Coastal vs Midwestern Dems

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My original post was to learn what, if anything, is being done to unite people under the Democratic banner. Even if I agreed with ACA, in whole or in part, the way it was passed was divisive, and ultimately counterproductive as efforts were/are under way to throw the baby out with the bath water. The way it was handled was a huge turn off to me as a voter. GOP has done similar, and they don't get my vote either.

I think that to answer your question, one needs to understand what you dislike about the ACA's legislative process and specifically the Democrats handling of it. From my perspective, the Dems spent 15 mos trying to negotiate with Republicans (and in many ways watering down the bill), only to have the Republicans to whom they offered explicit concessions still refuse to vote for it. The only alternative to the way the bill was passed would have been not to pass any healthcare legislation at all. The Republicans did not have an alternative then, and they don't have one now. But your originally argument that it was rushed through without bipartisan discussion and debate and without the opportunity to see what was in the bill is simply not true. I was working on the Hill for a Democrat at the time (not on healthcare issues), and while I personally dislike several aspects of the ACA the one criticism that just does not hold water is that the bill was rammed through without discussion. That's what is currently happening with the AHCA.

You may be arguing that the Democrats should not have passed healthcare legislation as long as the Republicans were going to refuse to vote for any attempt to do so, including the bills that reflected their own amendments. That is not an unreasonable position. But it is a position that is unlikely to lead to much happening in Congress.

PP -- Some people put too much stock in how many laws are pushed through Congress. If Congress passes more laws than usual, are we supposed to cheer without any regard to quality, cost or scope of improvement? In this environment in particular, I would think a lot is happening in Congress if they were actually talking to each other rather than past each other. Lately, it feels like we the people are cheering for only one side of a single football team (defense or offense), and the two sides are working against each other more than trying to win together.

When I see that a bill passes without any votes from one side of the aisle, then IMHO the hard work has not been done yet. This is true not only of ACA in 2009, but also with the GOP proposed changes in 2017. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/04/us/politics/house-vote-republican-health-care-bill.html) Costs were soaring no matter whether ACA passed or not. The public will unnecessarily endure how healthcare is delivered/processed (you're covered, no you're not, you are, you aren't), and/or unnecessarily get riled up about what the other side might do next time they are in control. Tweaks to passed legislation are inevitable, but I think more needs to be hashed out before bills like the ACA (and whatever bill the GOP manages to spit out) are passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP again -- at a minimum I want candidates who are bipartisan, which to means the actually listen to opposing ideas, and do the hard work of hashing things out, instead of one side shoving legislation through a la ACA. Yes, the system was and remains flawed, but there was no real discussion. I'd love to see configuration management (to borrow a term from IT) so that the name of anyone adding to or subtracting from a bill is known and recorded. That way there no deniability about who wrote the legislation. I want legislators to read bills before passing them, rather than waiting until it is passed before we know what's in it. I think such a person could go a long way in terms of helping our country.

ACA was debated with very public hearings for 15 mos. You lose credibility when you make statements like this. As you do when you revive the out-of-context statement about "knowing what's in the bill after passing it":
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”

W.r.t. tracking changes, to the extent they are made to a bill that is already on the floor, they are tracked via amendments. It's not really practical to do that during the drafting process itself.

I'm starting to think you are just trying to stir controversy here. You are arguing along partisan lines, and you are making arguments that are completely inconsistent with the point of the article you posted.

My original post was to learn what, if anything, is being done to unite people under the Democratic banner. Even if I agreed with ACA, in whole or in part, the way it was passed was divisive, and ultimately counterproductive as efforts were/are under way to throw the baby out with the bath water. The way it was handled was a huge turn off to me as a voter. GOP has done similar, and they don't get my vote either.

DP. Americans are ripe for a viable third option. Most have figured out by now that both the R and D establishments are on the take.

Will never happen. Perot made some inroads but any third party would be crushed by the ruling elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And how about Pennsylvania? Is it "Midwestern" because Trump won there?

In the 90s, James Carville described Pennsylvania as "two big cities with Alabama in the middle." Pennsylvania lived up to that when they elected Santorum.

Pennsylvania has been a blue state only because the Greater Philadelphia area, Pittsburgh, and a few union strongholds have run up huge Democratic margins that offset losing the rest of the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah, just someone who can point out the oblivious.

Please tell me that was a typo.

+1

Freudian slips are rarely this perfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My original post was to learn what, if anything, is being done to unite people under the Democratic banner. Even if I agreed with ACA, in whole or in part, the way it was passed was divisive, and ultimately counterproductive as efforts were/are under way to throw the baby out with the bath water. The way it was handled was a huge turn off to me as a voter. GOP has done similar, and they don't get my vote either.

I think that to answer your question, one needs to understand what you dislike about the ACA's legislative process and specifically the Democrats handling of it. From my perspective, the Dems spent 15 mos trying to negotiate with Republicans (and in many ways watering down the bill), only to have the Republicans to whom they offered explicit concessions still refuse to vote for it. The only alternative to the way the bill was passed would have been not to pass any healthcare legislation at all. The Republicans did not have an alternative then, and they don't have one now. But your originally argument that it was rushed through without bipartisan discussion and debate and without the opportunity to see what was in the bill is simply not true. I was working on the Hill for a Democrat at the time (not on healthcare issues), and while I personally dislike several aspects of the ACA the one criticism that just does not hold water is that the bill was rammed through without discussion. That's what is currently happening with the AHCA.

You may be arguing that the Democrats should not have passed healthcare legislation as long as the Republicans were going to refuse to vote for any attempt to do so, including the bills that reflected their own amendments. That is not an unreasonable position. But it is a position that is unlikely to lead to much happening in Congress.

PP -- Some people put too much stock in how many laws are pushed through Congress. If Congress passes more laws than usual, are we supposed to cheer without any regard to quality, cost or scope of improvement? In this environment in particular, I would think a lot is happening in Congress if they were actually talking to each other rather than past each other. Lately, it feels like we the people are cheering for only one side of a single football team (defense or offense), and the two sides are working against each other more than trying to win together.

When I see that a bill passes without any votes from one side of the aisle, then IMHO the hard work has not been done yet. This is true not only of ACA in 2009, but also with the GOP proposed changes in 2017. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/04/us/politics/house-vote-republican-health-care-bill.html) Costs were soaring no matter whether ACA passed or not. The public will unnecessarily endure how healthcare is delivered/processed (you're covered, no you're not, you are, you aren't), and/or unnecessarily get riled up about what the other side might do next time they are in control. Tweaks to passed legislation are inevitable, but I think more needs to be hashed out before bills like the ACA (and whatever bill the GOP manages to spit out) are passed.

I understand your point, but I fundamentally disagree with it for two reasons. One of those reasons can be viewed as partisan (though I think it's empirically not), but I don't think the other one can:

1) Sometimes legislation needs to be passed with some urgency. This includes raising debt ceilings, passing appropriations bills, and stuff like the TARP bill to help stem the downward economic spiral we were facing in 2008/2009. So even if Congress can't work out all of their differences, the imperfect bill might still be better than no bill at all.

2) What I think is an empirical observation but you may dismiss as partisan is that one party has been far less willing to negotiate in good faith than the other when it comes to policy. Again, using the ACA as an example, many aspects of it were more or less the policy proposed by Nixon and implemented in Massachusetts by Romney. And many concessions were made over that 15 month period to Republicans, but ultimately my view was that the negotiation was in bad faith since despite the bill being amended to reflect Republican asks, none voted for the bill. A similar thing happened in ARRA, where the bill had many more tax cuts than Democrats would have preferred, but despite losing the WH and holding minority positions in the House and Senate no House Republican voted for the bill because they felt they should be able to dictate the amount of tax cuts. What I've observed having worked on the Hill and the WH is that there is far less willingness to compromise from the Republicans than the Democrats. And the Republican intransigence is coming not from political ideology but instead from an us-vs-them mentality...how else can you explain that they don't have a HC policy ready to go after 8 years of opposing the ACA? The closest thing I've seen on the left is the political litmus test around things like the Iraq vote, which I think has been harmful to the party. But that kind of all-or-nothing ideology doesn't seem to have seeped into how legislators approach their jobs...yet. But I suspect it's coming.

You can take or leave my observations, but I offer you this piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-destruction-of-political-norms-started-decades-ago-heres-how-it-happened/2017/06/18/0a963bf6-52d3-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.29f4836dbf90

Yes, the writer is an unabashed progressive. But these words came from Gingrich:

“You’re fighting a war,” the future House speaker said. “It is a war for power. .?.?. Don’t try to educate them. That is not your job. .?.?. What’s the primary purpose of a political leader? .?.?. To build a majority.”

[Anonymous]

Hard to raise crops only on the coasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard to raise crops only on the coasts.

Most of the crops are commodity crops. We don't live on wheat, corn, and soybeans.

[Anonymous]

Enjoy limited freshwater!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to raise crops only on the coasts.

Most of the crops are commodity crops. We don't live on wheat, corn, and soybeans.

Hmmm, so American is moving beyond production of commodities, and we all are going to live on the coasts and do what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Enjoy limited freshwater!

Lived in MO for years due to job, STL.

Rural MO, IL, AR, etc = tons of all kinds of crops, no issues with freshwater.

Chickens, eggs, beef, pork, etc, say hello to flyover and Midwest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to raise crops only on the coasts.

Most of the crops are commodity crops. We don't live on wheat, corn, and soybeans.

You don't eat soy in any form?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who still chooses to live in flyover country is a dumbass.

Coastal cities are where the economy is. That's where the jobs that matter are, where policy is made, and where people with talent will gravitate.

The middle of the country is the sump that collects the lazy, the stupid, those without ambition, and anyone else too obtuse to figure out where to be.

Democrats are the party of science, learning, education and betterment. By that definition, if you call yourself a Democrat, and subscribe to those values, you live on the coast, either in the northest, or the west coast.

If you call yourself a Dem and live in .... I dunno, someplace I'd never be caught dead in, then guess what? You're an idiot.

It's pretty simple.

I guarantee this is a Republican. No Dem I know thinks like this. In fact, they want to see more investment in the Midwestern cities so they can innovate and thrive.

LOL. Only a Republican could have written it?! Given the attitude of so many DCUM posters as they describe "fly over country and its residents," it's entirely possible that a Democrat wrote it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to raise crops only on the coasts.

Most of the crops are commodity crops. We don't live on wheat, corn, and soybeans.

You don't eat soy in any form?

Most of the soy goes to livestock feed. So if I don't eat meat, and I don't use "vegetable" oil (which can be canola, safflower, sunflower, corn, soybean, or peanut oil), then no, I don't eat much soy. Tofu and edamame every now and then. Soy sauce. Soy lecithin in things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to raise crops only on the coasts.

Most of the crops are commodity crops. We don't live on wheat, corn, and soybeans.

You don't eat soy in any form?

Most of the soy goes to livestock feed. So if I don't eat meat, and I don't use "vegetable" oil (which can be canola, safflower, sunflower, corn, soybean, or peanut oil), then no, I don't eat much soy. Tofu and edamame every now and then. Soy sauce. Soy lecithin in things.

Great! American farmers can all shut down and move to the coasts and write code or become baristas because you personally don't need them!

Nothing like being a selfish jerk and basing America's economy on YOUR needs.

[Anonymous]

We subsidize all those farmers and their communities, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, and we regulate banks and other financial industries to force them to serve rural areas, but despite that, the rural folks despise the government because it allows black and brown people to get some of those benefits also.