If, as you say, they are so great on economic issues, why does nothing improve? Why does every city they are in charge of look dystopian? Every year they point to their own failures to prove to Congress they need more money. If they actually improved the lives of their constituents, they wouldn’t have anything to point their fingers at to grift ever more taxpayer cash. The idea that they care a whit about the impoverished has been a scam for decades.
Perhaps. I read the first two paragraphs and stopped after the second paragraph. I’m pretty sure the rabbit hole was very convoluted and I’m exhausted with these arguments. There is a lot of nuance, corruption, schooling and media propaganda that needs to be taken into consideration.
True, but most of what humans do, say, and write, is not worth doing, hearing, or reading. But we have to do something with our time. A corollary to reading is sitting. And I know many a smart person who atrophies a lifetime reading garbage.
My job is reading and writing. By 5 pm I get a little tired and yet here I am, reading and writing some more, while, perhaps, getting a little impatient with all the rationalizing.
My job is reacting emotionally and arguing against positions I don’t understand, so when I clock out I’m fully refreshed and prepared to participate meaningfully in the Substack comments.
I live in a blue state and a very blue town. Things are great here. Low crime. Awesome restaurants. And I am a self-employed business owner, so I like being able to buy decent insurance on the state's marketplace. Oh, and the state is only 22nd highest in terms of taxes. Maybe you're just gullible and believe everything you see on "X"? lol
The principal issue facing blue cities is NIMBYism which is orthogonal to the left-right axis (dems are probably better on land use at this point). If you think SF is bad, go to Shittsville, Arkansas. SF is prominent and prosperous enough that it gets news coverage, while countless red jurisdictions in the Deep South are genuine disasters with 60 year life expectancy which don’t even enter the public consciousness for those who don’t live there. This isn’t a defense of every blue state policy, but let’s keep in perspective the fact that the most grotesque failures of government in America are red
Well, it's not that Democrat policies are not great, wonderful, and would bring about heaven on earth . . . if only those evil white Republicans weren't messing everything up. And, to be fair, the Democrats have only been in control that of pretty much any Big Blue City for 50, 60 years, and, doncha know it will take time to eradicate the people who are standing in the way of building the Big Rock Candy Mountain of progressive dreams. In the meantime, the politicians have their own fortunes to pad.
This “Democrat run cities” talking point has never made any sense to me. Big cities just don’t usually vote republican so what are you comparing them to? The suburbs? The few republican run major cities, like Fresno and Miami, are not terribly impressive either. Plus however “dystopian” these cities may look (because of all the homeless people I guess?) they’re still the most economically productive places in the US. So what exactly is your point?
I don’t follow X. I also live in a blue city, blue state that was voted #1 destination city this year. Great restaurants, etc. clean, pretty, charming and one of the most corrupt political systems in the country.
My point? They need more money every year, while nothing improves and corruption is off the chart. Many Republicans are just as corrupt. Maybe we have more of a corruption problem than a political problem, but they do go hand in hand.
Well, if one means economic ideas that sound good, i.e., "free stuff for me," then I suppose this may be true: "If people voted on economic issues, they would overwhelmingly elect Democrats over Republicans." But if one means economic policies that actually work for a prosperous, healthy society, then not so much.
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't agree with your solution. How would Democrats changing the 'perception' of themselves help with this problem when the entire point is that Republicans will lie about whatever they're doing? Why should any non-Republican bother to bow and compromise and self-censor when no matter what they do, they'll be regarded as a radical left communist marxist for disagreeing with Republican power in any way? If we're at the point where Chuck Schumer is regarded as a radical leftist communist fighting for illegal immigrants, why should Democrats play ball with that rhetoric at all?
I think the bad information environment enables Mamdani types much more than it encourages any kind of Democratic moderation. Compromise is death in this environment and heartfelt authentic extremism is good. This is essentially what happened to the right during Wokeism - a lot of far-right types realized that if they were was going to be called racist nazis for running moderate Republican positions, they might as well actually run as racist nazis and win people over with the unfiltered version of their ideas.
I think we'll probably see a similar thing with leftist ideas over time. Fewer Chuck Schumers, more AoCs and Mamdani types, authentically pushing their ideas until the entire anti-Trump coalition is made up of a more extreme leftist. What is the actual benefit to being a moderate or attempting to compromise when the enemy will lie about your positions to paint you as an extremist regardless? Better to be an extremist and gain points for owning your enemy's taunts and audaciously telling the truth. "Yes, I want to defend immigrants. We all should, because we're not monsters" is a cleaner message than whining about your enemy's lies.
For the country's sake, I do think we need to find a way to punish this kind of brazen sensationalized lying by politicians and media. This was much less bad under the old Mainstream Media regime, and brazen lying by politicians to the press was much harder to do and more severely punished when it was discovered. The internet and new media upset this balance and social media in particular is one giant liar's competition. I'd be really interested in a party (or a writer) that offered ideas for how a more fair and reasonable information environment could be achieved.
This article is completely biased and full of lies. The Democrats want to take out the section of the Big Beautiful Bill where healthcare is not provided to illegals and give it all the health care services back to illegals. All they want is to have illegals vote for their party.
You work for the DMV? So not only are you a dipshit, you live off the taxpayer? Didn't realize such Low Human Capital frequented Hanania's comment section. Two thumbs down!
Took you long enough to say this: “It’s true that some liberal states provide healthcare to all residents, regardless of legal status.”
And how about being explicit that the Dems’ counter-proposal (P. 57, Section 2141) would remove the provision they previously enacted that restricts eligibility or limits scope of Medicaid (or health-benefit subsidies) — i.e., roll back the reforms in the “big beautiful bill.”
ChatGPT:
In the section-by-section summary accompanying the Democratic CR, Section 2141 is described as repealing Subtitle B (the Health Title) of Title VII of the reconciliation act.
• That means that the health-policy changes embedded in that reconciliation law (in Subtitle B) would no longer take effect under this CR.
• The Democratic proposal elsewhere also includes permanent extension of the enhanced ACA premium tax credit (by striking the 400% income limit) in Section 2142 — so the health section is not entirely removed, but the reconciliation changes in Subtitle B would be reversed.
My understanding is that the immigration related reforms are mostly about legal immigrants Republicans don't want covered, which is not related to the argument they make about illegals. The fact that the vast majority of spending cuts will hit American citizens remains.
But this is not the proper approach to analysis anymore, apparently. What you need to do now is adopt Richard's spectacles: assume GOP is smart enough to always lie and Dems are stupid so they only tell the truth.... lmao....
This is a good thing, not a bad thing. People who earn less get more subsidies via tax credit to bring down the cost of their health care. In my state, the subsidy starts (I think) below 120k and increases the lower your income is. This is good, not bad.
Richard is almost always worth reading, but he can contort with the best of them, not because he's wrong about everything- just because he's right on details and wrong on the big picture. The politicians, who might say what I would say, would be vilified by the left, so the best, effective, short-term counter is simply to lie. It would take a genius to be able to surmount the Democrats' influence over all the useful idiots, to argue what I would; that any appeal to "need" in the public policy debate, will eventually get you to communism. And the moral role of government is to protect negative rights, not to attack them with wealth redistribution. But we actually might have the best the human world can make; an unprincipled combination of capitalism and communism, until our communist-acquired, national debt sinks America. Then we can adopt the leftist psyche and blame someone else.
Democrats should counter by going all in on gender-based identity politics. Advocate for making domestic abuse a felony. Harsh prison sentences for abusive men. Fund woman influences on the left that are explicitly misandrist. Create a cultural ecosystem that preys on and amplifies anti-male neurosis in women. I think this would be an extremely effective 'red meat' type culture war issue for the left in the way constantly talking about immigrants is for the right.
If this is as much of a 'hack' for democracy you believe, and I'm not sure I disagree, isn't it a true Matt Yglesias-style raise-the-salience-of-good-issues-decrease-that-of-bad-ones genius move?
Honestly, if it is, following through will probably take more intelligence and message discipline than the modern Republican party is capable of, but I can see the upside.
Haven't read it so can't confirm, but my understanding is the 'kernel of truth' here for GOP is that in the Dem's draft they seek to repeal certain portions of the healthcare sections of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' that was passed. And that in those sections for repeal is included the portion of the BBB that prohibits healthcare spending for illegal immigrants.
If, as you say, they are so great on economic issues, why does nothing improve? Why does every city they are in charge of look dystopian? Every year they point to their own failures to prove to Congress they need more money. If they actually improved the lives of their constituents, they wouldn’t have anything to point their fingers at to grift ever more taxpayer cash. The idea that they care a whit about the impoverished has been a scam for decades.
I think you misinterpret him. He is not claiming that Democratic economic policy is good, only that it is popular.
Perhaps. I read the first two paragraphs and stopped after the second paragraph. I’m pretty sure the rabbit hole was very convoluted and I’m exhausted with these arguments. There is a lot of nuance, corruption, schooling and media propaganda that needs to be taken into consideration.
Lmao as always, conservatives don’t read
Every time
🤡
True, but most of what humans do, say, and write, is not worth doing, hearing, or reading. But we have to do something with our time. A corollary to reading is sitting. And I know many a smart person who atrophies a lifetime reading garbage.
My job is reading and writing. By 5 pm I get a little tired and yet here I am, reading and writing some more, while, perhaps, getting a little impatient with all the rationalizing.
My job is reacting emotionally and arguing against positions I don’t understand, so when I clock out I’m fully refreshed and prepared to participate meaningfully in the Substack comments.
LMAO!
Thanks! I needed a good belly laugh.
Commenting on an article after not reading it. Excellent stuff.
I live in a blue state and a very blue town. Things are great here. Low crime. Awesome restaurants. And I am a self-employed business owner, so I like being able to buy decent insurance on the state's marketplace. Oh, and the state is only 22nd highest in terms of taxes. Maybe you're just gullible and believe everything you see on "X"? lol
The principal issue facing blue cities is NIMBYism which is orthogonal to the left-right axis (dems are probably better on land use at this point). If you think SF is bad, go to Shittsville, Arkansas. SF is prominent and prosperous enough that it gets news coverage, while countless red jurisdictions in the Deep South are genuine disasters with 60 year life expectancy which don’t even enter the public consciousness for those who don’t live there. This isn’t a defense of every blue state policy, but let’s keep in perspective the fact that the most grotesque failures of government in America are red
Well, it's not that Democrat policies are not great, wonderful, and would bring about heaven on earth . . . if only those evil white Republicans weren't messing everything up. And, to be fair, the Democrats have only been in control that of pretty much any Big Blue City for 50, 60 years, and, doncha know it will take time to eradicate the people who are standing in the way of building the Big Rock Candy Mountain of progressive dreams. In the meantime, the politicians have their own fortunes to pad.
Quite right. The Dems' insanity makes me question reality.
Like being in a relationship with a narcissist. I actually do think it’s been culturally engineered. A phenomena to be sure.
This “Democrat run cities” talking point has never made any sense to me. Big cities just don’t usually vote republican so what are you comparing them to? The suburbs? The few republican run major cities, like Fresno and Miami, are not terribly impressive either. Plus however “dystopian” these cities may look (because of all the homeless people I guess?) they’re still the most economically productive places in the US. So what exactly is your point?
That’s all you got? Personal attacks? Sometimes the rabbit hole isn’t worth it.
I don’t follow X. I also live in a blue city, blue state that was voted #1 destination city this year. Great restaurants, etc. clean, pretty, charming and one of the most corrupt political systems in the country.
If it's great, clean, and pretty, then why are you complaining? Enjoy your life instead of crying online while living in paradise.
You morons always resort to personal attacks. That’s all you’ve got. Also why it’s impossible to debate without the tantrums and meltdowns.
Yes, we should take a page from (checks notes) Donald J. Trump and JD Vance and refrain from personal attacks. LMAOOOOO
Oh yeah, hate Trump. You guys are brilliant.
My point? They need more money every year, while nothing improves and corruption is off the chart. Many Republicans are just as corrupt. Maybe we have more of a corruption problem than a political problem, but they do go hand in hand.
Nothing ever improves? I would much rather live in a big city now than almost any time in the 20th century.
Well, if one means economic ideas that sound good, i.e., "free stuff for me," then I suppose this may be true: "If people voted on economic issues, they would overwhelmingly elect Democrats over Republicans." But if one means economic policies that actually work for a prosperous, healthy society, then not so much.
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't agree with your solution. How would Democrats changing the 'perception' of themselves help with this problem when the entire point is that Republicans will lie about whatever they're doing? Why should any non-Republican bother to bow and compromise and self-censor when no matter what they do, they'll be regarded as a radical left communist marxist for disagreeing with Republican power in any way? If we're at the point where Chuck Schumer is regarded as a radical leftist communist fighting for illegal immigrants, why should Democrats play ball with that rhetoric at all?
I think the bad information environment enables Mamdani types much more than it encourages any kind of Democratic moderation. Compromise is death in this environment and heartfelt authentic extremism is good. This is essentially what happened to the right during Wokeism - a lot of far-right types realized that if they were was going to be called racist nazis for running moderate Republican positions, they might as well actually run as racist nazis and win people over with the unfiltered version of their ideas.
I think we'll probably see a similar thing with leftist ideas over time. Fewer Chuck Schumers, more AoCs and Mamdani types, authentically pushing their ideas until the entire anti-Trump coalition is made up of a more extreme leftist. What is the actual benefit to being a moderate or attempting to compromise when the enemy will lie about your positions to paint you as an extremist regardless? Better to be an extremist and gain points for owning your enemy's taunts and audaciously telling the truth. "Yes, I want to defend immigrants. We all should, because we're not monsters" is a cleaner message than whining about your enemy's lies.
For the country's sake, I do think we need to find a way to punish this kind of brazen sensationalized lying by politicians and media. This was much less bad under the old Mainstream Media regime, and brazen lying by politicians to the press was much harder to do and more severely punished when it was discovered. The internet and new media upset this balance and social media in particular is one giant liar's competition. I'd be really interested in a party (or a writer) that offered ideas for how a more fair and reasonable information environment could be achieved.
They didn't call it the Inflation Reduction Act because it reduced inflation. They called it that because they think you are stupid.
This article is completely biased and full of lies. The Democrats want to take out the section of the Big Beautiful Bill where healthcare is not provided to illegals and give it all the health care services back to illegals. All they want is to have illegals vote for their party.
Illegals can't vote, dipshit.
So wish that was true. Criminal alien Ian Roberts, former superintendent of Des Moines, IA was registered to vote in MD.
How did that happen?!?!
A woman got murdered by her husband in Indiana last week. How did that happen?!?! Must mean murder is legal and common.
I work at the DMV they get license that allows them to register to vote, little dick.
You work for the DMV? So not only are you a dipshit, you live off the taxpayer? Didn't realize such Low Human Capital frequented Hanania's comment section. Two thumbs down!
LOL. The illegal superintendent did [Iowa]
Took you long enough to say this: “It’s true that some liberal states provide healthcare to all residents, regardless of legal status.”
And how about being explicit that the Dems’ counter-proposal (P. 57, Section 2141) would remove the provision they previously enacted that restricts eligibility or limits scope of Medicaid (or health-benefit subsidies) — i.e., roll back the reforms in the “big beautiful bill.”
ChatGPT:
In the section-by-section summary accompanying the Democratic CR, Section 2141 is described as repealing Subtitle B (the Health Title) of Title VII of the reconciliation act.
• That means that the health-policy changes embedded in that reconciliation law (in Subtitle B) would no longer take effect under this CR.
• The Democratic proposal elsewhere also includes permanent extension of the enhanced ACA premium tax credit (by striking the 400% income limit) in Section 2142 — so the health section is not entirely removed, but the reconciliation changes in Subtitle B would be reversed.
My understanding is that the immigration related reforms are mostly about legal immigrants Republicans don't want covered, which is not related to the argument they make about illegals. The fact that the vast majority of spending cuts will hit American citizens remains.
But this is not the proper approach to analysis anymore, apparently. What you need to do now is adopt Richard's spectacles: assume GOP is smart enough to always lie and Dems are stupid so they only tell the truth.... lmao....
This is a good thing, not a bad thing. People who earn less get more subsidies via tax credit to bring down the cost of their health care. In my state, the subsidy starts (I think) below 120k and increases the lower your income is. This is good, not bad.
Richard is almost always worth reading, but he can contort with the best of them, not because he's wrong about everything- just because he's right on details and wrong on the big picture. The politicians, who might say what I would say, would be vilified by the left, so the best, effective, short-term counter is simply to lie. It would take a genius to be able to surmount the Democrats' influence over all the useful idiots, to argue what I would; that any appeal to "need" in the public policy debate, will eventually get you to communism. And the moral role of government is to protect negative rights, not to attack them with wealth redistribution. But we actually might have the best the human world can make; an unprincipled combination of capitalism and communism, until our communist-acquired, national debt sinks America. Then we can adopt the leftist psyche and blame someone else.
Democrats should counter by going all in on gender-based identity politics. Advocate for making domestic abuse a felony. Harsh prison sentences for abusive men. Fund woman influences on the left that are explicitly misandrist. Create a cultural ecosystem that preys on and amplifies anti-male neurosis in women. I think this would be an extremely effective 'red meat' type culture war issue for the left in the way constantly talking about immigrants is for the right.
Democrats admitted it. Stop lying
If this is as much of a 'hack' for democracy you believe, and I'm not sure I disagree, isn't it a true Matt Yglesias-style raise-the-salience-of-good-issues-decrease-that-of-bad-ones genius move?
Honestly, if it is, following through will probably take more intelligence and message discipline than the modern Republican party is capable of, but I can see the upside.
Haven't read it so can't confirm, but my understanding is the 'kernel of truth' here for GOP is that in the Dem's draft they seek to repeal certain portions of the healthcare sections of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' that was passed. And that in those sections for repeal is included the portion of the BBB that prohibits healthcare spending for illegal immigrants.