Why the right is winning, but the left will eventually start winning and America will lose.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, May 12, 2017.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #1
    I know long title, but fairly short analysis.

    Right now the right is winning. Local elections, state elections, Congress and thanks to the Electoral College, the Presidency. Why I think this is happening is simple. The far left progressives have pushed too far.

    Even Chris Matthews thinks so:



    As a result, the blue-collar, joe-six packs have pushed back and they showed up at the voting booth and that has made the difference. Keep one think in mind, the root of "Progressive" is progress. Going somewhere. There is a constant push from the far left on Gay Marriage, Transgenders and a lot of other subjects that middle America either 1) disagrees with or 2) doesn't care enough about to vote for. Hence where we are today.

    But things will change. It is simple demographics. As more and more middle Americans in the flyover states die off their offspring may not advocate some of the positions of the far left, but they don't disagree with them like their parents do. Once their parents are no longer voters, the progressive agenda will pick up steam and the country will be electing those who support the progressive agenda.

    And that is where America will fail. Not so much on the social issue aspect, but instead on the financial aspect. We will simply run out of the rich's money. Like Bernie said, free college to all, or guaranteed income for all, free healthcare for all. The current tax base simply won't support it and you can only tax the rich so much before they run out of money. And I'm not talking about the billionaires as they don't pay enough to make a dent. I am referring to those right below them The hundred of thousands of attorneys, doctors, business owners etc who earn over $500K. Those who work to earn it, not those who live on trusts and investments.

    You can only take so much from them until they stop producing. Take an attorney who earns $1M. Right now in CA, he would pay almost 48% in just income tax. Raise his rates to the levels that some progressives would like and he may decide it is not worth working 80 weeks to have the government take 55-60% of his pay. So he cuts back his hours and makes less and as a result, pays less taxes. Oops.

    I give this country another 50-60 years before we are Venezuela. At which point we will hope to be Greece.

    * I made the example a he. Deal with it in your safe space.
     
  2. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #2
    Sorry I don't have sound, but the print is that his words or yours?
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    It's a matter of prioritizing. If we're going to prioritize being the world's policeman and maintaining the world's most powerful military, then we can't also adequately address our numerous social needs.
     
  4. Tinmania macrumors 68040

    Tinmania

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Location:
    Aridzona
    #4
    I definitely agree Democrats spend/spent too much time on issues that have no bearing on most Americans. They spent time on transgender bathrooms while a madman was getting elected president? Good lord.... choose your damn battles. It doesn't matter if you think "but that is right!" when you have lost so much power.

    I pretty much disagree with the idea that Republicans are simply going to "die off." Been hearing that for the better half of a decade and look what just happened. It is not just old people who voted for Trump. Beyond that I find pathetic, the idea that waiting for people to die is a valid path to power.

    Oh and I definitely disagree about the 50 year prediction.



    Mike
     
  5. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #5
    Um, hello? As a resident of a "flyover state", I've gotta admit, I've heard "demographic" theories such as this for, well, a very very long time now. Certainly, people are migrating away from the rural regions in these states. The cities are slowly modernizing and growing, however; they certainly aren't yet catching up to the coasts, but it isn't like it's all ghost towns around here. So don't count us out just yet.

    Here in Ohio, we've gone through demographic shifts; the "baby boom" certainly occurred here as well as in the rest of America, with its corresponding left-turn in political support. The young people around here today are far, far more likely to support far-right policies than their parents were. So I think you've got things exactly backwards.

    And, honestly, come on -- at least the Democratic administrations have attempted to come up with balanced budgets. The Republican ones have simply slashed taxes while increasing spending -- see Trump's new tax and investment plans for an example of that.

    If you're looking for fiscal responsibility here, there's little to like from either party right now...
     
  6. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #6
    Mine. He simply agrees the left has pushed too far.


    The Libertarian me agrees with you about being the world's policeman. But I do think we need to maintain a powerful military as a deterrent. Think of the service men and women as guaranteed income recipients who get to play with guns.
    --- Post Merged, May 12, 2017 ---
    I will agree with you there. But coming up with new ways to spend it leans left.
     
  7. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #7
    Um, have you looked at Trump's $1 Trillion infrastructure plan? ;)
     
  8. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #8
    Exactly. We can destroy our national financial security stepping up to the plate like it's our macho job to police the world as if no one else is able, and the world will stand by telling us to go get'm Tiger while winking at each other (better you than us). This is not meant to be a criticism of the world, but of our own poor judgement and limited ability to appraise the situation.

    Take Korea. You guys may not like this, but there is a whole bunch of countries standing between us and them. Let's let their neighbors especially China take the lead dealing with them. With our involvement in the Middle East, I want to see our presence there reduced, let regional players deal with Afghanistan. It will be just more trillions wasted on our part, and I'll be damned if I want us fighting a war in Korea. Now, I acknowledge we have thousands of troops there that will serve to drag us into a conflict there. :(
    --- Post Merged, May 12, 2017 ---
    Disclaimer: we need a real infrastructure spending plan funded by tax dollars. :)
     
  9. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #9
    Honestly, I really don't understand why we need an infrastructure "plan". Maintenance of public facilities should be a given, and build right in to every taxpayer's bills. Heck, every taxpayer should really be given an annual summary of what facilities their dollars have been used to maintain and improve; it might make people a little happier to see that their taxes are going to something useful...
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    There are two things at work here. One is the military as a deterrent. I think that is satisfied by maintaining solid alliances. The U.S. doesn't need to protect the world by itself. We, along with our NATO (and other) allies can work together to ensure the world (or at least our interests) is protected.

    The second issue is what to do with our active soldiers. Interestingly, the U.S. doesn't have as much of a disproportionate number of active soldiers as one might think. Canada, for instance, has nearly the same amount of active soldiers per capita as the United States. It would seem that the U.S. spending on our military is more about equipment than people. But I would want that workforce returned to the private sector to increase our pool of talent, creativity and hard work.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    People are intentionally misunderstanding taxes and their relevance to the American economy.

    The effective rate of taxation in the United States in 1954 was 70 percent, down from the marginal rate that was as high as 91 percent.

    Now, we cannot effectively charge the wealthiest that high percentage because modern economics make it easy for people to shift their income abroad, but we have to acknowledge that the current tax rate is actually fairly low and has been getting lower.

    Meanwhile, while Republicans love profligate spending on defense, they balk at the spending that would actually make it easier for the country to grow and innovate.

    As this Guardian article argues, "America has become so anti-innovation—it's economic suicide."

    Using the Juciero debacle as a launching off point, the author argues that the lack of research caused by cutbacks needed to pay for new tax cuts, has made it harder for innovators to thrive.

    An unhealthy society where people are struck down by bankruptcy because of health care costs, but millionaires can afford another Bentley, is not the kind of society that will turn out the next personal computer. What we need is vast spending on infrastructure and education, and we need to be cautious about continuing to cut taxes in the hope that some of that money will return.

    It's worth noting that the Laffer Curve—you know the thing that assumes there's a golden mean when it comes to taxation—is not set at zero. Instead, it assumes that at some unknown point, taxes and revenue will find an equilibrium.

    Moreover, we're in debt because of the Bush administration, which passed Medicare Part D—an unfunded mandate—and launched us into two long-term conflicts, just as it cut taxes. The economy has not grown significantly since 1998.

    Why? Because Republicans cannot govern, nor win wars.
     
  12. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #12
    They say many of our bridges and roads need shoring up. When I think of such a program it needs to be a real program, not a make work program and I agree much of this is States responsibility, if they have the will to pay for it. A few years ago, we drove on an interstate in Missippi that was being repaired and the State was paying one third of the cost. The Federal government paid the rest. In other words State welfare being directed to Mississippi.
     
  13. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #13
    So then why do both democrats and republicans do it? It's not like Obama scaled back military operations. And obviously Republicans (nothing else needs said).

    So... what do? I can't vote right or left because they are both pro-war.
     
  14. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #14
    This is the thing; I don't vote "right" or "left". If the parties are pursuing policies that I tend to agree with, I tend to stand back and just vote for whoever seems most sane in the general election. If the parties aren't pursuing policies that I tend to agree with, I get involved in the primary system and try to select candidates that do pursue policies I like.

    The party system generally follows a pattern of "put forward policy proposals" --> "see what flies during the primaries" --> "finalize policy proposals" --> "try like heck to win the general". If you don't like the policies, you need to get involved earlier in the system than the general.
     
  15. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #15
    I think we should probably just all vote third party, even if they aren't sane.
     
  16. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #16
    Colorado will now allow unaffiliated voters to participate in party primaries.
     
  17. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #17
    Nah, the American federal system of government makes third parties irrelevant, via the "winner takes all" mechanism. There's no way to really generate compromise between parties in Congress; therefore, serious policy changes need to be made at the party level. Choose one of the major parties, dig in, and get them to move their positions. (The Tea Party movement has notably done this to the Republican party, and have succeeded wildly in changing their policies.)
     
  18. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #18
    That sounds like a losing strategy to me. I'll keep voting green or libertarian instead of dem.
     
  19. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #19
    And that sounds like a losing strategy to me. ;)
     
  20. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #20
    Sure but your strategy perpetuates this system. So if your goal is to keep doing the whole war, screw the American people thing, then yeah you'd have a winning strategy.
     
  21. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #21
    Ultimately, somewhere in any successful governing system, the majority of the people (or at least a significant minority of them) needs to have their voice heard. In some systems, notably parliamentary republics, lots of small groups of people can successfully elect a handful of representatives into the government, whereupon these representatives have to work together to form a majority and attain power. Thus, even small groups can see their policies put forward in a compromise platform designed to weld together otherwise opposed parties.

    Not so in the American system. If a party gains more than 50% of the House, that's it: they control the House. The Senate provides slightly more protection for minority parties (via the filibuster), but not much. And yeah, there's only one president at a time. ;)

    So if you want your voice heard, you have to be a member of a party that is aiming to be the majority party. Anything less is utterly pointless.

    So yeah, if the "keep doing the whole war, screw the American people thing" is what you want to get rid of, you need to be pushing this policy into one of the majority parties. You've got a chance to make a change that way. Being a member of a party that never even tries to attract 50% of the vote is a waste of time...
     
  22. BoneDaddy Suspended

    BoneDaddy

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #22
    The "progressive" agenda will never pick up enough steam to go anywhere that matters. The "progressive" agenda is Aggressive, and Regressive, and as far as rights go, DEPressive.

    The only thing that makes any of you THINK that the progressive agenda has any REAL steam to begin with, is the media's manipulation of the scope of it.

    Americans are predominantly fair and whatever walk of life anyone is from, we aren't racist, hateful of "different" people, and generally don't give a damn as long as you aren't pushing your **** onto my doorstep. So Americans don't want progressive crap because it's not what it used to be. And we'll never accept someone else trying to shove their crap down our throats. Plain and simple...
     
  23. bopajuice macrumors 6502a

    bopajuice

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    #23
    Pendulum effect. Happens every four to eight years. Whether you educate yourself or react. The outcome is your choice.
     
  24. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #24
    What is it with the obsession over gays and transgender people? Need to move past that.

    Oh heaven forbid any effort should be spent on making sure people aren't discriminated against! :rolleyes: The problem with your rant, is that the time spent on it was in conservative state legislatures first and foremost.....republican state legislators. I love how Democrats get blamed for the "madman" but it was Republicans who elected him first in the primary and then stepped up to the plate again in the general. Blame them. It certainly wasn't because Dems were focusing on transgender rights at the exclusion of talk about the "madman". That issue didn't even come up much in the Presidential election.

    I don't think history supports your claim. I don't think it was predominantly fair to keep slaves, do you? I don't think it was predominantly fair to deny women the right to vote, do you? Was it predominantly fair to have separate drinking fountains, tables, swimming pools, entrances and bus seats treating blacks like second class unequal citizens? Was it predominantly fair to arrest gay people for dancing with one another in a bar and deny rights at every chance?

    No....none of those things were predominantly fair at all. Unfortunately the human race tends to fall back on bigotry and discrimination. It's a nasty little character flaw that humans seem to have that has been repeated throughout the ages all over the planet.
     
  25. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #25
    I think we lose either way. There is no common ground anymore. :(
     

Share This Page