11-17-2016, 05:58 PM
They need to follow Bernie and Warren's lead. They need to be more grassroots and find a way to identify with blue-collar workers.
State of the Democratic Party
|
11-17-2016, 05:58 PM
They need to follow Bernie and Warren's lead. They need to be more grassroots and find a way to identify with blue-collar workers.
11-17-2016, 06:04 PM
(11-17-2016, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then white working class are feeling more threatened than ever. There is nothing Domocrats can do about that. Things will get even worse in a few years when whites make up less than half of the population. We will see a huge rise in neo-nazi and white supremacists type parties at that time. Of course, if all else fails, double down on the language that, at the very least, contributed to your most recent loss. Hell of a lot better than looking in the miroor.
11-17-2016, 06:09 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:04 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Of course, if all else fails, double down on the language that, at the very least, contributed to your most recent loss. Hell of a lot better than looking in the miroor. Don't know what you mean by this. I looked in the mirror and saw a problem for the whole country. What part of what I said was wrong?
11-17-2016, 06:12 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't know what you mean by this. You didn't quote anything specifically. So I took your post as a general response to the OP, which comes off as a dismissive attitude towards white blue collar workers' grievances as "feeling threatened by minorities"
11-17-2016, 06:14 PM
(11-17-2016, 05:50 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Hey Bell, None of this makes any sense because I have not heard a single person from either party make suggestions that just apply to one part of the country. I have never heard a Republican support helping the rural poor any more than the urban poor, and I have never heard a democrat say we need programs to help the poor urban poor but not the rural poor. If I am wrong please give me some examples. Don't Republicans want to cut social programs for ALL parts of the country including the rural areas? Don't Democrats say that ALL poor people need more help?
11-17-2016, 06:22 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: None of this makes any sense because I have not heard a single person from either party make suggestions that just apply to one part of the country. A few things: 1. This isn't my argument; it's someone elses'. Though I admit that i'm more receptive to the ideas since the author's prediction about Trump came at a time where we thought she was ***** nuts. 2. The argument is that the attitude to help the poor is selective. She cites excerpts from What's the Matter With Kansas to make the point. Since this isn't really my argument, I wouldn't be doing justice by defending it further. I just wanted perspectives (Bell's specifically since he's leaning towards some of the ideas in the argument), though others' is welcome as well.
11-17-2016, 06:24 PM
(11-17-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: but all of us can take a look at what has happened to the positions touted by Democratic lawmakers and see that there is not much being pushed to help us out. This isn't blame directed at minorities, saying that is an absolute cop out when discussing the dropped ball when it comes to economic policy on the left. Democrats passed legislation to help the working class afford health care. Republicans want toi repeal that. Democrats proposed government providing more free education. How does that not help the working class? Democrats proposed tax cuts for the middle class while Trump proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. So what exactly did the Republicans offer the working class that was better than the Democrats?
11-17-2016, 06:25 PM
(11-17-2016, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then white working class are feeling more threatened than ever. There is nothing Domocrats can do about that. Things will get even worse in a few years when whites make up less than half of the population. We will see a huge rise in neo-nazi and white supremacists type parties at that time. So that I understand your point: There is nothing wrong with the state of the Democratic Party. The problem lies with uneducated white-people?
11-17-2016, 06:27 PM
(11-17-2016, 05:50 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Hey Bell, So, in generalities, it is very true that a lot of lip service is given to the idea of helping out the poor, just as it is the middle class, without a ton of action being done. Both sides do this, though the left tends to favor a direct help approach and the right a more indirect approach. This is why it appears that the left courts that voting bloc harder. Here is why nothing happens, though: money. I'm not just talking about what it costs to carry out these programs, which is a big part of it, but also the money being spent on campaigns, the money being spent on lobbyists, all of it. Budgetary concerns: Programs to help the poor cost money. Whether it is entitlements/welfare or whether it is job training, education assistance, whatever. It all costs money, and it all costs money that has to come from somewhere. These programs are tough to get passed because they don't come with great public opinion. People receive erroneous information on them in their planning stages from the opposing side, and that turns them against them. Doesn't matter if the idea was attempted by the other side 4 years prior, they will still trash talk it. Plus, the revenue used for these programs isn't going to be coming from the people that benefit from them most (though philosophically that can be debated) making it an even harder sell. The worst is if it involves a tax increase, otherwise known as political suicide. Campaign finance: plain and simple, poor people don't have deep enough pockets to influence policy in this arena and those that do aren't considered with them. Lobbyists: everyone is represented by lobbyists in our government. We are all a part of interest groups whether we have formal membership in the NRA, Sierra Club, AAA, whatever, or whether we are free riders on the benefits of the lobbying efforts of those groups. The largest and most influential lobbyist in the country is the Chamber of Commerce. They have a hand in just about everything. But who isn't there a lobbyist group for? The homeless. The poor. Sure, there are groups that will raise concerns that these segments of our population would be concerned with, but they don't have the dedicated lobbyists because, you guessed it, they can't pay them. And here is a little well-known secret, money alone isn't the guarantee for getting policy passed. Campaign contributions, they give you a 50/50 shot. Having more lobbyists than the other side? 60/40. Having more lobbyists that used to work in government? 75/25. Okay, so these numbers are pulled out of my ass because I can't find my charts presently but it's not that far off. I'll step off my soap box on this for the time being. Anyway, my point with all of this is to show more about why these segments get ignored, and they get ignored by everyone. It's a sad story but it is why we need to suck it up as a country, put on our big boy britches, and work towards a better future by looking at policies that can help them. Yeah, it's going to cost money, but it can help our economy grow and become more prosperous. Sorry for the rant there, and I hope I responded to you in a way that made sense. I know I got a little soap-boxy but this is something that I have been talking about a lot lately.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
11-17-2016, 06:35 PM
11-17-2016, 06:35 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Democrats passed legislation to help the working class afford health care. Republicans want toi repeal that. The ACA is bad policy. It has good effects but it is overall bad policy. It gets more people insured but it doesn't address the actual issues. The Dems aren't entirely to blame for this, after all it is repackaged GOP policy from the Reagan era, but it is still bad policy. I had to say it three times for emphasis. The free education idea is a crock. We don't need more people with college degrees, we need more people with job skills. The whole "everyone needs a degree" idea from the Bill Clinton era helped make this shift worse. It wasn't the only cause, but it is a contributing factor to the decline of the middle class. There are some genuine idiots in college that don't need to be there, and it's because of this. They are racking up debt to get a worthless degree or they would be racking up government debt to get one. Tax cuts, another band aid solution that looks nice on the campaign trail but isn't based in reality. I'll admit to this one being something that could actually help the middle class, for a few months at least. But what are these middle class tax cuts coupled with? Reduced spending? In which areas? Tax increases? On whom? As for the last point: (11-17-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So you don't think that the Democratic party getting back to focusing on the economy and policies to help the middle class would help win these voters back? I mean, don't get me wrong, the GOP is doing nothing to help them either, but that's just the thing. The Democrats have been the party for the middle class, as a whole, for a very long time. They feel abandoned by them and are now turning to the GOP in a "let's see if they will help us" move. Do try to read a post when you respond to it.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
11-17-2016, 06:38 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Democrats passed legislation to help the working class afford health care. Republicans want toi repeal that. To answer your second question, not everyone has the time or capability to learn a new skill. They still have families to feed, for example. Someone who loses their job at a manufacturing plant might not be able to make the changes needed to be productive. With technology advancing at the rate that it is, does it even matter if they were able to? What do you say to the people who lost not just their job, but their town/way of life when their plant closed following trade deals like NAFTA?
11-17-2016, 06:40 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The ACA is bad policy. It has good effects but it is overall bad policy. It gets more people insured but it doesn't address the actual issues. The Dems aren't entirely to blame for this, after all it is repackaged GOP policy from the Reagan era, but it is still bad policy. I had to say it three times for emphasis. But your position that "both parties are bad for the working class" does not explain why the working class would shift from the Democrats to the Republicans. If it is just a case of the balance shifting back and forth then that means there is no real problem with the Democrat party, but from what I understood you to say there actually was a policy reason for the shift.
11-17-2016, 06:43 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:38 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: What do you say to the people who lost not just their job, but their town/way of life when their plant closed following trade deals like NAFTA? I say that we live in a global economy and can not exist in a bubble. Tariffs just make items cost more for Americans and American companies will lose the profits on all the items they sell overseas. American business is not losing any money. Instead they are making record profits. People who think letting corporations make more money will help the working class are not paying attention to what is happening right in front of their faces.
11-17-2016, 06:45 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I say that we live in a global economy and can not exist in a bubble. In which case, i'd direct you to my post to Bell. I agree with you at the end of the day, but it's easy to say "Everyone benefits from this sacrifice" when you're not the one being dragged to the altar.
11-17-2016, 06:47 PM
(11-16-2016, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are absolutely right. Kennedy came for them. Johnson came for them. Carter came for them. Clinton came for them. Obama played opossum for 8 years but then he came for them. The number of guns confiscated from lawful gun owners in this country is staggering. It has to be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. I wasn't kidding. Obama is coming for them right now! For the record, I don't mock gun owners, I mock morons. And history has shown (morons) they are coming for your guns yesterday, today, tomorrow, and everyday! So, stock up now and get ready for a firefight!
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
11-17-2016, 06:48 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But your position that "both parties are bad for the working class" does not explain why the working class would shift from the Democrats to the Republicans. If it is just a case of the balance shifting back and forth then that means there is no real problem with the Democrat party, but from what I understood you to say there actually was a policy reason for the shift. I actually did explain that in my post by saying that the Democrats, once the party of the working class, has caused them to feel abandoned. In doing so, many have shifted to the GOP in a "let's see if they will do anything for us" move. I'm not saying it is a logical shift, but it is based on the move away from policies that benefit the working class and towards more identity politics that has caused this feeling of abandonment by a party that once represented them. For the majority of the people this affects it has caused political apathy, not even necessarily an allegiance shift. But with the smaller percentage switching allegiances and the apathy affect not a problem for the GOP, it is hurting the Democrats.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
11-17-2016, 06:49 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:45 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: it's easy to say "Everyone benefits from this sacrifice" when you're not the one being dragged to the altar. And it is even easier to try and blame foreigners when in fact American corporations are making record profits. Our economy is booming. The problem is not with foreign trade. The problem is that we have policies in place that allow all of the profit to go to the people at the very top while they punish the working class.
11-17-2016, 06:51 PM
11-17-2016, 07:00 PM
(11-17-2016, 06:47 PM)xxlt Wrote: You are absolutely right. Kennedy came for them. Johnson came for them. Carter came for them. Clinton came for them. Obama played opossum for 8 years but then he came for them. The number of guns confiscated from lawful gun owners in this country is staggering. It has to be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. I wasn't kidding. Obama is coming for them right now! I fear your reading comprehension skills deteriorate with each passing month. I didn't state confiscation has happened in the past, I said it is happening now as we speak. As for the history angle, I'll use my horribly broken, in terms of the 2A, state of CA as an example. In the eighties they passed a ban on "high capacity" magazines, any magazine that holds more than ten rounds. They grandfathered in all such magazines already in the state. The purpose of this was not to necessitate confiscation of citizens legally purchased property. It was also stated at that time that this would not change. Fast forward to today and not only are all such magazines, even the previously grandfathered ones, banned they must be surrendered or removed from the state or the owner faces criminal charges. This is confiscation. Thus, history has shown that gun owners should trust anti-gun politicians and people as much as pro choice people should trust pro-life people and politicians, i.e. not at all. In addition CA has now passed two laws, one via the legislature and one via proposition that outlaws all semi-automatic rifles with a removable magazine. Any currently in the state have to now be registered as an "assault weapon" or the legally purchased firearm now becomes illegal to own. In addition these firearms are now permanently non-transferable. They cannot be sold or given to anyone other than the registered owner. Not confiscation you say? Wait for it. This includes any registered firearm after the owner dies. Upon the owner's death the firearm has to be rendered inoperable or surrendered to the state. This is confiscation and it's hardly the last step that anti-gun politicians like Gavin Newsome will attempt. I won't even get into the insane background check for ammunition crap fest portion of the current laws. So, history has shown that the end game for anti-gun types is confiscation and gun owners are right to fear that is their aim. So, kindly take your smarmy reply and cram it, along with any "high capacity" magazines you may own. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|