2017: Whither Democrats?


She’s too moderate policywise (opposes Medicare for all). I admire her, but would never vote her in a primary.


I think he would. The issue is I don’t have any clue what the Republican party stands for any more. The only unifying principal is appointing “conservative” judges, and pissing of liberals. I agree with Timex, Kaisch with a Democratic Congress, along with some old school Republican over coming filibuster might actually lead to an effective government.

Fiscal discipline matters, it is clear that neither party has it any more, so it would probably fall on president to use the veto to make it happen, and Kasich is a good choice for that. But Kasich is a pure pipe dream for Timex and I.

2020 ABCD election for me, Anyone But Crooked/Craptastic Donny, so I’ll be voting for the most moderate Democrat, but their politics will be secondary to their competence and character.


Also, tax reduction weighted to the wealthy and to corporations.


If the issue is that you don’t know what the Republican Party stands for any more, and if you think it only stands for appointing so-called conservative judges and pissing off liberals, then why on earth would you vote for any Republican for President? Isn’t that just asking for trouble?

Kasich will not be for tax increases on the wealthy. He will not be for military spending cuts of any substance. He will be for tax cuts on the wealthy, and he’ll be for improving the budget by cutting social services.


Because his (former) team, right or wrong?


No Republican is a fiscal conservative anymore.


No Republican ever was.


And at some point strengthening the internal security force (police) to maintain and protect the property of the wealthy as poverty drives more criminal and violent acts.


I think Reagan actually believed his bullshit. Because when the numbers didn’t add up, he started increasing taxes. Same for Bush Sr. But the experiment failed, the theory was incorrect. Everyone who came afterwards knew it to be so and was lying.


Of course the taxes he raised were Social Security, which only working people pay, while the rich got to keep their ridiculous tax cut.


Something about this rings a bell…


It’s probably worth considering who was in Congress during those periods of time, since they have more control over the budget than the president.

I mean, the Republicans in Congress were there ones who actually balanced the budget.


Keep fucking that chicken.


Oh, well clearly I hadn’t considered that point.


And that Republican’s name? John “Ice Cream Forker” Kasich


Because it’s fucking hilarious.


Yet the Democrats were in charge of Congress for 40 years before the Gingrich revolution occurred, and during that time the debt declined steadily every single year until Reagan showed up. Who was responsible for that decline? Tax-and-spend liberals?

It’s certainly true Gingrich used Reagan’s deficits as a lever with which to attack social services spending in the US, but I don’t think any reasoning person believes it was out of some sense of responsibility. Newt Gingrich?


Obama also was getting the deficit under control while preventing the 2nd Great depression. He had the hardest job of any president since FDR, and he did as well as he could have.


And you had Republican presidents during that period, too. Dude, Congress controls the spending. That’s how it works. It’s just more complex than your simplistic graph makes it out to be.

It’s naive at best, and intentionally intellectually dishonest at worst, to try to lay things like the national debt in the feet of presidents.

Under Reagan, the Democrats controlled Congress. Every spending bill came from Tip ONeil. Hell, the first Bush largely lost his reelection because he agreed to raise taxes, specifically because of his fiscal conservatism. He actually thought we needed to pay for our stuff. And under Clinton again, the Republican Congress absolutely did walk the walk when it came to fiscal conservatism. They actually balanced the budget.

You can’t just say, “they never cared about it”, because they clearly did. They actually acted on those principles once upon a time.

They certainly don’t care about those things NOW, but that graph is, at best, revisionist.


And, of course, the president can veto an appropriation. Which stands unless Congress can override it, so they kind of need the executive go along with what’s proposed. Seems fair to blame both branches. It’s more complex than your simplistic refutation makes it out to be ;)