Democrats Want Change

[BFritz21]

Is it just me or is the basis for the Democratic party just to ***** about everything just to ***** and to play the victim card where everything is the rich people's fault? They play the victim card to no end. It's also weird that lawyers, who are mostly wealthy, typically tend to be Democrats, but I guess they're just caught-up in "fighting for rights."

They want change in EVERYTHING, but not everything needs change and most things don't work the way they want them to work.

Democrats want everything to be equal, which I agree everyone should have equal OPPORTUNITIES, but the Democratic party seems to just want everyone to have equal lives without having to work for it.

My old man grew up dirt-poor with no money and an alcoholic father, but worked his ass off, went to college on academic scholarship, built his way up, and made an awesome life for my family and I, so I know it can be done.

Am I wrong in this thinking?

[NATI BENGALS]

Progess is not a bad word.

Making sure people arent starving to death and making sure people have access to health care is not making people have equal lives and golden toilets to shit in.

It used to be easier to find a job and make a career out of it and start a family buy a house and live the dream.

Massive corporations, machines and computers have killed many jobs. There are plenty of stupid people out there incapable of absorbing a college education. Just because you are not smart enough earn a college degree doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to earn a decent living and start a family.

If you work 40 hours a week you shouldnt be poor. These mega corporation execs make truckloads of money. Plenty of their hourly employees get governmet assistance or are barely getting by.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-16-2017, 09:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Progess is not a bad word.

Making sure people arent starving to death and making sure people have access to health care is not making people have equal lives and golden toilets to shit in.

It used to be easier to find a job and make a career out of it and start a family buy a house and live the dream.

Massive corporations, machines and computers have killed many jobs. There are plenty of stupid people out there incapable of absorbing a college education. Just because you are not smart enough earn a college degree doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to earn a decent living and start a family.

If you work 40 hours a week you shouldnt be poor. These mega corporation execs make truckloads of money. Plenty of their hourly employees get governmet assistance or are barely getting by.

It's bad if it's at the expense of the hard working people who can no longer afford to use their healthcare because of it.

The way the college scam is set up now, you don't need to be smart to get a degree. You just need to be willing to go into massive debt for a generally useless piece of paper. Go to a trade school or technical school.

Not all work is created equal. 40 hours of "do you want fries with that?" or "Welcome to Walmart, have a nice day." isn't intended for people to support a family on. Get a certification in something and get a better job.

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2017, 08:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Am I wrong in this thinking?

Yes. Your understanding and representation if the liberal position, and that of the DNC, is wrong.

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2017, 10:17 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not all work is created equal. 40 hours of "do you want fries with that?" or "Welcome to Walmart, have a nice day." isn't intended for people to support a family on. Get a certification in something and get a better job.

Problem is that our economy has shifted. Jobs that one could work and support a family, like on a factory floor, have been replaced with those service industry jobs you are mentioning. Your reasoning works if we hadn't lost those manufacturing jobs, but they are gone and aren't coming back. So we need to figure out something.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-16-2017, 10:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Problem is that our economy has shifted. Jobs that one could work and support a family, like on a factory floor, have been replaced with those service industry jobs you are mentioning. Your reasoning works if we hadn't lost those manufacturing jobs, but they are gone and aren't coming back. So we need to figure out something.

Maybe if the entire country went back to a 1 worker family model, the economy would go back to where 1 person working could support a family? Lol

Time to put a lot men and women back in the kitchen, making sandwiches.

But that's seriously a perfect example of why simply raising the minimum wage to $15/hr isn't an actual solution. Before women entered the workforce in mass, a family could live off of one person's salary. Then two people started working and it was good for a little, until two people working became the norm, then it adjusted to the fact that two people working was required to support a family (obviously excepting if you have a particularly good job).

[BFritz21]

(07-16-2017, 10:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. Your understanding and representation if the liberal position, and that of the DNC, is wrong.

Please elaborate.   

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-16-2017, 11:16 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Please elaborate.   

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[BFritz21]

(07-16-2017, 11:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

Please elaborate in your terms.

[*Nately120*]

(07-16-2017, 11:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Maybe if the entire country went back to a 1 worker family model, the economy would go back to where 1 person working could support a family? Lol

Time to put a lot men and women back in the kitchen, making sandwiches.

But that's seriously a perfect example of why simply raising the minimum wage to $15/hr isn't an actual solution. Before women entered the workforce in mass, a family could live off of one person's salary. Then two people started working and it was good for a little, until two people working became the norm, then it adjusted to the fact that two people working was required to support a family (obviously excepting if you have a particularly good job).

Er wait, are you saying the reason it takes both adult partners in a household being employed to make a living is because both partners in a household are willing to be employed? 

(07-16-2017, 11:34 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Please elaborate in your terms.

It's difficult to discuss politics with you because you seem to hold a very negative and sensationalized view of "the other side."

[GMDino]

(07-16-2017, 11:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Maybe if the entire country went back to a 1 worker family model, the economy would go back to where 1 person working could support a family? Lol

Time to put a lot men and women back in the kitchen, making sandwiches.

But that's seriously a perfect example of why simply raising the minimum wage to $15/hr isn't an actual solution. Before women entered the workforce in mass, a family could live off of one person's salary. Then two people started working and it was good for a little, until two people working became the norm, then it adjusted to the fact that two people working was required to support a family (obviously excepting if you have a particularly good job).

So two people working wasn't the result of the cost of living passing up families as wages stagnated, unions were gutted and wealth shifted to the top 1%? 

Weird.

Although I'll add my mother never worked outside of the home.  Sometimes my dad worked two jobs...but I guess that would throw that theory way out of whack.  

[Benton]

(07-16-2017, 08:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Is it just me or is the basis for the Democratic party just to ***** about everything just to ***** and to play the victim card where everything is the rich people's fault?  They play the victim card to no end.  It's also weird that lawyers, who are mostly wealthy, typically tend to be Democrats, but I guess they're just caught-up in "fighting for rights."

They want change in EVERYTHING, but not everything needs change and most things don't work the way they want them to work.  

Democrats want everything to be equal, which I agree everyone should have equal OPPORTUNITIES, but the Democratic party seems to just want everyone to have equal lives without having to work for it.

My old man grew up dirt-poor with no money and an alcoholic father, but worked his ass off, went to college on academic scholarship, built his way up, and made an awesome life for my family and I, so I know it can be done.

Am I wrong in this thinking?

Just out of curiosity, where did you come up with the idea most lawyers are democrats?

I'm not disputing, I've never seen any numbers. Personally, I just assumed most were republican. Overwhelming majority of elected attorneys I know (or those who have ran for office) were Republicans. 

(07-16-2017, 11:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Maybe if the entire country went back to a 1 worker family model, the economy would go back to where 1 person working could support a family? Lol

Time to put a lot men and women back in the kitchen, making sandwiches.

But that's seriously a perfect example of why simply raising the minimum wage to $15/hr isn't an actual solution. Before women entered the workforce in mass, a family could live off of one person's salary. Then two people started working and it was good for a little, until two people working became the norm, then it adjusted to the fact that two people working was required to support a family (obviously excepting if you have a particularly good job).

Wage disparity is the biggest issue nobody is talking about. In the 1940s if both spouses were earning close to the same amount (as they are now), they would be very well off. Now, we've shifted what our workforce looks like and two people may not even be able to pay their bills off minimum wage.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-17-2017, 12:06 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Er wait, are you saying the reason it takes both adult partners in a household being employed to make a living is because both partners in a household are willing to be employed? 

More or less?

By essentially doubling your working force, you will have less competitive wages, less opportunity, higher standards, etc. Employers know they could just get someone younger and cheaper. They know you know that, too. Now college degrees are needed for a lot of jobs that didn't need it in the past. ($20k+ per person) Two people working? You need two cars. Pay for twice the gas, pay for twice the insurance. Now you need a work wardrobe for both people, too. Nobody home while the two work? Childcare is expensive! Want a place where two or more people can live? Rent is set for two people working now. etc, etc, etc

(07-17-2017, 12:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: So two people working wasn't the result of the cost of living passing up families as wages stagnated, unions were gutted and wealth shifted to the top 1%? 

Weird.

Although I'll add my mother never worked outside of the home.  Sometimes my dad worked two jobs...but I guess that would throw that theory way out of whack.  

Weren't you the one who was so against anecdotal evidence? I also said it was a thing the entire country had to go back to doing, not just your single family experience. Hence why I put an "Lol" because it's so implausible to go back to. It's like banning guns in a city. Unless the world banned it together, it's not really going to properly work.

Two people working is a big part of what caused wages to stagnate because you essentially doubled your workforce without truly doubling your work demand. Go hire someone younger and cheaper, because there's so many of them now you can replace at will. Why give someone 20 years worth of raises when you can lay them off and hire a kid with a college degree, who is swimming in debt, and willing to work for much less?

(07-17-2017, 12:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Wage disparity is the biggest issue nobody is talking about. In the 1940s if both spouses were earning close to the same amount (as they are now), they would be very well off. Now, we've shifted what our workforce looks like and two people may not even be able to pay their bills off minimum wage.

In 1940 the average price of a new car was $800. Inflation-wise, $1 in 1940 is worth $17.50 today. 800 x 17.5 = 14,000. The average new car today does not cost $14,000.

The market will adapt to what people are capable and willing to pay. The whole demand angle of the market. Two people working being the common thing made it so people could afford to spend more money on things, so things in turn became more expensive because the folks selling things know you can afford it. Kayne West sold out instantly on $120 plain white t-shirts a couple years back. People will sell things for what they think they can get you to pay.

It becomes a bigger problem as two parent families become less and less of a common thing, because our market has now evolved around being primarily for two working parents... so a one parent family is now often in poverty. Not saying it's right, but I do believe it's traced back to it.

[BFritz21]

(07-17-2017, 12:53 AM)Benton Wrote:
Just out of curiosity, where did you come up with the idea most lawyers are democrats?

I'm not disputing, I've never seen any numbers. Personally, I just assumed most were republican. Overwhelming majority of elected attorneys I know (or those who have ran for office) were Republicans. 


Wage disparity is the biggest issue nobody is talking about. In the 1940s if both spouses were earning close to the same amount (as they are now), they would be very well off. Now, we've shifted what our workforce looks like and two people may not even be able to pay their bills off minimum wage.

Every lawyer in this area (including the lawyers that worked on my cases) are very die-hard Democrats.

A simple internet search will show pages like this one:

Quote:Simple, it is the party of lawyers. Think for a minute what all these politicians have in common: Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They are all lawyers. Al Gore went to law school but did not graduate, Lloyd Bentsen, former VP nominee in 1976, went to law school. In contrast, in the Republican party George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were businessmen, Newt Gingrich a history professor, John Boehner a plastic manufacturer, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon. The last Republican president who was a lawyer was Gerald Ford and he left office in 1976.

The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work who are often the target of lawyers.


The Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush, Cheney and Romney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or immerse themselves in history, like Newt Gingrich. The Lawyers Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America.
For example, whom do Hillary Clinton and Obama go after? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food chains, large businesses, bankers, anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

Kind of sums up the two parties to me:  Republicans want to build a foundation and a country where everyone can join-in and benefit, whereas Democrats are more worried about making sure everyone gets a share without having to work for it.

[treee]

I think you're oversimplifying things Brad. The "ideals" of both parties are, generally speaking, virtuous. However, politicians, generally speaking, are not.

[Benton]

(07-17-2017, 03:47 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Every lawyer in this area (including the lawyers that worked on my cases) are very die-hard Democrats.

A simple internet search will show pages like this one:



Kind of sums up the two parties to me:  Republicans want to build a foundation and a country where everyone can join-in and benefit, whereas Democrats are more worried about making sure everyone gets a share without having to work for it.

Quote:Editor's note: It was brought to our attention that this letter was plagiarized from an article called "The Lawyers' Party" by Bruce Walker. We've included a links to Walker's original article and removed the letter writer's name. In addition, we talked with the letter writer and have banned him from future submissions.

It's an opinion piece. And a plagiarized one at that. It's pretty much the same on the opposite side where Sessions, McConnell, Preibus, Pence, etc., were all attorneys.

[Au165]

(07-17-2017, 10:30 AM)Benton Wrote:

He is right though, but not to the extreme he believes to be true.

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/09/the-mostly-liberal-political-ideologies-of-american-lawyers-law-schools-and-firms/

According to this article and the study it references the average leaning of "Lawyers" is just mildly left of center versus this far left thought that Brad believes. The scale is basically a -2 to 2, with -2 being a far left wing and a 2 being a far right wing, the average came in at -.52. In perspective Bill Clinton was a -.68 so the group as a whole is more conservative than Bill which most Republicans, putting aside his political affiliation, could deal with.

[*michaelsean*]

I think as far as lawyers, Brad may be thinking about contributions to political parties by groups like maybe the ABA.

When discussing single earners before, we also have to remember what they had and didn't have. iphones, cable, computers, internet, HD TVs, multiple cars. I think that may close the gap some in the disparity.

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2017, 11:16 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Please elaborate.   

(07-16-2017, 11:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

(07-16-2017, 11:34 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Please elaborate in your terms.

It's actually very difficult to. The reason is because even the Democrat platform is meaningless. Elected officials with the party's letter attached to their name do not have to adhere to the platform. Both parties are gigantic tents that encompass a wide range of ideologies (and ad hoc opinions on policy, which is what most people have). Specifically on the concept of social programs the Democrats and Republicans aren't that far off in the mainstream thinking. This is a result of what I talk about a good bit, neoliberal tendencies that have been existent in both parties since about the Reagan era.

Now, there are more liberal camps in the Democratic party that would like to remove the bipartisan welfare reforms from the Clinton-era and provide a stronger social safety net. They are more liberal than the "mainstream" ideologies of the party, though. They have had a stronger voice as of late thanks to Bernie Sanders, but even so they aren't all that united. Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but just right of that are Social Democrats. They are right of the Sanders crowd, but left of the mainstream Democrat platform. And those are just two ideological positions that on the global scale are considered slightly left and center left, but they both have different ideas on the social safety net from each other, and from what the majority of Democrats and what the part establishment calls for.

But, and this is important to note, there is no ideology that just calls for giving people the money to live without working for it. None. Pure socialism requires those able to work, to work. Most social program reforms pushed for by more liberal ideologies than this country is used to calls for stronger job training programs established by the government to get people into the work force. The problem is that the way things are approached is more about scoring political points than crafting effective policy. This has only gotten worse over the past few decades as we have seen a negative attitude towards the bureaucracy that has resulted in lobbyists doing most of the drafting of legislation in Washington.

[Millhouse]

(07-17-2017, 03:47 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Every lawyer in this area (including the lawyers that worked on my cases) are very die-hard Democrats.

A simple internet search will show pages like this one:



Kind of sums up the two parties to me:  Republicans want to build a foundation and a country where everyone can join-in and benefit, whereas Democrats are more worried about making sure everyone gets a share without having to work for it.

To me both parties have their merits and both have their flaws, especially right now. And it is those flaws why I am no longer registered in a party. I used to be a Repub, as I have mentioned in here before was even an intern for a Repub U.S. Senator, which I still put on my resume to this day. But their overall views on civil liberties for all Americans and their desire to back the big corporations over the people was enough to drive me out. 

However I have no desire to join the Crats because I view them having too much leftism in the party at the moment. I absolutely disagree with the notion of giving away free college tuition for those that are in families that make under a certain amount, while others would have to pay simply because their parents got ahead in life so to speak. That to me is 'un-American' and just wrong. And I have a feeling this issue will be something the Dems will be harping about going forward. I also disagree with many on the left that want to bring in refugees and illegals with few limitations involved. And thats not a phobia thing for me, but more of a mathematical thing in the long run, as I see our country teetering more and more on economic collapse the current path it is on.