The Dems Don't Get It: How liberalism without a spine gave way to a party without a brain or soul

The republicans have embraced fascism. You can't play nice with fascists.
The Republican party sucks, but can you supply some example of this?
Don't just tuck dick and hide, man up and supply some examples.
If anybody has embraced anything approaching fascism, it is the left.
 
In what sense do you think the Democratic Party favors right-wing economic policies?
Compared to mainstream left wing parties in other developed countries. Even the UK Labour party, which was itself considered right wing in this same sense, has taken a turn to the left under Corbyn if I'm not mistaken.

Of course compared to the GOP they're left but which mainstream party in a developed country isn't?
Please elaborate on what "a lot of the excesses and degeneracy of the left" entail.
Stuff like drag queens reading to kids, the excesses of PRIDE parades, rejecting any sort of standards when it comes to sexual promiscuity. You also got stuff like this


quad.slutwalk-640x480.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stuff like drag queens reading to kids, the excesses of PRIDE parades, rejecting any sort of standards when it comes to sexual promiscuity. You also got stuff like this


quad.slutwalk-640x480.jpg


Indeed.
 
Both of those things are more symbolic, though, aren't they? We basically just rebranded existing trade deals and now everyone who hated them before is happy (realistically, few people understand it but they were whipped into a frenzy and now they're told they should be happy), and illegal southern border crossings have been net negative for a decade now. People who supported the wall mostly realized there wouldn't be one built but they liked that "someone was finally talking about the issue" that had actually been a much-talked about issue until effective solutions were implemented.

Sure, but liking the proposals or not doesn't change the nature of them.
 
This current crop of GOP trash has only one goal and thats to crush all of americas institutions.

They don’t build or create anything all they do is destroy. One of the most dangerous political parties on earth.
 
Newt Gingrich started this all off during the 90s. The GOP couldn’t get over the fact Clinton beat him and Bush didn’t get his second Term.
 
Our corporate tax rates were too high. Lowering them has allowed corporations like Apple bring a lot of their money home to the US and has made US corporations more competitive internationally. As far as personal taxes, I'll always appreciate being able to keep a bit more of my hard earned money.

Concerning the debt, I've stated already in this thread that it was irresponsible to pass that bloated monstrosity of an omnibus bill after cutting taxes. The two had to go together and Trump and the GOP Congress made a big mistake in this regard.

Now as to economists, of course different economists have differing views and there was far from a monolithic response to Trump's cuts. A key problem with technocracy is that technocrats are usually ideologues with little actual experience managing the things they want to dictate to others. If you talk to business men and women, they'll tell you the cuts have opened up a lot of opportunities for expansion. To me, a growing economy is often a better thing than a growing government.

How does the above show Trump was right and the economists were wrong? Put simply the tax cuts have directly resulted in X amount of debt and arguably some portion of Y increase in GDP. As far as the spending goes, there is no point in separating the two as it’s always been this way, otherwise you are defending the complete hypothetical of a government economic contraction accompanied by a tax cut, which is not what has happened.

The vast majority of economists will argue for very basic reasons that incurring debt to elongate an economic boom already underway is at best inefficient and at worst counterproductive. Personal happiness over tax cuts and some inconclusive supply side appeals don’t really address that.

I would say you are out over your skis on that comment, at best it’s wait and see. Let’s talk when the next recession hits and we have that much less dry powder to fire because of this.
 
Let’s talk when the next recession hits and we have that much less dry powder to fire because of this.

Don't worry, it's already the Democrats' fault. Just like the recession was Obama's fault.
 
No, it was saying that most Americans aren't "real" Americans, wink wink.
No.. The left said one half was "deplorable." Really no wink needed. You can't just get a pass pretending Trump used identity politics anywhere near what the left did, and has done. The left's identity politics have become so pervasive that they feel that they OPENLY can say a candidate is the wrong kind of person for being a white male.
 
No.. The left said one half was "deplorable." Really no wink needed. You can't just get a pass pretending Trump used identity politics anywhere near what the left did, and has done. The left's identity politics have become so pervasive that they feel that they OPENLY can say a candidate is the wrong kind of person for being a white male.

ChlZGdOW0AAFhUD.jpg


Hilldawg's slogan was literally identity politics. Which was odd because she was so irrelevant to her campaign. She could have been replaced by any woman and run the same campaign.
 
Yup Detroit still produces a lot of vehicles but with a lot more machines and far fewer workers. From what I understand machines don't pay taxes that help pay for schools, police, fire department, parks or anything else for that matter. The same for goes for everything else associated with the auto industry, same/ more products with more machines and with far fewer workers, machines which don't pay taxes for schools, police, fire department ect.

Anything else?

Then what good was the trillions poured into social programs if your precious ideology failed to help the city anyways, that money would have been to better use in the taxpayers pockets, not a politican. Tax is paid on every purchase and Detroit recieves more federal funds per stundent than anywhere else in the world, there wasnt a break down from lack of tax revenue, but a shake down that made business harder in the worlds richest city.

Its pathetic and embarrassing when Dems take over the richest city on earth, next to the biggest body of freashwater in the world and the government ran water dept cant even function properly
 
If you listen to a far left, it's impossible that he do good for the country. That's a problem.

It was a problem when fox news made its fans think the same about Obama.

100% agree. Funny how the pendulum swings back and forth....
 
Now as to economists, of course different economists have differing views and there was far from a monolithic response to Trump's cuts. A key problem with technocracy is that technocrats are usually ideologues with little actual experience managing the things they want to dictate to others. If you talk to business men and women, they'll tell you the cuts have opened up a lot of opportunities for expansion. To me, a growing economy is often a better thing than a growing government.

Well, of course they did, its free money at zero cost whatsoever.

Its all debt fueled growth, anyone can do that, ask Venezuela how they were doing in the late 2010s, with massive oil income and ton of debt being racked up.

But you are more than willing to try and keep these tax cuts while doing the cuts that actually matter.

http://www.crfb.org/debtfixer/

If you think thats too hard try this one instead

http://usa.v1.abalancingact.com/

Go ahead and post your score.
 
Then what good was the trillions poured into social programs if your precious ideology failed to help the city anyways, that money would have been to better use in the taxpayers pockets, not a politican. Tax is paid on every purchase and Detroit recieves more federal funds per stundent than anywhere else in the world, there wasnt a break down from lack of tax revenue, but a shake down that made business harder in the worlds richest city.

Its pathetic and embarrassing when Dems take over the richest city on earth, next to the biggest body of freashwater in the world and the government ran water dept cant even function properly
What part of Detroit was a one industry town(auto industry) and once that industry collapsed the town collapsed do you not understand? Do you also not understand the rust belt is filled with cities like that?
 
But you are more than willing to try and keep these tax cuts while doing the cuts that actually matter.
So you agree with me. As in your analogy, it's maxing the credit card that is the problem. Spending cuts are very necessary. We both think Trump and the Republican Congress were irresponsible not to make major spending cuts when they cuts taxes, right?
 
Peter Navaro of yesteryear sounds like many current Demoocrats in here:

http://time.com/5375727/peter-navarro/

"If Peter Navarro ever doubted that he was a Democrat, a look at the other side was enough to convince him. Republicans talked about virtue and prosperity, but they were really a bunch of greedy, intolerant hypocrites, he thought.

The “insufferably bigoted, close-minded, and dangerously well-disciplined storm troopers on the religious right,” he wrote in a 1998 memoir, San Diego Confidential, “wield far too much influence at the ballot box.” The GOP was in thrall to “buffoons, sociopaths, and zealots like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Ralph Reed.” Its economic policies consisted of “tax schemes to further enrich the rich,” and its leaders could not be trusted “to do anything but trash the environment under the phony banner of economic progress.”

Twenty years ago, Navarro was a liberal economist who admired Hillary Clinton, argued for taxing the rich and had run for office as a Democrat four times. Today he is a top economic adviser to a Republican President. As Donald Trump’s director of trade and industrial policy, Navarro is known for his advocacy of tariffs and opposition to trade deals. It is Navarro who has pushed Trump to wage an escalating trade war that pits the U.S. against not only economic adversaries like China but also allies like Canada and the European Union. He is the most powerful person in Washington on the most volatile issue of Trump’s presidency.

-

"So what happened to Peter Navarro, liberal warrior? In the ensuing decades, he would make one more unsuccessful run for elected office, losing a 2001 campaign for San Diego city council. He was a supporter of Democratic politicians as recently as 2008, when he backed Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary. In op-eds and newsletters in the past decade, he called for an aggressive climate policy, including a carbon tax and a ban on incandescent bulbs, and supported a stimulus package to combat the financial crisis.

But on trade, his views evolved. In 1998, he had written that he “strongly supported free trade.” But after China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, he started to notice that his MBA students were losing their jobs despite their sterling qualifications. He concluded that China’s trade practices–including export and production subsidies, currency manipulation and theft of intellectual property–were putting Americans at an unfair disadvantage. In other words, Navarro seemed to see in China a scapegoat for people like himself: well-credentialed Americans denied access to the success they felt they’d earned."

-

"The results of Navarro’s influence on trade are evident. China, Canada and members of the E.U. have imposed retaliatory tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American goods, leading to warehouses full of excess meat and a giant surplus of dairy products. The price of soybeans has plummeted, while the prices of some washing machines are up by 20%. Auto prices could soon follow. The nation’s only major television manufacturer, Element Electronics, announced it would close its factory and lay off 126 workers because of the rising price of Chinese components.

Conservative economists like Moore hope that tariffs are merely a means to an end, giving Trump leverage to negotiate deals that would result in freer markets. “In my discussions with Donald Trump, it’s been about using the tariffs as a bargaining tool,” Moore says. “In the end, he wants to get to zero tariffs.”

But Navarro has a different view. He advocates a permanent regime of tariffs, barriers and quotas to “balance” the trade deficit, discourage imported goods and encourage domestic manufacturing. The Administration’s actions, as opposed to its rhetoric, are moving in that direction."
 
Last edited:
So you agree with me. As in your analogy, it's maxing the credit card that is the problem. Spending cuts are very necessary. We both think Trump and the Republican Congress were irresponsible not to make major spending cuts when they cuts taxes, right?

You are wrong to claim that the economists were wrong just because the US economy is being boosted by a debt fueled growth.

We are seeing the cracks already forming.

EDIT

You keep saying "We need cuts" but please enlighten me about what needs to be cut, and do you honestly believe that said cuts wont impact the economy?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top