progressives are bad for the democrats

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 40
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
i'm a life long democrat supporter, but i'm considering switching sides if these multi trillion dollar budgets keep getting passed. 

most democrats are pretty conservative. they are moderate, at least. they aren't run away liberals. but these radical progressives believe in all the things that we know republicans dont believe in, and that most democrats dont either. things like universal child care, universal housing, universal tuition... they just throw money at problems even if their methods suck. there are lots of constructive ways to adddress those issues without throwing money at them. plus, they pour fire on race relations calling everything racist. being woke is okay if all it means is you are aware of racial injustice, but not when you are actually being reverse racist. most people dont vote based on transgender rights or any of that garbage. 

i wrote another thread on it, but healthcare is my main issue. it's possible to raise taxes for a universal plan, that the republicans would just cut the taxes, leaving us bankrupt. the only way that makes sense to get costs down is to regulate costs, and then find a way to get the uninsured under a plan. none of the dems talk this way.... they just want to throw money at the problem, as usual. 

democratic socialists, is what they are. but they are no better than libertarians in their radical ways. i'm strongly anti economic libertarian.... those guys are clowns. but democratic socialists are just clowns coming from the other direction. 
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It's too late though. >3% Inflation is set to hit for at least 4-8 years no matter what. Could get pretty bad and ugly. Doesn't matter if they don't pass any more spending or debt at this point.
#3
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
"[...]The cumulative gross domestic product of the United States during the 10 years from 2022 to 2031 will be $288 trillion. The $3.5 trillion Build Back Better agenda is therefore just 1.2 percent of GDP."


This really is a tiny amount for much needed infrastructure...


#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@n8nrgmi

Well, Trump did give the rich a tax break that will cost $2 trillion. Eisenhower had a top tax rate of 92 percent to pay off the debt of WW2 which was a smaller percent of GDP than our debt today.
#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
Don't believe the hype.

  • Do you realize that the House just passed a budget bill that is twice as large as the American Job Plan and the American Family Plan put together? It's true.
    •  The Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, authorizing a total of $768 billion Defense spending next year passed Sept 24th on a 316-113 vote.
    • Even if Biden got his full $3.5 trillion for both bills under consideration (currently its looking like about $2 trillion will pass) that amount is budgeted over ten years or $350 billion/year or 45% of the Defense Bill.  At $2 trillion, it 26%.
    • The Defense Bill is incredibly wasteful and corrupt.  Billions are still being pumped into the F-35 program although we don't really need a gigantic jet fighter that is much slower than anything China is flying.  Billions are still being pumped into Zumwalt destroyers although the Navy now admits it doesn't really need giant artilleries to bombard coastlines anymore.  Huge amounts of this budget go straight into Republican pockets. 
      • Worst of all, this budget adds to the US debt and deficit.  But passage of this bill barely made the news.
    • The biggest line item in Biden's bill is replacing lead pipes across the country.
      • There is NO universal childcare
        • There is $200 billion in child care tax credits
      • There is NO universal housing
        • There is $200 billion for 2 million more units of public housing ($100,000 per house)
      • There is NO universal tuition
        • There is $200 billion in tax credits for all kids to attend nursery school (pre-K)
        • There is $300 billion in grants and tax credits for high-schoolers to go to 2 yr Community college or trade schools 
          • (Personally, I think Google and Amazon should be footing this bill since corporations are howling about how inadequately trained the workforce is)
        • There is a plan for universal broadband internet access.
      • There is NO universal healthcare
        • There is $200 in tax credits and subsidies to increase paid family leave and medical leave.
        • Unlike the much more expensive Defense bill, these bills contain their own payment plans and do not add to the US debt or deficit to any substantial degree. 
          • They do significantly increase taxes on large corporation and the 1%.
    • Trump and Republicans added $16 Trillion (by 2026) to the National Debt, doubling the size of our debt in 4 short years with not a single, solitary, god-damned improvement for the American people to show for all of that money.  Most of that money was spent on the pandemic, the military, and outright graft.  Republicans actually pulled $2 trillion out of spending on health, education, and familycare- creating the present crisis in unavailable workers.
      • The GOP pisses away $16 trillion in four years and the media says nothing.  Biden wants to recover a little of what has been taken from us, less than a quarter of what Trump threw away, and we have Democrats complaining about radical spending.  Fuck that.
      • By Biden's account, the Progressives are unhappy at how little we are doing to recover but they support the Democratic Party and are on board.   Don't blame the Progressives, they are going along with the moderates.
        • Now we are just trying to figure out what is motivating Sinema and Manchin in the hopes that they will help pass this bill.

Topic's author
#6
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
the 3.5 trillion is in addition to a separate infrastructure bill. it doesn't make sense to to increase spending when we have such high deficits. it's like what republicans do just opposite, they cut taxes even if spending isn't under control. the bottom line is that spending needs to become under control and all they're doing is adding more and more. 
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
the 3.5 trillion is in addition to a separate infrastructure bill.
That's wrong- $2 trillion for American Jobs Plan (infrastructure) + $1.5 trillion for American Family Plan (most of which is probably already cut) =$3.5 trillion

The majority of the $3.5 trillion is the infrastructure bill.
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
There's no plan at all right now to address inflation and rising prices and product shortages.
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
It's so laughable that the progressive Democrats keep pushing the free lunch philosophy in the middle of a high inflationary period as if there are no consequences to anything Washington DC does. 
Topic's author
#10
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi

The Senate passed a massive bipartisan infrastructure bill in early August after months of negotiations.
In total, the deal includes $550 billion in new federal investments in America's infrastructure over five years.

However, the package would add $256 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report.

The bill must be approved by the House before it can head to President Joe Biden's desk. But House progressives don't want to vote on the bipartisan infrastructure legislation before also voting to pass a separate $3.5 trillion spending bill that would remake a lot of the country's social safety net system -- and also likely raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
maybe i'm missing something but that CNN article makes it look like there's an infrastructure bill, and a separate three and a half trillion social bill. 
Topic's author
#11
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi

my main point to all of you is that progressives are bad for the democratic party. i'm not necessarily arguing abotu specific bills. when they push 'universal everything', that's a major problem. your points on the bill are irrelevant to that. but i will address your points about the specific bill. 

the fact that the current bills are so watered down, shows that the full versions the progressives want, would never be feasible. it shows that the democrats tending are more moderate than the far out progressives. 

just because congress spends too much on the military doesn't justify spending so much elsewhere. 

there's still too much waste even in your examples. but the thing is, congress should get the deficit under control first, before finding new ways to tax and spend. even if they're raising taxes for new spending, the deficit should have come first. 

some examples of waste: 
-i dont mind child care tax credits for poor people... they shouldn't be paying taxes if they can't afford child care. 
-they shouldnt spend so much on buildings for a select few people. all that does is add to the lottery system that is the public housing system, where only a select few get assistance. they could give loans that are paid back for more housing, and bully localities to allow cheaper and more housing. i know you made the point that i tend to accept, that we can't just pool poor people in shelters due to social costs like drug use.... but if we have no choice there are cheaper ways to get people under shelter than shelling out so much to buy buildings and pay people's rent. HUD already spends enough to seed whatever initatives congress has. 
-paying people's tuition isn't efficient. they need to regulate college costs by not allowing colleges to charge too much. if all you do is throw money at it all, it will just ramp up costs even more. they also need to stop subsidizing arts degrees and such... my point is that there's lots of ways to make it all more efficient than just throwing money at it. 
-universal pre k is a waste of money. all that program is good for is giving parents child care so they can work. but public school is much more expensive than child care. i've never seen a good example of public child care, but getting people to watch each other's kids doesn't have to cost a lot if parents and all levels of government are chipping in. id rather pay for child care than schooling. 
-i dont mind universal broad band since internet is so crucial 
-there's no good reason to pay for family leave... congress should just require busiessnes find a way to provide it themselves. 



#12
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@n8nrgmi
democratic socialists
That's what they call themselves, but the term, created out of somebody's butt, is worth about what comes out of it. The reality is that they know Americans will not embrace socialism, the naked word, but hang "democratic" on the front of it, they think, makes it palatable.
Look up the definition of "democracy," you'll usually encounter something like, "a system of government by the whole population, typically through representation.
That is not what progressives really want. They know that socialism isn't really what they want, either, because socialism's mantra, at least what it sells, is that ownership of property and businesses is still owned by the people, and that is somewhat palatable, too. 
What progressives really want is communism, but that is, in America, wholly unpalatable, so far, because that distinction is that government owns everything.
The problem is, once given sufficient power by socialism, political man is too greedy to be satisfied by populace ownership. They will take it the first night you're not watching. Observe, for example, how they already want to own your voting rights, specifically to prevent our maintenance of populace control.

I see, in the Green New Deal, something called "Participatory Budgeting," by which a GND government commission would "participate" in private industry budgeting. Participate? Sure, and pigs fly. "Participate" really means "occupy;" the government occupies private industry budgeting. What, pray tell, has that to do with environment?  Absolutely nothing. GND is a buzz word for communism.

So, yes, you are correct: progressivism is bad for democrats, and everybody else.
#13
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
What progressives really want is communism
I see right wing propaganda is alive and well.
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
So, yes, you are correct: progressivism is bad for democrats, and everybody else.

Bill Maher agrees.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
It really takes a seriously drunken monkey to believe raising taxes, borrowing and printing money, and having Washington DC spend a portion of what you produce is going to lower the presently rising inflation rate.
#16
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
it isn't conservatives who invented "democratic socialism," is it? Propaganda? TYeah, on the left. Far left/..
#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
How many Billions got thrown at Afghanistan and the Middle East, in the USA's futile attempt at revenge.

Universal childcare....What a bummer

Universal housing.....What a bummer

Universal tuition.......What a bummer

Who thinks up this nonsense?

Let's go bomb the fuck out of somewhere obscure for 20 years......Now that's money well spent.
#18
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@949havoc
 Where are you getting this "Participatory Budgeting" from? It doesn't seem to be in the GND text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
#19
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
One way health care costs are regulated is by requiring people to purchase them. Otherwise the most liable people will be the ones buying health insurance, driving the cost up because health insurance companies will want to cover their losses.
#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
Progressives are generally Social Democrats or soft dem-soc, they are rarely actually socialists who really uphold democratic socialism.

That said, I admit that genuine Democratic Socialists fall under the umbrella of Progressivism. You're pooling together socdems with demsocs, dem-soc is much stricter left-wing and is as certain in its quest for equality of outcome than socdems are with their quest for equality of opportunity.
#21
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Corporatists say progressives are bad for the democrats.

While progressives say corporatists are bad for democracy. 

Let’s let the moderates decide which is the more pressing issue.




#22
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
it isn't conservatives who invented "democratic socialism," is it? Propaganda? TYeah, on the left. Far left/..
“I know you are but what am I?” worked in third grade.

Your claim had nothing to do with socialism, you were talking about communism invoked from a complete slippery slope.
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
All central planning is communism.
#24
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
Reading comprehension is an acquired skill, not an automatic. I discussed both socialism and communism, and pointed out the distinct difference.
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
GND is 100% central planning AKA communism.
#26
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
most democrats are pretty conservative.
lol
#27
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
I discussed both socialism and communism, and pointed out the distinct difference.
Mentioning the word communism is not the same thing as discussing it.

Misrepresenting left wing ideals by calling them communism is not the same thing as discussing it.

Words have actual meaning. If you’re trying to make an argument it’s normally a good idea to stick to them.
#28
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@FLRW
Eisenhower had a top tax rate of 92 percent to pay off the debt of WW2 which was a smaller percent of GDP than our debt today.
That's an incredibly deceptive claim. The top 1%'s average effective tax rate in the 1950s was about 42% between federal, state, and local taxes.

You could pass a 99% tax on all income, and as long as there are plenty of deductions and credits to be taken advantage of, nobody will be paying anywhere close to 99%.

Nominal rates, in other words, mean essentially nothing at face value.
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Laffer curve is a real thing. You lose tax revenue if you raise rates too much.
#30
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Laffer curve is a real thing. You lose tax revenue if you raise rates too much.

I don't think most people really dispute that. Most of the argumentation is related to the point at which tax revenue starts to decrease