Blue Dogs eye comeback in 2018

JasperL said:

Whether tax rate increases also increase revenue is not really a debate except among right wingers who choose to ignore all the actual evidence in favor of crackpot theories contradicted by the evidence. If there is a debate, on one side is Math, and on the other side Magic Money Tree and we have a major party embracing the Magic Money Tree as legitimate theory.

There are legitimate differences of opinion about the size of government, and therefore the tax rates needed to sustain it, but there is no rational case that we can GROW government, and increase spending by CUTTING tax rates. It's just nonsense.

Click to expand...

we get the fact you are wedded to more government is good government and that the wealth of individuals is really owned by the government. deep down,this attitude is based on the idea that if you cannot have as much as you think you deserve, the government should prevent those who have that amount from maintaining it

our government is way too big and starving the beast might not be the optimal way to cure a problem caused by cowardly judges and pandering politicians over the last 100 years, but it might be the only way

SenorXm/Sirius said:

I'm still not convinced.

I still see too many Middle Class Republicans willing to serve the rich's interest by backing trickle down, and killing ACA. Many said they voted for Trump because he was anti-elite and anti-establishment because they were tired of the rich and Corps. running the country and buying both parties. But they still defend the establishment GOP agenda of benefiting the rich and Corps at the expense of the Middle Class and blue collar worker.

They whine about MC wages staying stagnant. But then they vote for politicians who are doing everything to keep those wages stagnant. And then defend those politicians even after seeing how 'elitist' they really are.

Click to expand...

what exactly is the interest of the middle class? I keep hearing insinuations that the interests of the poor and middle class is to be dependent on more government handouts and they should oppose a limited government that takes less from anyone who actually pays more taxes than they use so those who use more than they pay, will have more

TurtleDude said:

she's a wall street whore which is why some of the luddite or anarcho-syndicalist types on the left claim she's conservative. Being a greedy pig is neither left nor right

Click to expand...

Not as bad as others. Giving speeches was done not only to get donations for her, but for the Democrat party also. Trump used to be accused of manipulatng the stock market with large buys and sells in the late 1980's.

Oreo said:

Not as bad as others. Giving speeches was done not only to get donations for her, but for the Democrat party also. Trump used to be accused of manipulatng the stock market with large buys and sells in the late 1980's.

Click to expand...

The clinton's claimed to be poor when Bill left the white house in 01, Now they are worth over 100 million dollars. Their daughter got big bucks jobs based on who her parents were and then is running the PRC funded Clinton foundation. public office, to the clinton crime family, is all about grabbing as much cash as possible by the sale of influence

shagg said:

Hillary tried to pay lip service to Blue Dog Dem ideals, but she was so obviously a Corporate Donor Class Ass Kissing Dem that it just lost her even more credibility. The corporate dems are also moderate/centrist, why let something like ideals get in the way of money? Sit on the fence, lean a little when you have to so gravity pulls you towards the money.

And the Sanders camp saw her the same way, a corporate donor class dem. To this day it is still grossly underestimated how many voters supported Bernie solely because he vowed to take the money out of politics. And how many of those voters stayed home or believed Trump's lies in November.

Click to expand...

Com'on Sanders is no different. Wall Street didn't like Sanders--so they didn't ask him to give speeches, but he sure had no problems taking money from supporters even after it was more than clear that he couldn't win the nomination, and he did not use any of that money to help others in their campaign. He kept it to himself--while he continually lied to his supporters.

You're not going to separate main street's money from Wall Street. Sanders main campaign platform was to break up the big banks. He knew dam good and well that the Federal Reserve banks operate separately & independently from the Federal Goverment, meaning that he nor the Federal government had the authority to break up the big banks. He was even called out on it during a debate, got red faced about it, but it sure didn't stop him from campaigning on it.
Bernie Sanders Can'''t Explain How He'''d Break up the Banks

TurtleDude said:

we get the fact you are wedded to more government is good government and that the wealth of individuals is really owned by the government. deep down,this attitude is based on the idea that if you cannot have as much as you think you deserve, the government should prevent those who have that amount from maintaining it

our government is way too big and starving the beast might not be the optimal way to cure a problem caused by cowardly judges and pandering politicians over the last 100 years, but it might be the only way

Click to expand...

You ignored my comment and moved the goal posts. I'll repeat my closing comment:

There are legitimate differences of opinion about the size of government, and therefore the tax rates needed to sustain it, but there is no rational case that we can GROW government, and increase spending by CUTTING tax rates. It's just nonsense.

Click to expand...

Also, too, there is no actual "debate" between:

1) Math, and
2) Magic Money Tree (aka the Laffer Curve tax cuts pay for themselves fantasy).

TurtleDude said:

we get the fact you are wedded to more government is good government and that the wealth of individuals is really owned by the government. deep down,this attitude is based on the idea that if you cannot have as much as you think you deserve, the government should prevent those who have that amount from maintaining it

our government is way too big and starving the beast might not be the optimal way to cure a problem caused by cowardly judges and pandering politicians over the last 100 years, but it might be the only way

Click to expand...

This is just mirror thinking -- thinking that Democrats are the mirror image of Republicans. Grover Norquist once put it, "I want to shrink government small enough so that I can drown it in a bathtub." Republicans want small government as an end in itself. Democrats don't look at it that way -- we don't want to grow government for the sake of growing it. We want government to do certain things: provide a safety net; protect workers; protect the environment; provide for medical insurance for those that can't afford it or get it in the marketplace, etc. The size of the government isn't the objective the way it is on the Republican side.

But whether I want to maintain the government size the way it is and you want to shrink it, has no bearing on whether tax-cuts increase revenues. They don't -- and the evidence that tax-cuts even grow the economy is scant too. So, tax-cuts as the magic elixir that will grow the economy in leaps and bounds is highly suspect. What makes THIS tax-cut plan even worse for growth is what my favorite Nobel Prize winning economist posted yesterday:

...
The thing is, while Republicans always claim that tax cuts will produce miraculous growth, both the proposed tax cuts and the supposed sources of the miracle are a bit different this time. Instead of focusing on individual tax rates – aside from the estate tax – this time it’s mostly about corporate taxes. And instead of claiming huge increases in work effort from lower marginal rates, they’re mostly claiming that lower corporate taxes will bring huge capital inflows, raising wages and GDP.

There are multiple reasons to be skeptical about these claims; the actual magnitude of any positive effect on GDP is likely to be far smaller than anything Republicans say. The Penn-Wharton model says that GDP in 2027 would be between 0.3% and 0.8% higher with the tax cuts than without, i.e., basically an invisible effect against background noise; and this doesn’t even take into account the longer-run negative effects of discouraging higher education, slashing nutrition programs, and all the other things that will probably happen due to higher deficits.
...
In fact, when you bear in mind the reduced taxes collected on foreign investors who are already here, GNI {Gross National Investment} could actually go down, not up.
...

Click to expand...

Oreo said:

Com'on Sanders is no different. Wall Street didn't like Sanders--so they didn't ask him to give speeches, but he sure had no problems taking money from supporters even after it was more than clear that he couldn't win the nomination, and he did not use any of that money to help others in their campaign. He kept it to himself--while he continually lied to his supporters.

You're not going to separate main street's money from Wall Street. Sanders main campaign platform was to break up the big banks. He knew dam good and well that the Federal Reserve banks operate separately & independently from the Federal Goverment, meaning that he nor the Federal government had the authority to break up the big banks. He was even called out on it during a debate, got red faced about it, but it sure didn't stop him from campaigning on it.
Bernie Sanders Can'''t Explain How He'''d Break up the Banks

Click to expand...

That last point is pretty weak. Republicans have been running on a pro-life/anti-abortion platform for decades, and anyone can make the same kind of argument about that (the Supreme Court has spoken!!) as you and Fortune made about Bernies promise to break up the big banks. The story refers to Dodd-Frank, which was just legislation passed by Congress and signed by POTUS, and then infers that other legislation that would allow Treasury to break up the big banks isn't possible. If that legislation isn't possible, then any politician running on future legislation is also effectively lying to the public, because if it's not law, then they can't run on promising new law because right now that law doesn't exist.

It's a BS argument because EVERY candidate candidate from POTUS to city council runs on promises to change existing law.

JasperL said:

That last point is pretty weak. Republicans have been running on a pro-life/anti-abortion platform for decades, and anyone can make the same kind of argument about that (the Supreme Court has spoken!!) as you and Fortune made about Bernies promise to break up the big banks. The story refers to Dodd-Frank, which was just legislation passed by Congress and signed by POTUS, and then infers that other legislation that would allow Treasury to break up the big banks isn't possible. If that legislation isn't possible, then any politician running on future legislation is also effectively lying to the public, because if it's not law, then they can't run on promising new law because right now that law doesn't exist.

It's a BS argument because EVERY candidate candidate from POTUS to city council runs on promises to change existing law.

Click to expand...

It's one thing to "regulate" banking, it's quite another circumstance to confiscate management over it.

Agreed--Bernie Sanders campaigning on breaking up the BIG BANKS--was as unrealistic as right wing candidates campaigning on being able to overturn Roe v Wade. It's just too bad that there are so many in this nation that take the B.S. and swallow it hook, line and sinker. Yes--most politicians do it. They prey on the ignorance of their constiuency.

Really the only candidate that was campaigning on realistic things in the 2016 election was Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaigning on a Free College education for everyone was about as realistic as Trump stating he's going to build a 1000 mile 40 foot tall wall that Mexico was going to pay for.--:lol:

Surrealistik said:

FDR was a Blue Dog Democrat or a centrist? On what planet? Hell, even third-way/'New' Dems weren't really a force until the 80s and at most arguably the 70s.

Also progressives are in vogue among the Democratic party (and now comprise more than half of it), despite the very best and most desperate attempts of establishment darlings to suppress them and retain positions of control/leadership. Moreover, it was so-called 'Blue Dog' Democrats that were responsible for the party's historic losses, including against probably the worst presidential candidate the Republicans have ever fielded; where is this resurgence/comeback you're talking about? Success in Virginia doesn't suddenly mean that these corporate/third-way Dems are somehow on the path to supremacy.

Click to expand...

I think it does. Sure not everywhere but if dems want to win red states they do have to moderate. Northram was about as centrist as one could get and still be considered a democrat. Had Perreillo won, I don't think it would have been a blowout. I think those suburban white collar voters might not have come out. Next year I do expect to see a lot of progressives lose in the primaries to more moderate politicians. Manchin and Pelosi aren't going to lose to progressives. Also, Sanders Medicare for All bill will go nowhere as dems in moderate/red states will not sign on. Its too risky. Single payer wont have even been uttered in midterms by winners. Dems want the win not the agenda for now.

Oreo said:

Bill Clinton & Hillary Clinton are both Blue Dog Democrats.

Click to expand...

As is Ralph Northram.

Oreo said:

Moderate Republicans do to and they are the majority of the Republican party--so if Democrats put up good Blue Dog Candidates in 2018--Republicans in the Senate & House can kiss their seats good-bye.

Click to expand...

Plus progressives will vote for them too so they can win a majority. Blue dogs will likely rise to new highs, it also wouldn't surprise me to see some former GOPers become blue dogs and run.

TurtleDude said:

Hillary-she might be a dog and she certainly is a democrat but she isn't a blue dog democrat no matter how you define it

Click to expand...

Not by definition but as was pointed out during the campaign, did she support single payer? 15 dollar minimum wage? go against TPP and NAFTA? Refuse to take money from corporate donors? Those are main issues for progressives and she wasn't on board.

MTAtech said:

Republicans want small government as an end in itself. Democrats don't look at it that way -- we don't want to grow government for the sake of growing it. We want government to do certain things: provide a safety net; protect workers; protect the environment; provide for medical insurance for those that can't afford it or get it in the marketplace, etc. The size of the government isn't the objective the way it is on the Republican side.

Click to expand...

Yes. Government has a job to do. Sometimes it needs to step in- aggressively. There are other times when it needs to get out of the way. Asking whether you like government intervention or not is like asking a driver whether he likes the gas pedal or the brakes. It's a ridiculous question. You need both. When you do each should not be a blind formula. When we do each depends on what is going on. It requires keeping your eyes and ears open, your mind open, on getting all the information, listening to all sides, and using some intelligence and judgment. It is a juggling act that requires constant attention and revisiting and questioning. Yes I know that's hard and sometimes mistakes will be made. But it's better than blind stubborn ideology with one simple rote answer for any given complex situation facing you. I like the way Obama put it:

"I am not for big government. I am not for small government. I am for smart government."
-Barack Obama

Click to expand...

Oreo said:

Agreed--Bernie Sanders campaigning on breaking up the BIG BANKS--was as unrealistic as right wing candidates campaigning on being able to overturn Roe v Wade. It's just too bad that there are so many in this nation that take the B.S. and swallow it hook, line and sinker. Yes--most politicians do it. They prey on the ignorance of their constiuency.

Really the only candidate that was campaigning on realistic things in the 2016 election was Hillary Clinton. Sanders campaigning on a Free College education for everyone was about as realistic as Trump stating he's going to builld a 1000 mile 40 foot tall wall that Mexico was going to pay for.--:lol:

Click to expand...

LOL, we don't agree, actually. And whether or not Policy A is realistic or not isn't really the point. The GOP might in fact get a repeal of Roe v. Wade if they keep winning POTUS and appointing SCOTUS seats. But whether they can or do that isn't the point - we know the GOP will promote efforts to make abortion more difficult, and try to effectively achieve abortion bans (for the poor but not their wealthy contributors who can always find a way to get Sissy an abortion if she wants) through other means, such as setting up the rules so that abortion providers cannot comply and must close.

Oreo said:

1) Com'on Sanders is no different. Wall Street didn't like Sanders--so they didn't ask him to give speeches, 2)but he sure had no problems taking money from supporters even after it was more than clear that he couldn't win the nomination, and 3) he did not use any of that money to help others in their campaign. He kept it to himself--while he continually lied to his supporters.

Click to expand...

1)Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including you and Wall Street. I fail to see ..... anything that makes Sanders part of the Corporate Donor Class Ass Kissing wing of the Deomcratic party. In fact, I find the accusation ludicrous. Do you realize the man took no corporate money for his campaign? Addressing the power that Wall Street has over our government was one his major talking points......

2) It was an atypical race, and there was a small but real possibility that legal trouble could hobble Hillary, I wouldn't have given up until the convention either.

3) Are you suggesting that He kept campaign contributions for his personal use? Or that he should have shared with Hillary, who was running against him up until the convention and who was, if anything, overfunded? Did he, at any point, break campaign finance laws? After the convention, what happened to his leftover campaign funds?

You're not going to separate main street's money from Wall Street. Sanders main campaign platform was to break up the big banks. He knew dam good and well that the Federal Reserve banks operate separately & independently from the Federal Goverment, meaning that he nor the Federal government had the authority to break up the big banks. He was even called out on it during a debate, got red faced about it, but it sure didn't stop him from campaigning on it.
Bernie Sanders Can'''t Explain How He'''d Break up the Banks

Click to expand...

Authority to "break up" an otherwise legal corporation requires invoking anti-trust laws, which require a monopoly. I agree there is nothing that meets the technical definition of monopoly in the banking industry.

Bernies platform had 5-6 core issues, one of which was the banks. If one stood out more than the others, it was taking special interest money out of politics. That being said, rather than descend into whataboutisms, I'll simply state that while no candidate was perfect, Bernie was clearly the best choice for many of us because he wasn't bought and paid for like every other candidate. You're efforts to shoe horn him into the same category as Hillary is laughable to anyone who isn't a partisan hack and was awake for at least part of the 2015/2016 election cycle.

pilot16 said:

I think it does. Sure not everywhere but if dems want to win red states they do have to moderate. Northram was about as centrist as one could get and still be considered a democrat. Had Perreillo won, I don't think it would have been a blowout. I think those suburban white collar voters might not have come out. Next year I do expect to see a lot of progressives lose in the primaries to more moderate politicians. Manchin and Pelosi aren't going to lose to progressives. Also, Sanders Medicare for All bill will go nowhere as dems in moderate/red states will not sign on. Its too risky. Single payer wont have even been uttered in midterms by winners. Dems want the win not the agenda for now.

Click to expand...

Yes the majority in this nation are center. And the right and left wings of both parties are trying to control who the nominees are. Moderates need to run for more seats in this country, and I very glad to see that happen in the Virginia--New Jersey races.

Oreo said:

Yes the majority in this nation are center. And the right and left wings of both parties are trying to control who the nominees are. Moderates need to run for more seats in this country, and I very glad to see that happen in the Virginia--New Jersey races.

Click to expand...

Its one of those things where the majority likes it but then the fringes get upset after awhile since their agendas get left behind. Then the anger, complacency and apathy sets in. Its a big reason why the US switches so violently between party.

pilot16 said:

Plus progressives will vote for them too so they can win a majority. Blue dogs will likely rise to new highs, it also wouldn't surprise me to see some former GOPers become blue dogs and run.

Click to expand...

Yes with this enviroment right now that wouldn't surprise me. Republicans are in deep kim chee and they know it now. They can no longer just listen to the squeaking of their right wing base--simply because they're afraid of them. I would much rather face a primary challenge during the primary season--than to face this Tsunami that is building up for 2018.

They are going to have to separate themselves from their right wing base & Donald Trump to survive.

TurtleDude said:

The clinton's claimed to be poor when Bill left the white house in 01, Now they are worth over 100 million dollars. Their daughter got big bucks jobs based on who her parents were and then is running the PRC funded Clinton foundation. public office, to the clinton crime family, is all about grabbing as much cash as possible by the sale of influence

Click to expand...

Hmm. That description sounds exactly like the Trump crime family. Only the Trumps are much much more greedy. Bill Clinton was criticized for "renting out the Lincoln bedroom" Trump has an entire Hotel he rents out for cash from those seeking favors from the President.

Oreo said:

Yes with this enviroment right now that wouldn't surprise me. Republicans are in deep kim chee and they know it now. They can no longer just listen to the squeaking of their right wing base--simply because they're afraid of them. I would much rather face a primary challenge during the primary season--than to face this Tsunami that is building up for 2018.

They are going to have to separate themselves from their right wing base & Donald Trump to survive.

Click to expand...

Yes what this election showed was the not only that Trump can't deliver but he also is not loyal and will throw you under the bus if you lose.

Oreo said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-blue-dogs-eye-2018-comeback-240813

Blue Dog Democrats will attract moderate Republicans--and you can now say bye-bye to the right and left wings of both parties. These are middle of the road politicians, which ruled this country since the 1930's up until the late 70's. They're conservative--hawkish--don't like Russians--and have a heart regarding the American people at the same time.

Click to expand...

Sounds too good to be true!

holbritter said:

Sounds too good to be true!

Click to expand...

Yes, maybe we as moderates will finally obtain good candidates that appeal to us, versus just appealing to the right or left wing bases of both parties.

To do that we have to get involved and say NO MORE. If that means moderate Republicans have to cross party lines to vote for Blue Dog Democrats and not simply vote for the R behind someone's name that's exactly what has to happen, and visa versa.

iguanaman said:

Hmm. That description sounds exactly like the Trump crime family. Only the Trumps are much much more greedy. Bill Clinton was criticized for "renting out the Lincoln bedroom" Trump has an entire Hotel he rents out for cash from those seeking favors from the President.

Click to expand...

Trump didn't use public office to get wealthy. big difference

TurtleDude said:

Trump didn't use public office to get wealthy. big difference

Click to expand...

Huh? So because he is already wealthy and still wants more it is OK to sell influence? That makes him much greedier and much worse. His whole cabinet is the same too so from now on we will call it the "Trump crime syndicate" because that is what his administration is.