Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

2,101 to 2,150 of 4,260 << first < prev | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | next > last >>

This whole Vault 7 thing is spreading like wildfire through the alt-right channels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

So Fergie...neither the Democrats or Republicans actually give two s$#*s about American workers, but the Republicans are more successful because they're better at pretending to care?

This is a serious question. I'm asking because there seems to be a common thread among former Obama voters who voted for Trump. Many of them specifically say they voted for Trump because he said he would "bring the jobs back." Of course, Trump hasn't presented a coherent plan for actually doing so, but that doesn't seem to matter to these folks. Just saying he is going to do it seemed to be enough, despite the fact that the man has a clear history of using foreign manufacturing and labor to save costs.

As far as I can tell, Trump won because he lies even more readily (and bigly!) than other politicians do. Are you suggesting the Democrats should out-lie Trump in order to be successful? :P

I would say that Obama lied about jobs and the economy (among other things) to get elected, although for the most part he just said vague stuff. As an almost unknown, he was able to convince people that he might actually do things in their interest. Romney was not a successful challenger because he came off as a vulture capitalist, and that 40% are leeches type comment sealed the deal.

So how did a lying self-proclaimed billionaire beat Hilary with populism? First off, while Trump is a shameless pathological liar, he did tell the truth about some really important stuff, that I have never heard from a mainstream politician in my entire life. For example, he called out bribery! I pay these politicians, and they do what I say. I paid Hillary and she came to my wedding. No one ever said that openly, and everyone knows it is true. He also called out the establishment/donor influence during the primaries. Basically, the two parties were so full of s@#*, they made Trump look honest by comparison. People know that politics is fake, and politicians are liars, but Trump seemed to be the only one of the Republicans (or Hillary) who might go against the system, and put the voters before the rich. Trump didn't seem to need their money, while the rest were clearly bought and sold long ago. The other politicians, and media, and all the rest who heap scorn on the lower and middle class clearly hated Trump, so f!+! it, vote Trump and stick it to all those jerks.

A lying Richie Rich should have been easy to beat, and Bernie would have crushed Trump, but Hillary was an awful candidate. Her main issue was jobs and the economy, but her very name is synonymous with outsourcing and the destruction of the middle class. When she told everyone she was going to 'put Bill in charge of the economy' everyone knew what that meant - their job was going overseas, and their town was going down the tubes. Not only that, but the Clintons, and the Democratic party in general is elitist, and anti-labor. The standard line is that the economy is working great, and if you are poor or struggling middle class, it is because the rich, like the Walton family just deserve it more. Immigration is great for everyone, free market globalization is great for everyone, and booming stock markets are rewards for the best among us. Most people don't buy that stuff.

Anyway, the point is that the Democrats need to take a credible stand against their donors and actually serve the people. Say no to free trade, say no to offshore accounting, say no to regressive taxation, and do SOMETHING about immigration. People know that the Democrats aren't going to do any of that while taking money from big donors. They are just going to be Republican Lite, and as the saying goes, when given the choice between a Republican and Republican Lite, people choose the Republican.

My cynical prediction is that the Democrats are going to regain the whitehouse by lying, then get crushed in the following mid-terms. The Party as a while will continue to shrink, as their most visible members/leaders are shills for big business who have no credibility on the issues that matter to voters. While fixing the party from below sounds like a classic way to win, the truth is that those at the top of the party have no interest in change (there at the top, why would they?) and they are the ones with the power. First they got the money, then they got the power. If they are threatened, they will just change the rules to retain power. Also, the image of the party comes from the top down, and the top of the party sucks right now!


And, alas, while I was at work, the DSA kids had an organizational snafu and now the anti-Muslim ban rally is at the same time as our IWD event.

No chance of reliving Monty Python this week.

:(


Spastic Puma wrote:
This whole Vault 7 thing is spreading like wildfire through the alt-right channels.

The commie ones, too. Haven't had a chance to look for myself but it turns out Signal isn't as awesome as it was cracked up to be?

Not that it's any skin off my nose. As I keep telling people, if it's above board and legal, just send me a message, I don't care if Mark Zuckerburg and the NSA see it. And if it isn't, well, then maybe you should tell me in person?

(Unless you're selling weed, then just call me.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Objective facts regarding the current state of the Democratic Party:

16 out of 50 state governors (32%)
15 out of 50 party-controlled state legislatures (30%)
6 split state legislatures accounts for 3 of these 15.

193 out of 435 congresscritters (44%)
46 out of 100 senatecritters (46%)

[/end objective facts]

The Oval Orifice seems likely to hand the Democratic Party an avalanche of success in cleaning up as a result of the horrible antics of the Entertainer-in-Chief as things presently stand.

To succeed in taking advantage of this probability is going to require that the Democratic Party clean up their act and stand for the Average Citizen in both word and deed.

Perhaps... in no specific order of priority


  • Make American Samoans citizens.
  • Make American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, [someplace that I can't recall clearly at the time of this post] and D.C. states.
  • Not counting D.C., doing so adds 4+ million taxpaying, voting citizens without a lick of immigration. They've been here since the dawn of the 20th century, time to fix the f*ck up.
  • Overhaul public education to educate the skilled trades, basic math, sciences, arts, civics and societal functionality basic personal finance, understanding the credit score system, jury duty, et al as well as college prep. Not everyone is able or suited to college education. So much is going to depend on skilled trades and, let's face it, more than a few people are bluntly unable to handle highly skilled work (doctors and nurses are prime examples). When there are currently more than 5.5 million "blue collar" careers going unfulfilled because the populace has been misled to believing that success in life is only possible through acquisition of an employable 4-year+ collegiate degree, the nation as a whole suffers. Insult is added to injury when too many take degrees of no employable value.
  • 5.6 million is the lion's share of the U-3 unemployment number of ~7.6 million. Yes, nearly 74% of current unemployment and a large chunk of the U-6 unemployment number could be addressed by filling the current skilled trades need in the United States.
  • Obtaining energy independence as fast as possible. Advancements towards attaining this is finally progressing at substantial speed. Make it happen. Spin it as a 'nationalist economic benefit' with the side effect of addressing long-term environmental concerns if necessary.
  • Reducing food waste with the goal to reduce this as low as possible. Feed the hungry, lest the hungry eat the rich. ;)
  • Engage in some old-fashioned trust-busting. Telecomm companies have carved up the U.S. like a slab of beef. Fix it.
  • Eliminating narcotics/"hard drugs" prohibition is probably a no-go, but marijuana is an excellent starting point. Show how marijuana can benefit assorted counties, states and the country as a whole as a cash crop. Certain areas of the U.S. that are generally quite poor appear to be prime acreage for marijuana. Follow Colorado's lead (and the other states) on how this works.

There are others I can think of, but these will work for a starting point across the national stage.


The Mad Comrade wrote:
Engage in some old-fashioned trust-busting. Telecomm companies have carved up the U.S. like a slab of beef. Fix it.

Wish I could remember the deets, but heard Thomas Frank on the radio a couple of months ago and he was going over the litany of differences between the halcyon Keynesian days of yore and when he got to trust-busting he relayed an anecdote from some memoir he had been reading.

I don't remember who's, exactly, but it was someone in the publishing field and the anecdote they told was when whatever publishing house the memoirist was working for, the seventh biggest or something, was going to merge with the twelfth biggest publishing house and they got a call from the appropriate government bureaucracy saying "We're not so sure about this..."

These days there's what? Less than half a dozen publishing houses that control the market?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I'm not sure many of those points are going to be very interesting to the swayable demographic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
I'm not sure many of those points are going to be very interesting to the swayable demographic.

Dems have to have a platform that is something other than "opposite of what the elephants espouse", and mean it. So often a "plank" seems to be espoused solely by virtue of it being in opposition to the Republicans (and vice versa), it's maddening.

A few more brain droppings:

Stating something along the lines of: "Campaign contributions regardless of source are donations to whichever persons within any tier of the Democratic Party or the Party as an entity, not purchase of influence. Those wishing to purchase influence are on notice that they are destined for disappointment." Then having the spine to back it up, whether by using 1-minute egg timers or bouncers to get the lobbyists to sod-off or dispatching by verbal dismemberment, doesn't matter much the how.

Make really good friends with the press. Not in terms of policy save stuff along the lines of instituting and enforcing net neutrality, so much as "what're your questions about [blah], maybe you'll have thought of something I/we haven't. If you have, super-sweet, I can go back to [blah] and we'll figure stuff out from there."

In the end, if the Democratic Party - as many have said better than I - doesn't get its head out of its butt, they will remain bit players outside of the trifectas in CA, OR, HI, DE and MA.

Right now it seems that the Dems are counting on a GOP nuclear meltdown to become relevant again. This strikes me as rather naive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
The WPA created millions of jobs to the point were the nation had full employment! And that was during some of the worst economic time the country has faced in peacetime. Imagine what a similar program (paid for with a fraction of military spending) could do for our railroads! Imagine how many doctors and nurses you could train! Think of the care you could provide for veterans, the elderly, and those with special needs!

I don't agree with everything in your posts, Comrade Fergie, but this, so much this.

While the paving stone canard is as old as works programs themselves (France, 1848 Revolution, Louis Blanc and the National Workshops), I would go even further.

Not a big science guy myself, but if in fact, as a recent Forbes piece put it, capitalism is going to kill the planet by 2050,a green federal works program is not only going to be a wonderful palliative for technological unemployment, but probably a prerequisite for human survival.

This is probably currently unrealizable in the present climate under either of the Parties of Racism, War and Capitalism Exploitation, which is sad for you pinkskins, but, happily, I am a goblin.


Fergie wrote:
So how did a lying self-proclaimed billionaire beat Hilary with populism? First off, while Trump is a shameless pathological liar, he did tell the truth about some really important stuff, that I have never heard from a mainstream politician in my entire life. For example, he called out bribery! I pay these politicians, and they do what I say. I paid Hillary and she came to my wedding. No one ever said that openly, and everyone knows it is true. He also called out the establishment/donor influence during the primaries. Basically, the two parties were so full of s+$!, they made Trump look honest by comparison. People know that politics is fake, and politicians are liars, but Trump seemed to be the...

I thought this was pretty good, too, although you lose me later in the post when you start saying that the Democrats need to take a credible stand, etc., and, of course, as always, the stuff about immigration.

Workers of the world, unite!

Vive le Galt!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Not a big science guy myself, but if in fact, as a recent Forbes piece put it, capitalism is going to kill the planet by 2050,a green federal works program is not only going to be a wonderful palliative for technological unemployment, but probably a prerequisite for human survival.

I really wish Obama had done more of this with the stimulus bill. Renovate government buildings to be more eco-friendly. Provide jobs, stimulate the green industry, and save maintenance costs in the future. Not sure how to his applies to the future of the Democratic Party but I always thought that was a missed opportunity.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Fergie wrote:
So how did a lying self-proclaimed billionaire beat Hilary with populism? First off, while Trump is a shameless pathological liar, he did tell the truth about some really important stuff, that I have never heard from a mainstream politician in my entire life. For example, he called out bribery! I pay these politicians, and they do what I say. I paid Hillary and she came to my wedding. No one ever said that openly, and everyone knows it is true. He also called out the establishment/donor influence during the primaries. Basically, the two parties were so full of s+$!, they made Trump look honest by comparison. People know that politics is fake, and politicians are liars, but Trump seemed to be the...

I thought this was pretty good, too, although you lose me later in the post when you start saying that the Democrats need to take a credible stand, etc., and, of course, as always, the stuff about immigration.

Workers of the world, unite!

Vive le Galt!!!

This I don't buy. I never bought into the argument you're going to get rid of government corruption by electing the guy who brags about corrupting the government.


I'd edit, but since Sir Meh has already responded, new post:

I erred when I said Forbes claimed capitalism was going to kill the planet by 2050. It really said that it was merely going to starve humanity.

And then the goblins will inherit...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
An interesting article wrote:

An oriental wise man always used to ask the divinity in his prayers to be so kind as to spare him from living in an interesting era. As we are not wise, the divinity has not spared us and we are living in an interesting era. In any case, our era forces us to take an interest in it. The writers of today know this. If they speak up, they are criticized and attacked. If they become modest and keep silent, they are vociferously blamed for their silence.

Source

Bold emphasis mine


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:


This I don't buy. I never bought into the argument you're going to get rid of government corruption by electing the guy who brags about corrupting the government.

Yeah, I agree, it's a stupid argument. Don't think I've ever spoken highly of the intelligence of the Trump voter.

But Comrade Fergie's explanation of their thinking does seem to jibe with the working class Trump voters (that weren't just straight up white supremacist douchebags) that I've interacted with and read articles about. YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Musings:

Obsessing over "Trump voters" and "why Clinton lost" 3+ months post-election is a waste of breathable air.

That is 3+ months of time flushed into the septic field spent agonizing over nothing. Nada. Squat. Zip. Zilch. Zero. By the rules of the "great game", the Democratic Party lost again.

Get this through your thick skulls, Democratic Party: you lost and have been losing because you won't ditch your 'paymasters' - who would seem to be continuing to provide funds to a pack of losers that cannot maintain even parity with "The Enemy" inserting rawrl grawrl snarl woof woof bite chomp sound effects here.

"But Mad Comrade, how do we regain relevance?"

I'm glad you asked.

See, there's this thing that the difference-maker voters respect called a "spine". Alternative nomenclature includes such phrases as " balls, cajones, nuts, stones, guts " and so on. Grow a pair of [insert spheroids of awesomeness here], hammer out stances that are not simple contrarianism - whether or not this is a fair observation is irrelevant - that it can be made as such is relevant and hammer those stances home.

2017 may be considered quiet, but this year is the Democratic Party's test run. If the (D) Party can't get the two governorships sewn up this year, WTF are they gonna do in 2018 with the bonanza of governorships, Congresscritters and Senatorcritters?

The (D) does not have enough strength to robustly oppose the GOP as things presently stand on a legislative and executive basis. You're missing dozens of governors and state legislatures, a couple hundred Congresscritters and a few dozen Senatecritters to put up more than token resistance.

In the short-term, reach out to the amenably-inclined elephants. Pence is a meathead, but he and 8 of 15 current Cabinetcritters may be amenable to invoking Article IV of the 25th Amendment. The short-term is going to be exhausting...


thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
The Democrats just need to field a strong candidate. Personally, I really like Elizabeth Warren, and have since well before most people had any idea who she was.

I like Warren. I'm not convinced I like her for a presidential candidate. We'll see. It's still a long time and a lot of work before that race. I'm far more concerned with 2018 than 2020 right now.

And with non-electoral opposition to Trump.

The other relevant consideration is that Warren herself doesn't seem to have the enthusiasm for running that particular gauntlet.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Musings:

Obsessing over "Trump voters" and "why Clinton lost" 3+ months post-election is a waste of breathable air.

That is 3+ months of time flushed into the septic field spent agonizing over nothing. Nada. Squat. Zip. Zilch. Zero. By the rules of the "great game", the Democratic Party lost again.

Get this through your thick skulls, Democratic Party: you lost and have been losing because you won't ditch your 'paymasters' - who would seem to be continuing to provide funds to a pack of losers that cannot maintain even parity with "The Enemy" inserting rawrl grawrl snarl woof woof bite chomp sound effects here.

I am amused by the common refrain of "Why are we wasting time arguing about why Democrats lost?" followed immediately by "You need to accept my explanation for why you lost."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Musings:

Obsessing over "Trump voters" and "why Clinton lost" 3+ months post-election is a waste of breathable air.

That is 3+ months of time flushed into the septic field spent agonizing over nothing. Nada. Squat. Zip. Zilch. Zero. By the rules of the "great game", the Democratic Party lost again.

Get this through your thick skulls, Democratic Party: you lost and have been losing because you won't ditch your 'paymasters' - who would seem to be continuing to provide funds to a pack of losers that cannot maintain even parity with "The Enemy" inserting rawrl grawrl snarl woof woof bite chomp sound effects here.

I am amused by the common refrain of "Why are we wasting time arguing about why Democrats lost?" followed immediately by "You need to accept my explanation for why you lost."

I'm more amused by the notion this thread is actually the Democratic Party planning committee.


Knight who says Meh wrote:


This I don't buy. I never bought into the argument you're going to get rid of government corruption by electing the guy who brags about corrupting the government.

It's not that Trump claimed (or people believed) that Trump was going to get rid of corruption. It was that voters know politics is a sleazy business, but maybe Trump might use his sleaze in a way that benefited the average guy. Trump played this very well, especially during the Republican primaries. Remember the crowd booing Trump, and him calling out that they were party insiders? It was his willingness to throw other politicians, The Party, and pundits and the press into the dirt that people liked, because those are the idiots who were telling them that it was in their best interest to vote for someone who was going to ship their jobs overseas with a big fake simile. They were very familiar with Hillary's brand of sleaze, and knew that they got screwed by it.

I should also note, for those joining in, that I myself am NOT a Trump fan or a Republican party fan, to put it mildly. I have just talked to enough people who voted for him to get an idea of what their reasoning was.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Musings:

Obsessing over "Trump voters" and "why Clinton lost" 3+ months post-election is a waste of breathable air.

That is 3+ months of time flushed into the septic field spent agonizing over nothing. Nada. Squat. Zip. Zilch. Zero. By the rules of the "great game", the Democratic Party lost again.

Get this through your thick skulls, Democratic Party: you lost and have been losing because you won't ditch your 'paymasters' - who would seem to be continuing to provide funds to a pack of losers that cannot maintain even parity with "The Enemy" inserting rawrl grawrl snarl woof woof bite chomp sound effects here.

I am amused by the common refrain of "Why are we wasting time arguing about why Democrats lost?" followed immediately by "You need to accept my explanation for why you lost."
I'm more amused by the notion this thread is actually the Democratic Party planning committee.

I really, really, really enjoy the thought of DNC staffers stumbling onto this thread and exclaiming, "ZOMG, we should have been on the Paizo message boards since before the election; we haven't considered any of this! You'd expect them to be RPG nerds, but it turns out they're the most politically informed people in the US, bar none! Hire them immediately!"

I enjoy reading and posting in this thread, but I think doing so makes about as much difference as getting sloshed and bulls**ting about politics with the rest of the barflies.


Agreed, which is why I find the discussion about background information more interesting. Why things are this way instead of that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I've definitely learned things in discussions like this, if only just how much some liberals despise Democrats. :)


Happy communist women's day!


Fergie wrote:
It was that voters know politics is a sleazy business, but maybe Trump might use his sleaze in a way that benefited the average guy.

When has he ever done that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Fergie wrote:
It was that voters know politics is a sleazy business, but maybe Trump might use his sleaze in a way that benefited the average guy.
When has he ever done that?

You're misunderstanding. Fergie isn't saying that the perceptions of Trump's supporters are true, he's just pointing out what many of those perceptions were/are.


Given that it's become a rather major rallying point for the democrats, how do people think the Ryancare plan is going to shake out and influence things going forward?

It looks like the proposed plan doesn't even have significant backing even within the party, with some more moderate republicans worrying about losing the medicaid expansion, while the Freedom Caucus seem to just really not want any plan at all. Seems like this is a reform that is destined to fail at this point, and potentially explode in the GOP's face.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Fergie wrote:
It was that voters know politics is a sleazy business, but maybe Trump might use his sleaze in a way that benefited the average guy.
When has he ever done that?
You're misunderstanding. Fergie isn't saying that the perceptions of Trump's supporters are true, he's just pointing out what many of those perceptions were/are.

Yeah, seems like the argument is the way to win is to lie and don't even bother to hide that you're lying.

But no one will ever trust Democrats even when they tell the truth, so they shouldn't bother.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


I enjoy reading and posting in this thread, but I think doing so makes about as much difference as getting sloshed and bulls**ting about politics with the rest of the barflies.

Yeap. What I don't get is the folks who consider the discussion a waste of their time. So much so, they decide to drop one liner threadcraps for weeks into months....

Sovereign Court

MMCJawa wrote:

Given that it's become a rather major rallying point for the democrats, how do people think the Ryancare plan is going to shake out and influence things going forward?

It looks like the proposed plan doesn't even have significant backing even within the party, with some more moderate republicans worrying about losing the medicaid expansion, while the Freedom Caucus seem to just really not want any plan at all. Seems like this is a reform that is destined to fail at this point, and potentially explode in the GOP's face.

How did Schumer describe it? "Half the coverage, but just as expensive?" Right now we are seeing the tea party influence and how completely unprepared the candidates are to govern. It's not necessarily the ideas (don't get me wrong they got their downsides) its the utter lack of execution and leadership. Bring it up to any Trump hooplehead though and they will say something about Hillary and emails, or worse, the cosmo pizza and soros conspiracy stuff. /shrug


MMCJawa wrote:

Given that it's become a rather major rallying point for the democrats, how do people think the Ryancare plan is going to shake out and influence things going forward?

It looks like the proposed plan doesn't even have significant backing even within the party, with some more moderate republicans worrying about losing the medicaid expansion, while the Freedom Caucus seem to just really not want any plan at all. Seems like this is a reform that is destined to fail at this point, and potentially explode in the GOP's face.

That's pretty much my impression and was pretty much inevitable. It's been obvious for years that Republicans have no viable alternative - nothing they could agree on, even within the party except that Obamacare was bad. Didn't really matter when they could just vote to repeal it, knowing it wouldn't happen.

Now they have to kill it, at least symbolically, since that's what they've campaigned on for 6 years, but it's going to be a hell of a struggle to agree on anything.

They're also doing this through budget reconciliation to avoid a filibuster, which imposes some constraints on what they can pass. And trying for a very fast timeline. We'll see if they can get anywhere.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Given that it's become a rather major rallying point for the democrats, how do people think the Ryancare plan is going to shake out and influence things going forward?

It looks like the proposed plan doesn't even have significant backing even within the party, with some more moderate republicans worrying about losing the medicaid expansion, while the Freedom Caucus seem to just really not want any plan at all. Seems like this is a reform that is destined to fail at this point, and potentially explode in the GOP's face.

How did Schumer describe it? "Half the coverage, but just as expensive?" Right now we are seeing the tea party influence and how completely unprepared the candidates are to govern. It's not necessarily the ideas (don't get me wrong they got their downsides) its the utter lack of execution and leadership. Bring it up to any Trump hooplehead though and they will say something about Hillary and emails, or worse, the cosmo pizza and soros conspiracy stuff. /shrug

Well, of course they're not prepared to govern. The entire ethos of the current Republican party is that governing is bad. They've been elected to tear government down, not make it work.

Turns out that might be more popular when you're the opposition than when you're actually in charge. People like results. If they don't get them from one party, they'll kick them out. Means that blocking everything and breaking things is good when you're not in power, since it encourages voters to throw out the incumbent party, but not so much when you're running things.

This, by the way, whatever the flaws of the current Democratic party, is the fundamental problem with modern American politics - starting in the Reagan era and getting progressively worse. The Republican party runs on "Government is bad" and gets rewarded for it. It's a dangerous trap for the country and I don't see a way out.


Hitdice wrote:
You'd expect them to be RPG nerds, but it turns out they're the most politically informed people in the US, bar none! Hire them immediately!"

That kind of thing has been tried. It wasn't successful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


I enjoy reading and posting in this thread, but I think doing so makes about as much difference as getting sloshed and bulls**ting about politics with the rest of the barflies.
Yeap. What I don't get is the folks who consider the discussion a waste of their time. So much so, they decide to drop one liner threadcraps for weeks into months....

Well, I know it's a waste of my time but this whole website is pretty much about wasting time. I'm just here so I don't bore my wife with all this nonsense.


thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Given that it's become a rather major rallying point for the democrats, how do people think the Ryancare plan is going to shake out and influence things going forward?

It looks like the proposed plan doesn't even have significant backing even within the party, with some more moderate republicans worrying about losing the medicaid expansion, while the Freedom Caucus seem to just really not want any plan at all. Seems like this is a reform that is destined to fail at this point, and potentially explode in the GOP's face.

That's pretty much my impression and was pretty much inevitable. It's been obvious for years that Republicans have no viable alternative - nothing they could agree on, even within the party except that Obamacare was bad. Didn't really matter when they could just vote to repeal it, knowing it wouldn't happen.

Now they have to kill it, at least symbolically, since that's what they've campaigned on for 6 years, but it's going to be a hell of a struggle to agree on anything.

They're also doing this through budget reconciliation to avoid a filibuster, which imposes some constraints on what they can pass. And trying for a very fast timeline. We'll see if they can get anywhere.

Their problem is that Obamacare was essentially the republican plan. It was the republican alternative to Hillarycare in the 90s. So of course they don't have another one.


Knight who says Meh wrote:


Their problem is that Obamacare was essentially the republican plan. It was the republican alternative to Hillarycare in the 90s. So of course they don't have another one.

Mind you, by "Republican Plan", we actually mean the plan that Republicans used to counter more progressive alternatives. Both in the 90s and with Romneycare in Mass.

They never actually wanted any plan, even this one.


Kung Fu Joe wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
You'd expect them to be RPG nerds, but it turns out they're the most politically informed people in the US, bar none! Hire them immediately!"
That kind of thing has been tried. It wasn't successful.

I am also reminded of this xkcd.


thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Their problem is that Obamacare was essentially the republican plan. It was the republican alternative to Hillarycare in the 90s. So of course they don't have another one.

Mind you, by "Republican Plan", we actually mean the plan that Republicans used to counter more progressive alternatives. Both in the 90s and with Romneycare in Mass.

They never actually wanted any plan, even this one.

Yeah, that's what I meant even though I wasn't explicit. Their real plan, as always, is do nothing.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Their problem is that Obamacare was essentially the republican plan. It was the republican alternative to Hillarycare in the 90s. So of course they don't have another one.

Mind you, by "Republican Plan", we actually mean the plan that Republicans used to counter more progressive alternatives. Both in the 90s and with Romneycare in Mass.

They never actually wanted any plan, even this one.
Yeah, that's what I meant even though I wasn't explicit. Their real plan, as always, is do nothing.

Nah, the real plan, regardless of the problem, is cut taxes. Whatever your trouble, that's the solution.

Here - cut the taxes on the rich that fund Obamacare, then offer tax credits in place of the subsidies.

More generally, if the economy is doing well - tax cuts for everyone. If the economy is in trouble, tax cuts will fix it right up. Running a surplus - cut taxes. Running a deficit, tax cuts will boost the economy and raise revenues.


Do anything fun for Communist Women's Day?

I took the kids out leafletting for our meeting, where, I hear, Slightly Lumpen Student Comrade killed it with her first public speech and we recruited four young women to the student club. Huzzah!

Later, when I reported for work, I was greeted by one of my union sisters, with whom I am pretty sure I have never discussed politics.

"Hey [Doodlebug], what are you doing here? It's Women's Day, shouldn't you be out protesting?"

[Blushes]

It's nice to have a rep as the company red.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'd been wondering how the GOP health care plan was supposed to work (i.e. not have people only buy insurance when they need it) given that they supposedly removed the individual mandate.

Turns out that despite a dozen news stories I read saying the individual mandate is gone... it isn't.

They just renamed it. Instead of paying a 'tax penalty' to the government if you do not maintain continuous coverage, the GOP plan would have you paying a 'subsidy' to insurance companies... so you'd be paying health insurance companies an annual fee to NOT provide you with health insurance.

Either way, you are required to have health insurance or pay a fine. The ACA would give that money to the government since they'd be the ones paying for any emergency treatment you received w/o insurance coverage. The AHCA would give the money to insurance companies... presumably to bribe them (along with the tax credits for insurance CEOs making over half a million dollars per year) not to oppose it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

I'd been wondering how the GOP health care plan was supposed to work (i.e. not have people only buy insurance when they need it) given that they supposedly removed the individual mandate.

Turns out that despite a dozen news stories I read saying the individual mandate is gone... it isn't.

They just renamed it. Instead of paying a 'tax penalty' to the government if you do not maintain continuous coverage, the GOP plan would have you paying a 'subsidy' to insurance companies... so you'd be paying health insurance companies an annual fee to NOT provide you with health insurance.

Either way, you are required to have health insurance or pay a fine. The ACA would give that money to the government since they'd be the ones paying for any emergency treatment you received w/o insurance coverage. The AHCA would give the money to insurance companies... presumably to bribe them (along with the tax credits for insurance CEOs making over half a million dollars per year) not to oppose it.

But, as I understand it, it's not a penalty for not having insurance. It's not an annual fee, it's a penalty when you try to get coverage again. You can stay uncovered for years with no payment.

So it does function as a subsidy to the insurance company, as you say, but it doesn't work well as an incentive to get coverage. Maybe to stay on if you can, but once you lose insurance, for whatever reason, there's no incentive to get back on. Until you're sick enough to need it badly. In fact, it raises the barrier to getting insurance again.

Which leads to the death spiral the mandate was designed to avoid. Younger, healthier people drop out or stay out of the market. Only the sick sign up. Premiums rise, since you're covering a less healthy population. More people are driven out. Premiums rise again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Do anything fun for Communist Women's Day?

Went down to NYC for Richard Wolff's monthly lecture on Socialism.

My girlfriend joined the march from Washington Square, briefly, but the lecture started not long after the march. Dropped my dollar for a copy of PLP's Challenge paper, but there was no one selling any other papers out front this time (usually I pick up a copy of Socialist Alternative there to bring back to the sticks).

Richard Wolff had some really interesting stuff to say as he always does, but I thought his brief history of Woman's Day, and it's connection to the Revolution of 1917 was especially relevant. Yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the March 8th 1917 revolution, which just so happened to be fueled by a woman's day events.

"The next day, a series of meetings and rallies were held for International Women's Day, which gradually turned into economic and political gatherings. Demonstrations were organized to demand bread, and these were supported by the industrial working force who considered them a reason for continuing the strikes. The women workers marched to nearby factories bringing out over 50,000 workers on strike."
From Wikipedia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All that talk earlier about the importance of identity politics and no one did anything for International Women's Day except me and the other red?!?

F+~!in' Democrats...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
But, as I understand it, it's not a penalty for not having insurance. It's not an annual fee, it's a penalty when you try to get coverage again. You can stay uncovered for years with no payment.

Ah, interesting. News articles have been less than helpful in getting a clear overview of the bill.

Yeah, I agree that strays closer to 'no mandate -> death spiral' territory. Indeed, it bizarrely manages to turn the requirement to maintain continuous coverage into a barrier against getting coverage.

Do you know if the subsidy increases based on the amount of time you were not covered? Wikipedia is calling it a 30% surcharge... and saying that the AHCA also removes the employer mandate? So, companies with lots of employees would no longer need to provide health insurance meeting minimum standards? That could really ramp up the 'death spiral' if many employers offer to pay more and cover the surcharge if/when needed.

For example, assuming it is a one time 30% surcharge over normal annual premium then your employer could say, 'I will not pay $1000 every year for you to have health insurance, but instead I will give you an extra $500 in annual salary and if/when you have a major medical expense (e.g. over $XYZ) I will pay the $1000 annual premium and $300 surcharge for non-continuous coverage. Makes sense in the short term for both employers AND employees... HORRIBLE for insurance companies... and thus leading directly to insurance prices going through the roof for everyone.

PS to Comrade AB - I told several of the women at my office that it was international women's day. They all said, "What's that?".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

All that talk earlier about the importance of identity politics and no one did anything for International Women's Day except me and the other red?!?

F!++in' Democrats...

Maybe. Or maybe you're the only ones who're so insecure about your political affiliation that you're pathologically unable to go without mentioning how active you are. :P


Well, propaganda and agitation are important tasks, so, good job, Citizen Dunkerson!

‘Raising up women and girls’: Kansas Citians acknowledge International Women’s Day

Although, IIRC my flyover geography, that's actually in Missouri.


Hitdice wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

All that talk earlier about the importance of identity politics and no one did anything for International Women's Day except me and the other red?!?

F!++in' Democrats...

Maybe. Or maybe you're the only ones who're so insecure about your political affiliation that you're pathologically unable to go without mentioning how active you are. :P

You leave Comrade Fergie out of this and address all your concerns about pathological compulsions towards me, Dicey.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But, as I understand it, it's not a penalty for not having insurance. It's not an annual fee, it's a penalty when you try to get coverage again. You can stay uncovered for years with no payment.

Ah, interesting. News articles have been less than helpful in getting a clear overview of the bill.

Yeah, I agree that strays closer to 'no mandate -> death spiral' territory. Indeed, it bizarrely manages to turn the requirement to maintain continuous coverage into a barrier against getting coverage.

Do you know if the subsidy increases based on the amount of time you were not covered? Wikipedia is calling it a 30% surcharge... and saying that the AHCA also removes the employer mandate? So, companies with lots of employees would no longer need to provide health insurance meeting minimum standards? That could really ramp up the 'death spiral' if many employers offer to pay more and cover the surcharge if/when needed.

For example, assuming it is a one time 30% surcharge over normal annual premium then your employer could say, 'I will not pay $1000 every year for you to have health insurance, but instead I will give you an extra $500 in annual salary and if/when you have a major medical expense (e.g. over $XYZ) I will pay the $1000 annual premium and $300 surcharge for non-continuous coverage. Makes sense in the short term for both employers AND employees... HORRIBLE for insurance companies... and thus leading directly to insurance prices going through the roof for everyone.

Better get that nailed down in rock solid legal language in your contract, because the more common result of major medical events is that they find an excuse to fire you and then you've got nothing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Happy deadpools favorite holiday

2,101 to 2,150 of 4,260 << first < prev | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards