Democrats face a pretty bleak future

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,767
10,075
136
...director for the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 150,000 federal employees.
Click to expand...
The article states that the Treasury alone has 150,000 employees. Sounds like a hell of a lot of waste.
 
IGBT

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,974
140
106
love watching Trump destroy the faculty lounge, media, democrats, snowflakes, and RINOs 140 letters at a time.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
pcgeek11 said:
I think it could be very useful tool to cut back the huge waste in the federal government if used prudently. As it stood before they can cut the budget and it will impact an unknown number and area of a department. This would be more like a surgical strike instead of a hack and slash.
Click to expand...

More Orwellian.
 
Starbuck1975

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
senseamp said:
The Republican party cannot come up with a working health reform plan after 7 years of bashing Obamacare, and 23 years after Hillarycare was defeated.
Their one health care "reform" was to expand single payer coverage by adding prescription drug benefit to Medicare, with no cost controls, and with zero effort to pay for it except by adding it to the debt.
Democrats future is bright for the simple reason that GOP has no solutions, so when problems arise, only the Democrats can fix them.
Click to expand...
Well they don't have an alternative because Obama essentially implemented the intent of their plan, and the GOP painted itself into a corner in swearing to appeal it because they didn't want Obama to get credit for their idea.

Had Romney won the election, he probably would have further built on the successful Massachusetts model, which to me demonstrates what can be done with bipartisanship.
 
Starbuck1975

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Jhhnn said:
Yeh, these guys really laid it out, huh?

https://www.rt.com/usa/362590-podesta-emails-wikileaks-clinton/

Breitbart, Newsmax, World Nut Daily & the rest couldn't get enough of it. Fox covered it like stink on shit. Social media was flooded with an astounding amount of disinformation.

For the most part, people didn't really know much about it, but it was bad, obviously.... so Democrats were bad & Hillary was bad, too...

You'd probably have to look it up yourself to tell us what you think was bad about it.
Click to expand...
For all of her experience, Hillary has never won an election.

She rode her husband's brand into an unopposed Senate seat, in a state where the Clinton brand was so strong that people got into a mastabatory frenzy the moment she bought a house.

Didn't even finish her second term as Senator, but she was ready to run for President. First time she faced competition and lost.

Political appointment to Sec State, where she inherits a dangerous world yet manages to fumble some fairly substantial developments in the Middle East.

Has her surrogates and party insiders essentially tip the scales and clear the field, and yet still struggles to find a voice or message against an insurgent populist.

Loses to Trump because she fails to inspire the Democrat coalition and actually bleeds some supporters to an @sshole on Twitter.

Yes, the usual right wing and alt-right news channels frothed at the mouth over the email leaks, but I wouldn't expect a Clinton supporter to be swayed by those things.

Clinton's doom was evident to anyone paying attention when Sanders blazed a path through the rust belt. Russian email leaks do not explain her tone deafness and the arrogance of her campaign.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,767
10,075
136
Jhhnn said:
So the goal is to create jobs by cutting govt jobs?
Click to expand...

My view is to embrace automation, UBI, and nothing short of what'd be described as an economic revolution.
I look at those jobs and really scratch my head at how accounting and security for physical monetary assets could required 150k people.
That many jobs should not exist solely for the basis of employing people. Stimulus should be useful jobs for society, like infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Jaskalas said:
My view is to embrace automation, UBI, and nothing short of what'd be described as an economic revolution.
I look at those jobs and really scratch my head at how accounting and security for physical monetary assets could required 150k people.
Those numbers should not exist solely for the basis of employing people. Stimulus should be useful jobs for society, like infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that it will be a privilege to have a job in the future. It already is in many respects.

That doesn't tell us how the increasingly large number of non-privileged will pay the rent & feed the kids or how their inability to do so is some kind of a good thing for the people or the economy.

If we don't have jobs & income then we can't have an economy based on jobs. Our headsets aren't tuned to accept anything other than a jobs based economy, unfortunately.

I don't think you know much about the Treasury Dept, either. It's huge, by necessity, because their areas of responsibility are huge. Customs. IRS. Secret Service. On and on from there.
 
OverVolt

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
As usual, the democrats need a news article to tell them what to think.

The republicans, taking over seat by seat all over the country, already knew it, thanks.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,767
10,075
136
Jhhnn said:
I'll agree that it will be a privilege to have a job in the future. It already is in many respects.

That doesn't tell us how the increasingly large number of non-privileged will pay...
Click to expand...

Doesn't it tell us everything? As we transition to even greater poverty and joblessness, Republicans will have to surrender current economic theory. Many of them won't, and that means people will increasingly in larger numbers vote against Republicans for simple self preservation.

The future is quite bright for those proposing wider social safety nets amidst an ever growing need for them.
 
Starbuck1975

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Jaskalas said:
Doesn't it tell us everything? As we transition to even greater poverty and joblessness, Republicans will have to surrender current economic theory. Many of them won't, and that means people will increasingly in larger numbers vote against Republicans for simple self preservation.

The future is quite bright for those proposing wider social safety nets amidst an ever growing need for them.
Click to expand...
It can't be too bright. If you erect too many safety nets you will inevitably block out the sun, and yet you're celebrating making them wider.
 
OverVolt

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Throwing money at a problem is never the solution.

Was just reading up about NYC's homelessness problem. NYC is basically required to provide temporary housing and in NYC you can probably beg about $200/day in benefits and cash. As a result many homeless have basically flocked to NYC. Or some homeless decide being homeless isn't so bad. So despite how much money the city spends on the problem, its one of the fastest growing hubs of homelessness.

You increase spending on college more people go to college. You increase spending on the homeless you paradoxically get more homeless.

Homelessness has been a problem for thousands of years across all civilizations. But the democrat think they are enlightened and have the magic fix.

Generally things like affordable housing for all, education, and jobs, are what matter. Empowering the people, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, is what reduces homelessness. Instead we have an extreme inequality problem and look down on people who are really only capable of manual labor, have mental problems, etc.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Jaskalas said:
Doesn't it tell us everything? As we transition to even greater poverty and joblessness, Republicans will have to surrender current economic theory. Many of them won't, and that means people will increasingly in larger numbers vote against Republicans for simple self preservation.

The future is quite bright for those proposing wider social safety nets amidst an ever growing need for them.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know it from this election, obviously. The problem is that Repubs own actions will have to beat America down into a state of reasonableness, a pretty poor state at that.

We really don't have to start on that stuff from the depths of an economic depression like in the 30's but that's apparently what it'll take & what I suspect Repub governance & policy will bring us. On our way, we'll cut! Cut! CUT! taxes, regulations &govt spending to... uh... create jobs. Yeh, that's it! SS Medicare Medicaid ACA SNAP & you name it, fools.

Maybe we can sell off federal lands in the process so that they'll be lost to the People forever.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Starbuck1975 said:
It can't be too bright. If you erect too many safety nets you will inevitably block out the sun, and yet you're celebrating making them wider.
Click to expand...

And children born into poverty? Shoulda picked better parents, obviously.
 
R

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Man you so-called sophisticated people are sure acting like the average sheep out there with your partisan politics.

The world is on fire and you people are talking about Democrat vs. Republican?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom