[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
If the Dems offered such an agenda. At present, they don’t, and have not for decades.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’d be all for it, and I could see a lot of 'dopers being for it too. I have serious doubts that the majority of Americans would be, however. Just as I have serious doubts the majority of Americans would be for a large shift to the right.
Always an excuse. Well, good luck with this. I think you are better off looking at vertical issues that lefties like that also have a broader appeal outside of the left wing community and going with those as planks, but I think in order to work you are going to have to also look at things that appeal to centrist types from the right wing and moderates as well to be a true Contract with America. That was the actual hook for Newt’s contract and how the Republicans we able to be successful. Your guy Clinton understood this and was able to do unto the Republicans as they had done unto the Democrats, but I haven’t really seen any indication that the Dems grasp this very well.
I’m seeing a lot of left wing resistance to Clinton though, at least I see a lot of 'dopers who don’t like her. Personally, I think she would be good and WOULD be a centrist (by and large) president who could appeal to more moderate Republicans (the one or two out there :p) and independents. Of course, Jeb, who might be the Republicans choice is pretty similar wrt not appealing to the Republican base right winger types and who also would be a centrist, by and large.
Still, she’s the front runner by leaps and bounds. Which means that Democrats, as a whole, understand the Clinton triangulation pretty well. I don’t think anyone has any illusions that she would govern to the left of Bill. At least not much to the left. And if she does, it’s Hello Republican Congress, again.
I’m guessing increasing the MW to more than $10.10/hour is not going to move the numbers to favor the proposal.
DailyKos, OTOH, claims (rather amusingly) that an increase in MW to $12.50 will pay for itself. If the Dems do attempt to put forward this idea, I guess they have to hope that centrists believe DailyKos rather than the Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO can only work with assumptions that they have been required to use. Personally, I think we’ve seen that when states raised the minimum wage that jobs then jobs were not lost. If there is evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it.
I think the lefties have forgotten what progressivism is. It’s a “we are all in this together” philosophy, not a “tax the rich and shower the benefits on everyone else” philosophy. There is not a single country run on the latter model. Countries are either like us, with low taxes and low spending(relatively), or like Western Europe, with high taxes(on everyone) and high spending. There is no low taxes on the middle class/high spending country. That’s because it’s impossible. A government that primarily lives on taxing the rich is a small government.
So the idea is to starve the beast even further by taking away the best tool cities have now that it’s become next to impossible for them to raise taxes?
No, I’m not. Raising taxes has become politically unviable due to Republican obstruction. How else do you expect cities to find the money to pay for the services that their citizens expect to be provided with as long as it’s coming out of someone else’s pocket?
Well, good luck with this. I think you are better off looking at vertical issues that lefties like that also have a broader appeal outside of the left wing community and going with those as planks, but I think in order to work you are going to have to also look at things that appeal to centrist types from the right wing and moderates as well to be a true Contract with America. That was the actual hook for Newt’s contract and how the Republicans we able to be successful. Your guy Clinton understood this and was able to do unto the Republicans as they had done unto the Democrats, but I haven’t really seen any indication that the Dems grasp this very well.