|
Post by chris on Nov 13, 2005 11:51:30 GMT -5
I happened to catch Dean on Meet the Press as well, and I had a similar reaction. Mine was more, a shaking-my-head "Howard, why are you playing into their hands?" Asked directly about Democratic ideas, he basically punted. What's sad is, I understood exactly what he was trying to achieve with that, but it failed, for much the reason that we see in Kyle's post -- it gave the opposition a handy soundbite to repeat over and over.
And what do I mean when I say I understood what he was doing? Howie and the Democrats are basically trying to keep the focus away from "what do the Democrats have?" to what it is currently on, "just how corrupt is this administration?" And Kyle's right: they're doing it for political ends. Big surprise. Talking full-bore about Social Security at the current moment would do nothing but dampen the political firestorm that's surrounding the Republicans right now. Putting politics before helping the people? Welcome to Washington. The Republicans did it in '99 and '03, the Dems get to do it now.
But beyond just political positioning, Dean is right in saying that it would be pointless to engage in a full-on policy debate just after an off-year election. Right after the quote that Kyle cited, he said, (paraphrase) "The Republicans have the White House, the House and the Senate. We have no power to enact anything we would talk about." And he's right. Any no-holds-barred policy discussion at this point would be as useful as giving a speech to a brick wall. Democrats can't really "help the people" right now, as much as they might want to; even the power of the opposition in the Congress has been dampened in the past several years.
Let's imagine the Democrats came out with a big Social Security proposal, ready to push legislation in the Congress. And let's stipulate (greatly suspending disbelief here) that the talking heads shows actually touted it up and paid attention to it. There would be speechifying on both sides, and discussions for and against, and it might be good policy debate. But what would happen to the bills in Congress? They would die the quickest death imaginable in committee, regardless of how good they were or weren't. And all that policy debate, all that pushing would have inevitably been for absolutely nothing. Moreover, the policy debate having been waged significantly dampens the effect it would have during a political season.
The Republicans did a similar thing in 1993-94, to great effect. As the opposition, they were generally limited to just that: opposing. But things were prepared behind the scenes, and when the time came for the election season, they engaged in a full-court-press on issues. Thus the Contract with America.
So, Howard, I understand. But could you have come up with a little better diversion than, "It's not our job"
[[It's really a shame too, because what Howie said will actually have the opposite effect -- putting focus on the Democrats. Particularly after Ken Mehlman was on the show today -- the tone of his interview was as clear an indication of how in trouble the Republicans have been in as you'll ever see. Too bad the election's a year away.]]
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Nov 13, 2005 12:18:39 GMT -5
Maybe Dems. should just go home and sit on their couches until it is time for re-election. Or maybe, they COULD propose legislation. I would take notice if I saw some Democratic ideas. I think it would work better in their favor to have some ideas brought to the forefront. That way, if Republicans vote them down or don't let them come to a vote, the Dems could say look...look what they did...nothing...we had all these ideas and we couldn't even vote on them, or we had these ideas, Reps didn't agree with them, what do you think voters?
I think holding out on both sides is a STUPID tactic. Aren't we paying all of them to legislate?
Another great thing I loved watching Dean talk about was the Supreme Court nominations. Russert asked about SUPREME COURT votes and he tried to justify not having a vote because Reps didn't allow LOWER COURT votes. Apples and Oranges. When Russert brought up the votes for Ginsberg and Breyer (don't remember the exact votes but I think the most nays was 9 for one of them) Dean dimissed that and went to talk about how far out of the mainstream the new nominee is. If he is that far out of the mainstream, try to stop a vote...how Democratic (talking about the process not the party.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 13, 2005 13:21:21 GMT -5
That's pretty much what the Democrats said to Republicans during 1993-94. And I agree it would be nice if an opposition party could stand and propose doomed legislation to offer it as a counter-point to the party in power, the political fact is, in today's 24-hour news cycle environment, it just doesn't work. Political defeats look like defeats, or at least they get painted that way by your opponent, usually to good effect. And besides, why take a political risk to give you a counter-point to your opponent, when the opponent is doing a dandy job of creating them themselves? I thought the discussion on the nomination was actually one of Dean's better moments of the interview. Russert was hammering him hard with stats on confirmations, and instead of taking the bait (which could have gone nowhere good for Dean, because the stats were taken out of context of the political situation of the time, which was vastly different than today's), Dean basically turned it around to say (in agreement with the NYT editorial Russert put up on screen) that it was a chance for Democrats to define themselves as fighters for mainstream values. Russert should have asked if that just meant another definition in opposition to Republicans, instead of standing on their own, but he passed on that chance. Still, Russert was particularly agressive today, and not just with Dean. Both the party chairmen got hit hard with various stats and quotes, and it showed the weaknesses on both sides. One of the better Meet the Press-es I've seen in a while. I need to get a life!
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Nov 14, 2005 12:07:50 GMT -5
Kyle, I missed Meet the Press this week. Alas. Sounds like a good one. I wanted to discuss whether or not the Democrats have any ideas. I think they do. If anything, their problem is exactly the opposite: They have too many ideas. Often the left seems splintered into hundreds of special interest groups. The problem on the left, it seems to me, is finding a way to unify around some pared down set of core ideas. Sometimes when you ask about democratic ideas, it sounds like you want alternatives to things like public education, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc… The democrats are not going to propose alternatives to these programs. They like them. Now, those programs can always be improved, and I think most democrats are happy to experiment. There are lots of good ideas out there about how to do this. Many Republican solutions are not really new ideas at all but attempts to eviscerate effective social programs. For example, school vouchers would very likely hurt the possibility of public education. So the democratic idea would be to continue supporting public education and finding new ways to improve it. Again, there are lots of ways to do that. The NEA ( www.nea.org/index.html ) which Republicans like to thrash, is an interesting resource for them. I think part of the problem is that democrats don’t have many sexy solutions; they don’t want structural change in most cases but the evolution of Big Ideas that were instituted years ago. When Republicans challenge the effectiveness of democratic social programs, the democrats see no reason to dismantle them. Rather, they look to ways in which effectiveness can be improved within existing structures. Actually, I find the Republican ideas to be vacuous on most social issues. They advocate the abolition of many programs while offering nothing in their place. But the programs came to be because they address real problems. When things like welfare and public education go away, we will have the same set of problems that led to those two social innovations in the first place. When Republicans do offer alternatives, they are mostly all about immediate gratification: “Wouldn’t you like to pay less tax?” If this is true, then I think Dean's statment makes a little sense--though I wish he would have said it differently. Many of the programs we like are in place and taking care of themselves. The democrats' job is to fend off the Republicans at the gates. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Nov 14, 2005 19:12:27 GMT -5
I'm a Democrat, and I have a thousand ideas. I put them up here all over the place. There will never be a Republican that knows me to any extent that could ever say with any sense of honesty that "Tyler just criticizes. He never has any suggestions about what we should be doing." The problem becomes, how do you present the idea now and not have your opponent a year from now roll his eyes and say "Oh, not that again!" when you push for it during the election?
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 15, 2005 9:13:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Nov 15, 2005 12:06:46 GMT -5
Howard Dean: "It's not our job to put forth ideas, it's our job to get this corrupt administration out of the White House"
Tyler, there is no problem with how to bring up a year later. Keep pounding away, time and time again. Get try and get the press involved (there are enough shows out there, somebodies going to let you on TV) and go on on and call out the lazy Republicans who aren't lifting a finger to help out. But then again, the Chairman said that that's not their job.
I recall the '04 debates when Pres. Bush was asked about Social Security. He spoke about his plan for personalized accounts and how to transition to them. When Sen. Kerry was asked what he would do he talked about how the Rep figures were wrong and if people wanted to know about his plan they needed to go to his website! Are you kidding me! He couldn't even talk about his own ideas on a nationally televised debate. He might as well have put a computer monitor on his podium and had the audience come up and navigate his website.
That was a good strategy though, it's hard to loose a debate when you just trash the other guys ideas. Please don't think that I don't think that you have no ideas Tyler; I haven't read your stuff long enough to think that yet.
It does seem that at almost every corner, the Dems are telling everyone how the Rep ideas won't work...OK...fine...what will work then?
PS - Maybe this isn't the place for this but if the NEA wants teaches to be payed a professional wage, why do they not want teachers to be treated like professionals? I'm mainly talking about tenure. If a teachers aren't doing their jobs, they deserve to be fired. That's how it would work an most other professions...right? By the way, my wife just got her tenure for Edmond Public Schools last year.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 15, 2005 12:53:50 GMT -5
If only it were that easy to get the press to hop on an issue at the drop of a politician's hat. Think of all the times that legislators try to promote legislation at press conferences that go virtually unattended. And all the times that Congressmen give speeches on policies that they feel are important in the middle of the night because that's the only time that's available to them (very exciting stuff for C-Span). Major network and newspaper press rooms get dozens of press releases every day, from all manner of politicians. And it is a simple, lamentable fact that the media gets bored with stories (one of the several reasons I got out of it) and is loathe to revisit old territory. It's not just the opposing candidate who will be rolling their eyes and saying, "Oh, not that again." (if you want a real world example: Bill Bradley -- pushed his ideas in the primaries so early that they were old stories by the time the actual voting came) John Kerry mentioned his website twice in the three presidential debates: once about Iraq, once about health-care. Both times, he was referring to lengthy, complex plans that he didn't have time to go through while rebutting Bush's arguments. Such is the nature of the presidential debate (unless you're fortunate enough to live in the "West Wing" universe). So the problem: John Kerry didn't have soundbites. He had a plan, but it wasn't digestible. Shame on him. But actually, when he did reference his website about health care, he did follow it up with specifics: "It's in my health-care proposal. Go to johnkerry.com. ... I have a plan. I have a plan to lower the cost of health care for you. I have a plan to cover all children. I have a plan to let you buy into the same health care senators and congressmen give themselves. I have a plan that's going to allow people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare early. And I have a plan that will take the catastrophic cases out of the system, off your backs, pay for it out of a federal fund, which lowers the premiums for everybody in America, makes American business more competitive and makes health care more affordable. Now, all of that can happen, but I have to ask you to do one thing: Join me in rolling back the president's unaffordable tax cut for people earning more than $200,000 a year. That's all. Ninety-eight percent of America, I'm giving you a tax cut and I'm giving you health care. " Sounds like a plan to me! I will say this though: he didn't bring this up again in the third debate when he was asked about Social Security, instead focusing on rebutting Bush, and it's a shame. Maybe his people told him to stop referencing the website. In the end, I think the "ideas" debate goes nowhere. Just because someone has a new idea doesn't make it particularly good or particularly bad. And just because someone is not trying to completely overhaul the status quo doesn't mean they're satisfied with it or devoid of ideas on how to tweak or fix it. There are ideas all around, perhaps it's just that one side is better at getting them out there right now.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 15, 2005 13:11:49 GMT -5
Gaaaah! I just wasted 20 minutes of my life furthering a fruitless discussion! Stop me before I post again!
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 15, 2005 14:29:00 GMT -5
Chris say hello to Politics. I don't think you've met yet.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Nov 15, 2005 14:32:08 GMT -5
"Now, all of that can happen, but I have to ask you to do one thing: Join me in rolling back the president's unaffordable tax cut for people earning more than $200,000 a year. That's all."
That's all, all you have to do is join me in discriminating against the rich. For a party that is so for equal rights, why is it that taxing the rich is such an acceptable plan?
This reply only took about 45 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Nov 15, 2005 14:45:39 GMT -5
Because it takes all the players in an economic system to make it work. There is the persistent and pernicious American myth of a self-made man. Nothing of the sort is possible in any modern society. To see what a self-made man might look like see the film Castaway.
This reply took a minute longer than yours, but you’ve got an interesting idea, Kyle: Speed politics!
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 15, 2005 14:47:39 GMT -5
That's all, all you have to do is join me in discriminating against the rich. For a party that is so for equal rights, why is it that taxing the rich is such an acceptable plan? This reply only took about 45 seconds. It's not discriminating against the rich. The Society has allowed them to become rich. They have a debt to our country, and as much as people don't like them and whine and cry about them, taxes are how our country runs. Try defending our homes and our people with no money. Try invading other countries for oil with a I.O.U. slip. And yes, it's obvious that your response only took 45 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 15, 2005 14:49:20 GMT -5
Bah Jeff! You beat me.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Nov 15, 2005 19:44:51 GMT -5
Kyle...Jeff stupidly deleted your post. After you forgive him (please!) can you repost?
So, so sorry. I hit the wrong button. Stupid admin. Stupid admin.
(I suppose I could tell you how it happened: I don't know if it is just an admin thing or what, but I have a "modify" button on all the posts. It is located right next to the "quote" button. When I went to write a response to your post I just hit the wrong button.)
I just found a way to recover part of your post, Kyle. I pasted this part into a word doc that I made:
"Society ALLOWED people to pay attention in school. Society ALLOWED people to work hard at their job. Society ALLOWED them to spend their money wisely. Society ALLOWED them to create profitable businesses and careers." Kyle
Unfortunately, I did not get the rest of it.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 16, 2005 1:39:54 GMT -5
What do you mean by giving rich people 'the shaft'? How many yachts does one person need? Jerry Seinfeld owns about 20 Porsches. Do you seriously expect us to have sympathy for people who have to take time out of there day just to figure out which sports car they're going to drive?
And your post only reinforces the argument. Yes SOCIETY allowed these people to achieve personal growth. Do you think its fair for people to become prosperous and then say, 'well thanks for providing the resources and freedom to become successful America, but now that I've got mine, you can go fuck off now'... of course not. So they have to pay more. Boo-fucking-hoo. If they couldn't handle all of the responsibilities that come with that level of success, then I guess they shouldn’t have taken advantage of the system our country provides.
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Nov 16, 2005 10:35:49 GMT -5
Here's a silly thought game I play from time to time to illustrate the disparity in wealth in this country. It's a full-on over-generalization, sure, but I think the overall the point still stands. First we're gonna define the middle class in terms of yearly income. I know that's not the way to do it, 'cos work-related benefits or good ol' debt can be as much a factor as anything, and there are always lots of other factors involved. Like I say, I know it's an overgeneralization, but work with me. I suppose we'll need some statistics. www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.htmlLet's give the U.S. of 2005 the benefit of the doubt and call median income per family an even $45,000 per year for 2005. That's the middle per family, regardless of size of family. We'll call that the middle-middle class range. Now, what's the absolute bottom income? Well, of course that would be $0 per year (yes, these are the folks who live in boxes). Okay. Let's call that the lower-lower class range. This suggests a scale of proportion: Class Income per Year for 2005Lower-Lower Class $0-10K Middle-Lower Class $10K-20K Upper-Lower Class $20K-30K Lower-Middle Class $30K-40K Middle-Middle Class $40K-50K Upper-Middle Class $50K-60K Lower-Upper Class $60K-70K Middle-Upper Class $70K-80K Upper-Upper Class $80K-90K Upper-...-Upper Class $90K+ (formula: add one instance of 'Upper' for every $10K increment) I guess you can tell where this is going. I am fairly sure that right now, no one on this board is outsided of the first nine slots, and I bet many of us fall somewhere in the first six. Where would, say, an elected U.S. Senator fit? More statistics. usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htmLet's round way down and call it $150K. Remember, this is just income. What class would they be on the little chart? Well, they'd be categorized as Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper Class. How about the President? usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011600a.htmHe'd be Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper Class, not counting his capital gains or anything. How about a sports figure? Record company exec? Movie producer? Popular TV star? Energy company CEO? Exactly how far out of touch do these people have to be from the middle class they all are trying to make friends with? Better yet, why on earth would a member of the middle class shed a tear in defense of a few percentage points on taxation of these extraordinarily wealthy people...WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN BOXES?
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Nov 16, 2005 17:42:06 GMT -5
I see how it is. You make a good post and it "accidentally" gets erased. I'm only joking, I was able to find the graph off of Fact Check so I'll repost it: www.factcheck.org/article103.htmlThe jist of my post was spent trying to point out the fact that these rich people worked hard for there money (with the exception of the Paris Hiltons). The went to school, PAYED ATTENTION IN CLASS, made good choices and became successful. "If they couldn't handle all of the responsibilities that come with that level of success, then I guess they shouldn’t have taken advantage of the system our country provides." Thanin, that seems like you think that all rich people are crooked, that none of them took their education seriously, and that none of them had the drive to succeed at something. I guess that is much easier than saying that most of the people living in boxes ARE NOT crooked, DID NOT take their education seriously, or DID NOT have the drive to succeed at something. I understand what you're saying about needing money to support this country. Why is the Dem solution to tax the rich and give the middle and lower class the tax breaks? Is it really because the rich OWE this to society? I think not. I think it is becomes Dems know that there are far more middle and lower class voters than upper-upper class. As long as the majority of the economic population is happy, the Dems can keep milking the rich to pay for everyones government. Shit, you might as well take away those annoying votes that the rich get and keep taking their money at the same time. I think a few more Dems could get elected with a platform like that. That reminds me, I had a few paragraphs about the flat tax and the fair tax. Flat tax-self explanitory. Fairtax is where we wipe the tax slate clean. The only taxes collected are on NEW items purchased. Buy a NEW car, house, shirt...pay a tax. Buy a USED car, house, shirt...pay no tax. From what little I've read, this will balance out. No more "loopholes" for rich people to get through. I think it is 23% tax. No matter who you are, rich or poor, if you buy something new, you have to pay a tax. This would also help to eliminate the huge beuracracy of the IRS. There is also some sort of provision to give everyone a check to cover basic living expenses. I've been putting off buying the book for about a month...maybe I should go buy it. I'm sorry Bettout, I'm failing to see the point of your post. You did a very good job of pointing out that there is in fact an upper, middle, and lower class in this country. If the point was that we can just go ahead and arbitrarily tax them more, why not turn around and arbitrarily tax the poor more?? One thing I can give my father credit for when I was younger is breaking down politics to a basic level that I, in my early teens, could understand. He said that Democrats think that they know how to spend your money better than you do. Give you one guess what party my dad supports. Thanin, when you talked about Seinfeld, that reminded me of that saying. If rich people want to spend there money an overabundence of useless shit, fine, it is their money. Why should the government get to tell them what to spend it on. I have to stop writting now. JEFF - if you delete this post again I'm not going to try and repeat it...again
|
|
|
Post by Guest Justin on Nov 16, 2005 18:22:13 GMT -5
"If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." "Show me the coin used for the tax. Whose head is this, and whose title? Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." . ...Democrats think that they know how to spend your money better than you do. As the original question was, "do Democrats do it better," referring to the matching of ideology to Christ's principles, then I guess you'd say the answer is yes.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Nov 16, 2005 18:23:29 GMT -5
If you believe that people are rich because they worked harder, and believe that people are poor because they worked less... If you believe that the deciding factor of how much an individual makes in a year is the amount of effort they put out... If you believe that the desparity between the rich and the poor is because of how they decided to act in school... There's no reason continuing the conversation because you are living in a world altogether different from the one I've seen. Kyle, what percentage of people do you believe die in the same financial category in which they were born? Just give me a guess, without looking it up, and then we'll see how close you get.
|
|