6 ms·

Can you find me a recording of any Democratic officeholder saying they're "for Big Government"? I don't think even Bernie Sanders is on the record with somethi

by jbooth 15y ago

Can you find me a recording of any Democratic officeholder saying they're "for Big Government"? I don't think even Bernie Sanders is on the record with something like that. Fox News saying what democrats think is not what democrats think. Which Democratic spending initiatives are contributing to the current deficit? The Democratic war in Iraq, or the Democratic Homeland Security Dept? The Democratic Medicare Part D? You can argue the stimulus but that spending was all temporary and is gone by next year. The healthcare bill reduced gov't healthcare spending (and the tea party ran against it on a obama-is-taking-away-your-medicare scare campaign, I remember the attack ads, irony is not dead). 1999 wasn't that long ago. We had a surplus. The ideological split is mostly the result of opportunism by Tea Party commentators/legislators and the complete illegitimacy of any Democratic president in the eyes of about 50% of Republicans. Democrats will bend over backwards to not be perceived as ideological, as we saw last week.

lmkg 15y ago
You won't find any Democrats using the phrase "Big Government" because it's a loaded, derogatory phrase. Nonetheless, the Democratic platform is generally in favor of spending on social services, like welfare, unemployment benefits, Social Security, and education, as well as generally favoring higher amounts of regulation for businesses and industries. Some of these positions are relative: keep the same amount of environmental regulations instead of reducing them, or cut education but by a smaller amount than oil subsidies. Some of them are contingent on the economic climate: avoiding cuts instead of increasing spending. But in general, yes, the Democrats do envision a larger government role in society (excepting defense/security) than Republicans do. They just don't come out and say so because that would be politically disadvantageous.
- subsection1h 15y ago
  But in general, yes, the Democrats do envision a larger government role in society (excepting defense/security) than Republicans do. How can you just toss "excepting defense/security" in a parenthetical like that? I'll never understand how some people can be discussing the size of size of government and then essentially ignore military spending (of which much has little to do with defense or security) and governmental abuses of power for the sake of security theater. NPR? Big government. PBS? Big government. Rendition and torture? Not so much. Belongs in a parenthetical.
anamax 15y ago
> Which Democratic spending initiatives are contributing to the current deficit? The Democratic war in Iraq, or the Democratic Homeland Security Dept? The Democratic Medicare Part D? With all of those repub approved initiatives, the last deficit under a repub congress was $160B/year and the trend was downwards. The deficit jumped to $460B when the Dems took Congress (and Bush was still president). Speaking of Medicare Part D, care to name three congressional Dems who objected to it on the basis that it cost too much? It's easy to find those who objected because it cover more, that is, cost more. And, wrt Homeland Security, feel free to identify Dems who want to spend less on it. The vote on unionization will help you identify those who wanted to spend more. > You can argue the stimulus but that spending was all temporary and is gone by next year. Obama and the CBO disagree. They both project >$1T/year deficits for the forseeable future. (They disagree on how much over $1T.) > The healthcare bill reduced gov't healthcare spending Umm, no. The claim was the overall cost of healthcare would go down, but that govt spending would go up, being paid for by additional taxes and $500B in medicare "savings". (The scoring "worked" because the taxes started before the benefits.) The medicare "savings" consists of paying doctors less, the "doc fix". That's been on the plate several times, but each time Congress has pulled back because doctors have said that they won't accept medicare patients if they're paid less. > The ideological split is mostly the result ... and the complete illegitimacy of any Democratic president in the eyes of about 50% of Republicans. Ah yes, no Dems ever questioned BushMcChimpHitler's legitimacy or were at all ideological about him.
- jbooth 15y ago
  This kind of silly tribalism is the exact reason that nobody can get anything done. You're now saying ignore the votes, pay attention to how they talk about the votes? A bunch of points about actual actions, and you're so invested in being a Republican that you change the subject to how they talked about the actions? Are you sure you're not being played for a sucker? Yes, Democrats were more offended by the gross inefficiency of Medicare Part D than by the general idea of Medicare as a program. They voted against Part D. Republicans voted for it. Having a projected deficit next year is hilariously orthogonal to the undisputed fact that stimulus spending ends this year. And the point about Democrats questioning Bush's legitimacy is a great one. Here's someone who actually was arguably illegitimate for his first term, and what did Democratic officeholders and commentators do? Fall over themselves to disassociate themselves from the crazy hippies, and proclaim that we as a country need to move forward. There was no Democratic tea party, and frankly if the Republican tea party is honest about their concern with deficits, where were they prior to January 2009?
Daniel_Newby 15y ago
Can you find me a recording of any Democratic officeholder saying they're "for Big Government"? The ideological split is not between Democrats and Republicans. They are wings of the Washington, D.C. Nationalist Party. The Democrats are the emotionalist wing, the Republicans are the rationalist wing, but the motto of both wings is "We're from Washington, and we're here to help!" 1999 wasn't that long ago. We had a surplus. Funded by a bubble. The ideological split is mostly the result of opportunism by Tea Party commentators/legislators ... The Tea Party is one public face of the decentralist sentiment that opposes the Washington, D.C. Nationalist Party. By their very nature decentralists do not organize national movements like the Tea Party until the situation is completely out of hand (as with the Regan Revolution). They give the centralists a real thrashing, spend a few years chainsawing the worst crap out of the government, then go back home. The centralists then start rebuilding power for the next showdown in another 30 years.

by jbooth 15y ago

lmkg 15y ago

You won't find any Democrats using the phrase "Big Government" because it's a loaded, derogatory phrase. Nonetheless, the Democratic platform is generally in favor of spending on social services, like welfare, unemployment benefits, Social Security, and education, as well as generally favoring higher amounts of regulation for businesses and industries. Some of these positions are relative: keep the same amount of environmental regulations instead of reducing them, or cut education but by a smaller amount than oil subsidies. Some of them are contingent on the economic climate: avoiding cuts instead of increasing spending. But in general, yes, the Democrats do envision a larger government role in society (excepting defense/security) than Republicans do. They just don't come out and say so because that would be politically disadvantageous.

subsection1h 15y ago
But in general, yes, the Democrats do envision a larger government role in society (excepting defense/security) than Republicans do. How can you just toss "excepting defense/security" in a parenthetical like that? I'll never understand how some people can be discussing the size of size of government and then essentially ignore military spending (of which much has little to do with defense or security) and governmental abuses of power for the sake of security theater. NPR? Big government. PBS? Big government. Rendition and torture? Not so much. Belongs in a parenthetical.

anamax 15y ago

> Which Democratic spending initiatives are contributing to the current deficit? The Democratic war in Iraq, or the Democratic Homeland Security Dept? The Democratic Medicare Part D? With all of those repub approved initiatives, the last deficit under a repub congress was $160B/year and the trend was downwards. The deficit jumped to $460B when the Dems took Congress (and Bush was still president). Speaking of Medicare Part D, care to name three congressional Dems who objected to it on the basis that it cost too much? It's easy to find those who objected because it cover more, that is, cost more. And, wrt Homeland Security, feel free to identify Dems who want to spend less on it. The vote on unionization will help you identify those who wanted to spend more. > You can argue the stimulus but that spending was all temporary and is gone by next year. Obama and the CBO disagree. They both project >$1T/year deficits for the forseeable future. (They disagree on how much over $1T.) > The healthcare bill reduced gov't healthcare spending Umm, no. The claim was the overall cost of healthcare would go down, but that govt spending would go up, being paid for by additional taxes and $500B in medicare "savings". (The scoring "worked" because the taxes started before the benefits.) The medicare "savings" consists of paying doctors less, the "doc fix". That's been on the plate several times, but each time Congress has pulled back because doctors have said that they won't accept medicare patients if they're paid less. > The ideological split is mostly the result ... and the complete illegitimacy of any Democratic president in the eyes of about 50% of Republicans. Ah yes, no Dems ever questioned BushMcChimpHitler's legitimacy or were at all ideological about him.

jbooth 15y ago
This kind of silly tribalism is the exact reason that nobody can get anything done. You're now saying ignore the votes, pay attention to how they talk about the votes? A bunch of points about actual actions, and you're so invested in being a Republican that you change the subject to how they talked about the actions? Are you sure you're not being played for a sucker? Yes, Democrats were more offended by the gross inefficiency of Medicare Part D than by the general idea of Medicare as a program. They voted against Part D. Republicans voted for it. Having a projected deficit next year is hilariously orthogonal to the undisputed fact that stimulus spending ends this year. And the point about Democrats questioning Bush's legitimacy is a great one. Here's someone who actually was arguably illegitimate for his first term, and what did Democratic officeholders and commentators do? Fall over themselves to disassociate themselves from the crazy hippies, and proclaim that we as a country need to move forward. There was no Democratic tea party, and frankly if the Republican tea party is honest about their concern with deficits, where were they prior to January 2009?

Daniel_Newby 15y ago

Can you find me a recording of any Democratic officeholder saying they're "for Big Government"? The ideological split is not between Democrats and Republicans. They are wings of the Washington, D.C. Nationalist Party. The Democrats are the emotionalist wing, the Republicans are the rationalist wing, but the motto of both wings is "We're from Washington, and we're here to help!" 1999 wasn't that long ago. We had a surplus. Funded by a bubble. The ideological split is mostly the result of opportunism by Tea Party commentators/legislators ... The Tea Party is one public face of the decentralist sentiment that opposes the Washington, D.C. Nationalist Party. By their very nature decentralists do not organize national movements like the Tea Party until the situation is completely out of hand (as with the Regan Revolution). They give the centralists a real thrashing, spend a few years chainsawing the worst crap out of the government, then go back home. The centralists then start rebuilding power for the next showdown in another 30 years.