Democratic agenda HALTED (1 Viewer)

[ekbeats]

So NOW Washington (GOP this time) have a problem with pork.  Hypocrisy is running thick right.  

Pork problems are historically much bigger issues on the Left.  

 

[dkp993]

Pork problems are historically much bigger issues on the Left.  

Sure says the Partisan right.  I get it, blue team bad. 

 

[Sand]

But maybe we can send some pork to West Virginia and change this?

Between Byrd and Manchin WV has done pretty darn well in capturing pork federal funds, haven't they?

 

[Sand]

Sure says the Partisan right.  I get it, blue team bad. 

Best quote I heard for this - the red team is fiscally irresponsible, the blue team is fiscally insane.  

I don't think you'd ever see the red team put out a 6T spending bill.  Not even the federal budget - an extra set of spending.  Yet that's what we just had.  Absolutely bat#### crazy stuff.

Not defending the spending under Trump, but damn the new guys in town are Scrooge McDuck. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Between Byrd and Manchin WV has done pretty darn well in capturing pork federal funds, haven't they?

They're no Huntsville.

 

[ekbeats]

Best quote I heard for this - the red team is fiscally irresponsible, the blue team is fiscally insane.  

I don't think you'd ever see the red team put out a 6T spending bill.  Not even the federal budget - an extra set of spending.  Yet that's what we just had.  Absolutely bat#### crazy stuff.

Not defending the spending under Trump, but damn the new guys in town are Scrooge McDuck. 

That’s a great quote.  Yet they still want to draw an equivalency.  Dems are the party of tax and spend.  Republicans favor less Government and lower taxes.  It is what it is.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

the red team is fiscally irresponsible, the blue team is fiscally insane.  

Because the blue teams pays for their spending?  At least until the red team takes over and eliminates or scales back those nasty taxes paying for it?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That’s a great quote.  Yet they still want to draw an equivalency.  Dems are the party of tax and spend.  Republicans favor less Government and lower taxes.  It is what it is.

Government spending historically goes up when you cut taxes.  It goes down when you raise them.   At least according to several attempts to disprove this by the left wing extremist at Cato.

 

[ekbeats]

Government spending historically goes up when you cut taxes.  It goes down when you raise them.   At least according to several attempts to disprove this by the left wing extremist at Cato.

So your contention is that Republicans spend more than Democrats?

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Because the blue teams pays for their spending?  At least until the red team takes over and eliminates or scales back those nasty taxes paying for it?

Nonsense. Blue states have 4+ trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. 

 

[dkp993]

Best quote I heard for this - the red team is fiscally irresponsible, the blue team is fiscally insane.  

I don't think you'd ever see the red team put out a 6T spending bill.  Not even the federal budget - an extra set of spending.  Yet that's what we just had.  Absolutely bat#### crazy stuff.

Not defending the spending under Trump, but damn the new guys in town are Scrooge McDuck. 

Everybody spends like a drunken sailor now when they are in power, the only difference is the parties supporters feel like THEIR parties spending is justified.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So your contention is that Republicans spend more than Democrats?

No.  We spend more as a result of republican policies.   Some of that spending is in the cleanup and recovery we experience after republicans have been shown the door.   Unfortunately once we have solid footing the same nonsensical beliefs that if we only cut taxes we could supercharge the economy takes hold and we start all over again. 

 

[ekbeats]

Everybody spends like a drunken sailor now when they are in power, the only difference is the parties supporters feel like THEIR parties spending is justified.  

I guess it’s a Liberal thing - have to make everything equivalent despite the obvious differences in degree that are staring us in the face.  Whatever gets you through the night…

 

[ekbeats]

No.  We spend more as a result of republican policies.   Some of that spending is in the cleanup and recovery we experience after republicans have been shown the door.   Unfortunately once we have solid footing the same nonsensical beliefs that if we only cut taxes we could supercharge the economy takes hold and we start all over again. 

You guys sound like children.  The Republicans made me do it!  Holy hell now I’ve heard it all.

 

[dkp993]

I guess it’s a Liberal thing - have to make everything equivalent despite the obvious differences in degree that are staring us in the face.

Wouldn’t know, not a liberal.  

 

[ekbeats]

Wouldn’t know, not a liberal.  

Don’t be ashamed.  It’s ok. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You guys sound like children.  The Republicans made me do it!  Holy hell now I’ve heard it all.

Well lets be more direct

Since 1946

"the average spending as a percentage of GDP under a Democratic President was 19.0% and under a Republican President 19.6%."  (Through Obama)

Trump was never under 20%!  Before Covid.

And notice how the blue tends to start high and work its way down and the red does just the opposite.   So yes, republican presidencies spend more.   Sure there could be more nuanced measurements, but the notion that the GOP is the party of less spending is false.  

 

[dkp993]

Don’t be ashamed.  It’s ok. 

You feel free to put me in whatever box makes you comfortable big guy.  Concerns me none. 

 

[sho nuff]

Well lets be more direct

Since 1946

"the average spending as a percentage of GDP under a Democratic President was 19.0% and under a Republican President 19.6%."  (Through Obama)

Trump was never under 20%!  Before Covid.

And notice how the blue tends to start high and work its way down and the red does just the opposite.   So yes, republican presidencies spend more.   Sure there could be more nuanced measurements, but the notion that the GOP is the party of less spending is false.  

That is pretty compelling yes.

 

[Sand]

Nonsense. Blue states have 4+ trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. 

To be fair about 3T of that is Chicago.  

 

[Godsbrother]

That’s a great quote.  Yet they still want to draw an equivalency.  Dems are the party of tax and spend.  Republicans favor less Government and lower taxes.  It is what it is.

I agree the Dems are a party of tax and spend.

And you are right:  the GOP does favor lower taxes.  The problem is they never reduce spending to make up for their tax cuts (saying the GOP + less government is a joke). 

They talk a good game about being "fiscally conservative" but when you increase spending you have to increase revenue. If you cut taxes you are going to have to make it up somewhere.

Remember how the Trump tax cut was going to pay for itself by increasing GDP to 4%?   Never happened, not even close.

Neither approach is sound but spending more and taking in less is a worse policy than tax and spend.

 

[supermike80]

No.  We spend more as a result of republican policies.   Some of that spending is in the cleanup and recovery we experience after republicans have been shown the door.   Unfortunately once we have solid footing the same nonsensical beliefs that if we only cut taxes we could supercharge the economy takes hold and we start all over again. 

Man...The endless blaming of the other side for the current side's issues is just mind boggling.  .

 

[Philo Beddoe]

I agree the Dems are a party of tax and spend.

And you are right:  the GOP does favor lower taxes.  The problem is they never reduce spending to make up for their tax cuts (saying the GOP + less government is a joke). 

They talk a good game about being "fiscally conservative" but when you increase spending you have to increase revenue. If you cut taxes you are going to have to make it up somewhere.

Remember how the Trump tax cut was going to pay for itself by increasing GDP to 4%?   Never happened, not even close.

Neither approach is sound but spending more and taking in less is a worse policy than tax and spend.

Pretty much this

 

[Godsbrother]

Man...The endless blaming of the other side for the current side's issues is just mind boggling.  .

Are you new around here?  It is the same no matter which party is in control.

Are these really "the current side's issues" though?  It seems to me they are all of our issues and neither side is willing to work with the other to resolve them.

 

[supermike80]

Are you new around here?  It is the same no matter which party is in control.

Are these really "the current side's issues" though?  It seems to me they are all of our issues and neither side is willing to work with the other to resolve them.

No.  My point is Democrats never do anything wrong, ever.  If they did something perceived to be wrong, it was in direct response to some horrible act the republicans did and they had no choice.  I say "current side" because the current control of the gubbermint.

And republicans do it too...They are faultless, its those horrible liberals that make them do all the bad things.

Its so tiring.  And how can you take anyone seriously who goes with that mindset?  I can't.

 

[Godsbrother]

No.  My point is Democrats never do anything wrong, ever.  If they did something perceived to be wrong, it was in direct response to some horrible act the republicans did and they had no choice.  I say "current side" because the current control of the gubbermint.

And republicans do it too...They are faultless, its those horrible liberals that make them do all the bad things.

Its so tiring.  And how can you take anyone seriously who goes with that mindset?  I can't.

I definitely don't think this.  I certainly lean left but the tactics and complaining they use are the same that the Republicans do.  They both are constantly complaining about the other but they are both to blame.

 

[supermike80]

I definitely don't think this.  I certainly lean left but the tactics and complaining they use are the same that the Republicans do.  They both are constantly complaining about the other but they are both to blame.

Good..Some do..some who do have even posted in this thread.

I don't either.  

 

[The Commish]

You feel free to put me in whatever box makes you comfortable big guy.  Concerns me none. 

We are treading ever so close to the "semantics" argument.  I'm just waiting for the argument to be made that massive tax breaks and loophole carve outs for the ultra wealthy aren't technically "spending".  When we have trillions of dollars in national debt increasing the spending side of the equation isn't meaningfully different than decreasing the incoming revenue side of the equation.  That's not even getting into the subsidies carved out for specific industries which IS actual spending.

When you are a group that wants to reduce taxes and continue existing spending levels, that's not meaningfully different than increasing taxes and increasing spending.  That people think they are worlds apart different (enough to say one is better than the other) is pretty amazing.  We need to teach more economics and finance in grade school and high school.  

 

[timschochet]

We are treading ever so close to the "semantics" argument.  I'm just waiting for the argument to be made that massive tax breaks and loophole carve outs for the ultra wealthy aren't technically "spending".  When we have trillions of dollars in national debt increasing the spending side of the equation isn't meaningfully different than decreasing the incoming revenue side of the equation.  That's not even getting into the subsidies carved out for specific industries which IS actual spending.

When you are a group that wants to reduce taxes and continue existing spending levels, that's not meaningfully different than increasing taxes and increasing spending.  That people think they are worlds apart different (enough to say one is better than the other) is pretty amazing.  We need to teach more economics and finance in grade school and high school.  

Just don’t call it “critical finance theory”! Seems to scare people, 

 

[quick-hands]

Proportional representation

Isnt this how the house is set up?

 

[Rich Conway]

Isnt this how the house is set up?

Not at all.  For instance, my state has 5 representatives, split into 5 districts throughout the state.  All the people in my district vote, and the winner takes the entire seat for the district (i.e. "winner take all").  Proportional Representation would be more akin to the entire state votes for R, D, L, Green, etc.  If R gets 40%, D gets 40%, and L gets 20%, there would be 2 x R reps, 2 x D reps, and 1 x L rep for the state, rather than 5 separate winner take all elections.

 

[quick-hands]

Not at all.  For instance, my state has 5 representatives, split into 5 districts throughout the state.  All the people in my district vote, and the winner takes the entire seat for the district (i.e. "winner take all").  Proportional Representation would be more akin to the entire state votes for R, D, L, Green, etc.  If R gets 40%, D gets 40%, and L gets 20%, there would be 2 x R reps, 2 x D reps, and 1 x L rep for the state, rather than 5 separate winner take all elections.

Well thats your state.   But u do get a porportional  number of delegates.   How its divied up is up to your state rules.

 

[dkp993]

Isnt this how the house is set up?

With the gerrymandering and redirecting games proportional vs proportionally representative becomes a problem.  

 

[Rich Conway]

Well thats your state.   But u do get a porportional  number of delegates.   How its divied up is up to your state rules.

No states use proportional representation today.  That's my point.

To be clear, "proportional representation" in this context means the allocation of representatives by party is proportional to the number of votes received by the party.  It does not mean number of representatives is proportional to population.

 

[quick-hands]

With the gerrymandering and redirecting games proportional vs proportionally representative becomes a problem.  

Yea but thats been going on since always.   I remember looking at the spaghetti  districts of metro detroit from the 1960s it looks much like the spaghetti of today.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I am not arguing here that the majority of Americans are always right. I’m simply pointing out that under our current structure the Senate is blocking everything. 
 

If you recall, President Trump tried to get spending for the wall. He couldn’t get 60 votes to do it. He publicly urged McConnell to ditch the filibuster. McConnell refused. So it’s no different than what it is now. 

I am not, in this thread, arguing for the Democratic agenda. I happen to personally agree with a lot of it, but that’s besides the point. The subject here is senate dysfunction. 

I would think you would be happy that McConnell refused to ditch the filibuster. In the US, being POTUS doesn't guarantee all your party's wishes will be granted. It's not the first time there has been some resistance in Congress to pass bills.