• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A New Democratic Message for 2018 Around Fiscal Policy

Moderate Right said:
It's pro add to the national debt. Funny how you guys think that tax cuts to the rich are pandering for votes by giving free stuff away but free college and free healthcare isn't giving freebies away and pandering for votes.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong I disagree with the characterization. I can't address details I'm at work but, I'll give you the basic idea.

Tax revenue is ours. Would you rather use it to further income inequality or provide services for our country?
 
Winston said:
No, you're wrong I disagree with the characterization. I can't address details I'm at work but, I'll give you the basic idea.

Tax revenue is ours. Would you rather use it to further income inequality or provide services for our country?
Click to expand...

Tax revenues do not further income inequality. You could argue tax cuts do but not tax revenues.
 
Moderate Right said:
Tax revenues do not further income inequality. You could argue tax cuts do but not tax revenues.
Click to expand...

If you use tax revenue to pay for budget holes created by tax cuts it does. Say tax cuts amounted to a 500 billion dollar hole in your budget. Then you have to cut spending in education effecting jobs in education. Therefore tax revenue that was going to teachers goes to the 1% to be horded.
 
Winston said:
Do you think centrists decide elections?
Click to expand...
There is certainly a block of swing voters and it is them that gave Trump his margins for victory. (I certainly wouldn't say he won most of them but they were a factor in his winning coalition)

You don't need them to win though, no.

Democrats need to attack Republicans as viciously as possible to destroy them utterly, as if they were a mortal enemy.
Click to expand...
Psychologically though that point of view loses you votes as it comes off irrational and speaks down to a lot of Americans who generally like republicans even if just the ideals. So I'd say its a bad strategy and prevents a lot of good allies coming aboard.

Republicans want to starve you of essential government services and give your money to the 1%”
Click to expand...
I am the 1% and I give back a lot in taxes and otehrwise and I love for you to explain how I take from the money of the 99%?

That, to me is how you want to frame it. Democrats are looking out for you, Republicans want to cut taxes on the rich, and then divert public funds to pay for the budget holes, then point to Kansas and WV as evidence of that.
Click to expand...
My point is the people who see it that way already vote democrat and those who don’t or swing on thsoe types of things are turned off by such a framing.
 
Winston said:
Wouldn't you like to be able to spend the money you're saving for your sons education in TX local economy?
Click to expand...


Lol....Wow, you mean the money I have left after the tax increases are levied to pay for all this free stuff ?

I am responsible for my Son and have no problem paying for his education or the education of my daughter.

Fortunately, they took after their mother, are highly intelligent and graduated in top 10 percent in their class and both recieved help through academic scholarships, we picked up the rest, or the majority

I have always believed the Liberal agenda to be almost exclusively drien by ideology.
Ideas take precedent, not practicallity, or feasibillity.
Therein lies its defect, its self destruct mechanism.

Take California's Single payer iniative for example. One of the largest most populated States in the Nation has decided to impliment Single payer.

Their Left of Center Policiticians entered into a highly public attempt to implement a core Progressive iniative whithout thinking for one second about the overwhelming cost, the sheer impracticallity of it, the effect on its economy, on its tax base or the consequences of it failing.

They just dove in without realizing they are setting a huge example for why no state, let alone the US, should ever try this ridiculous experiment again.

Its a State that has over 500 billion dollars in unfunded pension liabillities, of-course its going to fail and the rest of America, voters are watching.
 
Moderate Right said:
I don't know about that. If we were having a referendum on Trump then the left isn't doing so good at 0 for 4.
Click to expand...

special elections, all in very red districts this far out isn't an indication of how the midterms will go. Actually this far out, there are no concrete indications whatsoever. Who knows, the economy may be booming come November of next year and there may be plenty of jobs available. I could tell you what probably would happen today with Trump's approval rating as low as it is, no Hillary Clinton to negate the negative image of Trump, the drop in party affiliation for the GOP and so on. But all that is dynamic with the exception of no Hillary Clinton to negate the dislike for Trump. All change constantly.

Here's an example:

Democratic Edge in Party Affiliation Up to Seven Points | Gallup

A seven point lead in party affiliation is a big thing. Back in November of last year the Democrats had the lead in party affiliation, but only three points, 46-43 and that pretty much equated to Hillary's two point win in the popular vote. I don't like the idea of Gallup including leaners. I like to use straight party affiliation, then the independent lean Republican and lean Democrat with the last being pure or true independents with no leans.

Also here is a list of presidential approval rating and what happened in the midterms in congress.

1970 Nixon 58% Minus 2 senate Plus 12 House seats
1974 Ford 42% Minus 5 senate Minus 48 House seats
1978 Carter 49% Minus 3 senate Minus 5 House seats
1982 Reagan 43% Plus 1 senate Minus 26 House seats
1986 Reagan 47% Minus 8 senate Minus 5 House seats
1990 Bush I 54% Minus 1 senate Minus 8 House seats
1994 Clinton 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 54 House seats
1998 Clinton 66% Senate no change Plus 4 House seats
2002 Bush II 63% Plus 1 senate Plus 8 House seats
2006 Bush II 37% Minus 6 senate Minus 33 House seats
2010 Obama 44% Minus 6 senate Minus 63 House seats
2014 Obama 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 13 House seats

People say Trump is unique and history doesn't apply. I say, yes, last years presidential election was unique and conventional wisdom went out the window due to the fact both candidates were disliked by around 60% of the electorate. But 2018 won't have Hillary Clinton around to negate that dislike of Trump. The absence of Hillary Clinton puts next year's midterms back into the historical and conventional wisdom category.
 
Henrin said:
I find the notion that all the wealth will collect at the top absurd. So no, I don't have a plan for it because its make believe. I mean, sure, I could come up with a plan to fight against unicorn attacks, but since unicorns don't exist that would be a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Why is it absurd that if left alone there will be winners and losers? If you play poker it is a safe bet that eventually someone will win all the chips. The idea that it will continue forever is fantasy.
 
Fenton Lum said:
That might be both more convincing and sincere were they not part of the last half century's wealth redistribution scam themselves.
Click to expand...

I agree, I was disappointed in Obama. Clinton never pretended like he really cared about it, but Obama did and never acted on it.
 
MrPeanut said:
I agree, I was disappointed in Obama. Clinton never pretended like he really cared about it, but Obama did and never acted on it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, he was just more of the same as it ever was, Goldman Sachs and all.
 
Winston said:
Besides taking progressive gambles like including free college, alternative energy, single-payer, in your message, here's a radical idea from yours truly. Tell the truth about what tax cuts do to the budget.

Republicans are more fiscally irresponsible than Democrats because they put the countries spending on your credit card because they don't want to fund the government with tax revenue. Republicans hammer on balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. But, the tax cuts they advocate for routinely lead to revenues underperforming, often hitting as low as 15% of GDP. Tie Republicans to the national debt, by pointing out they turn spending into public debt with tax cuts. If Democrats can play it right, they've been given two electoral nuggets of gold, supply side's failure in Kansas and GWB's incompetence.

Can Democrats make them into the party of fiscal irresponsibility? Because Republicans want to push tax cuts that decimate budgets. They are the cut and spend party. All you have to do is point to the 20 Trillion in debt, and blame it on Bush and Republicans irresponsible cut and spend. Run a campaign ad that tells them Clinton left Bush a surplus and Bush turned that surplus into the highest % increase of deficit spending of all times. Because he cut taxes and started 2 wars. Then point to real GDP growth peaking at 3.6% before the financial crash, tie Republicans to the deficits and the financial crash, and then say, Trump wants to repeat this and throw in an anecdote Trump running a casino into the ground in Atlantic City.

I want to be clear that I think Democrats running towards the center, and appealing to Republican values as a Blue Dog Democrat does, is a poor strategy. People much prefer strong progressives to weak Democrats. If you'd like evidence of that, look at the 1,000 seats lost. I don't think the country is actually any more right than it was in 2009. I think if you look at the polling the country holds center left positions on marijuana legalization, single-payer, ending the wars, government corruption and money in politics, alternative energy. The country is center-left.

So, here's what I would do, tie Republicans to incompetent tax cuts that lead to budget crisis and say that Trump wants to repeat failed supply side policy.
Click to expand...

There is no way anyone with a pulse would blame a 20 trillion dollar deficit on Republicans when it is common knowledge that Obama racked up half of it.

But... go for it. When you're out of ideas ya gotta try something.:lol:
 
Perotista said:
special elections, all in very red districts this far out isn't an indication of how the midterms will go. Actually this far out, there are no concrete indications whatsoever. Who knows, the economy may be booming come November of next year and there may be plenty of jobs available. I could tell you what probably would happen today with Trump's approval rating as low as it is, no Hillary Clinton to negate the negative image of Trump, the drop in party affiliation for the GOP and so on. But all that is dynamic with the exception of no Hillary Clinton to negate the dislike for Trump. All change constantly.

Here's an example:

Democratic Edge in Party Affiliation Up to Seven Points | Gallup

A seven point lead in party affiliation is a big thing. Back in November of last year the Democrats had the lead in party affiliation, but only three points, 46-43 and that pretty much equated to Hillary's two point win in the popular vote. I don't like the idea of Gallup including leaners. I like to use straight party affiliation, then the independent lean Republican and lean Democrat with the last being pure or true independents with no leans.

Also here is a list of presidential approval rating and what happened in the midterms in congress.

1970 Nixon 58% Minus 2 senate Plus 12 House seats
1974 Ford 42% Minus 5 senate Minus 48 House seats
1978 Carter 49% Minus 3 senate Minus 5 House seats
1982 Reagan 43% Plus 1 senate Minus 26 House seats
1986 Reagan 47% Minus 8 senate Minus 5 House seats
1990 Bush I 54% Minus 1 senate Minus 8 House seats
1994 Clinton 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 54 House seats
1998 Clinton 66% Senate no change Plus 4 House seats
2002 Bush II 63% Plus 1 senate Plus 8 House seats
2006 Bush II 37% Minus 6 senate Minus 33 House seats
2010 Obama 44% Minus 6 senate Minus 63 House seats
2014 Obama 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 13 House seats

People say Trump is unique and history doesn't apply. I say, yes, last years presidential election was unique and conventional wisdom went out the window due to the fact both candidates were disliked by around 60% of the electorate. But 2018 won't have Hillary Clinton around to negate that dislike of Trump. The absence of Hillary Clinton puts next year's midterms back into the historical and conventional wisdom category.
Click to expand...

Keep on telling yourself that and don't change a thing.
 
Moderate Right said:
Are you talking about me? Where on Earth did you come up with that nonsense?
Click to expand...

I was talking about him, not you; settle down with your nonsense charge, Moderate Right .
 
Moderate Right said:
Keep on telling yourself that and don't change a thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that outside it may be your way of telling me I'm all wet. Are you one who thinks like a lot of avid Trump supporters that the Republicans actually will gain seats in the house? FDR in 1934 and G.W. Bush in 2002 are the only presidents going back to Calvin Coolidge to have gained seats in the house in their first midterm. FDR's gain was a result of the Great Depression and voter disenchantment with the Republicans whom they blamed for the Depression. Bush's gain was a result of 9-11 happening and the country being united behind him and his party. Gallup and Pew Research hadn't started keeping track of approval rating back in 1934. But in 1937 the first year Gallup began keeping track of this, FDR was at 62%. Bush was at 63% approval rating in November of 2002. Even with that popularity, FDR gained 11 seats, Bush 8 seats.

All wet or not, I still think without Hillary Clinton in the mix to negate the dislike of Trump and the GOP about to make a huge blunder in passing the AHCA against the wishes of the majority of Americans, 2018 could be a very good Democratic year. I'm not saying it will be, too much time between now and then, but the probability is high.
 
Perotista said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that outside it may be your way of telling me I'm all wet. Are you one who thinks like a lot of avid Trump supporters that the Republicans actually will gain seats in the house? FDR in 1934 and G.W. Bush in 2002 are the only presidents going back to Calvin Coolidge to have gained seats in the house in their first midterm. FDR's gain was a result of the Great Depression and voter disenchantment with the Republicans whom they blamed for the Depression. Bush's gain was a result of 9-11 happening and the country being united behind him and his party. Gallup and Pew Research hadn't started keeping track of approval rating back in 1934. But in 1937 the first year Gallup began keeping track of this, FDR was at 62%. Bush was at 63% approval rating in November of 2002. Even with that popularity, FDR gained 11 seats, Bush 8 seats.

All wet or not, I still think without Hillary Clinton in the mix to negate the dislike of Trump and the GOP about to make a huge blunder in passing the AHCA against the wishes of the majority of Americans, 2018 could be a very good Democratic year. I'm not saying it will be, too much time between now and then, but the probability is high.
Click to expand...
Don't want to derail the thread, so not planning on a reply but reading your analysis (which i think is very fair) I have to ask...if trump's popularity was so favoured by being contrasted with hillary - why did he win the GOP nomination in your view?

Thanks...
 
Conaeolos said:
Don't want to derail the thread, so not planning on a reply but reading your analysis (which i think is very fair) I have to ask...if trump's popularity was so favoured by being contrasted with hillary - why did he win the GOP nomination in your view?

Thanks...
Click to expand...

The Republican primary is different than a general election because, the target audience in a Republican primary is a Republican base, frothing at the mouth from intravenous shots of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for the past 8 years.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
There is no way anyone with a pulse would blame a 20 trillion dollar deficit on Republicans when it is common knowledge that Obama racked up half of it.

But... go for it. When you're out of ideas ya gotta try something.:lol:
Click to expand...

the Bush Tax Cuts are driving the deficit. Something Obama made permanent, so, like it or not, Bush is directly responsible for his portion of the debt, as well as conservative fiscal policy in general. And Obama for not raising taxes once the economy was back on its feet. But, in a thread about Democratic messaging, with a focus on attacking Republicans, you would never bring up Obama's part, and just attack Republicans to create a perception that they are fiscally irresponsible. Reality coincides with the charge, so it is easier. Dyed in the wool Republicans will and do, reject all knowledge of facts and numbers pertaining to Tax Cuts, reducing Federal Receipts as a % of GDP, but, they were never going to vote Democratic anyway.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that outside it may be your way of telling me I'm all wet. Are you one who thinks like a lot of avid Trump supporters that the Republicans actually will gain seats in the house? FDR in 1934 and G.W. Bush in 2002 are the only presidents going back to Calvin Coolidge to have gained seats in the house in their first midterm. FDR's gain was a result of the Great Depression and voter disenchantment with the Republicans whom they blamed for the Depression. Bush's gain was a result of 9-11 happening and the country being united behind him and his party. Gallup and Pew Research hadn't started keeping track of approval rating back in 1934. But in 1937 the first year Gallup began keeping track of this, FDR was at 62%. Bush was at 63% approval rating in November of 2002. Even with that popularity, FDR gained 11 seats, Bush 8 seats.

All wet or not, I still think without Hillary Clinton in the mix to negate the dislike of Trump and the GOP about to make a huge blunder in passing the AHCA against the wishes of the majority of Americans, 2018 could be a very good Democratic year. I'm not saying it will be, too much time between now and then, but the probability is high.
Click to expand...

I just find it very frustrating that whenever one side loses they don't learn anything and they don't change anything. All they do is try their best to get the other side to lose so they can regain power again with the same policies and ideas that were responsible for their previous losses.
 
Conaeolos said:
Don't want to derail the thread, so not planning on a reply but reading your analysis (which i think is very fair) I have to ask...if trump's popularity was so favoured by being contrasted with hillary - why did he win the GOP nomination in your view?

Thanks...
Click to expand...

In my opinion as I really hadn't researched it. Trump had the most avid followers or supporters. They made up around 30-35% of the Republican Party. If you go back to February and March of 2016 Trump was winning the GOP primaries with exactly that 30-35% of the total vote in those primaries. He get his 30%, the remaining 70% would be divided between the other 15 or 16 candidates. Trump would get the most delegates because of his win, abet with a plurality.

What's ironic is Trump complained about the rules for the Republican Primaries and those rules benefited one man exclusively, Trump. Winning with a plurality of around or averaging 35% Trump was constantly getting half of all delegates. After super Tuesday, Trump had a huge lead he never lost. It wasn't until Trump finally clinched the nomination that produced a band wagon effect was he able to jump from 35% to 40% of the total Republican primary vote.

The opposition couldn't decide upon a candidate to oppose Trump. Divided you fall and divided gave Trump the nomination in the end with just 40% of the vote. In the end it was the rules Trump railed about that caused him to win along with having the largest supporting faction within the Republican Party. In the beginning was Trump gaining his 35% with the rest divided among 15 candidates, beginning in April it was Trump gaining his 35% with the rest of the vote divided among the other four or five.

I would say in the end the opposition within the Republican Party to Trump, roughly 60-65% couldn't decide on a single candidate and kept dividing their opposition votes among multiple candidates right up to the end. Trump won because of the loyalty of his supporters even though they were small, but small was okay since they were the largest group among many.

That is my quickie synopsis.
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
a Goldwater guy .
Click to expand...
Check your facts. Hillary Clinton was the Goldwater Girl who said that Black youths need to be brought to heel, campaigned for "tough on crime" laws that decimated Black families, and praised a prominent member of the KKK.
 
Moderate Right said:
I just find it very frustrating that whenever one side loses they don't learn anything and they don't change anything. All they do is try their best to get the other side to lose so they can regain power again with the same policies and ideas that were responsible for their previous losses.
Click to expand...

what I find frustrating is once a party wins an election that party thinks it gives them a mandate to go against the people's wishes. Thus leading to a reversal of fortune in the next election. As long as both parties are only interested in their own political agendas and not the agenda of the American people or the country as a whole, you will see one party on top for a while, then the other party and back to the first one again and again.

If the Republicans think that 46% of the vote last November gave them a mandate they are sadly mistaken. But even if Trump received 60% of the vote that mandate would only be applicable as long as he and the Republicans in congress are doing the majority of Americans will and wishes. The mandate disappears as soon as the president and party in power does something against the will of most Americans. With Obama and his super majority congress it was the ACA in 2009 and 2010 that destroyed his mandate. Are the Republicans making the same mistake with the AHCA as the Democrats did in 2010? Time will tell, but it sure looks like it.
 
Perotista said:
what I find frustrating is once a party wins an election that party thinks it gives them a mandate to go against the people's wishes. Thus leading to a reversal of fortune in the next election. As long as both parties are only interested in their own political agendas and not the agenda of the American people or the country as a whole, you will see one party on top for a while, then the other party and back to the first one again and again.

If the Republicans think that 46% of the vote last November gave them a mandate they are sadly mistaken. But even if Trump received 60% of the vote that mandate would only be applicable as long as he and the Republicans in congress are doing the majority of Americans will and wishes. The mandate disappears as soon as the president and party in power does something against the will of most Americans. With Obama and his super majority congress it was the ACA in 2009 and 2010 that destroyed his mandate. Are the Republicans making the same mistake with the AHCA as the Democrats did in 2010? Time will tell, but it sure looks like it.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with that and that it happens on both sides. I remember back when GWB won in 2000, thanks to the Supreme Court, and he basically said, "Now that I've won let's all work together and do it my way". When Obama won in 2008 he claimed a mandate and even after 2010 and 2012 and losing both the House and the Senate, Obama was still claiming a mandate, while of course Republicans were claiming the mandate. And of course after Trump won the presidency with 3 million less votes than Hillary Republicans claimed to have the mandate. It is my belief that as long as the word mandate remains in the dictionary we will never have bipartisanship again, not to mention both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell deciding that the nuclear option is now the law of the land. I believe Trump was actually elected by an electorate who was tired of the partisan gridlock but that doesn't seem to be working out so well.
 
Moderate Right said:
I totally agree with that and that it happens on both sides. I remember back when GWB won in 2000, thanks to the Supreme Court, and he basically said, "Now that I've won let's all work together and do it my way". When Obama won in 2008 he claimed a mandate and even after 2010 and 2012 and losing both the House and the Senate, Obama was still claiming a mandate, while of course Republicans were claiming the mandate. And of course after Trump won the presidency with 3 million less votes than Hillary Republicans claimed to have the mandate. It is my belief that as long as the word mandate remains in the dictionary we will never have bipartisanship again, not to mention both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell deciding that the nuclear option is now the law of the land. I believe Trump was actually elected by an electorate who was tired of the partisan gridlock but that doesn't seem to be working out so well.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I know I'm sick and tired of all these political party firsters and the country way down the line someplace. Reid and McConnell are classic examples of that and you can throw in Pelosi into that mix. As long as it is all about political party there will be no conscientious and this nation will remain divided with close to 30% supporting Democrats, close to another 30% supporting Republicans and the rest caught in the middle with no where to go. No political home, no hope. No party to conduct the nation's business, just their political party's business which usually turns out to be two entirely different things.
 
Perotista said:
what I find frustrating is once a party wins an election that party thinks it gives them a mandate to go against the people's wishes. Thus leading to a reversal of fortune in the next election. As long as both parties are only interested in their own political agendas and not the agenda of the American people or the country as a whole, you will see one party on top for a while, then the other party and back to the first one again and again.

If the Republicans think that 46% of the vote last November gave them a mandate they are sadly mistaken. But even if Trump received 60% of the vote that mandate would only be applicable as long as he and the Republicans in congress are doing the majority of Americans will and wishes. The mandate disappears as soon as the president and party in power does something against the will of most Americans. With Obama and his super majority congress it was the ACA in 2009 and 2010 that destroyed his mandate. Are the Republicans making the same mistake with the AHCA as the Democrats did in 2010? Time will tell, but it sure looks like it.
Click to expand...

Good luck explaining a concept outside of zero-sum to Donald Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom