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 ruled by a more extreme leftist base. What is the actual benefit to being a moderate 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.
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.
Yeah but Democratic economic ideas are actually better for society on the technical merits, this is just a surface level midwit take of the dynamic at play here. Not even sure how you dispute this witnessing the events of the past 10 years.
When people heard the argument about the extension of tax credits leading to higher deficits their support fell more (from 77% to 58%) than it rose after people heard the argument about some ppl losing insurance (from 77 to 84%).
Why should we continue to extend ACA subsidies passed because of Covid-19 when that crisis ended over three years ago? To do so is to further the creeping welfare state strategy of extending benefits for some temporary or small expenditure and continuing them forever when that expense is no longer warranted or when it balloons into a major expense. First, we covered hot lunches at schools, then we added hot breakfasts, then dinners, and during Covid-19, weekend meals. For Social Security benefits, the original age for full benefits was 65 when the median (not mean) age of death was 67, which is 2-3 years later. However, for those born in 1960 and thereafter, the age of full benefits is 67 but the median age of death is 81, 14-15 years later. Hence, we cover benefits for a larger percentage of the population for much longer. This is why Social Secuity will be bankrupt in 10 years. It is also why two-thirds of federal spending is on entitlement programs today vs only 35% in 1960. As Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen observed: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." If 4 million people will have their ACA benefits impacted because of the end to ACA subsidies extended because of Covid, so be it! Covid is over and so should the ACA subsidies.
The problem I continually have with the measures of public opinion as noted here is that the queries are invariably (and simplistically) framed by focusing on the lost benefit and ignoring any mention of any potential costs associated with that benefit. As a result, “public opinion” will always show a majority of uninformed respondents favoring free ice cream, especially when the survey never offers any counter argument to the free ice cream position. I ran a market research group and realize how easy it is to manipulate respondents by the framing of the questions (but it’s rarely a good idea if your objective is to determine the truth).
We've been here before. They’ll just pivot back to screaming about “trans healthcare” or trot out the oldie but goodie “welfare queen” trope. Dems need to make their loud, plain English case about what will happen, name the places it hits, then sit back and let the GOP run its play in rural/poor red America. Toughen up and let the world burn. Touch the stove politics.
This is one more variation on a very old left wing political scientist story. The people tell our pollsters that they want more regulation on corporations, more spending on poverty and higher taxes on rich people. But the dastardly GOP always pulls some trick and successfully competes in elections. Such stupid people. How do the perfidious Republicans keep pulling the wool over their eyes?
But after all this time, maybe, just maybe, its actually political scientists who aren't that smart.
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.
This is cope. The right wing cope that they are secretly the party of lifting all boats, and economic responsibility, has never been more demolished than it is right now. Nobody believes you anymore.
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.
Well, that's the goal, isn't it? And given that the Roman state ran for just about 2,000 years (from the founding of the Republic ca. 600 BCE to the final end of the eastern Empire ca. 1400), Rome seems to be a good model to try following.
Open Borders advocates state explicitly that the low-trust among citizens engendered by immigration will help curtail welfare state expansion. Granted, few benefits currently go to illegals, but why sell immigration based on a low trust society? That seems a bit “scammy” in its own right.
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.
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 ruled by a more extreme leftist base. What is the actual benefit to being a moderate 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.
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.
Yeah but Democratic economic ideas are actually better for society on the technical merits, this is just a surface level midwit take of the dynamic at play here. Not even sure how you dispute this witnessing the events of the past 10 years.
When people heard the argument about the extension of tax credits leading to higher deficits their support fell more (from 77% to 58%) than it rose after people heard the argument about some ppl losing insurance (from 77 to 84%).
Why should we continue to extend ACA subsidies passed because of Covid-19 when that crisis ended over three years ago? To do so is to further the creeping welfare state strategy of extending benefits for some temporary or small expenditure and continuing them forever when that expense is no longer warranted or when it balloons into a major expense. First, we covered hot lunches at schools, then we added hot breakfasts, then dinners, and during Covid-19, weekend meals. For Social Security benefits, the original age for full benefits was 65 when the median (not mean) age of death was 67, which is 2-3 years later. However, for those born in 1960 and thereafter, the age of full benefits is 67 but the median age of death is 81, 14-15 years later. Hence, we cover benefits for a larger percentage of the population for much longer. This is why Social Secuity will be bankrupt in 10 years. It is also why two-thirds of federal spending is on entitlement programs today vs only 35% in 1960. As Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen observed: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." If 4 million people will have their ACA benefits impacted because of the end to ACA subsidies extended because of Covid, so be it! Covid is over and so should the ACA subsidies.
The problem I continually have with the measures of public opinion as noted here is that the queries are invariably (and simplistically) framed by focusing on the lost benefit and ignoring any mention of any potential costs associated with that benefit. As a result, “public opinion” will always show a majority of uninformed respondents favoring free ice cream, especially when the survey never offers any counter argument to the free ice cream position. I ran a market research group and realize how easy it is to manipulate respondents by the framing of the questions (but it’s rarely a good idea if your objective is to determine the truth).
We've been here before. They’ll just pivot back to screaming about “trans healthcare” or trot out the oldie but goodie “welfare queen” trope. Dems need to make their loud, plain English case about what will happen, name the places it hits, then sit back and let the GOP run its play in rural/poor red America. Toughen up and let the world burn. Touch the stove politics.
You haven't been to the emergency room in any illegal immigrant-heavy areas.
This is one more variation on a very old left wing political scientist story. The people tell our pollsters that they want more regulation on corporations, more spending on poverty and higher taxes on rich people. But the dastardly GOP always pulls some trick and successfully competes in elections. Such stupid people. How do the perfidious Republicans keep pulling the wool over their eyes?
But after all this time, maybe, just maybe, its actually political scientists who aren't that smart.
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.
This is cope. The right wing cope that they are secretly the party of lifting all boats, and economic responsibility, has never been more demolished than it is right now. Nobody believes you anymore.
Democrats admitted it. Stop lying
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.
You are as dense as OP. Low human capital trying to participate lmao
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.
America is like Rome because they're both a massive, prosperous, and successful states despite being run by retards
Well, that's the goal, isn't it? And given that the Roman state ran for just about 2,000 years (from the founding of the Republic ca. 600 BCE to the final end of the eastern Empire ca. 1400), Rome seems to be a good model to try following.
Open Borders advocates state explicitly that the low-trust among citizens engendered by immigration will help curtail welfare state expansion. Granted, few benefits currently go to illegals, but why sell immigration based on a low trust society? That seems a bit “scammy” in its own right.
You are mistaken at best. It is well documented that is precisely what Democrats are trying to do. You are also unsubscribed.
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.
The left has been doing that for five decades. Women appear to be increasingly rejecting such division.