I think I’ve made my points. I don’t think you’ve made yours.
I agree that often there is little to distinguish Demcratic centrists (or “Republican lite” as some call 'em) from Republicans on economic issues at times. However, I don’t think the Dems would ever go on an all-out offensive as the Bushistas have to gut social security, for instance. And Bush’s tax cut for the rich would never fly in the form he set it up in. A Dem president would at least provide equivalent breaks for the middle class.
There ARE significant differences between the Dems and the Repubs as a whole on economic policies.
Well, it’s an interesting and vivid fantasy, Weirddave, but problem belongs over in Cafe Society rather than in an actual debate.
Please, spare me the assertion that Democrats and Republicans are on the same side when it comes to economic issues. Consider the following:
minimum wage - Democrats support increases that would provide a livable wage for the working poor. Republicans always raise the spectre of massive job loss (that somehow never actually happens whenever the minimum wage is raised).
universal health care - Hillary Clinton versus the Newt Gingrich republican revolution
Medicare - Republicans want it to “wither on the vine”
Social Security - Democrats want to insure that all working Americans can enjoy a baseline of support when they retire, and that disabled workers or dependents might receive support as well. Republicans chant “Hey Hey Ho Ho Social Security has got to go.”
Tax Cuts - George Bush targets tax cuts to favor the wealthy. Clinton proposed middle class tax cuts. Just recently, Republicans in Texas passed tax cuts in which only the wealthy see a reduction - everyone else will get an increase.
The whole history of the unions - a historically very strong Democratic base of support.
In the 80’s, republicans wanted to classify ketchup as a vegetable so that they could save a little more from providing lunches to poor children.
I could go on and on.
If there was no distinction between Democrats and Republicans in terms of the Democrats consistently fighting for the greatest good for the greatest number of people (and generally supporting or defending those among us who have the least) I wouldn’t be a Democrat. I have no illusions that power and influence weigh heavily upon the decision making process for those on both sides, but this does not mean that the principles, platforms and works of the two parties are indistinguishable. The ironic thing is that our economy consistently performs better under Democrats than Republicans.
You did? When? Was it when you said it was “obvious”? Was it when you said “c’mon” not once but twice? Was it when you referred to your bleatings as a “thesis”? Such mindboggling powers of reasoning did not go unnoticed, I assure you, but more stringent minds tend to like a little bit more on their toast.
For what it’s worth I think you may be struggling with the very concept of having a “point”. If your point is that you, Evil Captor, think there is a class war on, then yes - this point has been admirably demonstrated. What you haven’t really done at all is demonstrate why you think this, or more accurately why anyone else with analytical skills greater than those of a potato should think this too. I guess at this point I’m aware that you’re not going to, and I should really accept this. Incidentally, how’s your plan to rid the world of religion by masturbation going? Any converts yet?
Fair enough. And I certainly agree with you that a cap on economic damages is just plain weird. Why cap something that can be objectively (or at least analytically) quantified? Makes no sense.
Well, you haven’t actually made any actual arguments all thread ( hint: pounding on your chest and screaming “It’s CLASS WARFARE, baby! Because I said so!” does not constitute an legitimate point ), I dunno why I should expect different now.
OK, let’s consider.
Hmmm. Tough one. Your theory that huge increases to the minimum wage have no economic impact is a hard one to refute…for people lacking even a basic understanding of economics 1-0-freakin-1. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason that massive job loss never occurred was because those in government with common sense kept the candyland Democrats from mandating a minimum wage of $20/hr? I’d say this is a good example of compromise government at work.
I have no love for Gingrich, but the parts of Hillary’s proposal that she did get through- HIPAA provisions mandating that coverage be made available in specific situations-have had a huge part in more than 10 million more people becoming uninsured since 1996. Great legacy that, and now you want more of it?
I’d like a cite for this. A cite for a Republican proposal to allow Medicare to end without any replacement, leaving 30 million-plus old folks without insurance. Just one cite.
A group of idiotic kids get together and chant something stupid, this is covered by TV news, and suddenly it’s an official Republican policy? Get real. Proposing that a broken Ponzi scheme headed for disaster in the future be fixed now is a much better way to " insure that all working Americans can enjoy a baseline of support when they retire, and that disabled workers or dependents might receive support as well" than throwing money blindly at SS or hoping it fixes itself on it’s own. What really chaps your thighs, I suspect, is that the Republicans have had the unmitigated gall to actually suggest that government be taken out of the process. Take power and money away from government? Expect people to care and think for themselves?? As you say, you’re a Democrat. Such ideas must be abhorrent to you.
My taxes are lower now than they were during the Clinton years. Try again. If you keep repeating it enough times, it might magically become true!
There’s your cause of massive job loss, or hadn’t you noticed manufacturing jobs running overseas as fast as they can go? Unions were absolutely vital when they formed, now they are an anachronism that should be taken out behind the barn and shot before they suck the rest of the life out of the American economy. The fact that you trumpet them as a goods thing speaks volumes, about you, none of it good.
This is [url=“http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040716.html”]a complete and total misrepresentation of what happened,as I’m sure you know.
[/quote]
That myth is debunked by Cecil himself, and you couldn’t bother looking for the facts on this website before trumpeting more of your sweet, sweet liberal porn? Jesus Christ!
I wish you would. Someday soon you’re bound to make a valid point.
Cite? I’ve never heard any serious proposals for a $20/hr. minimum wage, even here locally in the S.F. Bay Area, where the cost of living is one of the highest in the nation.
Again: cite?
Really? Mine are higher. And I was making more money than I am now, to boot. I guess that settles that.
I consider you to be a dumbass bitch.
So your point is that minimum wage increases have not led to job loss? Thanks for your agreement.
Here’s some info for people who aren’t dumbass bitches:
http://www.adaction.org/mwfactsheet2001.html
$6.65 or $20.00? Dumbass bitch.
HIPAA caused 10 million to fall from the rolls of the insured?
Here are cites for Gingrich’s wither on the vine quote as well as some bonus thoughts on Medicare from other Republicans.
So simultaneously you are saying that Republican policy is not that “Social Security has got to go,” and that it is a ponzi scheme that the government should be taken out of? you are a confused and stupid dumbass bitch.
That myth is debunked by Cecil himself, and you couldn’t bother looking for the facts on this website before trumpeting more of your sweet, sweet liberal porn? Jesus Christ!
[/quote]
Really? Here’s the first paragraph of the piece you cite:
Stupid fuck.
Here’s your “wither on the vine” cites.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-12/08russell.cfm
http://www.afscme.org/publications/public_employee/1996/pend9625.htm
Quote from above link:
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/108-1-309.html
Other Republican thoughts on Medicare:
Well, you’re starting you’re argument in typical style, dealing only with facts and leaving personal insults behind. That’s a sound debating tactic, hopefully this will prove fruitful.
Nope. My point is that compromise between the two sides has created legislation that has been effective in this case. As I said initially. And you typically ignored.
From that website:
“ADA is America’s oldest independent liberal lobbying organization. In the spirit of the New Deal and ADA founders Eleanor Roosevelt, renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and former Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey we lobby”
Thank you for the cite from the oldest tax and spend lobbyists in America. Here, why don’t I show you a counter view from a non partisan source…on second thought, why bother? Your choice of cites proves that you’re not interested in thinking, just in mouthing the partisan line.
Hyperbole. You might want to look it up. Learning new words is fun, AND it can impress your friends at the Jr. High!
Yup. Because in typical short sighted fashion it confused access with affordability.HIPAA guaranteed millions of people access to health insurance. It also made it unaffordable for many of them, but hey, at least they had access to $1500/mo COBRAs, right? Maybe they should pass a law mandating lobotomies, paid for by the government, that’d be a sure way to increase the number of Democratic voters.
When you say “here are some cites”, it’s customary to actually, you know, give cites. Do you have one that supplies what I asked for?
Not at all. I’m saying that if no changes are made to SS, it WILL go, make no mistake about that. I think taking the Government out of it is a viable way to prevent that. I’ve tried to avoid the insults, it lowers one to, well, your level of invective without facts, but you really aren’t too bright are you?
You do realize that insults do not equal valid debating points, don’t you?
Really? Here’s the first paragraph of the piece you cite:
I’ve bolded the relevant part. Interesting that you didn’t nip that out, you’re usually so good at cherry piking quotes out of context. Actually, I think I spoke too soon, because if you read on the article completely invalidated you point. Read carefully here:
If you claim that the facts of the mater are anything remotely similar to, as you said, “In the 80’s, republicans wanted to classify ketchup as a vegetable so that they could save a little more from providing lunches to poor children.”, than you are, to steal a page from your book on “debating” tactics, a lying, disingenuous fuck.
No, I’m employing both facts and insults. It’s educational for you and fun for me.
Compromise on what? Increases in the minimum wage. Increases which did not lead to notable job losses, which you agree with. Which is my point, your hyperbole notwithstanding.
No, no. Go ahead. You’re halfway there already.
Opinions are like assholes.
Look above you. No, on your monitor.
I think I basically was saying that it was “an unsuccessful effort by the right to pursue its agenda at the expense of the nation’s kids,” which Cecil concludes could be plausibly presented. Hardly the debunking of liberal porn that you claimed it to be.
Oh, you did give cites. Thank you, I appreciate that. Unfortunately, none of them are what I asked for, to wit:
None of the cites you gave fit.
Medicare is expensive, inefficient and lots of the coverage sucks. Talking about replacing it with something designed to give better coverage more efficiently and be more cost effective, weather it’s done by letting the existing program “wither on the vine” or by replacing it entirely at one set time is completely different thing from getting rid of it all together and telling the nation’s elderly to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. Of course, you could pick and chose select portions of speeches to give the impression that the elderly were going to be cut of in order to galvanize their support for your side, but that would be partisan and dishonest. You wouldn’t want to be partisan and dishonest, would you?
Here’s an exercise for you: See if you can fit another qualifier in that sentence. That outta make it even more meaningless, and keep you from admitting that you’re wrong for another few posts.
It’s not irony, it’s cause and effect. Dems try to help the middle class, this generally involves helping the whole economy because the middle class is a huge demographic that needs the whole economy to be working well in order to do well. The rich are essentially a small special interest group – the economy overall can be doing badly, but they might do well. I’m sure the wealthy in general prefer a strong U.S. economy to a weak one, but it’s not necessary for them to do well, and in fact laws that benefit them, like the Bush tax cut, can harm the economy overall, as most economists believe it will.
What qualifiers? I simply paraphrased the sentence from your own cite. What a fucking moron.
As for the Gingrich quote - you wanted a cite for my assertion, I provided it. Just because you stretched your request for a cite into something else, that is neither my problem, nor does it refute the basic point that Democrats fight for programs that benefit the most people, and which generally benefit the less wealthy among us. See for example, the Senate vote today, which broke down among near party lines, with seven Republicans voting with the Democrats to prevent major cuts to Medicare. See the other Senate vote, in which a proposal to allow the government to negotiate with big pharmaceutical companies to obtain more reasonable drug costs for Medicare recipients.
SIG LINE!
With your permission, Hentor?
Absolutely!
Look, you finally made a contrbution.