Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
They do say what they want to do though. Most Republican fiscal plans I've heard are anti-something whether it be poor, minority, elderly, young, or some combination of those. I'm saying that while their goals are decent and in some cases admirable they don't realize that their plans won't achieve those goals as effectively. Sometimes they might even hinder them. Take taxes for example. I'm all for helping to improve economic growth but slashing them is not going to work because it decreases money the government has to spend and the government is one of the biggest consumers in the world. It also gives money to poor people through welfare which allows them to spend money which stimulates the economy even further.
edited 2nd Jun '13 8:10:04 PM by Kostya
1. Support for entrepreneurship and small businesses, yes. However, that's missing two key elements:
a. an observation that Republican policies tend to favor big business rather than small business — i.e. rewarding the status quo and actually decreasing the opportunities for entrepreneurship. and
b. an awareness that businesses do not exist simply in a conceptual vacuum wherein they generate money and economic activity, but that businesses are inherently part of the social and environmental fabric of the town/city/county/state/country, and while policies and other circumstances affect businesses in many ways, positively and negatively, businesses in turn can affect their surroundings in many ways too, positively and negatively.
2. The specific notion of "slashing [government] spending" is not a priority objective itself. It's more of a means to an end, a tool in a toolbox. The objectives are efficiency, effectiveness, and deficit reduction. But there are other tools that can also produce these results. In fact, aiming intentionally for slashing spending can be counterproductive; sometimes you need to temporarily spend more money in order to implement a more efficient and cost-effective program in the longer run; us regular folk call these arrangements "investments".
I see two major problems with that report.
First, they seem to be under the impression that all they have to do is "explain" how their current unchanged economic policy would be good for anyone who isn't already an executive. There's no explanation necessary by now: giving more money to rich people just gives more money to rich people and doesn't find its way down without incentive, and the laws they propose statistically do more to aggressively stifle competition (largely small businesses) than aid them in any way. Young voters know this intimately, as we're getting utterly sodomized by it at every turn.
Second...
If the image you're trying to shed is one of disconnected businessmen, it's probably not a good idea to reinforce it by consciously treating your party line as a brand.
edited 2nd Jun '13 8:23:57 PM by Pykrete
![]()
Thats the thing. They are businessmen, and people know it. Which means all we hear is "How can we businessmen engage the hip cool kid crowd and convince them we're not businessmen?"
Its the same reason Microsoft's new Xbox is flailing in the PR wind. Suits who cant understand average consumers trying to appeal to average consumers.
edited 2nd Jun '13 8:25:39 PM by Midgetsnowman
I guess one understandable reason why words like "brand" get thrown around is because the PR people for politicians were probably hired after having been PR people for companies that actually have a brand. So it might just be a common parlance term amongst those sorts of people, even if some folks take it as being rather disconnected.
Just a possibility.
Ya' know I wonder if this is accurate
?
I want to think so,but I don't think there was nearly as much partisanship,and Dukakis lost by a far more unfair margin than Romney,and the GOP has never been defeated as badly as the Dems in 1984.
^
It's basically saying that the GOP is an echo chamber, and that most of them want it to stay that way. Any sort of hints towards "Hey guys, the entire country is beginning to hate us, maybe we should change so we represent a broader spectrum of people so that we lose less?" gets you ostracized and kicked out of all the social circles in the party.
Sort of like "Our ideology is flawed, but you're either with us or against us, and if you point out those flaws you obviously aren't with us."
Well the entire country isn't really turning against them. They still had a good run in 2012 and actually would have won in a system that used popular votes instead of the electoral college (I can find the statistics to back that up if you want).
I think it's more of a case that they're becoming more reliant on specific hot-button issues like gay marriage and gun control and immigration to motivate their voter base while the proportion of voters opposed to those stances increases and they fail to appeal to them with their lackluster policies in other fields due to becoming so specialized.
That was a mouthful.
edited 2nd Jun '13 8:59:21 PM by AnSTH
But that's a story for another time.Actually, I was talking about the current tendency for businessmen and Congressmen being roughly interchangeable. A huge chunk of them are themselves business owners, and it's very, very common for legislators to leave their seat and immediately get a cushy job working for companies that lobbied them while in office. This in essence is revolving door politics.
ninjad by a puppy.
edited 2nd Jun '13 9:03:40 PM by Pykrete
1.4 million, but that is still a lot.
Senator McCain: Holder’s actions ‘demand explanation’

I'm interested in this part
To combat that, the report stressed that the GOP should better explain how its policies translate into economic growth for the country and for individuals. On an issue that hits especially close to home for young voters — student loans — Democrats are perceived as taking more action
You can say you're for something but that doesn't mean your policies actually have that effect. Many young people might realize this.