A New Democratic Message for 2018 Around Fiscal Policy

[Moderate Right]

Yeah. I know I'm sick and tired of all these political party firsters and the country way down the line someplace. Reid and McConnell are classic examples of that and you can throw in Pelosi into that mix. As long as it is all about political party there will be no conscientious and this nation will remain divided with close to 30% supporting Democrats, close to another 30% supporting Republicans and the rest caught in the middle with no where to go. No political home, no hope. No party to conduct the nation's business, just their political party's business which usually turns out to be two entirely different things.

I'm in that 40%. It's always about picking the lesser of two evils and 2016 was the pinnacle of that reality, the very top of the pyramid. And, both sides think the key to winning the election is to bring out their base. Well, our 40% is who they need, not the "base". This last election I absolutely refused to choose between the lesser of two evils and wrote in who I wanted all along - John Kasich.

 

[Moderate Right]

Good luck explaining a concept outside of zero-sum to Donald Trump.

I have to admonish you for trying to inject your extreme partisanship into a discussion about the need for bipartisanship. There is absolutely nothing about you that relates to bipartisanship so anything you have to say on this subject is not credible.

 

[Winston]

I have to admonish you for trying to inject your extreme partisanship into a discussion about the need for bipartisanship. There is absolutely nothing about you that relates to bipartisanship so anything you have to say on this subject is not credible.

Let me know when Trump aknowledges that Democrats are people too who have ideas that deserve inclusion.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Besides taking progressive gambles like including free college, alternative energy, single-payer, in your message, here's a radical idea from yours truly. Tell the truth about what tax cuts do to the budget.

Republicans are more fiscally irresponsible than Democrats because they put the countries spending on your credit card because they don't want to fund the government with tax revenue. Republicans hammer on balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. But, the tax cuts they advocate for routinely lead to revenues underperforming, often hitting as low as 15% of GDP. Tie Republicans to the national debt, by pointing out they turn spending into public debt with tax cuts. If Democrats can play it right, they've been given two electoral nuggets of gold, supply side's failure in Kansas and GWB's incompetence.

Can Democrats make them into the party of fiscal irresponsibility? Because Republicans want to push tax cuts that decimate budgets. They are the cut and spend party. All you have to do is point to the 20 Trillion in debt, and blame it on Bush and Republicans irresponsible cut and spend.

Run a campaign ad that tells them Clinton left Bush a surplus and Bush turned that surplus into the highest % increase of deficit spending of all times. Because he cut taxes and started 2 wars. Then point to real GDP growth peaking at 3.6% before the financial crash, tie Republicans to the deficits and the financial crash, and then say, Trump wants to repeat this and throw in an anecdote Trump running a casino into the ground in Atlantic City.

I want to be clear that I think Democrats running towards the center, and appealing to Republican values as a Blue Dog Democrat does, is a poor strategy. People much prefer strong progressives to weak Democrats. If you'd like evidence of that, look at the 1,000 seats lost. I don't think the country is actually any more right than it was in 2009. I think if you look at the polling the country holds center left positions on marijuana legalization, single-payer, ending the wars, government corruption and money in politics, alternative energy. The country is center-left.

So, here's what I would do, tie Republicans to incompetent tax cuts that lead to budget crisis and say that Trump wants to repeat failed supply side policy.

Your "good guys" and your "bad guys" are all riding the same train toward the same destination with their tickets purchased by the same cabal. The observation that they are riding in different cars of that train is moot.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Besides taking progressive gambles like including free college, alternative energy, single-payer, in your message, here's a radical idea from yours truly. Tell the truth about what tax cuts do to the budget.

Republicans are more fiscally irresponsible than Democrats because they put the countries spending on your credit card because they don't want to fund the government with tax revenue. Republicans hammer on balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. But, the tax cuts they advocate for routinely lead to revenues underperforming, often hitting as low as 15% of GDP. Tie Republicans to the national debt, by pointing out they turn spending into public debt with tax cuts. If Democrats can play it right, they've been given two electoral nuggets of gold, supply side's failure in Kansas and GWB's incompetence.

Can Democrats make them into the party of fiscal irresponsibility? Because Republicans want to push tax cuts that decimate budgets. They are the cut and spend party. All you have to do is point to the 20 Trillion in debt, and blame it on Bush and Republicans irresponsible cut and spend.

Run a campaign ad that tells them Clinton left Bush a surplus and Bush turned that surplus into the highest % increase of deficit spending of all times. Because he cut taxes and started 2 wars. Then point to real GDP growth peaking at 3.6% before the financial crash, tie Republicans to the deficits and the financial crash, and then say, Trump wants to repeat this and throw in an anecdote Trump running a casino into the ground in Atlantic City.

I want to be clear that I think Democrats running towards the center, and appealing to Republican values as a Blue Dog Democrat does, is a poor strategy. People much prefer strong progressives to weak Democrats. If you'd like evidence of that, look at the 1,000 seats lost. I don't think the country is actually any more right than it was in 2009. I think if you look at the polling the country holds center left positions on marijuana legalization, single-payer, ending the wars, government corruption and money in politics, alternative energy. The country is center-left.

So, here's what I would do, tie Republicans to incompetent tax cuts that lead to budget crisis and say that Trump wants to repeat failed supply side policy.

The problem you have is that Reagan's tax increases did not significantly increase revenues and his tax cuts did not reduce revenues. They went up.

Bush 41's tax increases did not significantly increase revenues. They went up marginally in the short term and then went down as the negative effect on the economy resulted in fewer people paying taxes.

Clinton's tax increases did not increase revenues but his tax cuts did.

Bush 43's tax cuts did not reduce revenues. They went up.

Not all tax cuts are wise of course, but those targeted at generating economy activity and prosperity can significantly increase private sector income which in turn results in more revenue for the treasury.

And ultimately a Congress that cannot curb its appetite for spending will spend all new revenue plus a lot more ever increasing the national debt. Spending only what you have to spend is fiscal responsibility.

 

[Moderate Right]

Let me know when Trump aknowledges that Democrats are people too who have ideas that deserve inclusion.

Hah!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me know when the left stops calling the other side deplorables, racists, bigots, and every other name in the book and saying that the right is fighting a war on women, a war on the poor, a war on immigrants, a war on the elderly, and a war on everyone else. Hillary ran on a campaign theme of "Stronger Together" but that phrase only applied to the left, not the right. She, like Obama, had no intention of being inclusive to Republican ideas. Let me know when the left is willing to work with the right. Democrats were locked out of the healthcare debate because they locked themselves out of the healthcare debate by refusing to even talk about repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something better. It was either Obamacare or the highway to them. Since that was their stated position, and resistance was all they really wanted, they locked themselves out of the debate. I would personally love to have a bipartisan plan but NEITHER side is willing to work on one.

 

[Winston]

The problem you have is that Reagan's tax cuts did not reduce revenues. They went up.

Bush 41's tax increases did not significantly increase revenues. They went up marginally in the short time and then went down as the negative effect on the economy resulted in fewer people paying taxes.

Clinton's tax increases did not increase revenues but his tax cuts did.

Bush 43's tax cuts did not reduce revenues. They went up.

Not all tax cuts are wise of course, but those targeted at generating economy activity and prosperity can significantly increase private sector income which in turn results in more revenue for the treasury.

Revenue as a % of GDP is a better marker, and there is no evidence to show that when you cut taxes, it leads to booming revenue. The numbers show that when you cut taxes, you get less revenue. The numbers show that voodoo economics is a lie, despite all the right wing economists like Art Laffer and Stephen Moore telling you otherwise. If you cut taxes, you have to cut spending. If you don't cut spending, it leads to dramatic deficits, like Reagan and Bush ran.

You are severely mistaken about crediting Clinton's revenue beating Reagan and Bush to his cutting the Capital gains rate, which is the main point that I've heard belabored, over and over again, as people who believe in Tax Cuts are desperate to rewrite history, because Clinton disrupts their model, for what kind of fiscal policy leads to success.

If revenue was booming, why did Reagan and Bush run such high deficits? if Tax Cuts leads to booming revenues, that should not happen, unless they both were extravagant spenders, whose recklessness overhwelmed the booms of their prudent fiscal policy.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Revenue as a % of GDP is a better marker, and there is no evidence to show that when you cut taxes, it leads to booming revenue. The numbers show that when you cut taxes, you get less revenue. The numbers show that voodoo economics is a lie, despite all the right wing economists like Art Laffer and Stephen Moore telling you otherwise. If you cut taxes, you have to cut spending. If you don't cut spending, it leads to dramatic deficits, like Reagan and Bush ran.

You are severely mistaken about crediting Clinton's revenue beating Reagan and Bush to his cutting the Capital gains rate, which is the main point that I've heard belabored, over and over again, as people who believe in Tax Cuts are desperate to rewrite history, because Clinton disrupts their model, for what kind of fiscal policy leads to success.

If revenue was booming, why did Reagan and Bush run such high deficits? if Tax Cuts leads to booming revenues, that should not happen, unless they both were extravagant spenders, whose recklessness overhwelmed the booms of their prudent fiscal policy.

High deficits are caused by spending a lot more than the government takes in. Whatever revenues governments take in does not create deficits. Spending more than you have to spend does.

For instance Reagan agreed to tax increases on Congress's promise to cut spending. So we got the new taxes but no cuts in spending. But the new taxes created a sluggish economy.

Bush 41, not learning from that experience, agreed to new taxes on Congress's promise to cut spending by $2 for every new dollar in taxes. We got the tax increases that pretty well decimated our private boat and airplane industries and drove most of our high value metals and jewelry market out of the country, put tens of thousands of people out of work, and generated a recession. And we didn't get one dime of spending cuts.

At what point of gullibility do we have to get to before people wake up and realize that the government is not a bottomless golden egg of revenue and a lot of things are better left to the private sector?

 

[Winston]

Hah!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me know when the left stops calling the other side deplorables, racists, bigots, and every other name in the book and saying that the right is fighting a war on women, a war on the poor, a war on immigrants, a war on the elderly, and a war on everyone else. Hillary ran on a campaign theme of "Stronger Together" but that phrase only applied to the left, not the right. She, like Obama, had no intention of being inclusive to Republican ideas. Let me know when the left is willing to work with the right. Democrats were locked out of the healthcare debate because they locked themselves out of the healthcare debate by refusing to even talk about repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something better. It was either Obamacare or the highway to them. Since that was their stated position, and resistance was all they really wanted, they locked themselves out of the debate. I would personally love to have a bipartisan plan but NEITHER side is willing to work on one.

Democrats are willing to work with Republicans on healthcare, if that means transitioning to single-payer by expanding Medicaid, and raising taxes on the rich.

 

[Winston]

High deficits are caused by spending a lot more than the government takes in. Whatever revenues governments take in does not create deficits. Spending more than you have to spend does.

For instance Reagan agreed to tax increases on Congress's promise to cut spending. So we got the new taxes but no cuts in spending. But the new taxes created a sluggish economy.

Bush 41, not learning from that experience, agreed to new taxes on Congress's promise to cut spending by $2 for every new dollar in taxes. We got the tax increases that pretty well decimated our private boat and airplane industries and drove most of our high value metals and jewelry market out of the country, put tens of thousands of people out of work, and generated a recession. And we didn't get one dime of spending cuts.

At what point of gullibility do we have to get to before people wake up and realize that the government is not a bottomless golden egg of revenue and a lot of things are better left to the private sector?

You can have a high spending government and not run deficits. For example Germany, spends a ton on their government, and they run a surplus. Sweden, spends a ton on their government, they run a surplus. They have high taxes though, including higher taxes on consumption. Germany and Sweden collect more revenue as a % of GDP. Sweden collects, like 40% of GDP in Federal Receipts.

The lie is simple, lets cut taxes and tell the middle class it's going to create jobs, when we know that cutting taxes has no correlation to jobs, it does have a correlation with income inequality.

Here's where the model breaks down. Under tax increases, Bill Clinton added more jobs than Ronald Reagan. Under tax increases Bill Clinton hit 20% of GDP in Federal Receipts. Under tax increase Bill Clinton hit 4% growth. Here's the thing, demand drives economic activity. Supply side advocates conflate tax policy with demand. They think you can cut your way to prosperity, and that's just not the case. Look at Kansas. They cut their way to economic stagnation and budget crisis.
How do you explain that?

 

[Perotista]

Good luck explaining a concept outside of zero-sum to Donald Trump.

No body will ever explain anything or give advice to Donald Trump. He listens to no one and because of that creates most of his own problems. If not creates, make them ten times worst than what they should be.

 

[Winston]

No body will ever explain anything or give advice to Donald Trump. He listens to no one and because of that creates most of his own problems. If not creates, make them ten times worst than what they should be.

Agreed Trump is a vain person and it is his principal flaw.

 

[Perotista]

I'm in that 40%. It's always about picking the lesser of two evils and 2016 was the pinnacle of that reality, the very top of the pyramid. And, both sides think the key to winning the election is to bring out their base. Well, our 40% is who they need, not the "base". This last election I absolutely refused to choose between the lesser of two evils and wrote in who I wanted all along - John Kasich.

I voted third party, Gary Johnson. But that vote was against both Trump and Clinton more than for Gary. If Johnson hadn't been on the ballot, any other third party candidate would have done. If not, then like you I would have written in a name. Mr. None Of Above.

Last year was so unique. For the first time ever we had two candidates from both major parties which were below the 50% favorable rating. Only twice before had a major party nominated a candidate which wasn't seen by at least 50% of Americans in a positive light. Never both candidates in the same election. Last year it was 36% and 38% who view the candidates favorable. Prior to last year only Goldwater in 1964 at 43% and G.H.W. Bush in 1992 at 46% had a major party nominate someone viewed below the 50% mark when in came to viewing them in a positive light.

If this is what our polarized two party system has come to, this nation won't be around much longer.

 

[Moderate Right]

Democrats are willing to work with Republicans on healthcare, if that means transitioning to single-payer by expanding Medicaid, and raising taxes on the rich.

And the right is willing to work with the left on healthcare, if that means repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something better (but not a single payer government run system). Democrats refuse to work with the right on this and Democrats also seem to have taken single payer off the drawing board as well because they clearly said they would not work with Republicans if repealing Obamacare was on the table. In order to do single payer, Obamacare would have to be repealed.

 

[Winston]

And the right is willing to work with the left on healthcare, if that means repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something better (but not a single payer government run system). Democrats refuse to work with the right on this and Democrats also seem to have taken single payer off the drawing board as well because they clearly said they would not work with Republicans if repealing Obamacare was on the table.

That was my point. They have different ideas that cannot coexist. I like the public option as a compromise but the insurance companies hate that idea.

 

[polgara]

I voted third party, Gary Johnson. But that vote was against both Trump and Clinton more than for Gary. If Johnson hadn't been on the ballot, any other third party candidate would have done. If not, then like you I would have written in a name. Mr. None Of Above.

Last year was so unique. For the first time ever we had two candidates from both major parties which were below the 50% favorable rating. Only twice before had a major party nominated a candidate which wasn't seen by at least 50% of Americans in a positive light. Never both candidates in the same election. Last year it was 36% and 38% who view the candidates favorable. Prior to last year only Goldwater in 1964 at 43% and G.H.W. Bush in 1992 at 46% had a major party nominate someone viewed below the 50% mark when in came to viewing them in a positive light.

If this is what our polarized two party system has come to, this nation won't be around much longer.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: So what can "We the People," who still have to pay for everything that's on some politician's agenda, do to halt our slide into the abyss that's right there in front of us? Our current debt versus GDP is 104 percent, and climbing! Sure, we can always print more dollars, which we do, but that only makes the ones already in our wallets worth less! :thumbdown :2mad:

Who gains if America goes bankrupt? :?:

 

[Moderate Right]

I voted third party, Gary Johnson. But that vote was against both Trump and Clinton more than for Gary. If Johnson hadn't been on the ballot, any other third party candidate would have done. If not, then like you I would have written in a name. Mr. None Of Above.

Last year was so unique. For the first time ever we had two candidates from both major parties which were below the 50% favorable rating. Only twice before had a major party nominated a candidate which wasn't seen by at least 50% of Americans in a positive light. Never both candidates in the same election. Last year it was 36% and 38% who view the candidates favorable. Prior to last year only Goldwater in 1964 at 43% and G.H.W. Bush in 1992 at 46% had a major party nominate someone viewed below the 50% mark when in came to viewing them in a positive light.

If this is what our polarized two party system has come to, this nation won't be around much longer.

The ominous part is if there was ever an election where a third party could win it should have been 2016. Instead, the voters of both parties were so rallied around stopping the other party's horrible choice, third parties didn't stand a chance. And, to many, Trump WAS the third party choice.

 

[Moderate Right]

That was my point. They have different ideas that cannot coexist. I like the public option as a compromise but the insurance companies hate that idea.

You only presented one side of your point. I think the right's opinion of the public option is that not enough people would pick the insurance companies, putting them into the very same death spiral we are in now and then the only thing left at some point would be the public option, which would no longer be an option but the only game in town. So, that really isn't a compromise but a backhanded way of achieving government controlled single payer healthcare.

 

[Perotista]

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: So what can "We the People," who still have to pay for everything that's on some politician's agenda, do to halt our slide into the abyss that's right there in front of us? Our current debt versus GDP is 104 percent, and climbing! Sure, we can always print more dollars, which we do, but that only makes the ones already in our wallets worth less! :thumbdown :2mad:

Who gains if America goes bankrupt? :?:

Actually, no one gains. On the reverse side of that, no one wants to face the rising debt, to admit it is a problem that somewhere down the road that is going to bite us in the rear real hard. Everyone seems to want to live in luxury without having to pay for it. To have programs that our children, grand kids, those not born yet have to foot the bill.

Like you say, we could just print 20 one trillion dollar notes and pay off the debt. But that would make the dollar we have now about worth a penny if that much. Do we really want to pay a thousand dollars for a loaf of bread. I think most politicians know we are living on borrowed time or money and sooner or later the day of reckoning will be at hand. But to get things under control means raising taxes, cutting spending, probably doing away with some popular programs. Something those in Washington are unwilling to do because doing so may lead to defeat in the next election. The next election is as far into the future any of our politicians in Washington can see.

But that is what most of us want. We want all these government programs without us having to pay for them. Perhaps it is time to revisit the balanced budget amendment. Ensuring spending won't exceed revenue. Want another government program, either cut some of the existing programs or raise taxes, find a way to pay for it before passing the legislation and implementing it.

No one wants to hear this. So we keep right on going until we fall into that abyss. Then we blame everyone but ourselves which led us to the abyss in the first place.

 

[Perotista]

The ominous part is if there was ever an election where a third party could win it should have been 2016. Instead, the voters of both parties were so rallied around stopping the other party's horrible choice, third parties didn't stand a chance. And, to many, Trump WAS the third party choice.

It's more than that. I worked for Perot in both 92 and 96. The problem is our election laws are written by Republicans and Democrats and they write them as a mutual protection act. That they can agree on. Another is financial. With millions, tens of millions, coming from corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors like Soros and the Koch Brothers, they give their millions, tens of millions to the two major parties and none to anyone else. They own both parties. They are good businessmen, smart businessmen, they aren't donating or giving the two major parties all that money out of civic responsibility. Using Trump's own words when he was asked about donating to both parties, "I give, they give back." These guys wouldn't donate, give an investment to the two major parties if they didn't get a good return on their investment.

We live in a two party system, both parties are very successful in delivering the propaganda that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote since they can't win. Most voters even though they detested both candidates buy into that. Hence the vote for the lesser of two evils or the least horrible candidate. Money, Clinton 1.4 billion, Trump 957.6 million, Johnson third on the list with just 3 million. How can a third party candidate get name recognition, media attention, let people know what he stands for, try to get people to vote for him when he is completely unknown. Being out spent approximately 2.4 billion to 3 million, there is no way. It is amazing third party candidates garnered 6% of the vote last year if one thinks about it.

 

[Moderate Right]

It's more than that. I worked for Perot in both 92 and 96. The problem is our election laws are written by Republicans and Democrats and they write them as a mutual protection act. That they can agree on. Another is financial. With millions, tens of millions, coming from corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors like Soros and the Koch Brothers, they give their millions, tens of millions to the two major parties and none to anyone else. They own both parties. They are good businessmen, smart businessmen, they aren't donating or giving the two major parties all that money out of civic responsibility. Using Trump's own words when he was asked about donating to both parties, "I give, they give back." These guys wouldn't donate, give an investment to the two major parties if they didn't get a good return on their investment.

We live in a two party system, both parties are very successful in delivering the propaganda that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote since they can't win. Most voters even though they detested both candidates buy into that. Hence the vote for the lesser of two evils or the least horrible candidate. Money, Clinton 1.4 billion, Trump 957.6 million, Johnson third on the list with just 3 million. How can a third party candidate get name recognition, media attention, let people know what he stands for, try to get people to vote for him when he is completely unknown. Being out spent approximately 2.4 billion to 3 million, there is no way. It is amazing third party candidates garnered 6% of the vote last year if one thinks about it.

I agree with that but I will say that times may be changing. Look at all the money spent in the Republican primary on the other candidates than Trump and they all had to drop out and all the money spent during the primaries on anti-Trump ads trying to stop him. Then along came the general election and all the anti-Trump money spent and Trump won. Hillary had a much larger war chest. Then we just had the special election in Georgia where tons of money was spent by the left in yet another losing cause. People are ignoring all that money, ignoring what the left leaning mainstream media throws at them, and ignoring celebrities telling us who we should vote for. It's getting harder and harder to buy people's votes anymore. So far I'm not sure if the rich have taken notice that they have been flushing their money down the toilet. I'm optimistic about this because if I'm wrong, the only option left is pessimism. We need a legitimate third party that makes inroads in Congress first and then tries to win the presidency later on. So far it has been the other way around going after the presidency first and the deck is stacked against going down that road.

 

[Perotista]

I agree with that but I will say that times may be changing. Look at all the money spent in the Republican primary on the other candidates than Trump and they all had to drop out and all the money spent during the primaries on anti-Trump ads trying to stop him. Then along came the general election and all the anti-Trump money spent and Trump won. Hillary had a much larger war chest. Then we just had the special election in Georgia where tons of money was spent by the left in yet another losing cause. People are ignoring all that money, ignoring what the left leaning mainstream media throws at them, and ignoring celebrities telling us who we should vote for. It's getting harder and harder to buy people's votes anymore. So far I'm not sure if the rich have taken notice that they have been flushing their money down the toilet. I'm optimistic about this because if I'm wrong, the only option left is pessimism. We need a legitimate third party that makes inroads in Congress first and then tries to win the presidency later on. So far it has been the other way around going after the presidency first and the deck is stacked against going down that road.

Yeah, I agree. I'll say this, Trump knew how to manipulate the media. To him there was no such thing as bad publicity. During both the primaries Trump was calling into almost every show available to get on TV. Trump may have been outspent by millions, tens of million and even hundreds of millions. But it was Trump who received more face time than all the other candidates combined. A study if I remember right showed Trump received 70% of all the free TV during the primaries, the other 17 candidate split the remaining 30%. Trump knew what he was doing. He didn't need to spend a ton of money. The others were too slow to catch on or too afraid to call into a hostile show ala Hillary Clinton.

Trump wasn't afraid at all. If whoever was the host gave him a very hard time, he'd go on another show, spout he had proof of the media being stacked against because of that hard time the first show host gave him. He knew how to work the media during both campaigns and no one caught on. Hillary, the rest of the GOP field had to buy their air time, Trump got quite a lot for free. Money wasn't all that important.

But the campaign is over. Trump is now president. Now the bad publicity is hurting him. It's not the same as campaigning, governing is completely different. People who thought all of Trump's tweets were cute, innovative even, are now becoming tired of the same old thing. Perhaps it is as simple that most people expect a president to act presidential.

 

[cpwill]

Besides taking progressive gambles like including free college, alternative energy, single-payer, in your message, here's a radical idea from yours truly. Tell the truth about what tax cuts do to the budget.

Republicans are more fiscally irresponsible than Democrats because they put the countries spending on your credit card because they don't want to fund the government with tax revenue. Republicans hammer on balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. But, the tax cuts they advocate for routinely lead to revenues underperforming, often hitting as low as 15% of GDP. Tie Republicans to the national debt, by pointing out they turn spending into public debt with tax cuts. If Democrats can play it right, they've been given two electoral nuggets of gold, supply side's failure in Kansas and GWB's incompetence.

Can Democrats make them into the party of fiscal irresponsibility? Because Republicans want to push tax cuts that decimate budgets. They are the cut and spend party. All you have to do is point to the 20 Trillion in debt, and blame it on Bush and Republicans irresponsible cut and spend.

Run a campaign ad that tells them Clinton left Bush a surplus and Bush turned that surplus into the highest % increase of deficit spending of all times. Because he cut taxes and started 2 wars. Then point to real GDP growth peaking at 3.6% before the financial crash, tie Republicans to the deficits and the financial crash, and then say, Trump wants to repeat this and throw in an anecdote Trump running a casino into the ground in Atlantic City.

I want to be clear that I think Democrats running towards the center, and appealing to Republican values as a Blue Dog Democrat does, is a poor strategy. People much prefer strong progressives to weak Democrats. If you'd like evidence of that, look at the 1,000 seats lost. I don't think the country is actually any more right than it was in 2009. I think if you look at the polling the country holds center left positions on marijuana legalization, single-payer, ending the wars, government corruption and money in politics, alternative energy. The country is center-left.

So, here's what I would do, tie Republicans to incompetent tax cuts that lead to budget crisis and say that Trump wants to repeat failed supply side policy.

This would be....


Hilariously easy to beat.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Fenton Lum]

Actually, no one gains. On the reverse side of that, no one wants to face the rising debt, to admit it is a problem that somewhere down the road that is going to bite us in the rear real hard. Everyone seems to want to live in luxury without having to pay for it. To have programs that our children, grand kids, those not born yet have to foot the bill.

Like you say, we could just print 20 one trillion dollar notes and pay off the debt. But that would make the dollar we have now about worth a penny if that much. Do we really want to pay a thousand dollars for a loaf of bread. I think most politicians know we are living on borrowed time or money and sooner or later the day of reckoning will be at hand. But to get things under control means raising taxes, cutting spending, probably doing away with some popular programs. Something those in Washington are unwilling to do because doing so may lead to defeat in the next election. The next election is as far into the future any of our politicians in Washington can see.

But that is what most of us want. We want all these government programs without us having to pay for them. Perhaps it is time to revisit the balanced budget amendment. Ensuring spending won't exceed revenue. Want another government program, either cut some of the existing programs or raise taxes, find a way to pay for it before passing the legislation and implementing it.

No one wants to hear this. So we keep right on going until we fall into that abyss. Then we blame everyone but ourselves which led us to the abyss in the first place.

What no one wants to hear is that empire and global military occupation and hegemony are expensive to maintain.

 

[Perotista]

What no one wants to hear is that empire and global military occupation and hegemony are expensive to maintain.

I thought the days of being the world's policeman was over with the Election of President Obama. But his presidency was just more of the same. Deposing of Qaddafi, trying to depose Assad, getting involved in the Ukraine, Afghanistan and Iraq still hot, deploying troops to the different stans which were once part of the old USSR.

I really doubt that we will give up being the world's policeman. As long as that is the case, there is no cutting back on the expense.