Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[hayden_horn 11360]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

She literally says, "the same way we pay for <list of other things we pay for>". That's the answer, and it's the correct answer. The question was literally how do we pay for it and we pay for it the same way we pay for everything else.

If Anderson Cooper wanted to ask, "How do we make sure everything is either immediately revenue neutral?" then he should've asked that. But he didn't, and others don't, because it's a stupid question.

If he (and others) are fishing for a specific answer, then ask better questions. It's not her job or anyone else's job to imagine what the potential subtext of a question is.

 

eh, she could have answered it more clearly. if trump gave an answer like that, we'd all shake our heads and furrow our brows.

what about this other thing is never the answer. instead, she should have clearly delineated the source of the funding for all the things. instead of saying "we pay for these other things, why can't we pay for this also?" she should have said something bolder like "we'll cut some funding from these columns. we know we aren't building a wall, and we know this notion of a space force is silly." etc.

anderson cooper is not her republican enemy, yet she comes across as slightly chiding him for daring to ask the question as though he represents the average republican critic (and yes, i know he framed the question in that manner, but that doesn't mean she has to answer it thus). 

she's got a good point in there. she just needs to work on her delivery, and, at all costs, avoid the whataboutism that has plagued our country for so long.

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

She literally says, "the same way we pay for <list of other things we pay for>". That's the answer, and it's the correct answer. The question was literally how do we pay for it and we pay for it the same way we pay for everything else.

If Anderson Cooper wanted to ask, "How do we make sure everything is either immediately revenue neutral?" then he should've asked that. But he didn't, and others don't, because it's a stupid question.

If he (and others) are fishing for a specific answer, then ask better questions. It's not her job or anyone else's job to imagine what the potential subtext of a question is.

 

They’re piling up debt so we should get ours too.  No.  If both sides go there, then fuck both sides.  And I realize, right now, that’s where we are.  

[DigglerontheHoof 21022]

The more I learn about her, the more I like. 

[wildcat09 29187]

17 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Her policy answer is fine if she says what you did.  She didn’t.  She goes, ‘what about their shitty fiscal ideas?’   

I actually think it's valuable to point out that the media obsessively focuses on how we'll pay for the shit we should actually pay for while it never gives two shits about how we'll pay for shit we shouldn't pay for (which are always Republican ideas). The GOP has spent the past 30+ years working the refs so that their economic policy views are simply considered acceptable by default, despite the fact that they're complete and utter nonsense and have been concretely disproven by all available evidence. 

Public framing has an enormous impact on how policy proposals are viewed by the public and even what is within the realm of discussion. Dems will never be able to pass anything they propose regardless of how much good a proposal might do if they continue to allow a Republican-cajoled media to frame the debate. They need to start working the refs. And I'm just going to preempt the "but then they're just acting like Republicans and really then I might as well vote for Trump!" that I'm sure someone wants to say by pointing out that that's really fucking stupid and there isn't some high-minded alternative that can actually be an effective political strategy.

[bad_teammate 13125]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

eh, she could have answered it more clearly.

Her literal words: "With the same exact mechanisms we use to pay for ..."

Was she supposed to explain how appropriations work? If he wanted a specific answer, he should've asked a specific question.

"How does this hammer work?"
- "The same way all hammers work."

Quote

instead, she should have clearly delineated the source of the funding for all the things. instead of saying "we pay for these other things, why can't we pay for this also?" she should have said something bolder like "we'll cut some funding from these columns. we know we aren't building a wall, and we know this notion of a space force is silly." etc.

Why? Seriously, why? Why make the investments she's talking about contingent on any other program's funding? That's ridiculous.

The right-wing is shining a laser pointer onto the ground and you guys chase it around like a cat.

Quote

anderson cooper is not her republican enemy, yet she comes across as slightly chiding him for daring to ask the question as though he represents the average republican critic (and yes, i know he framed the question in that manner, but that doesn't mean she has to answer it thus). 

A stern-faced decorum centrist asking a right-wing attack question in a grave tone deserves even less respect than she gave him.

 

[wildcat09 29187]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

eh, she could have answered it more clearly. if trump gave an answer like that, we'd all shake our heads and furrow our brows.

what about this other thing is never the answer. instead, she should have clearly delineated the source of the funding for all the things. instead of saying "we pay for these other things, why can't we pay for this also?" she should have said something bolder like "we'll cut some funding from these columns. we know we aren't building a wall, and we know this notion of a space force is silly." etc.

 anderson cooper is not her republican enemy, yet she comes across as slightly chiding him for daring to ask the question as though he represents the average republican critic (and yes, i know he framed the question in that manner, but that doesn't mean she has to answer it thus). 

she's got a good point in there. she just needs to work on her delivery, and, at all costs, avoid the whataboutism that has plagued our country for so long.

Nobody has ever expected that from any Republican, ever.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

They need to start working the refs.

Yep, they need to go on offense more attacking the GOP shitty ideas instead of being on constant defense because the GOP does nothing but attack.  It's way past time the Republicans got painted into a corner. 

[pyrohornIII 4801]

2 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This changes everything......

The obsession runs wide and deep.  The only thing that it rivals is Aggy's obsession with Texas and the football board's obsession with officiating....

Yep, they do everything they can to make her come off as stupid, these same assclowns that ran Palin for VP. 

 

2 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

We are so well programmed to think that anything that is of tangible benefit to we the people rather than the .01 percent we have an immediate negative reaction to it.

 

We are a nation of whipped dogs. 

This, so much this.  Right out of Joe Bageant's mouth.  We have been tamed and trained.  They started with dumbing us down, then they let us get fat and happy, well content...well, too lazy to object to anything.   And the trumpkins are the ones afraid somehow they will lose that neat little lifestyle.  And it will all be because of some person with a darker skin tone. 

 

Quote

“There was and still is a tremendous fear that poor and working-class Americans might one day come to understand where their political interests reside. Personally, I think the elites worry too much about that. We dumb working folk were clubbed into submission long ago, and now require only proper medication for our high levels of cholesterol, enough alcohol to keep the sludge moving through our arteries, and a 24/7 mind-numbing spectacle of titties, tabloid TV, and terrorist dramas. Throw in a couple of new flavours of XXL edible thongs, and you've got a nation of drowsing hippos who will never notice that our country has been looted, or even that we have become homeless ourselves.”
― Joe Bageant, Rainbow Pie

 

[RomaVicta 29756]

We know she functions well under a microscope. We know she's a cheerful warrior. We know she actually puts the people first. 

She's great. FOX and the right wing megaphones will spin and misrepresent her relentlessly. I think maybe the worm has turned. I don't think ridicule from the ridiculous carries the weight it used to. That ridicule has become so absurd, that Ocasio-Cortez may be the conquistadora to get in their heads and bring them down.

Oh, another thing I like about her is that my white knight tendencies are not aroused. She can take care of herself. Her laughing little dance outside of her office flushed the criticism of her high school dance with one brilliant, visual stroke. Attack her with something laughable and you will be laughed at.

I only know her through the Trumpist right's focus on her. She's killing them.

Edited January 7, 2019 by RomaVicta

[bad_teammate 13125]

19 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

They’re piling up debt so we should get ours too.  No.  If both sides go there, then fuck both sides.  And I realize, right now, that’s where we are.  

Wait, what? What does this even mean?

Do you think that these policy proposals exist merely to spend money for the sake of spending money? What are you even whining about?

[hayden_horn 11360]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Nobody has ever expected that from any Republican, ever.

yea

 

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Her literal words: "With the same exact mechanisms we use to pay for ..."

Was she supposed to explain how appropriations work? If he wanted a specific answer, he should've asked a specific question.

"How does this hammer work?"
- "The same way all hammers work."

Why? Seriously, why? Why make the investments she's talking about contingent on any other program's funding? That's ridiculous.

The right-wing is shining a laser pointer onto the ground and you guys chase it around like a cat.

A stern-faced decorum centrist asking a right-wing attack question in a grave tone deserves even less respect than she gave him.

 

i'm not chasing anything around. i actually like the moxie this lady has. i want her to succeed. my suggestions on how to better answer questions stem from my wanting success here. i do understand that she's been pretty unfairly maligned by the republicans who have targeted her as the enemy of the state, when the extent of her power as a freshman rep from a new york district is not the same as their god kind donald trump. if she doesn't like gotcha questions, call out he gotcha questions, or explain shit as pedantically as possible. i think it's fairly simple.

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Nobody has ever expected that from any Republican, ever.

she's not any republican, ever. she's proposing great new policies and there's a fair question as to how we will pay for them. the fucking government is partially shut down over a question of funding a policy. it's a fair question.

[hayden_horn 11360]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yep, they need to go on offense more attacking the GOP shitty ideas instead of being on constant defense because the GOP does nothing but attack.  It's way past time the Republicans got painted into a corner. 

and also this. she needs to be bolder, even. call out these hypocrite motherfuckers.

[RomaVicta 29756]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The right-wing is shining a laser pointer onto the ground and you guys chase it around like a cat.

Repped! That's a great line. Congrats if you invented it or were just wise enough to use it.

[Dahobbs 17420]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Her literal words: "With the same exact mechanisms we use to pay for ..."

Was she supposed to explain how appropriations work? If he wanted a specific answer, he should've asked a specific question.

"How does this hammer work?"
- "The same way all hammers work."

Why? Seriously, why? Why make the investments she's talking about contingent on any other program's funding? That's ridiculous.

The right-wing is shining a laser pointer onto the ground and you guys chase it around like a cat.

A stern-faced decorum centrist asking a right-wing attack question in a grave tone deserves even less respect than she gave him.

 

I don't always agree with bad_teammate, but when I do it is for posts like this. 

We have two regimes for analyzing proposals: 

* Republican idea = assume the item is necessary and that paying for it is good idea regardless of its impact on budget;

* Democratic idea = require proving that item has a specific funding source, will be revenue neutral, or can be paid for by cutting other programs

Instead of looking at every single policy decision and asking "how will we pay for this specific item," we should separate the two discussions. First, let's identify what we need and how much we are willing to pay for it. And then, we can separately look at ways to improve the budget by either increasing revenue or by cutting unnecessary or unwanted programs. If we keep connecting the two for every social investment, we are never going to get anything significant done. 

[pyrohornIII 4801]

18 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

The more I learn about her, the more I like. 

Yes, I am in the same boat.  She was more pointing out how they always ask how do you pay for social programs, but never ask the same for defense, the wall, space force, etc.  Why are these latter things accepted as something that we should be on the hook for, but social programs are not?  I think she is pushing for asking questions on things she feels go unchecked, and why?  If you are going to nitpick over funding for healthcare, fine.  But same transparency and depth in discussing military spending for instance. 

She is not going to lay out specific plans at this point.  There are too many options out there.  Now she could have said something along the lines of "give us time to develop a plan."  But she could also have said "yes it will cost, but why don't people ever think about the rewards of a program?  Why not look at what we can expect to achieve.   Point in being, if we invest in education, then we get smarter people, have better ideas and eventually that pays off for us in the long run as a civilization.  You always ask about costs, but never consider rewards." 

She's not going to box herself into a corner on some of these baiting questions.  Not with everyone looking for anything they can to discredit her.

I admire her, the amount of scrutiny and popularity she is getting.  That level of attention would turn a lot of heads.    Her's seems to be on pretty straight still.  And she hasn't been thrown off by any of the negative press.  She's punching back.  I like that. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

my suggestions on how to better answer questions stem from my wanting success here.

By "wanting success" do you mean that you want her to pass her proposals through Congress and get them enacted into law?

If yes, there is no significant voting bloc that both (A) cares deeply about budget balancing and (B) cares deeply about all Americans having a guaranteed right to medical care. Build a picture in your mind of a voter for whom balanced budget is #1 on their list and universal healthcare is #2. The picture you should have in your mind is a horse with a single pointed horn growing out of its forehead, because you're imagining a unicorn.

Unicorns can't vote, so why even try to appeal to them?

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

By "wanting success" do you mean that you want her to pass her proposals through Congress and get them enacted into law?

If yes, there is no significant voting bloc that both (A) cares deeply about budget balancing and (B) cares deeply about all Americans having a guaranteed right to medical care. Build a picture in your mind of a voter for whom balanced budget is #1 on their list and universal healthcare is #2. The picture you should have in your mind is a horse with a single pointed horn growing out of its forehead, because you're imagining a unicorn.

Unicorns can't vote, so why even try to appeal to them?

yup, you're right. fuck it. why even bother asking her any questions, then?

i know i'm in a vast minority of voters who think we should reassess our funding priorities as a country. that i'm probably somewhere in the 0.5% of voters who think it's important to have bold new policy ideas like the ACA but also have a mind on how to fund the fucking thing. 

god fucking forbid.

[GSU&UT 1798]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't always agree with bad_teammate, but when I do it is for posts like this. 

We have two regimes for analyzing proposals: 

* Republican idea = assume the item is necessary and that paying for it is good idea regardless of its impact on budget;

* Democratic idea = require proving that item has a specific funding source, will be revenue neutral, or can be paid for by cutting other programs

Instead of looking at every single policy decision and asking "how will we pay for this specific item," we should separate the two discussions. First, let's identify what we need and how much we are willing to pay for it. And then, we can separately look at ways to improve the budget by either increasing revenue or by cutting unnecessary or unwanted programs. If we keep connecting the two for every social investment, we are never going to get anything significant done. 

The best, and I mean the absolute best replies to her account on twitter are from the centrist/right-wingers "Learn some economics woman! Did you even study economics??!" You mean how most economists now agree that our taxes on large corporations and the most wealthy are too low?

[pyrohornIII 4801]

12 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

We know she functions well under a microscope. We know she's a cheerful warrior. We know she actually puts the people first. 

She's great. FOX and the right wing megaphones will spin and misrepresent her relentlessly. I think maybe the worm has turned. I don't think ridicule from the ridiculous carries the weight it used to. That ridicule has become so absurd, that Ocasio-Cortez may be the conquistadora to get in their heads and bring them down.

Oh, another thing I like about her is that my white knight tendencies are not aroused. She can take care of herself. Her laughing little dance outside of her office flushed the criticism of her high school dance with one brilliant, visual stroke. Attack her with something laughable and you will be laughed at.

I only know her through the Trumpist right's focus on her. She's killing them.

This, we saw some of this up close with Beto.  He nearly won a whole state, not just a district.  I think he would have if he would have fought back more.  I don't mean mudslinging, but just pointing out the hypocrisy so bluntly that it can't be denied.  That is what she has been able to do, and the humor also helps. 

[Brew 3044]

35 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Nobody has ever expected that from any Republican, ever.

Really, there is no one on this website that questioned how we are paying for R proposals or the tax cut proposals? Fuck that. It should be asked of everyone and a plan should be laid out. I’m not calling her out specifically, but am calling out this practice of more and more with no plans that you guys are eating up because you like the message. You can like the message and still want to know how we are paying for it. If everyone spent more time figuring out how we are paying for things, we may not be in this quagmire we are currently are in. Saying we’ll do what we always do is not a plan.

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

yup, you're right. fuck it. why even bother asking her any questions, then?

i know i'm in a vast minority of voters who think we should reassess our funding priorities as a country. that i'm probably somewhere in the 0.5% of voters who think it's important to have bold new policy ideas like the ACA but also have a mind on how to fund the fucking thing. 

god fucking forbid.

The problem is that by connecting the two you allow the discussion of "how do we pay" to completely drown out the discussion of "do we need this and how much will it benefit us."  Let's have two separate discussions to prevent that happening. I imagine if you asked her, "how do you improve the government's ability to pay for things?", the answer would probably be a combination of increasing taxes on certain groups (high income, corporations, and capital gains), decreasing funding in other programs, and potentially a healthcare specific tax. 

[wildcat09 29187]

To illustrate my point, this gets into what a charade Paul Ryan's "proposals" were: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/paul-ryans-57-trillion-magic-trick/274069/

Quote

I'm not really a fan of magic, but I'm even less of one when it's politicians doing the tricks.

 

That's why I've had some less-than-nice things to say about Paul Ryan's latest budget. Like its previous iterations, it explicitly says how he wants to cut taxes, but says nothing about how he wants to pay for it. Instead, Ryan uses a magic asterisk. He merely waves his hand, and says he'll cut enough tax expenditures to pay for all of his tax cuts. He just can't tell us what any of these tax expenditures are. Not a single one.

 

This is some pretty expensive hand-waving. Now, I have a bit of a mea culpa here. A few days ago, I said that Ryan's magic asterisk was worth about $6.7 trillion over a decade. That was my back-of-the-envelope calculation of how much his tax plan -- which, among other things, shrinks our current seven tax brackets down to two of 10 and 25 percent -- would cost. This was in line with other estimates, but it turns out it was wrong. Paul Ryan's magic asterisk is really only worth $5.7 trillion, according to new numbers from the Tax Policy Center.

 

And yet, Ryan was looked upon by the overwhelming majority of the centrist media as an expert and a policy wonk. Few noted that his tax "reform" proposals were straight underpants gnomes nonsense. His fantastical claims about the benefits of slashing taxes on the rich were accepted at face value.  Much more insidious was the constant anti-deficit hype during the great recession as media types kept parading conservative "economists" out to complain about deficit spending and how Democratic policies were going to lead to hyperinflation, despite the fact that over ten trillion dollars in wealth had just evaporated. This had an enormous impact on what policies the Dems were able to propose and get passed to address the causes and symptoms of the great recession.

My point isn't "they get to do X, we should get to do X too." My point is that the public framing of these issues has an enormous impact, and the Dems have to move that frame on a variety of issues if they want to get anything serious done. People sympathetic to that cause shouldn't be contributing to the "here's why the public should continue to have higher expectations for Democrats than for Republicans" argument. In a perfect world, would the Dems have detailed policy proposals to address all of our nation's problems? Sure. While we're at it, let's wish for a bunch of unicorns too. in the real world, we've basically got two options: brainless greed monsters who want to dismantle what's left of America for parts (and the GOP variant also wants to imprison or possibly kill all people who don't have the right melanin count), or well-intentioned normal fucking people who want to invest in our future but who don't necessarily have PhDs. Why on earth would we decide that we should have higher expectations for the latter than the former before we decide they're capable of earning our support?

[F250 28659]

7 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

This, we saw some of this up close with Beto.  He nearly won a whole state, not just a district.  I think he would have if he would have fought back more.  I don't mean mudslinging, but just pointing out the hypocrisy so bluntly that it can't be denied.  That is what she has been able to do, and the humor also helps. 

Speaking of Beto, had he been asked similar questions by Cooper he would have given an 8 minute reasoned response instead of the whataboutism AOC gave. That's what made Beto so appealing. Finally, a fucking adult is running for office and is talking like an adult! Obama had a similar quality as Beto and that is something our country desperately needs.

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

She didn't control the questions, and she didn't control the editing.  This wasn't a stump speech.  Anybody parsing it too fine needs to back off.  It was an interview.

Also, when did she exhibit "vocal fry"?  I think that's become newspeak for "I don't like uppity wimmens".

[hayden_horn 11360]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The problem is that by connecting the two you allow the discussion of "how do we pay" to completely drown out the discussion of "do we need this and how much will it benefit us."  Let's have two separate discussions to prevent that happening. I imagine if you asked her, "how do you improve the government's ability to pay for things?", the answer would probably be a combination of increasing taxes on certain groups (high income, corporations, and capital gains), decreasing funding in other programs, and potentially a healthcare specific tax. 

see, i think a cost-benefit analysis, which is done by every single successful public venture, is an important element in weighing a policy. 

my wife wanted a new car. i was dead-set on keeping her paid off car in working order. 

however, she went through a slightly emotional appeal with me that succeeded. why did it succeed? because she did two things: she went through an impressive tick list of things that were wrong with her car, and also outlined how we could afford her a new car by doing a few things differently. she successfully changed my mind, from an obstinate "we simply cannot afford it" with arguments of how we couldn't afford what we were currently doing with her car. there were probably a dozen things i was planning on fixing to extend the timeline of her car, with no guarantee that something else wouldn't break on the fucking thing.

and honestly, i think framing the discussion is important for democrats currently. OWN THE FUCKING NARRATIVE. be bold. go get 'em.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Pics of wife new car?

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

41 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Yep, they do everything they can to make her come off as stupid, these same assclowns that ran Palin for VP. 

 

This, so much this.  Right out of Joe Bageant's mouth.  We have been tamed and trained.  They started with dumbing us down, then they let us get fat and happy, well content...well, too lazy to object to anything.   And the trumpkins are the ones afraid somehow they will lose that neat little lifestyle.  And it will all be because of some person with a darker skin tone. 

 

 

Loved Bageant. He was a hero of a hero of mine, and now both of them are gone. 

[Bateshorn 9882]

The fact that Democrats are expected to be fiscally responsible in all things and the GOP gets a pass on balancing anything creates such a disparate political dynamic that  it is literally damaging our democracy.

There are a number of important policy challenges facing our nation.  When Democrats are asked to fix them, via elections, the nation's deficit scolds (including legions of centrist Democrats) show up in force, with a constant "How are you going to pay for that?"  Imagine how Obamacare would have looked it it had taken on 2 trillion in deficit spending over 10 years, (like the Trump tax cuts), instead of being revenue positive?

The narrative that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility and economic growth (despite the fact that every GOP president since Hoover has overseen the beginning of at least one major recession) hobbles our discourse. 

Honestly, the party descriptors should be:

Democrats:  We make you eat your vegetables

Republicans:  The Bar is open!!

Edited January 7, 2019 by Bateshorn

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

eh, she could have answered it more clearly. if trump gave an answer like that, we'd all shake our heads and furrow our brows.

what about this other thing is never the answer. instead, she should have clearly delineated the source of the funding for all the things. instead of saying "we pay for these other things, why can't we pay for this also?" she should have said something bolder like "we'll cut some funding from these columns. we know we aren't building a wall, and we know this notion of a space force is silly." etc.

anderson cooper is not her republican enemy, yet she comes across as slightly chiding him for daring to ask the question as though he represents the average republican critic (and yes, i know he framed the question in that manner, but that doesn't mean she has to answer it thus). 

she's got a good point in there. she just needs to work on her delivery, and, at all costs, avoid the whataboutism that has plagued our country for so long.

If trump gave an answer like that we'd be dumbstruck that he spoke in a complete, coherent sentence.  And his sycophants would be chastising us for not genuflecting in his presence because he did the presidential act of speaking in complete sentences.  Why doesn't the lamestream media cover THAT they'd be asking.

[bad_teammate 13125]

30 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yup, you're right. fuck it. why even bother asking her any questions, then?

The people who complain about others making "emotional arguments" constantly tell on themselves.

Quote

see, i think a cost-benefit analysis, which is done by every single successful public venture, is an important element in weighing a policy. 

Unlike who? Who doesn't think that?

[Ten Bears 2478]

20 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yeah, a trust fund kid turned adult who has never worked a day in his life. He makes Trump and Johnny Sack look self made in comparison. At least they did something with their inheritances. 

At least Smax poisoned a dog and was so proud of the fact that he bragged about it on Shaggy.  That kind of go-getter attitude is hard to come by.

[hayden_horn 11360]

8 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The fact that Democrats are expected to be fiscally responsible in all things and the GOP gets a pass on balancing anything creates such a disparate political dynamic that  it is literally damaging our democracy.

There are a number of important policy challenges facing our nation.  When Democrats are asked to fix them, via elections, the nation's deficit scolds (including legions of centrist Democrats) show up in force, with a constant "How are you going to pay for that?"  Imagine how Obamacare would have looked it it had taken on 2 trillion in deficit spending over 10 years, (like the Trump tax cuts), instead of being revenue positive?

The narrative that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility and economic growth (despite the fact that every GOP president since Hoover has overseen the beginning of at least one major recession) hobbles our discourse. 

Honestly, the party descriptors should be:

Democrats:  We make you eat your vegetables

Republicans:  The Bar is open!!

this is an extremely fair take, but the only way to shift that shit is to own that shit. i'd happily take on the mantle of "deficit scold," but i'm a #bothsides (TM: @Anastasis) deficit scold. the republicans have been beyond irresponsible the past 8 years (and beyond). a question of funding with neverending dollars currently has our government shutdown, and i don't think the democrats in the house should budge. their answer should be:

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

If trump gave an answer like that we'd be dumbstruck that he spoke in a complete, coherent sentence.  And his sycophants would be chastising us for not genuflecting in his presence because he did the presidential act of speaking in complete sentences.  Why doesn't the lamestream media cover THAT they'd be asking.

haha, posrep.

again, my overarching point is that it has to be the deomcrats that go on the offensive and in doing so, aggressively point out that he republicans are the hypocritical children with the wallet, and explain to the public what fiscal responsibility actually is. 

 

[Brew 3044]

9 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The fact that Democrats are expected to be fiscally responsible in all things and the GOP gets a pass on balancing anything creates such a disparate political dynamic that  it is literally damaging our democracy.

There are a number of important policy challenges facing our nation.  When Democrats are asked to fix them, via elections, the nation's deficit scolds (including legions of centrist Democrats) show up in force, with a constant "How are you going to pay for that?"  Imagine how Obamacare would have looked it it had taken on 2 trillion in deficit spending over 10 years, (like the Trump tax cuts), instead of being revenue positive?

The narrative that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility and economic growth (despite the fact that every GOP president since Hoover has overseen the beginning of at least one major recession) hobbles our discourse. 

Honestly, the party descriptors should be:

Democrats:  We make you eat your vegetables

Republicans:  The Bar is open!!

So the answer is we can be stupid with the money because they are/were stupid with the money? I hope you guys ask more of your reps at some point and don’t just chase the message. The hole is so deep at this point that we need to stop digging quickly before we make everyone’s life better. That’s not a D or R problem, that’s an overall problem that will drag us all down if someone doesn’t start addressing it. 

[Brisketexan 104464]

The fact that Democrats are expected to be fiscally responsible in all things and the GOP gets a pass on balancing anything creates such a disparate political dynamic that  it is literally damaging our democracy.
There are a number of important policy challenges facing our nation.  When Democrats are asked to fix them, via elections, the nation's deficit scolds (including legions of centrist Democrats) show up in force, with a constant "How are you going to pay for that?"  Imagine how Obamacare would have looked it it had taken on 2 trillion in deficit spending over 10 years, (like the Trump tax cuts), instead of being revenue positive?
The narrative that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility and economic growth (despite the fact that every GOP president since Hoover has overseen the beginning of at least one major recession) hobbles our discourse. 
Honestly, the party descriptors should be:
Democrats:  We make you eat your vegetables
Republicans:  The Bar is open!!

....and then skip out on the tab, leaving a Dem admin/congress to pay up, while they yell from outside “why’d you drink so much?!?!”

[Dahobbs 17420]

17 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

see, i think a cost-benefit analysis, which is done by every single successful public venture, is an important element in weighing a policy. 

my wife wanted a new car. i was dead-set on keeping her paid off car in working order. 

however, she went through a slightly emotional appeal with me that succeeded. why did it succeed? because she did two things: she went through an impressive tick list of things that were wrong with her car, and also outlined how we could afford her a new car by doing a few things differently. she successfully changed my mind, from an obstinate "we simply cannot afford it" with arguments of how we couldn't afford what we were currently doing with her car. there were probably a dozen things i was planning on fixing to extend the timeline of her car, with no guarantee that something else wouldn't break on the fucking thing.

and honestly, i think framing the discussion is important for democrats currently. OWN THE FUCKING NARRATIVE. be bold. go get 'em.

I have no problem with a cost-benefit analysis. Do that. How much does it cost, how much does it benefit, and as a result do we want/need it? But, that is completely separate issue from "where specifically are the funds going to come from to pay for this." That latter question is just distraction. I don't ask where the specific funds are going to come from to pay for my food this month. And I don't ask how will this hamburger pay for itself. Rather, I buy food because I need to eat. Separately, I figure out how to maximize my income and cut unnecessary expenses. 

[F250 28659]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't ask where the specific funds are going to come from to pay for my food this month. And I don't ask how will this hamburger pay for itself. Rather, I buy food because I need to eat. Separately, I figure out how to maximize my income and cut unnecessary expenses.  

You might want to seek out some help with your personal finances.

 

[Guest Lobo]

11 hours ago, Fozzz said:

of course you would be a fan of that worthless fucking think tank. 

How can a AOC supporter like you attempt to degrade literally the most well respected left leaning think tank in all the country?   If you don’t like me, fine.  But how does somebody like you, with your ideology, turn your back and insult Brookings?   They’re the cornerstone of most of your agenda.  

[Bateshorn 9882]

10 minutes ago, Brew said:

So the answer is we can be stupid with the money because they are/were stupid with the money? I hope you guys ask more of your reps at some point and don’t just chase the message. The hole is so deep at this point that we need to stop digging quickly before we make everyone’s life better. That’s not a D or R problem, that’s an overall problem that will drag us all down if someone doesn’t start addressing it. 

That's ridiculous.  There's nothing inherently wrong with deficit spending or debt.  When and why you borrow the money is much more important. 

Going into debt to fix the nation's infrastructure or dramatically reduce the cost of health care, if done right, is a wise investement.  Going into debt to give rich people more money is not.

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama stopped digging, sobered the nation up, got them in shape, and left a better house than they inherited. And that's fine, but the fact that Democrats are held so some sort of Calvinist standard for fiscal disclipine while the GOP can act like it's fleet week and no other option exists is stupid.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Bateshorn

[Dahobbs 17420]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

You might want to seek out some help with your personal finances.

 

My personal finances are great, thanks for asking. Do you seriously attempt to breakdown what particular source of money is going to pay for your lunch every day or expect your lunch to be revenue neutral? 

 

[Aqua Buddha 14488]

To make the car analogy applicable, the GOP is the spouse who is "good with money" and telling the other spouse they can't afford a new car for them.  Meanwhile, the GOP spouse is leasing an Escalade while having $50K in CC debt.

[Celery Man 20874]

AOC's lack of a specific answer on how universal healthcare will help us dig out from under the GOP deficit is one of the reasons I didn't vote for her

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I actually think it's valuable to point out that the media obsessively focuses on how we'll pay for the shit we should actually pay for while it never gives two shits about how we'll pay for shit we shouldn't pay for (which are always Republican ideas). The GOP has spent the past 30+ years working the refs so that their economic policy views are simply considered acceptable by default, despite the fact that they're complete and utter nonsense and have been concretely disproven by all available evidence. 

Public framing has an enormous impact on how policy proposals are viewed by the public and even what is within the realm of discussion. Dems will never be able to pass anything they propose regardless of how much good a proposal might do if they continue to allow a Republican-cajoled media to frame the debate. They need to start working the refs. And I'm just going to preempt the "but then they're just acting like Republicans and really then I might as well vote for Trump!" that I'm sure someone wants to say by pointing out that that's really fucking stupid and there isn't some high-minded alternative that can actually be an effective political strategy.

That’s fine - I agree.  Say ‘should we pay for space force or education?’  That gets the point across.  Then at least give an inkling on how to fucking budget.  Giving her a pass on that answer - a lot of you scare me.  Going far left to combat bozos on the far right is not the solution.  

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

That’s fine - I agree.  Say ‘should we pay for space force or education?’  That gets the point across.  Then at least give an inkling on how to fucking budget.  Giving her a pass on that answer - a lot of you scare me.  Going far left to combat bozos on the far right is not the solution.  

Giving her a pass? It's an interview on 60 minutes, not an actual bill that just says "We will pay for these things the way we pay for our military." 

She has already come out with a proposal for a 70% tax rate on income over 10 million, Hugo is right in that she wasn't going to give Anderson and 60 minutes a bunch of sound bites that would be plastered everywhere throughout her term, she wants to discuss these specifics on her own terms (e.g. twitter).

[elfenix 34168]

44 minutes ago, Brew said:

So the answer is we can be stupid with the money because they are/were stupid with the money? I hope you guys ask more of your reps at some point and don’t just chase the message. The hole is so deep at this point that we need to stop digging quickly before we make everyone’s life better. That’s not a D or R problem, that’s an overall problem that will drag us all down if someone doesn’t start addressing it. 

every prediction that the debt was going to force the nation into insolvency and we'd all be hocked to foreign creditors has been wrong for 300+ years, but i'm sure it's right this time.

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

8 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Giving her a pass? It's an interview on 60 minutes, not an actual bill that just says "We will pay for these things the way we pay for our military." 

She has already come out with a proposal for a 70% tax rate on income over 10 million, Hugo is right in that she wasn't going to give Anderson and 60 minutes a bunch of sound bites that would be plastered everywhere throughout her term, she wants to discuss these specifics on her own terms (e.g. twitter).

Oh goody.  Another Trump in terms of how she communicates...  Twitter needs to be bought out by the Fed govt (with taxpayers’ money of course).  

 

Edit: oh and it would be such a terrible sound bite ‘do we wanna pay for Space Force or education?’  Again, the cult like following of her and dipshit Bernie is disturbing.  I’ll still vote for her over Trump if she’s the D pick but the standard needs to be higher.  

Edited January 7, 2019 by ChiTownDoc

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Oh goody.  Another Trump in terms of how she communicates...  Twitter needs to be bought out by the Fed govt (with taxpayers’ money of course).  

Nationalizing social media? I'm all for that shit.

[lemonlime 5503]

5 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

That’s fine - I agree.  Say ‘should we pay for space force or education?’  That gets the point across.  Then at least give an inkling on how to fucking budget.  Giving her a pass on that answer - a lot of you scare me.  Going far left to combat bozos on the far right is not the solution.  

I'm not sure how to have a real debate any longer, however, now that the bozos on the far right, emphasis on "bozos," not "far right," control the Senate and the executive.  When you have a party who shuts down the government for an expensive, imaginary, useless boondoggle of a wall (which they aren't even really planning on building and which they lie about whose paying for), and seeks funding for things like an imaginary space force and lies about the taxes they're imposing (I'm waiting to figure out how China's paying tariffs levied on Americans) and everything else, while claiming the other side is fiscally irresponsible because gasp they would like to provide things like health insurance and food stamps, how do you debate?   

It's like a debate between an enraged two year old and his preschool teacher on whether he has to take naptime.  Maybe the kid is right that he doesn't need the nap today.  But there's no way in hell to have a reasonable discussion on the necessity of naptime. 

And now these toddlers, or giant orange toddler enablers, want to debate fiscal policy, but only "debate fiscal policy" to criticize a congresswoman who's been in office less than a week.  

 

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

I'm not sure how to have a real debate any longer, however, now that the bozos on the far right, emphasis on "bozos," not "far right," control the Senate and the executive.  When you have a party who shuts down the government for an expensive, imaginary, useless boondoggle of a wall (which they aren't even really planning on building and which they lie about whose paying for), and seeks funding for things like an imaginary space force and lies about the taxes they're imposing (I'm waiting to figure out how China's paying tariffs levied on Americans) and everything else, while claiming the other side is fiscally irresponsible because gasp they would like to provide things like health insurance and food stamps, how do you debate?   

It's like a debate between an enraged two year old and his preschool teacher on whether he has to take naptime.  Maybe the kid is right that he doesn't need the nap today.  But there's no way in hell to have a reasonable discussion on the necessity of naptime. 

And now these toddlers, or giant orange toddler enablers, want to debate fiscal policy, but only "debate fiscal policy" to criticize a congresswoman who's been in office less than a week.  

 

Lol you’re reading too much into my grammar.  The far left and far right are all bozos.   Happy?

[Smax 3799]

1 hour ago, Ten Bears said:

At least Smax poisoned a dog and was so proud of the fact that he bragged about it on Shaggy.  That kind of go-getter attitude is hard to come by.

 

ahhh spoken like someone who didn't read the thread

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

And to be fair, I can live w far left bozos if I had to choose a side.  The R ones will get us all killed.