4 ms·

The 3% tax on my dividends didn't even come close to SALT. Personally I'd like to see the government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital p

by ng12 8y ago

The 3% tax on my dividends didn't even come close to SALT. Personally I'd like to see the government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech, reduced military spending, curbs on an an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system, and policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization. It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies and they matter much more to me than the ones you've listed.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Honestly I think your list highlights why I get so frustrated when people equate the parties, because there are so obvious, provable distinctions it the items you list: 1. "government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech" - OK, this one I'll give to you, I don't see significant differences between the mainstream parties on this one. But I'd argue that is because this issue is actually so low (sadly, IMO) on the vast majority of Americans' concerns. 2. "reduced military spending" - If you honestly think the parties are equal when it comes to their enthusiasm for military spending, you are not paying attention. As one example, the whole reason for the 2013 budget sequestration rules were that they included large cuts for military (which Democrats wanted) and social programs (which Republicans wanted) which both sides thought would force them to compromise - the fact that ALL cuts went through when they couldn't reach an agreement just highlights which programs were important to which parties. 3. "an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system" - again, this is an issue that Democrats are much more on your side than the average Republican, mainly because urban minorities, which tend to vote Democrat, are the group most negatively affected by these policies. 4. "policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization" - while I tend to agree with the main gist of this argument, especially in that both parties have enthusiastically supported many free trade deals, Republicans have shown much more antipathy to unions, both in the past and currently. The fact that you say "It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies" is just baffling to me.
- ng12 8y ago
  > because there are so obvious, provable distinctions it the items you list Really? It seems to me like you either agree or gave a kind-of-not-really example for each point.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_sequestration_in_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_sequestra... "By Republicans in Congress" The Republican House had narrowly passed a bill on December 20, 2012,[15] which would have replaced only the defense side of the sequester with cuts to programs including food stamps, Dodd-Frank and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. "By Democrats in Congress" Patty Murray, Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, proposed on February 14 to replace the 2013 sequester with $110 billion in spending cuts and tax increases. Like the House version, these policies also include a Buffett-rule tax, the closure of the oil subsidies, and cuts to farm subsidies. Additionally, this bill would cut defense spending for 2013 in excess of the amounts required by the current sequester. But this bill has little chance of winning the 60 votes required to override a filibuster. -----
    - ng12 8y ago
      Your argument is that a democrat proposed a dead-on-arrival bill to cut military spending while this happened a few years later: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/09/18/91-of-senate-democrats-help-pass-the-696-5b-defense-bill/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/09/18/91-of-se... See my point?
      - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
        This logic is completely nonsensical. Her bill was "dead on arrival" because it was opposed by Republicans. Want to change that, then elect Democrats.
        8y ago

by ng12 8y ago

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

Honestly I think your list highlights why I get so frustrated when people equate the parties, because there are so obvious, provable distinctions it the items you list: 1. "government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech" - OK, this one I'll give to you, I don't see significant differences between the mainstream parties on this one. But I'd argue that is because this issue is actually so low (sadly, IMO) on the vast majority of Americans' concerns. 2. "reduced military spending" - If you honestly think the parties are equal when it comes to their enthusiasm for military spending, you are not paying attention. As one example, the whole reason for the 2013 budget sequestration rules were that they included large cuts for military (which Democrats wanted) and social programs (which Republicans wanted) which both sides thought would force them to compromise - the fact that ALL cuts went through when they couldn't reach an agreement just highlights which programs were important to which parties. 3. "an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system" - again, this is an issue that Democrats are much more on your side than the average Republican, mainly because urban minorities, which tend to vote Democrat, are the group most negatively affected by these policies. 4. "policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization" - while I tend to agree with the main gist of this argument, especially in that both parties have enthusiastically supported many free trade deals, Republicans have shown much more antipathy to unions, both in the past and currently. The fact that you say "It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies" is just baffling to me.

ng12 8y ago
> because there are so obvious, provable distinctions it the items you list Really? It seems to me like you either agree or gave a kind-of-not-really example for each point.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_sequestration_in_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_sequestra... "By Republicans in Congress" The Republican House had narrowly passed a bill on December 20, 2012,[15] which would have replaced only the defense side of the sequester with cuts to programs including food stamps, Dodd-Frank and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. "By Democrats in Congress" Patty Murray, Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, proposed on February 14 to replace the 2013 sequester with $110 billion in spending cuts and tax increases. Like the House version, these policies also include a Buffett-rule tax, the closure of the oil subsidies, and cuts to farm subsidies. Additionally, this bill would cut defense spending for 2013 in excess of the amounts required by the current sequester. But this bill has little chance of winning the 60 votes required to override a filibuster. -----
  - ng12 8y ago
    Your argument is that a democrat proposed a dead-on-arrival bill to cut military spending while this happened a few years later: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/09/18/91-of-senate-democrats-help-pass-the-696-5b-defense-bill/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/09/18/91-of-se... See my point?
    - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
      This logic is completely nonsensical. Her bill was "dead on arrival" because it was opposed by Republicans. Want to change that, then elect Democrats.
      - 8y ago