# New Poll Shows Democratic Incumbents in Big Trouble **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 2, 2013, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902 "2013-11-02T02:45:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/81 "2013-11-25T04:57:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > So sure, extend Medicaid to anyone without insurance, we can do that. Yes. Yes, we can. And should. That is **all.** ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/82 "2013-11-25T04:58:55Z")
That would have been the best thing to do in the first place. The Medicaid expansion is actually going as planned. At least in the states expanding it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/83 "2013-11-25T04:59:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There hasn’t been a big new welfare program since LBJ. Only because the Vietnam War drained the funding from the War on Poverty. But that shouldn’t matter now – should it? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/84 "2013-11-25T05:10:21Z")
Elderly entitlements cost a lot more than that war did and are the real impediment to fighting poverty. As Paul Krugman said, by 2050 we’ll be an insurance company with an army. Everything else will have to be eliminated to make room for SS and Medicare and defense. And SS and Medicare are more popular than welfare because they benefit everyone and people tend to be rather self-interested. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/85 "2013-11-25T23:13:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **adaher** : > > Prior to that, politicians would just throw out figures that served their agenda, like Medicare only costing $9 billion by the 1980s, or the SS tax only being 1%. Who wouldn’t take retirement security for 1% of their income? 7.5%, that might have given workers pause. > > Of course, by the time the bill actually came due, the programs were untouchable. Wait, so what does it mean that “the programs were untouchable”? It almost sounds like you’re saying that, even with the cost, they’re still really, really popular, so popular that no politician would dare to go against the will of the people to touch them. And yet, you’re trying to argue that a program which has such a huge support base as to be politically untouchable is somehow a bad idea, because it’s bad for most people? How do you figure? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/86 "2013-11-25T23:50:02Z")
It breeds dependence on the nanny state big government, it leads to the empowerment of liberals over the people, and supports the liberals arrogant belief that they know what’s best for people. But what’s really best for people is rugged self-reliance and individualism. Liberal “science” has infected anthropology and archeology to the point that it has become the “common wisdom” that people are tribal and social animals that benefit from cooperation and mutual support. Totally false, of course, but try proving _that_ to your lefty professors! People thrive best in an environment of competition and mutual distrust, it is the stern discipline of the Free Market (blessing and peace be upon it!) that makes humans better. The qualities of ambition and grasping selfishness are what raises people up, what makes them better. This can be easily demonstrated: how many modest and self-effacing people do you know who rise to positions of power and dominance? Well, there you have it. Clearly, then, capitalism is a form of social eugenics, it rewards the strong and helps to keep the moochers and takers from breeding out of control. Ideally, of course, it would be best if such parasites were denied any voice or power in civic decisions, but this is regrettably impractical. Education is necessary for a useful working class, and once they learn to read, they start getting ideas quite above their station in life. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/87 "2013-11-26T01:24:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As Paul Krugman said, by 2050 we’ll be an insurance company with an army. Are you sure? What he has repeatedly written is that we _already are_ an insurance company with an army. This is from [April 2011:](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/an-insurance-company-with-an-army/) > [@](#): > > A general reminder whenever budget issues are discussed: the U.S. government is — this isn’t original — best thought of as a giant insurance company with an army. I don’t buy every Krugman column, but he is right here. And so is the implication that ACA is about becoming a better insurance company, rather than some apocalyptic talk radio vision of the US becoming a socialist hell. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/88 "2013-11-26T02:28:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > …As Paul Krugman said…an insurance company with an army. … The quote is the subject of a minor pedantic kerfluffle, as witnessed to herein: [http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/01/who-first-said-the-us-is-an-insurance-company-with-an-army.html](http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/01/who-first-said-the-us-is-an-insurance-company-with-an-army.html) Popular opinion attributes the quote about insurance/Army to Paul Krugman, Ph.D., Nobel Prize Winner etc… Krugman himself says in an update… [QUOTE=Chimunk from Mensa] Someone should have asked me. Peter Fisher, undersecretary of the Treasury, in 2002. [/QUOTE] TL:DR: Screw you, you’re too lazy to read! You don’t do it for fun, got no use for ya! ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/89 "2013-11-26T19:20:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It breeds dependence on the nanny state big government, it leads to the empowerment of liberals over the people, and supports the liberals arrogant belief that they know what’s best for people. > > But what’s really best for people is rugged self-reliance and individualism. Liberal “science” has infected anthropology and archeology to the point that it has become the “common wisdom” that people are tribal and social animals that benefit from cooperation and mutual support. > > Totally false, of course, but try proving _that_ to your lefty professors! > > People thrive best in an environment of competition and mutual distrust, it is the stern discipline of the Free Market (blessing and peace be upon it!) that makes humans better. The qualities of ambition and grasping selfishness are what raises people up, what makes them better. This can be easily demonstrated: how many modest and self-effacing people do you know who rise to positions of power and dominance? > > Well, there you have it. > > Clearly, then, capitalism is a form of social eugenics, it rewards the strong and helps to keep the moochers and takers from breeding out of control. Ideally, of course, it would be best if such parasites were denied any voice or power in civic decisions, but this is regrettably impractical. Education is necessary for a useful working class, and once they learn to read, they start getting ideas quite above their station in life. Clearly the answer is to give everyone birth control injections and require people to qualify for reproduction rights. Either by achievements or by paying for birthrights. Its really the only way. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/90 "2013-11-26T19:46:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Clearly the answer is to give everyone birth control injections and require people to qualify for reproduction rights. Wait, let’s not dismiss this idea . . . ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/91 "2013-11-26T19:53:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Clearly the answer is to give everyone birth control injections and require people to qualify for reproduction rights. > > Either by achievements or by paying for birthrights. Its really the only way. The idea does have a certain pragmatic appeal. Dang old Constitution won’t allow it, though. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/92 "2013-11-27T02:26:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Wait, let’s not dismiss this idea . . . > [@Oakminster](#): > > The idea does have a certain pragmatic appeal. Dang old Constitution won’t allow it, though. Its a plot device in all sorts of sci fi novels. Bio of a space tyrant Ring world Ender’s game So what part of the constitution prohibits the regulation of procreation? IIRC New Jersey’s Christie Todd Whitman once suggested something like this for welfare recipients who have more than two kids and while it was wildly unpopular, I don’t recall and cries of unconstitutionality. This and death panels. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/93 "2013-11-27T02:45:26Z")
To make it really fair, let’s give every couple who volunteer to give up their right to procreate the opportunity to deny _some other couple_ the right to the same. Let’s see which side(s) have the moxie to put their gonads where their beliefs are! ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/94 "2013-11-27T04:29:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So what part of the constitution prohibits the regulation of procreation? See [wikipedia on fundamental rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights) and [Skinner v Oklahoma](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=right+to+privacy&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&case=8050731321644873759&scilh=0). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/95 "2013-11-27T18:24:34Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > To make it really fair, let’s give every couple who volunteer to give up their right to procreate the opportunity to deny _some other couple_ the right to the same. Let’s see which side(s) have the moxie to put their gonads where their beliefs are! Why would that make sense? Everyone has a right if they meet the qualifications. Your rule would prevent the procreation by societally desirable couples if they had pissed off enough people. > [@Oakminster](#): > > See [wikipedia on fundamental rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights) and [Skinner v Oklahoma](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=right+to+privacy&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&case=8050731321644873759&scilh=0). That is a case of irreversible sterilization not birth control. The grounds for striking the law were based on equal protection and while there were some concurring opinions that went further than that, even the concurring opinions didn’t foreclose the the regulation of procreation as unconstitutional. IOW, if crafted correctly we could have a constitutional scheme for regulating procreation through the use of reversible birth control. I suggest that each person receives half a birthright upon reaching adulthood that combined with the half birthright of their partner entitles them to one child. Another half birthright is earned with your high school diploma, another with a college diploma and another with a graduate degree, we might put up a few birthrights every year for auction so that rich people can maintain their privelege in our society), we might also have a lottery for additional birthrights. Perhaps additional birthrights for olympic medalists and nobel prize winners, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/96 "2013-11-27T19:21:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > IOW, if crafted correctly we could have a constitutional scheme for regulating procreation through the use of reversible birth control. Highly unlikely. Did you not read the part of Skinner that held that the right to procreate is considered a “fundamental right”? Any attempt to restrict a fundamental right is going to trigger strict scrutiny, and is therefore unlikely survive a challenge. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/97 "2013-12-02T02:33:19Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Highly unlikely. Did you not read the part of Skinner that held that the right to procreate is considered a “fundamental right”? Any attempt to restrict a fundamental right is going to trigger strict scrutiny, and is therefore unlikely survive a challenge. The only use of the word fundamental that a word search produced was in the following sentence: “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” I don’t see the word “right” appearing after the word “fundamental” Especially as here we are using reversible birth control, we are giving every couple the right to at least one child (we can round up so people can murphy brown it if they want), We are using facially neutral criteria that does not violate equal protection. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/98 "2013-12-02T04:05:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its a plot device in all sorts of sci fi novels. > > Bio of a space tyrant > Ring world > Ender’s game > > So what part of the constitution prohibits the regulation of procreation? IIRC New Jersey’s Christie Todd Whitman once suggested something like this for welfare recipients who have more than two kids and while it was wildly unpopular, I don’t recall and cries of unconstitutionality. > > This and death panels. Roe v. Wade didn’t just protect the right to end a pregnancy, it protected reproductive rights in general. Plus the Constitution doesn’t have to forbid anything, it just has to not give the government the power to do something. And the government has no power to regulate reproduction. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/99 "2013-12-02T06:05:58Z")
Also, before Roe, check Eisenstadt v Baird: > [@](#): > > If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Also, Skinner v Oklahoma, as mentioned: > [@](#): > > We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. That’s not just equal protection. It deals with the basic civil rights of man. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902/100 "2013-12-02T06:17:38Z")
That raises an interesting question about selective abortion. What happens if the “dominant group” would prefer not to raise children with certain traits(like homosexuality) and can find that out through genetic testing? This is already virtually eliminating the Downs population. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-poll-shows-democratic-incumbents-in-big-trouble/672902.md?page=6)