, as you requested. so, we're just moving on now?

was there some greater point you seeking to make in asking me that question?

- IGIT

 

[Lead]

Populism is like any other ideology, it is a tool. The users intent determines whether it is good or bad.

Intent doesn't determine whether something is good or bad, the policy from the ideology does. Specifically for fiscal issues, populism is bad because our society favors more benefits/less taxes than what balances out.

When I hear you say populism is bad, what I hear is that people power is bad. That the tri-lateral commission was right, America was suffering from too much democracy.

It can be bad depending on what the people want. Sometimes, people are driven towards more short term needs which government should be far more long term thinking. That's sometimes hard to do when you have immediate elections. There's pro/cons to that so I'm not really trying to bash it.

I also would agree with the too much democracy comment. Different tools that have led to more direct democracy like referendums have led to very poor policy. We are a constitutional republic and balance of powers to me also includes the prevention of mob rule that a pure democracy would entail. Our institutions and enough people respecting those institutions are the most valuable thing that hold the country together.

 

[IGIT]

ahoy Trident!!!

A lot to go through here, but I'll start with: you sound young

You seriously can not be talking to me about the income gap. Clinton's Presidency and his policies had little to nothing to do with raising a statistical number of people out of poverty. He benefitted from circumstances out of his control.

ok, if you say so. Clinton did 22 times better in lifting people out of poverty than the most beloved GOP POTUS in the last half century - and President Clinton's Economic Plan had nothing to do with it. alrighty.

i'll skip over the Family and Medical Leave Act, the expansion of prenatal care that resulted in the lowest infant mortality rate in the nation's history, etc, etc. i mean, it was just Mr. Clinton being lucky, aye?

The Judiciary was under attack during the Obama years as his nominations were stalled, and where was the fight, the real political fight, from the Democrats? I didn't see it. Nothing of meaning anyway. Some soundbites. Some, "You're not all crazy" moments, but nothing that mattered.

so you wanted more fighting, ya? like, more histrionics and the clever application of political force, like on the West Wing?

ok!

The Judiciary, AFA the SCOTUS goes, that's just become a great boogeyman to GOTV. Nevermind that the Democrats abandoned the working class in the nineties, nevermind that party loyalists will call you a purists negativo, WHAT ABOUT scotus?!?!

what about the SCOTUS?

i said that the Democrats would never nominate folks like Scalia or Thomas to the SCOTUS. i like that - you apparently don't care, and that's fine. we differ on this topic, i guess.

Yeah, fuckers, that's not on me the voter. That's on you to do what you were put in there for. You do it, you got my vote. But I'm not falling for this Judiciary trap again.

you sound angry; that much is coming through, but the rest mystifies me.

what are you trying to say?

Obamacare is DoleCare repackaged. I'm not having this debate again about that bullshit giveaway to the cannibals at the health insurance empires.

yes, i know this. its actually Nixoncare - the healthcare reform that Mr. Nixon was envisioning was alot like the Affordable Care Act (watergate sidetracked all of this). its also HeritageFoundationCare...and of course, RomeyCare.

i would have liked more, but it advances the ball, and its clearly a wealth transfer from those that have to those that don't. you've failed to address this point, my friend.

Yeah, the GOP is much worse on climate issues. This sucks.

indeed they are worse. much worse.

I just had a brilliant idea. How about the Democrats act like people we can trust so they can get voted in and do something about the very real issues we are creating for this planet. They act like a bunch of broken betas. Maybe that's why people don't trust them. The truth is they are corrupt. And that's why they aren't doing what is needed.

the truth is that the Democratic party is not the monolithic one you envision, Trident.

Blah blah blah Noam Chomsky BLMs Jill Stein: Dude, I've heard it from all the no-neck party purists. Enjoy DC. It's nice even when you're a loser.

that's your rebuttal? lol. what is your solution?

i'm all ears. you want to throw the bums out, right?

ok, lol. do so! vote third party, or for the most ideologically pure liberal you can find.

i wish you the best in your endeavors to change the world.

godspeed.

- IGIT

 

[VivaRevolution]

Intent doesn't determine whether something is good or bad, the policy from the ideology does. Specifically for fiscal issues, populism is bad because our society favors more benefits/less taxes than what balances out.



It can be bad depending on what the people want. Sometimes, people are driven towards more short term needs which government should be far more long term thinking. That's sometimes hard to do when you have immediate elections. There's pro/cons to that so I'm not really trying to bash it.

I also would agree with the too much democracy comment. Different tools that have led to more direct democracy like referendums have led to very poor policy. We are a constitutional republic and balance of powers to me also includes the prevention of mob rule that a pure democracy would entail. Our institutions and enough people respecting those institutions are the most valuable thing that hold the country together.

The intent is the user shapes the policy. If your intent is to use populism as a means to power, and personal gain, of course that is destructive.

If on the other hand, populism is used as a means to power, and the goal is reform, you have a powerful tool to achieve that reform.

As to the need of checks and balances, and a constitutional republic I agree. Reality to me, appears to be that the parts of our government that were designed to be ruled by mob rule, have been subverted and occupied.

 

[Lead]

The intent is the user shapes the policy. If your intent is to use populism as a means to power, and personal gain, of course that is destructive.

If on the other hand, populism is used as a means to power, and the goal is reform, you have a powerful tool to achieve that reform.

As to the need of checks and balances, and a constitutional republic I agree. Reality to me, appears to be that the parts of our government that were designed to be ruled by mob rule, have been subverted and occupied.

What I'm saying is intent doesn't equal results. For example, I could want everyone to make 40,000/year minimum and put a UBI program in place that results in the economy plummeting and people not actually receiving at least 40,000. Sure my intent may have been seen as good but that didn't fix the consequence of a bad policy to follow up the intent. Intent is just one component.

 

[trident]

hi Trident again,

i gave you some easy examples of how the Democrats have made life easier for the working and middle class, as you requested. so, we're just moving on now?

was there some greater point you seeking to make in asking me that question?

- IGIT

Alrighty. We are talking past each other.... as I expected. lol

 

[VivaRevolution]

What I'm saying is intent doesn't equal results. For example, I could want everyone to make 40,000/year minimum and put a UBI program in place that results in the economy plummeting and people not actually receiving at least 40,000. Sure my intent may have been seen as good but that didn't fix the consequence of a bad policy to follow up the intent. Intent is just one component.

Ok, but I think trying something new and failing would be better then maintaining the status quo which is marching towards a cliff.

We get told to let the adults run the show, but the adults in Congress atleast seem to be anything other than adults.

Let the experts make the policy, but the experts are employed by lobby groups and think tanks.

Let the generals make the decisions, but the Pentagon generals are just as corrupt as our politicians, and experts.

I agree in principal that politicians, experts, and generals should be making the decisions, but what happens when those groups have been institutionally corrupted?

Whose in charge then?

Are you sure populism is such a bad idea?

 

[IGIT]

ahoy Viva my friend,

Yeah, your hitting sophie's choice right on the head of the nail. Do I reject the party who has abandoned the unions for lobbyists and campaign donations

you approach this the same way you approach most decisions in life; you look at your options and pragmatically make the most reasonable choice. think about buying a home. would you buy a home that has no chance of being lived in, a total waste of money, to make a philosophical point?

i voted for Mr. Sanders in the primary. he didn't win - so i voted for Mrs. Clinton in the general. at no point was i so upset with the DNC that i felt the nation was better off with a Trump presidency. not for a moment.

That doesn't exactly have a easy answer. I think I have taken a middle of the road kind of approach to it. I will vote for a new group of democrats to take power, but that requires Pelosi, and shumer, and obama, and clinton, to go the fuck away.

the answer is easy if environmental the state of the planet is of any concern to you, Viva. you vote for the Democrats, and then push the party to the left with an extremist core of hardcore liberals - people who are decoupled from reality. something along the lines of the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus lunatics, except they are insane about liberal causes.

- IGIT

 

[Lead]

Ok, but I think trying something new and failing would be better then maintaining the status quo which is marching towards a cliff.

We get told to let the adults run the show, but the adults in Congress atleast seem to be anything other than adults.

Let the experts make the policy, but the experts are employed by lobby groups and think tanks.

Let the generals make the decisions, but the Pentagon generals are just as corrupt as our politicians, and experts.

I agree in principal that politicians, experts, and generals should be making the decisions, but what happens when those groups have been institutionally corrupted?

Whose in charge then?

Are you sure populism is such a bad idea?

I think for each situation, the issue is there hasn't been a proper counter balance to handle it. Canada has handled lobbying far better than us. War hasn't been handled the correct way for awhile with the legislator. Also, Congress hasn't been fulfilling their duty of passing annual budgets.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I think for each situation, the issue is there hasn't been a proper counter balance to handle it. Canada has handled lobbying far better than us. War hasn't been handled the correct way for awhile with the legislator. Also, Congress hasn't been fulfilling their duty of passing annual budgets.

So how do you achieve real reform, without some kind of wave movement, most likely to take the form of populism?

 

[ShinkanPo]

Lol. You don't have a booming economy, you have a booming bubble of a stock market.

When the bubble pops, you will be calling it Obama's economy. In fact when the Dow lost all of its gains for the year, trumpets were already doing so. I am more than willing to show you some of the quotes from the thread if you would like.