4 ms·

I mean, I get it that the Republicans like to destroy this shit. But according to TFA, this $2000 policy limit has been in place since 1989. What have the Demo

I mean, I get it that the Republicans like to destroy this shit. But according to TFA, this $2000 policy limit has been in place since 1989. What have the Democrats done? Have they not been in any position of power in the last 30 years? Probably they have just also sat around and blamed the other party too. Sick of this passing the buck bullshit that literally gets nothing done.

UncleMeat 4y ago
Even amongst the left, the narrative of the welfare queen is strong. Eliminating means testing is so easily attacked that it is a challenging policy to propose. This isn't to let the Democrats off the hook, only to explain that Democratic voters are not uniformly behind improving these policies.
- danielheath 4y ago
  By the standards of the rest of the world, the US Democrats are centre-right and American politics have no left. It’s really astonishing how different the Overton window is (and concerning how much my home country is importing US politics.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    By a European standard they're not even center-right.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Yeah, the Democrats are right wing. You're confounding left and Democrats.
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    The overton window has shifted so far right that some people think Biden is a socialist.
    - krapp 4y ago
      The Overton window as already there when people were calling Obama, of all people, a Marxist.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
The answer is actually quite simple. The democrats in office simply do not represent their constituents. The democrat-voting population is farther left than the democrat politicians. However, outside of the more radical democrats like Sanders and AOC, most democrats have been bought by the wealthy just like the republicans.
- kbenson 4y ago
  > The democrat-voting population is farther left than the democrat politicians. That is your opinion, and based on your experience in your cohort, and additionally does not really address what "more left" actually means. There are many different types of people that vote Democrat at many different stages of life, in many different industries and in different states/areas where certain things have more support than others. And that's before we even start breaking things out to being "left" socially or fiscally. I don't think the answer is "quite simple" at all, at least not in the way you explained it.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  If the Democratic Party-voting population was really that much farther left than the Democratic Party politicians, then you'd really expect that farther left candidates would be winning primaries, wouldn't you? I notice we have not had Bernie Sanders on the Presidential ticket, despite two runs; and there is surely some reason for that. Possibly the voters have identified that those candidates will not gain sufficient independent or Republican support to actual win in general elections. In any case, it seems likely to be a lot more nuanced than you're suggesting.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    This isn't really the gotcha moment you think it is. Primaries are, well, mostly a farce and the people that show up for the primaries are the ones that often have the most free time or ability to do so. Retirees, wealthier individuals and so forth. There's no better evidence of this fact than candidates like Bernie Sanders having extremely high popularity among the younger generation which tapers off the older people get. There's a massive and growing generational divide that's only going to get better once the voting block that enables them starts dying off. Assuming that the primaries represent who will actually win a presidential election is as much of a mistake as assuming that polls are accurate when it comes to election day.
AdamH12113 4y ago
Democrats have had the power to pass legislation without Republican support during the following periods: * The 1993 - 1994 congressional term[1], during which they tried and failed to do healthcare reform, but succeeded in passing bills for medical leave, NAFTA, gun control, violent crime, taxes, and education. * June 30, 2009 - February 4, 2010 (72 working days total)[2], during which they passed a major healthcare reform bill, the Affordable Care Act. From 1981 - 1992, 1995 - 2008, and 2011 - 2020, Republicans have held the presidency or at least one house of Congress. During 2009-2010 and 2021-present, they have also abused the Senate filibuster to obstruct almost the entire Democratic agenda, with the goal of making the public perceive Democrats as ineffective. (As you have seen for yourself, it worked!) In the current term, the Democrats have a bare 50%+1 majority, which means that the most conservative Democrat (usually Joe Manchin of West Virginia) effectively has a veto. On top of that, the Supreme Court has been controlled by Republican partisans since 2006, when Samuel Alito was appointed. Currently there is a 5-vote majority of extreme Republican partisans. This creates an additional Republican veto point for effectively any Democratic legislation. One can (and should) criticize the Democrats for not ending the filibuster when they had the chance. But the reality is that the American legislative process involves a lot of veto points, and it only takes control of one to kill a bill. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress#Major_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress#M... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > the 1993 - 1994 congressional term[1], during which they tried and failed to do healthcare reform, but succeeded in passing bills for medical leave, NAFTA, gun control, violent crime, taxes, and education. NAFTA doesn't really count here since it was passed over strong (but not unanimous) Democratic resistance with almost unanimous Republican support. Or maybe it does, since while it was a break from the existing and prior policy orientation of the party, it was a Clinton policy which presaged the emergent dominance of the anti-worker neoliberal capitalist wing of the party that dominated the party from after it's defeat in the 1994 midterms until now (weakening a bit in the last several years.)

UncleMeat 4y ago

Even amongst the left, the narrative of the welfare queen is strong. Eliminating means testing is so easily attacked that it is a challenging policy to propose. This isn't to let the Democrats off the hook, only to explain that Democratic voters are not uniformly behind improving these policies.

danielheath 4y ago
By the standards of the rest of the world, the US Democrats are centre-right and American politics have no left. It’s really astonishing how different the Overton window is (and concerning how much my home country is importing US politics.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  By a European standard they're not even center-right.
guerrilla 4y ago
Yeah, the Democrats are right wing. You're confounding left and Democrats.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  The overton window has shifted so far right that some people think Biden is a socialist.
  - krapp 4y ago
    The Overton window as already there when people were calling Obama, of all people, a Marxist.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

The answer is actually quite simple. The democrats in office simply do not represent their constituents. The democrat-voting population is farther left than the democrat politicians. However, outside of the more radical democrats like Sanders and AOC, most democrats have been bought by the wealthy just like the republicans.

kbenson 4y ago
> The democrat-voting population is farther left than the democrat politicians. That is your opinion, and based on your experience in your cohort, and additionally does not really address what "more left" actually means. There are many different types of people that vote Democrat at many different stages of life, in many different industries and in different states/areas where certain things have more support than others. And that's before we even start breaking things out to being "left" socially or fiscally. I don't think the answer is "quite simple" at all, at least not in the way you explained it.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
If the Democratic Party-voting population was really that much farther left than the Democratic Party politicians, then you'd really expect that farther left candidates would be winning primaries, wouldn't you? I notice we have not had Bernie Sanders on the Presidential ticket, despite two runs; and there is surely some reason for that. Possibly the voters have identified that those candidates will not gain sufficient independent or Republican support to actual win in general elections. In any case, it seems likely to be a lot more nuanced than you're suggesting.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  This isn't really the gotcha moment you think it is. Primaries are, well, mostly a farce and the people that show up for the primaries are the ones that often have the most free time or ability to do so. Retirees, wealthier individuals and so forth. There's no better evidence of this fact than candidates like Bernie Sanders having extremely high popularity among the younger generation which tapers off the older people get. There's a massive and growing generational divide that's only going to get better once the voting block that enables them starts dying off. Assuming that the primaries represent who will actually win a presidential election is as much of a mistake as assuming that polls are accurate when it comes to election day.

AdamH12113 4y ago

Democrats have had the power to pass legislation without Republican support during the following periods: * The 1993 - 1994 congressional term[1], during which they tried and failed to do healthcare reform, but succeeded in passing bills for medical leave, NAFTA, gun control, violent crime, taxes, and education. * June 30, 2009 - February 4, 2010 (72 working days total)[2], during which they passed a major healthcare reform bill, the Affordable Care Act. From 1981 - 1992, 1995 - 2008, and 2011 - 2020, Republicans have held the presidency or at least one house of Congress. During 2009-2010 and 2021-present, they have also abused the Senate filibuster to obstruct almost the entire Democratic agenda, with the goal of making the public perceive Democrats as ineffective. (As you have seen for yourself, it worked!) In the current term, the Democrats have a bare 50%+1 majority, which means that the most conservative Democrat (usually Joe Manchin of West Virginia) effectively has a veto. On top of that, the Supreme Court has been controlled by Republican partisans since 2006, when Samuel Alito was appointed. Currently there is a 5-vote majority of extreme Republican partisans. This creates an additional Republican veto point for effectively any Democratic legislation. One can (and should) criticize the Democrats for not ending the filibuster when they had the chance. But the reality is that the American legislative process involves a lot of veto points, and it only takes control of one to kill a bill. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress#Major_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress#M... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

dragonwriter 4y ago
> the 1993 - 1994 congressional term[1], during which they tried and failed to do healthcare reform, but succeeded in passing bills for medical leave, NAFTA, gun control, violent crime, taxes, and education. NAFTA doesn't really count here since it was passed over strong (but not unanimous) Democratic resistance with almost unanimous Republican support. Or maybe it does, since while it was a break from the existing and prior policy orientation of the party, it was a Clinton policy which presaged the emergent dominance of the anti-worker neoliberal capitalist wing of the party that dominated the party from after it's defeat in the 1994 midterms until now (weakening a bit in the last several years.)