Does anyone NOT think that the Democratic Party has CLEARLY moved Left?

[buckeye45_73]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

They went past Left and they are into crazy town.....they should open each debate with circus music.......I've called the DNC every 4 years the circus and man I cant wait for 2020.......Maybe they'll describe how much they get a hard on everytime they see dead baby parts........these people are beyond ludicrous.

And I haven't touched the economy or immigration.....I mean these people are insane

 

[Mac1958]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays that would bankrupt most families, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" for insurance companies. Customers need co-pays to ensure they don't "abuse the system". I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

The answer is sitting right in front of us: Just expand the current, popular Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to all. An effective mix of public foundational coverage and dynamic free market competition and innovation. Tweaks could easily be made to it to make it more affordable.

I can understand why the GOP hates it - it includes the evil government and they're trained to lose their shit there out of sheer ignorance - but I think the Democrats would be VERY smart to roll something like that out.
.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" to ensure they don't "abuse the system", I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

I agree student debt is too high, but that's because Big Education is never called out for raising tuition/room and board/and books constantly.........it's the one place that never gets attacked for skyrocketing costs....at the same time education is going down......more politics, and less academics and debate.....


Not everyone needs to go to college.....and colleges should be teaching, not letting people off to go demonstrate against some policy......

As for healthcare...the reason you want see public and private at the same time, is the people who want a public option, know the care will be much less and be more expensive....the other issue, is do I have to pay for someone's healthcare? I think not......

 

[Coyote]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

It is moving further to the left. With Republicans far right and Dems far left what is there for a sane middle?

 

[Mac1958]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" to ensure they don't "abuse the system", I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

I agree student debt is too high, but that's because Big Education is never called out for raising tuition/room and board/and books constantly.........it's the one place that never gets attacked for skyrocketing costs....at the same time education is going down......more politics, and less academics and debate.....


Not everyone needs to go to college.....and colleges should be teaching, not letting people off to go demonstrate against some policy......

As for healthcare...the reason you want see public and private at the same time, is the people who want a public option, know the care will be much less and be more expensive....the other issue, is do I have to pay for someone's healthcare? I think not......

You're already paying for other people's healthcare, through higher premiums, co-pays and co-insurance to pay for those who don't pay at all.

That's not going to change.

So it would make more sense to provide foundational/preventive/diagnostic/catastrophic coverage on a mass scale.
.

 

[Mac1958]

It is moving further to the left. With Republicans far right and Dems far left what is there for a sane middle?

It's really disappointing that a sensible third party isn't national yet. This madness will only get worse.
.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Popular vote doesn’t count, and your figure is also wrong.

It doesn't count for selecting the president, but it clearly shows where the country is collectively.

Here's the thing... we've had discussions on issues, and the left has kind of prevailed on a lot of them.... as they always do, as society always progresses.

Blacks having equal rights was a crazy liberal idea at one point. Like within my lifetime, and while i am old, I'm not that old. Now no one really debates they shouldn't.

blacks having equal rights was not a ideological thing......I hate to put it to you, lots of progressives were and still are racist....sorry bro. And those things were done viat the court, not in legistaion, which is the peoples house....and it's why you guys are panicked by the court not going left......you're supreme court tyranny is over...it's balanced now and if Trump gets another turn....we can reverse many of the bullshit rulings you guys rammed down the country's throats.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" to ensure they don't "abuse the system", I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

I agree student debt is too high, but that's because Big Education is never called out for raising tuition/room and board/and books constantly.........it's the one place that never gets attacked for skyrocketing costs....at the same time education is going down......more politics, and less academics and debate.....


Not everyone needs to go to college.....and colleges should be teaching, not letting people off to go demonstrate against some policy......

As for healthcare...the reason you want see public and private at the same time, is the people who want a public option, know the care will be much less and be more expensive....the other issue, is do I have to pay for someone's healthcare? I think not......

You're already paying for other people's healthcare, through higher premiums, co-pays and co-insurance to pay for those who don't pay at all.

That's not going to change.

So it would make more sense to provide foundational/preventive/diagnostic/catastrophic coverage on a mass scale.
.

True, but in those cases, I can change providers or tiers of a plan. I like Trumps idea of removing these stupid state regulations, who pick which companies are allowed to do business........that needs to go.....it should be more like auto insurance.....also I think that companies should give you vouchers to pay for your insurance rather than directly pay, that way you get the best price you can and you're responsible for it.

 

[dblack]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

Yep, the Democratic Party has moved left. But why is that bad? The left is 'of the people', and to be clear and honest, the right is not.

Lincoln said it best, we are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. That alone should enlighten the readers that the Republican Party in the 21st Century is no longer the party of Lincoln.

What's wrong with the centre?

Ask the wingers. They believe moderates re 'the enemy' right now.

Is there such a thing as a 'moderate' these days?

Wolves in sheep's' clothing?

The real problem, regardless of whether you favor "liberal", "conservative" or "libertarian" policies, is that we don't govern from consensus. We pass sweeping, intrusive laws with slim partisan support. That doesn't work. As soon as that 51% tilts the other way, these laws are undermined or ripped out. Any law that forces fundamental change on society needs way more than simple majority support.

 

[dblack]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays that would bankrupt most families, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" for insurance companies. Customers need co-pays to ensure they don't "abuse the system". I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

The answer is sitting right in front of us: Just expand the current, popular Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to all. An effective mix of public foundational coverage and dynamic free market competition and innovation. Tweaks could easily be made to it to make it more affordable.

I can understand why the GOP hates it - it includes the evil government and they're trained to lose their shit there out of sheer ignorance - but I think the Democrats would be VERY smart to roll something like that out.
.

But the timing couldn't be worse. Our politics, our nation, is bitterly divided. Anything you add to government's plate will become more fuel for the fire. The last thing we need is another political football to fight over every single election.

 

[Mac1958]

The real problem, regardless of whether you favor "liberal", "conservative" or "libertarian" policies, is that we don't govern from consensus. We pass sweeping, intrusive laws with slim partisan support. That doesn't work. As soon as that 51% tilts the other way, these laws are undermined or ripped out. Any law that forces fundamental change on society needs way more than simple majority support.

And, Bingo.

There are too many people with a vested professional interest in not allowing this to happen.

And the fact that this isn't screamingly obvious is disturbing, literally.
.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

Yep, the Democratic Party has moved left. But why is that bad? The left is 'of the people', and to be clear and honest, the right is not.

Lincoln said it best, we are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. That alone should enlighten the readers that the Republican Party in the 21st Century is no longer the party of Lincoln.

What's wrong with the centre?

Ask the wingers. They believe moderates re 'the enemy' right now.

Is there such a thing as a 'moderate' these days?

Wolves in sheep's' clothing?

I see moderates as people who don't blindly follow along a certain political party line. Someone that prefers to take a little from party A and a little from party B, if you will.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays that would bankrupt most families, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" for insurance companies. Customers need co-pays to ensure they don't "abuse the system". I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

The answer is sitting right in front of us: Just expand the current, popular Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to all. An effective mix of public foundational coverage and dynamic free market competition and innovation. Tweaks could easily be made to it to make it more affordable.

I can understand why the GOP hates it - it includes the evil government and they're trained to lose their shit there out of sheer ignorance - but I think the Democrats would be VERY smart to roll something like that out.
.

But the timing couldn't be worse. Our politics, our nation, is bitterly divided. Anything you add to government's plate will become more fuel for the fire. The last thing we need is another political football to fight over every single election.

That may be true, but the cries for real Single Payer are only getting louder. We could easily to a point at which it's Single Payer or the approach I mentioned.

If the GOP holds out on all-or-nothing grounds, they could lose the whole thing.
.

 

[dblack]

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays that would bankrupt most families, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" for insurance companies. Customers need co-pays to ensure they don't "abuse the system". I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

The answer is sitting right in front of us: Just expand the current, popular Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to all. An effective mix of public foundational coverage and dynamic free market competition and innovation. Tweaks could easily be made to it to make it more affordable.

I can understand why the GOP hates it - it includes the evil government and they're trained to lose their shit there out of sheer ignorance - but I think the Democrats would be VERY smart to roll something like that out.
.

But the timing couldn't be worse. Our politics, our nation, is bitterly divided. Anything you add to government's plate will become more fuel for the fire. The last thing we need is another political football to fight over every single election.

That may be true, but the cries for real Single Payer are only getting louder. We could easily to a point at which it's Single Payer or the approach I mentioned.

If the GOP holds out on all-or-nothing grounds, they could lose the whole thing.
.

It doesn't matter what they pass. If it doesn't have broad support (ie if 90% of Republicans are against it), it will simply be pissing in the wind. As soon as the political winds blow the other way it will get the monkey-wrench treatment. ACA should have taught Democrats that lesson. But they don't seem to be "teachable".

 

[Dragonlady]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

I think that the Democratic Party NEEDED to move to the left. Since Bill Clinton moved the party 50 paces to the right to win election in 1992, Democrats have basically abandoned leftist policies. But now the full on destruction of 40 years of right wing low tax policies, no infrastructure or program investments for the people, combined with the economic drain of 18 years of continuous war, has come home to roost, it's time to stop pretending that Republicans know how to stimulate an economy, or provide a stable platform for economic growth.

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays that would bankrupt most families, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" for insurance companies. Customers need co-pays to ensure they don't "abuse the system". I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

The answer is sitting right in front of us: Just expand the current, popular Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to all. An effective mix of public foundational coverage and dynamic free market competition and innovation. Tweaks could easily be made to it to make it more affordable.

I can understand why the GOP hates it - it includes the evil government and they're trained to lose their shit there out of sheer ignorance - but I think the Democrats would be VERY smart to roll something like that out.
.

Once the public sees the cost differential, and the lack of pre-approvals (a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES), reduced paperwork, etc. the public option will leave the private insurers in the dust. As a Canadian, I cannot believe the costs and the hoops that Americans tolerate to access health care. I go to the hospital or the doctor's office, hand them my OHIP card, they verify my address, phone number and the contact information for my next of kin hasn't changed, or give them my new information, which is entered on their records, and my paperwork is done. I only have to notify OHIP if my address changes and get a new picture taken for my card every 5 years.

 

[Dragonlady]

They took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line and ran with it as if it were gospel. And now they've got a guy in the White House who goes out of his way to insult and polarize.

This has left the door wide open for the Left to act. The problem is that they're going too far, which is typical in the political world.

I mentioned earlier that the biggest concern I've had since the day Trump was elected has been that the response and reaction to him would be like nothing we've ever seen before. So far I think I'm right. And that could lead to a kneejerk reaction that goes too far.
.

I agree that they've gone WAY too far, with Sander's force march to Medicare For All. And I don't think that wiping out ALL student debt is doable or even desireable, especially for the Ivy League private schools with the big ticket tuition. OTOH, I do agree that something drastic needs to be done on both issues, but the devil is in the details.

A few years ago, I opined that high student debt loads coming out of university were going to hobble this generation of graduates in terms of disposable income to get married, start a family, buy cars, houses, and generally become the kind of consumers of durable goods that drives the economy forward. And the people most hobbled, are those who leave Ivy League Schools with enough debt to purchase a modest house in many small town communities.

At the time I was espousing these ideas, I was called a crazy leftist looking for free shit, but from the standpoint of a student of economics, on issues such as this, turn entire economic shifts. The demographic is large enough, and the impact is rippling throughout the economy. My oldest child is 18 years older than my youngest, so I've had the perspective of sending two generations out into the world, and the world for my 47 & 45 year old children and their friends has been far, far different, than entry into the work force for their sister's generation.

Statistically, the Baby Boom Echo kids stayed in school longer, and lived at home longer than their parents. When I left home at age 18 to go to the Big City to school, I never went home again. I don't think I ever spent another night under my mother's roof. My older children's generation left home, married and started their families, 3 or 4 years later than their parents, and the next generation is staying home even longer, in large part because of carrying enormous amounts of student debt. These are middle class, well educated adults, who's disposable income, which would either be going to savings, or building a home and a life for themselves, is now paying principle and interest on their student loans.

When it comes to health care, if it's not broke don't fix it. If people want insurance companies directing their treatment and paying 30% of their health care dollars to the insurance companies, plus co-pays that would bankrupt most families, because paying an $18,000 a year premium isn't enough "skin in the game" for insurance companies. Customers need co-pays to ensure they don't "abuse the system". I say let them continue to be ripped off.

But at the same time offer a public alternative, that has the same kind of administrative costs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. At a premium 25% lower than the private market, with no-pays, no pre-approvals, and low administration costs, and watch the public leave the for-profits behind. In a heartbeat. Americans are the cheapest people in the world. That's why you had off-shoring in the first place. Better, cheaper, healthcare for all is possible.

You're currently paying nearly double the amount of money per capita that all other industrialized countries in the world pay, and 10% of your population has little to no access to quality health care at all. Your healthcare costs are driven by the willingness of private insurers to pay ridiculous amounts for some treatments. Healthcare decisions should not be decisions motivated purely by profit, and what is most profitable for the insurance industry. These are not "disinterested parties".

The answer is sitting right in front of us: Just expand the current, popular Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to all. An effective mix of public foundational coverage and dynamic free market competition and innovation. Tweaks could easily be made to it to make it more affordable.

I can understand why the GOP hates it - it includes the evil government and they're trained to lose their shit there out of sheer ignorance - but I think the Democrats would be VERY smart to roll something like that out.
.

But the timing couldn't be worse. Our politics, our nation, is bitterly divided. Anything you add to government's plate will become more fuel for the fire. The last thing we need is another political football to fight over every single election.

That may be true, but the cries for real Single Payer are only getting louder. We could easily to a point at which it's Single Payer or the approach I mentioned.

If the GOP holds out on all-or-nothing grounds, they could lose the whole thing.
.

It doesn't matter what they pass. If it doesn't have broad support (ie if 90% of Republicans are against it), it will simply be pissing in the wind. As soon as the political winds blow the other way it will get the monkey-wrench treatment. ACA should have taught Democrats that lesson. But they don't seem to be "teachable".

I don't see that as the problem at all. I see it as a messenging problem. The ACA has broad public support, even from those people who hate "Obamacare", simply because Obama passed it. But they love the ACA, so deeply that they voted against it's repeal at mid-Terms, and every single time the ACA has been an election issue, the people have voted FOR it.

I see the problem as the poisoned airwaves that started happening the moment the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealled. Right wing talk radio has taken over the air-waves in the middle of the country. It's cheap programming, and it's effective advertising for right wing policies, even if guys like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and others have lied about and misrepresented Democrats and their policies. The demonization of the Democratic Party and of urban voters by right wing talk radio is complete.

Add to that the deal Reagan made with Jerry Fallwell and the Moral Majority to get fundamental Christian vote in return for supporting their positions against gays, abortion and women's rights, and you have a large voting block of people who will always support Republicans over Democrats, regardless of what harm Republicans do to the people or to the economy.7

 

[Olde Europe]

It is moving further to the left. With Republicans far right and Dems far left what is there for a sane middle?

The Dems would have to move way beyond Sanders to get anywhere near "far left". The "sane middle" is somewhere near Warren, and the GOP has degenerated into an extreme right, nationalist, xenophobic servant to the plutocracy, anti-science, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, you name it. They are beyond help and recovery at this time, with perennially irate, Fox-addicted, white geezers as their dwindling constituency.

Really, it doesn't even begin to make sense to worry about the "far left" when no one so much as talks about seriously emboldening trade unions and setting back Wall Street to a status they had in 1960 so as to prevent them from sucking the country dry, and to ensure that financial institutions earn about 4% of corporate profits, as opposed to 40%. Way to go...

 

[xyz]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

O.k., I don't disagree, but in an earlier time, say late 80s/early 90s, the Democrats were so far right they could be considered an extension of the Republican Party. Especially what I noticed in local elections back then, but it could still be the case in some places where Republicans are very popular.

It would be nice if the country was not run by corporations, but I only see that changing a very tiny bit in the near future.

 

[dblack]

I don't see that as the problem at all. I see it as a messenging problem. The ACA has broad public support, even from those people who hate "Obamacare", simply because Obama passed it. But they love the ACA, so deeply that they voted against it's repeal at mid-Terms, and every single time the ACA has been an election issue, the people have voted FOR it.

Sure. It's just bad messaging. Go with that. Doesn't really change anything. If you force change on society without solid support, it won't stick. And if you try to force it, it will make matters worse.

I see the problem as the poisoned airwaves that started happening the moment the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealled. Right wing talk radio has taken over the air-waves in the middle of the country. It's cheap programming, and it's effective advertising for right wing policies, even if guys like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and others have lied about and misrepresented Democrats and their policies. The demonization of the Democratic Party and of urban voters by right wing talk radio is complete.

Well, that's where the Trumpsters agree with you. Both Democrats and Republicans would love to have state controlled media. I hope you fail.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I don't need to list the examples, issues and policies.

There have been people here who deny this, so let's address it head on.

If you think the Democratic Party has not moved clearly to the Left, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks!
.

Since we haven't had a Korean or Vietnamese war for this generation, there hasn't been a core of fanatically anti-socialist working class Americans formed.

The result is the America has moved far to the left. The Democratic party has reflected that change.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are engaged in a last stand to prevent progressive changes in this country. Trump's election was an act of desperation.

After the 2020 election, Republicans will all deny that they ever supported Trump (like they did with GW Bush) and the entire party will swing to the political middle.