The democrats' "100 hour" set of policies if elected

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: loki8481
you need to look harder and/or get your eyes checked

Oh trust me I understand what all of these mean and what they will do. It's the folks who support them that need to "look harder".

I see the democrats continue to play Santa Claus.

You prefer useless wars that accomplish little more than lining the pockets of Halliburton and other profiteers?

Useless wars (and yes I do believe the war as a mistake) are much better than speeding up the process of hellish socialism in our country.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Funny thing is, I don't see any mention of raising taxes, impeaching Bush or withdrawing troops from Iraq. Despite what the dittohead/hannetized freeper morons seem to be chanting.

Yeah, like Pelosi would release a "plan" with those 3 things as highlights. WTFU.

serious question, do you ever wonder if maybe it's because the DNC *doesn't* plan on doing any of those things?

they're not going to raise taxes unless you count allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as "raising" taxes (in which case I'd ask you why the GOP made them temporary in the first case if they're so great for the economy and won't cause any long term problems)

no one wants to impeach Bush. I wouldn't mind seeing an investigation with full subpoena power into Cheny's top secret energy council, but no one is seriously talking about an impeachment. for one, the Dems want Bush's legacy (and 30% approval rating) hanging like an albatros on the neck of whoever the GOP '08 canidate is, and secondly, they're not morons. they know it'd never get through the senate, and I'm sure everyone remembers how foolish the Clinton impeachment made the entire House look.

edit: and no one is talking about a full and immediate withdrawl from Iraq except those on the far left... if anything, a Democratic controlled congress will be able to put Bush's feet to the fire and finally get some accountability for all the **** ups in Iraq (like why 50% of the money spent for rebuilding Iraq is being used for overhead costs to line corporate coffers)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Useless wars are much better than speeding up the process of hellish socialism in our country.

Guess what?

You can leave this "hellish socialist" country since you hate it so much.

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Of course they leave off the big issues that most Americans are voting based on.
1. They want to raise taxes
2. They want to pull troops out of Iraq, or remove the spending on those troops
3. They may spend the next 2 years on investigation mania looking for things to impeach Bush on.

Boo tactics

1. They can't raise taxes w/o Bush signing off too. The tax cuts don't expire currently until 2010, so there would be several more election cycles before then anyways.
2. Spending bills need Bush's approval
3. Its the price of politics in America today. Who knows, MAYBE they'll understand that Bush would be an even lamer duck where he is and focus on items they can brag about in 2008.

They want, They want, They may doesn't equal They will, They will, They are going to






side note, can everyone start putting all the ("you're stupid", "no you're stupid", "sheeple") personal barbs in italics so its easier to skip, thanks.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So what happened to the "Democrats have no plan", the main (only) reason for voting Republican? Guess that went right out the window with all the rest of the Republican BS and rhetoric, huh?

I wouldn't exactly call this 100 hour list of policies a plan...this is nothing more then a "do good and fight evil" strategy that appeals to topics that are on the minds of most Americans.

Interesting they didn't touch Iraq with a 10ft. pole.

And what about issues like gay marriage and stem cell research...can't get the Christian base all riled up before an election, now can we?

Border security...let's ignore that one as well because we need the Latino vote.

My translation of their "plan"...more government bureaucracy.

The only talking points I agree with from that list are implementation of the 9/11 commission findings, raising the minimum wage and cutting back on student loan interest rates.

New boss...same as the old boss.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Useless wars are much better than speeding up the process of hellish socialism in our country.

Guess what?

You can leave this "hellish socialist" country since you hate it so much.

I can't believe you just said that. How much did you bvtch about GWB? I didn't see you leave. I didn't leave either.

 

[spidey07]

* Impose new rules and regulations to break the link between lobbyists and legislation
why? people need lobbyist to make sure their view is heard
* Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies and fix Medicare Part D
keep gubment out of private business
* Stop Social Security and Medicare privatization plans in their tracks
wrong move. Most people want some form of privatization
* Raise the minimum wage to $7.25
this is the most racist thing the dems could do. It's well known that a raise in minimum wage hurts african americans the most
* Cut the interest rates on student loans in half
It's fine the way it is. Anybody that wants to go to college can
* Roll back subsidies to Big Oil and gas companies
more fear monger and anti-capitialism "It's big oils fault I can't sustain my life!" the lack of personal responsibility around the democratic party is the biggest problem we face today
* Enact all the recommendations made by the independent 9/11 Commission[/quote]
not touching this one

Where is there any mention of the real platform? The "get bush out of office and pull our troops out immediately?"

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So what happened to the "Democrats have no plan", the main (only) reason for voting Republican? Guess that went right out the window with all the rest of the Republican BS and rhetoric, huh?

I wouldn't exactly call this 100 hour list of policies a plan...this is nothing more then a "do good and fight evil" strategy that appeals to topics that are on the minds of most Americans.

Interesting they didn't touch Iraq with a 10ft. pole.

And what about issues like gay marriage and stem cell research...can't get the Christian base all riled up before an election, now can we?

Border security...let's ignore that one as well because we need the Latino vote.

My translation of their "plan"...more government bureaucracy.

The only talking points I agree with from that list are implementation of the 9/11 commission findings, raising the minimum wage and cutting back on student loan interest rates.

New boss...same as the old boss.

If the GOP wanted to have an honest debate about those issues instead of scaring the public and demonizing the Dems everytime they try and bring those issues up we could openly talk about them. It is the GOP's fault that there is no discussion in Washington anymore. They are a sad lot, and I'll be happy to see them go come Nov. 7th.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

It depends on what your definition of "plan" is. :roll:

The Republicans are sure shuckin' and jivin'! :laugh:

 

[tw1164]

One other thing I was going to mention, It seems odd to me that they didn't present this platform earlier. Are the two weeks remaining before election day going to be enough time to get this message to the voters?

 

[Starbuck1975]

If the GOP wanted to have an honest debate about those issues instead of scaring the public and demonizing the Dems everytime they try and bring those issues up we could openly talk about them. It is the GOP's fault that there is no discussion in Washington anymore. They are a sad lot, and I'll be happy to see them go come Nov. 7th.

Worst...excuse...ever. So the Democrats are reluctant to stand up for issues they believe in for fear of being demonized? Sorry, not buying it. The Democrats get strong on issues when it is politically convenient to do so...same as the Republicans.

Neither side is willing to have an honest and open debate on any of the topics I mentioned...when it comes to partisan politics, neither party is an honest broker.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Useless wars (and yes I do believe the war as a mistake) are much better than speeding up the process of hellish socialism in our country.

as long as you're not voting Republican. heh. you'd be wrong if you thought they wanted anything different... I mean, after months of screaming about how big the social security crisis was, did SS reform even come up for a vote? it plays exactly like the GOP stance on social issues. they'll rant and rail till the cows come home about gay marriage, but at the end of the day, pass no laws to actually attempt to find a solution to the "problem."

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daveymark
LMAO! the dems just lost a bunch more votes by releasing that "plan"

Really? A lot of those measures are VERY well supported by voters as a whole. Health care reform and dealing with lobbyists are supported time and time again by the vast majority of people, privatization of Social Security and Medicare have virtually no support outside of the Ayn Rand crowd (as the Republicans recently found out in the ass-beating of the decade). Most people find the subsidies to "big oil" to be a rather strange government policy and would no doubt support rolling them back. And the 9/11 commission ideas would not only actually make us safer, but give the Democrats a STRONG stance on national security that stacks up very well against the invasion of Iraq as the cornerstone of the Bush anti-terrorism policy.

It might be too little too late, but if every voter goes into the booths thinking about these ideas, the Dems will win a landslide. Neo-cons aren't going to buy into those ideas of course, but they aren't the target market and they don't posses NEAR enough votes to swing the election.

Yep, those Swedes are a bunch of fruity Objectivists, I tell ya.

 

[Craig234]

And those republicans have the interests of the common guy as all they care about.

Snippy one liners don't change the fact that social security is a popular, efficient, successful program at nearly eliminating real poverty for the elderly and disabled, and all the 'reforms' o the table are aimed at virtually destroying it to remove voters of the biggest reminder of a great democrat program, skim off the money to wall street, and have a wedge issue.

 

[Lemon law]

With all the issues the democrats have going for them in 06, it becomes quite apparent that the dems lack the marketing to exploit them.

If the dems had sleezeballs like Rove and Newt working for them---and gave them the issues the dems have this year---we would not be talking a close election where just a handful
of races could swing control of a given wing of congress---we would be talking about a handful of GOP seats retaining their seats at all.

But maybe that is what makes a dem a dem---while the republican leadership always talks about scortched earth policies and win at all costs.--rather than the harder question about a given policy is good for the country---and once the repubs get in power---they use that power to prove they can ram through any policy---because they have the power---while losing any sight--or FEEDBACK--that the policy was worth doing to start with.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Pabster
And they've talked about raising the minimum wage for YEARS. It's nothing but talk. And only the poorest sheeple will fall for it.

Maybe they would raise the minimum wage if they actually had control of congress.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The democrats have come out with their set of policies they plan to use if they get the majority, calling it the policies for the first 100 hours.

This is from Nancy Pelosi:

1. Impose new rules and regulations to break the link between lobbyists and legislation
2. Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies and fix Medicare Part D
3. Stop Social Security and Medicare privatization plans in their tracks
4. Raise the minimum wage to $7.25
5 Cut the interest rates on student loans in half
6. Roll back subsidies to Big Oil and gas companies
7. Enact all the recommendations made by the independent 9/11 Commission

I agree with all of them.

I suspect this mostly campaign fluff, designed to be appealing to the largest possible segment of potential democratic voters, while being as non-controversial as possible (there is no mention of any polarizing "hot button" issues whatsoever).

I suspect this was put out by Pelosi (a link would've been nice) because in so many races it's played as Dem Party leaders v the Repub party leaders (i.e., Pelosi) rather than the individual candidates themselves. For example, in the election here, both candidates proclaim identical positions on abortion, gun control etc.

About the policies themselves:

1. "break the link", you gotta be kidding me. It'll never really happen. I forsee these new rules being akin to bandaids on a fatal headwound. I doubt they will be anything more than a set of rules which help Congresspersons avoid the appearance of corruption, but do nothing in reality.

2. Government negotiators vs. Private negotiators. Hmm... wonder who will come out ahead? See also the issue raised in point #1. Would be nice to know exactly what "fix Medicaid Part D" means. Fix how?

3. Just "stoping privatization" doesn't do anything whatsoever to fix the looming problems. So all this amounts to stopping others' proposed solutions: OK what's the other half of the equation? What's your solution?

4. Minimum wage to $7.25. Is that too little in NYC or San Francisco?, or too much in Podunck where the prices are vastly lower? This needs to be adjusted for the COLA in different locations. The government already has that info and is used by the IRS, for example, when calcualting meal and travel allowances. I don't like any solution that is a "one size fits all", it's "lazy" and inaccurate.

5. I'm too far out of school, don't what the rates are now, or how the program is administered. No comment.

6. I've asked here numerous times before to no avail " What subsidies"? Which section of enacted law grants them? I'd also like to know what is the stated purpose of the subsidies, and how much are they? If it's for research into renewable energy sources, I'm for that but want to know why that should be the domain of the established oil companies?

I'd have rather seen a program to reduce oil consumption by 4 billion barrels a day. IIRC, that's what we import from the Middle East for domestic needs. I think it's do-able. How about some regulatory help in constructing new refineries, the shortage of which seems to be the real problem laetley in supply/prices.

7. Must be a damn long list. Can't seem to find it on google quickly. Would like to know what they are, how much they cost etc.

Fern

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Craig234
The democrats have come out with their set of policies they plan to use if they get the majority, calling it the policies for the first 100 hours.

This is from Nancy Pelosi:

* Impose new rules and regulations to break the link between lobbyists and legislation
* Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies and fix Medicare Part D
* Stop Social Security and Medicare privatization plans in their tracks
* Raise the minimum wage to $7.25
* Cut the interest rates on student loans in half
* Roll back subsidies to Big Oil and gas companies
* Enact all the recommendations made by the independent 9/11 Commission

I agree with all of them.

- yeah, let's strip out freedom of speech from the Constitution.
- Let' keep medling with the open market by regulating it some more.
- Americans aren't responsible, we must hold their hands.
- We know what's best for business and "hard-working americans" :roll:
- And pick up the costs from where?
- But not any other industry, like say....farming
- I have no comment

You're a dreamer CPA if you think SS and Student loans are going anywhere, old peoples all vote and they are growing. Parents and grandparents vote for thier children on the student loan issue. Socialism is a insidious vice unfortunatly, once we got it it's almost impossible to retract, especially for folks who are unable to start new careers like elderly and thier SS. Might as well work to fit it in the budget and slash other things. Tons of pork and rethinking our nation building schemes would be a good start and I think both sides relise this at this point. I'd also like to see a balanced budget amendment to force fiscal responsibility, but you're not touching SS.

Instead of unpopular radical changes republicans need to listen to the people again like they did with contract with America (which they wimped out on) Let's go back to Newt who engineered the congressional takeover after 40 years of second class staus.

American 11 would be a good place to start.

 

[Craig234]

With all the issues the democrats have going for them in 06, it becomes quite apparent that the dems lack the marketing to exploit them.

Yup. This is where the republican machine of getting the cororate money to fund the propaganda machine works well for them. Of course, the lie that the 'media is left wing' is just a maneuver to keep people from seeing the fact that it's the other way around - as even some top right wingers have admitted in the past, like William Kristol.

1. "break the link", you gotta be kidding me. It'll never really happen. I forsee these new rules being akin to bandaids on a fatal headwound. I doubt they will be anything more than a set of rules which help Congresspersons avoid the appearance of corruption, but do nothing in reality.

You might be surprised to know that many politicians want this reform, that they want to represent the public and hate the need for fundraising. A poll of new legislators in CA found this was their #1 complaint. You have to fight for improvement, not give up and leave the system corrupt, or you will get tyranny.

2. Government negotiators vs. Private negotiators. Hmm... wonder who will come out ahead?

The taxpayer. What fix means is to allow the government to use its buying power to negotiate the druge prices lower, like other branches already do; this sweetheart deal for the drug companies banned price negoatiation.

3. Just "stoping privatization" doesn't do anything whatsoever to fix the looming problems. So all this amounts to stopping others' proposed solutions: OK what's the other half of the equation? What's your solution?

Stop 'borrowing' from the trust fund, start repaying the trust fund (yes, roll back the tax borrowing for the wealthy, etc.), and add the relatively small amount needed for the program to remain solvent after ~2050.

4. Minimum wage to $7.25. Is that too little in NYC or San Francisco?, or too much in Podunck where the prices are vastly lower? This needs to be adjusted for the COLA in different locations. The government already has that info and is used by the IRS, for example, when calcualting meal and travel allowances. I don't like any solution that is a "one size fits all", it's "lazy" and inaccurate.

Um, expensive regions already have increases above the federal minimum wage; I know San Francisco does. The federal rate needs an increase; it's not 'one size fits all'.

6. I've asked here numerous times before to no avail " What subsidies"? Which section of enacted law grants them? I'd also like to know what is the stated purpose of the subsidies, and how much are they? If it's for research into renewable energy sources, I'm for that but want to know why that should be the domain of the established oil companies?

A functional energy policy would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, spend taxpayer dollars wisely and respect the environment. The bill agreed on by House and Senate negotiators yesterday accomplishes none of these goals. But oil and utility companies have spent $367 million over the last two years lobbying Congress, so it's expected to pass anyway.

CONGRESS ADDICTED TO FOREIGN OIL: The bill fails to take any steps that will substantively reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Specifically, the final version "rejected a Senate provision that required reduction of oil consumption by one million barrels per day by 2015." Under the bill "our need for imported oil will continue to grow for as long as models are able to project."

THE $8.5 BILLION GIVEAWAY: Big energy companies are flush with so much cash, they don't know what to do with it. That didn't stop Congress from showering the electricity, coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil industries with $8.5 billion in tax breaks and billions more in loan guarantees and other subsidies.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=100480

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Craig234
And those republicans have the interests of the common guy as all they care about.

Snippy one liners don't change the fact that social security is a popular, efficient, successful program at nearly eliminating real poverty for the elderly and disabled, and all the 'reforms' o the table are aimed at virtually destroying it to remove voters of the biggest reminder of a great democrat program, skim off the money to wall street, and have a wedge issue.

It's so efficient that we'll have to raise taxes in 2018 just to pay for the outgoing benefits. Don't believe there is an actual Trust Fund. That's a load of BS.

Did you even read the proposals for Social Security partial privatization? They would in no way destroy it. The main proposal called for the option of privatization of up to 4% of your income (up to $1000) if you're under 40. How the hell would that destroy Social Security? At least two-thirds is still going to the government for redistribution to the elderly. Grannie wouldn't be SOL because she would still be paid for through other revenue.

I'll tell you the only reason why it shouldn't currently be privatized: our budget is nowhere near balanced. This coupled with the fact that the proposals weren't allowed to add in a tax increase for the transition to privatization made the ideas were pretty much DOA.

So what is your proposal to keep SS afloat? In the current situation we can either raise taxes, cut benefits, or a combination of both. Yes, we could remove the cap but that would just be delaying the inevitable as we would have to start paying for the rich as well. That also would kind of go against the idea of SS which is keeping the elderly and disabled out of poverty.

And for fvck's sake, Sweden which is one of the most socialist countries around is doing it. Doesn't that tell you that privatization isn't all bad?

 

[Craig234]

It's so efficient that we'll have to raise taxes in 2018 just to pay for the outgoing benefits. Don't believe there is an actual Trust Fund. That's a load of BS.

No, we won't. That date is far further in the future. There is an 'actual' trust fund in the sense that we're collecting the extra taxes for it; however, all presidents since it was createrdunder Reagan as a scam have spent all the money (one more reason we should have had Gore as president, who pledged to stop that).

It's a disaster that we owe trillions to that fund now.

Did you even read the proposals for Social Security partial privatization? They would in no way destroy it.

I'm actually open to considering some so-called privatization - just not any that the republicans are within 10 feet of, because I know their agenda. I'll be happy to have a board filled with your Swedes make recommendations. BTW, will you then also agree to other things Swedes do?

So what is your proposal to keep SS afloat? In the current situation we can either raise taxes, cut benefits, or a combination of both. Yes, we could remove the cap but that would just be delaying the inevitable as we would have to start paying for the rich as well. That also would kind of go against the idea of SS which is keeping the elderly and disabled out of poverty.

I already answerd this - but we already pay SS to the wealthy, if I understand correctly.

 

[Genx87]

No, we won't. That date is far further in the future. There is an 'actual' trust fund in the sense that we're collecting the extra taxes for it; however, all presidents since it was createrdunder Reagan as a scam have spent all the money (one more reason we should have had Gore as president, who pledged to stop that).

It's a disaster that we owe trillions to that fund now.

No it isnt, 2018 or 2017 is still the magical date at which point the general budget fund will have to start paying for SS.

The trust fund is bunk. A bunch of IOU's to the govt that the govt will have to pay for in the end.

I would love to be able to run a trust fund like the govt. When it is time to take money out of it make my neighbor the bill.

 

[piasabird]

Sounds like an empty promise to me.

Other people have claimed they will implement Campaign Finance Reform and failed.

Clinton said he would give us a health care plan, but I never saw that happen.


It takes a long time for any bill to go through both houses.

First of all what do democrats plan on doing when they run out of Social Security funds? Money does not grow on trees. That is not a policy it is the lack of a policy.

If they want to impress me how about legislation enforcing term limits on those individuals that have been in office for 20 years or more. I am all for term limits for Senators and Representatives. If it is a good thing for the presidency, then it is probably equally good for Senators and Representatives.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Craig234

It's so efficient that we'll have to raise taxes in 2018 just to pay for the outgoing benefits. Don't believe there is an actual Trust Fund. That's a load of BS.

No, we won't. That date is far further in the future. There is an 'actual' trust fund in the sense that we're collecting the extra taxes for it; however, all presidents since it was created under Reagan as a scam have spent all the money (one more reason we should have had Gore as president, who pledged to stop that).

It's a disaster that we owe trillions to that fund now.

The actual 'trust fund' is just a liability to other parts of the government. I'll agree that it sucks that we've spent all the extra cash covering up our deficit but what's done is done. When 2018 comes around, we'll have to start dipping into that 'trust fund.' That means taking revenue from other parts of the government which means other parts of the government will either have to cut spending (unlikely) or they'll have to get more revenue by raising taxes (much more likely). In 2042 sure that trust fund runs out but by that time what we have in place I hope would be sufficient considering we would have had the problem occurring for the two decades previous.

Did you even read the proposals for Social Security partial privatization? They would in no way destroy it.

I'm actually open to considering some so-called privatization - just not any that the republicans are within 10 feet of, because I know their agenda. I'll be happy to have a board filled with your Swedes make recommendations. BTW, will you then also agree to other things Swedes do?

I would consider things that surprise me about them. A socialist country generally doesn't push through with privatization unless there is good reason to. Obviously the Swedes saw the vast advantages of privatization.

One problem I see with the Swedish model is it only allows for 2.5% of income to go into an individual account. That would decrease the gains of privatization because the management expenses would be fairly high relative to the returns. This is due to the fact that it still takes nearly the same amount of resources to manage $500 as it does to manage $5000.

So what is your proposal to keep SS afloat? In the current situation we can either raise taxes, cut benefits, or a combination of both. Yes, we could remove the cap but that would just be delaying the inevitable as we would have to start paying for the rich as well. That also would kind of go against the idea of SS which is keeping the elderly and disabled out of poverty.

I already answered this - but we already pay SS to the wealthy, if I understand correctly.

You are correct. But you're only taxed on the first $95,000 (that may be slightly off) of your income. I would actually agree with raising the cap if privatization were put into place. That actually would help fund the transition period.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Sounds like an empty promise to me.

Other people have claimed they will implement Campaign Finance Reform and failed.

Democrats try.

Clinton said he would give us a health care plan, but I never saw that happen.

He tried, and democrats are trying. The health care industry and republicans defeated them last time with the 'Harry and Louise' campaign.

First of all what do democrats plan on doing when they run out of Social Security funds? Money does not grow on trees. That is not a policy it is the lack of a policy.

They've addressed this many times. They've identified a lot of solutions to pick from.

If they want to impress me how about legislation enforcing term limits on those individuals that have been in office for 20 years or more. I am all for term limits for Senators and Representatives. If it is a good thing for the presidency, then it is probably equally good for Senators and Representatives.

I strongly disagree with term limits. We want them as a bandaid for the absurdly high re-election rate caused by the corrupt money system, but it would be even worse.

Term limits would keep the money system, and make us elect people selected by the corporate interests for a few years.

The legislators would be less able to stand up to the long-term bureacratic and special interest groups.

We benefit from long-time leaders like Kennedy and Byrd, even sometimes Specter.