Trump's strong support / Democrats' lack of support, by white women

[ecco]

Rent controls, price controls, tariffs, increased unionization, withdrawal from free trade agreements, socialized medicine, free higher education - these are things the Democrats should push for and support, and they would get votes. But they don't do that. Why do you think that is?

Because it is unrealistic to advocate and implement rent controls. Just ask New Yorkers.


Because it is unrealistic to advocate and implement price controls. What would you suggest, put a cap of one dollar on a head of lettuce? Put a cap of $250 on a set of tires?

Do you really understand tariffs and who pays for them?

Dems do support unions. Repubs constantly demean one of the largest - the Teachers Union. Republuican Governors and legislatures if red states have "right to work" laws, essentially eliminating unions.

Do you really understand Free Trade Agreements and how they work? And the benefits of them?

ACA was the best the Dems could do in terms of providing better health care insurance. A large part of the middle class is against ACA because of a successful bad-mouthing campaign on the part of the Repubs.

Free higher education? How and when would you implement this? How would you pay for it?


Did I miss any of your points?

 

[Stevicus]

That was the point you were trying to make. You sidetracked by referencing and discussing an article that fallaciously indicated that Dems were the recipients of billionaires' largesse.

The point I was trying to make (which you obviously missed due to blind partisanship) was that the Democrats support policies which benefit billionaires and big business every bit as much as the Republicans. If anything, the Democrats are "Republican Lite," but that's nothing to brag about for the Democrats. You apparently think that it is, since you've said very little to justify or defend any Democratic position, nor have you shown how any of their policies have benefited America's lower classes.

Nonsense. Ninety-nine percent of Americans couldn't tell you what was in and was not in any trade agreement. The only thing they went by was Trump saying "Bad - bad - bad : Repeal and replace" (yeah, same as ACA).

His deal with China was a complete fraud. He ended up spending billions to farmers because he cost them a big customer.

Again, you're missing the point. The point is, Democrats never should have supported those free trade agreements to begin with.

Trump lied about bringing jobs back - just ask the coal miners and the steelworkers. He didn't bring any jobs back.

Maybe the Dems should lie about it also to pander to the ignorant.


Biden is taking the lead in emphasizing that growth lies in green jobs.

No, the Democrats shouldn't have lied. They should have just done it. End free trade agreements and end outsourcing. Bring manufacturing jobs back to America. That would lead to better jobs, better opportunities, a better economy, and a more robust manufacturing base.

People might have been duped into believing Trump's lies, but why haven't the Democrats done what their constituents have been wanting all along? Nobody asked for NAFTA, other than big business, so why did Clinton and other Democrats go along with it to begin with? Answer those questions, and you might actually contribute something useful to a discussion for a change, instead of your constant sniping.

 

[Stevicus]

Because it is unrealistic to advocate and implement rent controls. Just ask New Yorkers.


Because it is unrealistic to advocate and implement price controls. What would you suggest, put a cap of one dollar on a head of lettuce? Put a cap of $250 on a set of tires?

It's not unrealistic. Price controls brought America out of the Great Depression, led America to victory in World War II, and created an unprecedented economic boom and improvement of America's overall standard of living.

As I understand it, rent controls didn't work in New York because it wasn't universal. Some properties had rent controls; others did not.

FDR and other progressives supported rent/wage/price controls, because they knew that it was necessary and beneficial to the working classes. Opposing such measures would indicate opposition and hatred of the working classes.

As I said, either you support working people, or you don't.

Do you really understand tariffs and who pays for them?

Yes, people who insist on buying imports. That's why bringing jobs back to America is the best option, so people will have the option of buying the same products without tariffs. What part of this is unclear to you?

Did you know that the slaveowning South opposed tariffs, too? Do you know why? Do you know why the free North supported tariffs?

Do you even know what you're talking about when you ask me these questions? You act like some kind of know-it-all, but I don't think you know as much as you think you do.

Dems do support unions. Repubs constantly demean one of the largest - the Teachers Union. Republuican Governors and legislatures if red states have "right to work" laws, essentially eliminating unions.

Your whataboutism doesn't change anything, and no, the Democrats have not supported unions, at least not all of them, and they've done nothing for non-union workers either. Google 1983 copper strike in Arizona if you want to see how much our Democratic governor supported the copper miners. And if they really supported unions and workers, they wouldn't have supported NAFTA. They would have supported tariffs to protect American workers.

Do you really understand Free Trade Agreements and how they work? And the benefits of them?

Yes. What is your point? Are you implying that you support free trade agreements?

What benefits have there been?

ACA was the best the Dems could do in terms of providing better health care insurance. A large part of the middle class is against ACA because of a successful bad-mouthing campaign on the part of the Repubs.

Sure, blame it on the Republicans again. More whataboutism. Can't Democrats take any responsibility at all for anything they do?

Free higher education? How and when would you implement this? How would you pay for it?

Arizona's state constitution (and I believe it's similar in other states) requires that higher education be free or as free as possible (for state residents) - although they haven't really been following that law like they should. However, it seems that I'm not the first person to come up with this idea. How do we pay for public education (K-12) now?

Did I miss any of your points?

Not in this post, not that I can tell.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I dunno, I cite Kennedy and Clinton as notorious womanizers. LBJ was corrupt. Al Gore is a slime ball with policies almost the same as Bush's, except Bush wasn't nearly as slimy as Gore.

Was Gore known to be slimy?

 

[ecco]

The point I was trying to make (which you obviously missed due to blind partisanship) was that the Democrats support policies which benefit billionaires and big business every bit as much as the Republicans.

Posting an article that says that some billionaires contributed $100 to Democrat candidates does nothing to support your assertion. When are you going to begin supporting it?

 

[Stevicus]

Posting an article that says that some billionaires contributed $100 to Democrat candidates does nothing to support your assertion. When are you going to begin supporting it?

I've been doing so all along. You just pretend like you don't see it because you're blinded by partisanship.

 

[crossfire]

Was Gore known to be slimy?

I certainly noticed it at the time. I can only assume the DNC looked the other way, as per usual.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

People don't vote based upon stats.
97.3% of people vote based upon
emotional connection to the candidate.

Consider...
Trump at least tried to build his wall.
Obama not only failed to end the wars
as promised, he greatly increased the
Afghan war. And they re-elected him.

Oddly, this is why, even knowing this, I tend towards Democrats over Republicans. Insincere lip-service towards good policy (which for me includes sound environmental policy, work towards equity, and a more humanitarian economy) is better than sincere work towards policy that does actual damage.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oddly, this is why, even knowing this, I tend towards Democrats over Republicans. Insincere lip-service towards good policy (which for me includes sound environmental policy, work towards equity, and a more humanitarian economy) is better than sincere work towards policy that does actual damage.

Aye, there are many factors to consider.
Shortcomings in some areas can be offset by merit in others.

 

[ecco]

Again, you're missing the point. The point is, Democrats never should have supported those free trade agreements to begin with.

No, the Democrats shouldn't have lied. They should have just done it. End free trade agreements and end outsourcing. Bring manufacturing jobs back to America. That would lead to better jobs, better opportunities, a better economy, and a more robust manufacturing base.

I doubt that you are an expert in FTAs. But, tell us what is/was in the bad ones and how that had a negative overall impact on US workers.

 

[ecco]

People might have been duped into believing Trump's lies, but why haven't the Democrats done what their constituents have been wanting all along? Nobody asked for NAFTA, other than big business, so why did Clinton and other Democrats go along with it to begin with? Answer those questions, and you might actually contribute something useful to a discussion for a change, instead of your constant sniping.

Asking you to provide support for your assertions is not sniping. If you don't want people to question the validity of your posts, that's not my problem. So far, you have done nothing to support your assertions.

 

[ecco]

It's not unrealistic. Price controls brought America out of the Great Depression...

...led America to victory in World War II

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your contentions, it is acceptable to take action in emergency situations. Highway speeds were limited to 55 mph during the 70's gas shortage. When the emergency ended, speeds were once again made more realistic. During hurricanes, special laws limit the amount of increases that businesses can apply to products and services.

I think most Americans would be up in arms at the thought of permanent price controls. I think most Americans support Capitalism.

I'm sure leaders of countries like North Korea institute price controls.

As I understand it, rent controls didn't work in New York because it wasn't universal. Some properties had rent controls; others did not.

Rent control didn't work because it was a ridiculous idea. In essence landlords and business owners could only raise rents when a person moved out or died.

Landlords, who also have expenses, forced people out by reducing often essential services like heat and hot water. Owners also changed the purpose of the properties from rental properties to condominiums. This benefited the richer segment of the population at the expense of the poorer. If you were a landlord, would you accept ever lower returns on your investments?

 

[ecco]

Yes, people who insist on buying imports. That's why bringing jobs back to America is the best option, so people will have the option of buying the same products without tariffs. What part of this is unclear to you?

Items that are made in America cost more because the workers who make the items get paid more than the workers making the same products in China or Mexico. Would you want manufacturers in America to begin making dresses and pay the dressmakers fifty cents an hour?

Do you even know what you're talking about when you ask me these questions? You act like some kind of know-it-all, but I don't think you know as much as you think you do.

I'm certainly not a know-it-all when it comes to understanding your arguments. That is why I'm asking what you know. You are the one making the arguments. So far you have been unable to support those arguments.

Your whataboutism doesn't change anything, and no, the Democrats have not supported unions, at least not all of them,

So you finally admit that Dems do support some unions - that's enlightening.

 

[ecco]

Google 1983 copper strike in Arizona if you want to see how much our Democratic governor supported the copper miners.

Arizona copper mine strike of 1983 - Wikipedia

In 1981, the price of copper plummeted from a high of $1.40 in February 1981 to $.75 (seventy-five cents) per pound by December 18, 1981, resulting in losses for the entire copper industry. During 1981, the copper industry, as a whole, laid off approximately 50%, or 11,000 workers statewide. Phelps Dodge continued to operate with full manpower throughout most of 1981, although they continued to lose money. In December 1981, Phelps Dodge announced that it would lay off 108 workers in Arizona and New Mexico on January 3, 1982, and place the rest of the workers on a four-day work week in order to minimize the impact of the layoffs. In doing so, unlike the rest of the copper industry, Phelps Dodge was able to continue to operate and pay their workers, while reducing their production by 20%.[2]

Phelps Dodge announced salary cuts to management personnel, and laid off 100 salaried employees. On April 7, 1982, Phelps Dodge announced it would lay off all 3,400 of its hourly workers in Texas and Arizona, because of its losses. Not only did Phelps Dodge lay off workers, but a total of approximately 12,000 copper workers had been laid off across the industry. None of the copper mines in Arizona continued to operate.

​

Unions do not always do the right thing. Sometimes unions cut off their noses to spite their faces. It seems Phelps Dodge tried to do the right thing. The unions wanted all or nothing. They ended up with nothing. Their actions long preceded any actions by the Governor.

Would you have preferred that Phelps Dodge just continue to maintain a full staff of union workers until it went completely bankrupt? That would have entailed even more job losses.

I'm not sure why you posted a reference to this particular incident. It certainly doesn't help your argument. Didn't you research it before you posted it?

 

[ecco]

ACA was the best the Dems could do in terms of providing better health care insurance. A large part of the middle class is against ACA because of a successful bad-mouthing campaign on the part of the Repubs.

Sure, blame it on the Republicans again. More whataboutism. Can't Democrats take any responsibility at all for anything they do?

They took credit for the ACA. They tried to dispel the Repub hate campaign that included...

They gave Repubs chances to make amendments to the bill before it was voted on. The Repubs wasted time by offering many changes and then voting against it. Since then they have tried to repeal it seventy times.

You seem to not understand that we live in a Republic. All the Dems can do is try to make people understand. They cannot force people to understand.

I have discussed ACA with family members who are against ACA. They can provide no rational reasons for being against it. They are the same people who support Trump.

You see it here in the pages of RF. People arguing against the vaccines.

So, yeah. I'll blame Repubs for a lot of things.

 

[ecco]

However, it seems that I'm not the first person to come up with this idea. How do we pay for public education (K-12) now?

Is that a serious question?

Don't you know that schools are supported by taxes on homeowners even if they have no school age children. Almost half of my property taxes are for schools.

Are you in favor of doubling or tripling homeowners' tax burden?


I'll repeat...Free higher education? How and when would you implement this? How would you pay for it?

And please don't respond by asking another ridiculous question.

 

[Stevicus]

I doubt that you are an expert in FTAs. But, tell us what is/was in the bad ones and how that had a negative overall impact on US workers.

I've posted on this topic extensively over the past several years here on RF. I doubt that you are an expert on anything, but if you're really interested in learning, then pay closer attention.

 

[Stevicus]

Asking you to provide support for your assertions is not sniping. If you don't want people to question the validity of your posts, that's not my problem. So far, you have done nothing to support your assertions.

You don't even know what my assertions are. I don't mind if people question the validity of my posts, but if they go beyond that and declare my posts "invalid" without any explanation or support, then it's just sniping.

Explain yourself, or withdraw. I notice you made multiple posts to me in my alerts just now, so you're the one who seems obsessed with wanting to defend the Democrats at all costs. What's the deal with that anyway? Are you so blinded by partisanship that even the slightest criticism of the Democrats is blasphemy to you?

Are you being paid by the Democratic Party to do this? If not, then what's your story?

 

[Stevicus]

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your contentions, it is acceptable to take action in emergency situations. Highway speeds were limited to 55 mph during the 70's gas shortage. When the emergency ended, speeds were once again made more realistic. During hurricanes, special laws limit the amount of increases that businesses can apply to products and services.

I think most Americans would be up in arms at the thought of permanent price controls. I think most Americans support Capitalism.

I'm sure leaders of countries like North Korea institute price controls.

Then why don't you support the Republicans? If the Democrats like capitalism just like the Republicans, then what is the real difference between the two? Nothing.

Rent control didn't work because it was a ridiculous idea. In essence landlords and business owners could only raise rents when a person moved out or died.

Landlords, who also have expenses, forced people out by reducing often essential services like heat and hot water. Owners also changed the purpose of the properties from rental properties to condominiums. This benefited the richer segment of the population at the expense of the poorer. If you were a landlord, would you accept ever lower returns on your investments?

That just means it was implemented poorly. It doesn't mean it was a bad idea.

I've had this same discussion with @Revoltingest on numerous occasions. But at least he doesn't claim to be a Democrat nor defends them nor believes them to be the party of the working man, as you do.

To me, rent and price controls would be a far more effective strategy than making bold, yet extremely vague, proclamations like "Tax the rich," which I don't oppose, but at least I realize it's far more complicated than that.

One thing about price controls is that it would also be more effective at making American industry more competitive. The primary justification for free trade agreements is that workers in foreign countries can survive on making so much less. It's not that Americans don't want to do those jobs, but they just can't survive on such low wages. So, if companies want to pay workers low wages, then prices and rents have to be lowered accordingly.

Wages are just a number. Money is just a number. The real value is how much you can buy with it. Americans can get along on less money (and thus be more competitive on the labor market), as long as they can get a better bang for their buck.

Fact is, capitalists have been spoiled for too long, and I believe it's way past time for them to pay back what they have stolen. "Tax the rich" sounds compelling, but it's not even half the battle. Make them pay higher wages and charge lower prices - that's something that will bring about real change and a true redistribution of wealth.

 

[Stevicus]

Items that are made in America cost more because the workers who make the items get paid more than the workers making the same products in China or Mexico. Would you want manufacturers in America to begin making dresses and pay the dressmakers fifty cents an hour?

As long as rents and prices are lowered commensurately. As I said, wages are just a number. What matters is what we can buy with it.

I'm certainly not a know-it-all when it comes to understanding your arguments. That is why I'm asking what you know. You are the one making the arguments. So far you have been unable to support those arguments.

That's just your opinion, and I see no basis for it. My original point was that Democrats suck up to big business, which is why they've lost a ton of support from Middle America these past decades. It's why the Republicans get any votes at all. Rather than address this point, you chose to make it about me or about the Republicans or Trump - which really has nothing to with the original point I made. I already knew that the Republicans and Trump were bad before I ever knew of your existence, so I honestly don't need to keep belaboring the obvious.

I had thought that, since you were such a staunch partisan for the Democrats, you might actually make an argument to try to prove me wrong, but your conservative economist talking points on free trade and price controls make me think you're just a pro-business Republican pretending to be for working people.

So you finally admit that Dems do support some unions - that's enlightening.

What do you mean "finally"? If you insist on making the topic about me, then you should strive to educate yourself on who you think you're criticizing.