Both were fiscally irresponsible. The deficit spending under Trump was approaching about a billion dollars per year the first three years, then jumped to over three trillion. The deficit spending under Biden has been about 2 trillion per year. Neither is good. The deficit spending under Trump doesn't poll as well because tax cuts don't at all benefit the more than 50% of the country that pays no federal income tax. It isn't that fiscal responsibility polls well (it absolutely does not, that is why they never do it), it is that lots of people getting free stuff polls better than fewer people keeping more of their money. That is the Republican propaganda. The Democrat propaganda is that the "rich" are not "paying their fair share" and need to start paying the same taxes that teachers and WalMart workers pay. Both parties are lying. The rich pay nearly all of the taxes, with the top 20% paying about 70% of federal taxes (this includes payroll taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes, and excise taxes) and the next 20% picking up about 20% of federal taxes. The tax burden has been shifting more toward the top two quintiles since the late 70s. Maybe. I don't watch much political advertising (or any advertising, if I can help it). I went back and looked up the Republican candidate from my district. His website and twitter were mostly focused on inflation, housing homeless veterans, protecting local waterways, and the fact that the Democratic candidate voted pretty much always with Pelosi. I saw nothing in terms of culture war, but I didn't spend more than 10 minutes or so looking.
A frequent argument from those who supported or are downplaying the actions of the Republicans that held up McCarthy’s speakership are that they are trying to open up the House and take it out of back room deal making. This Republican Representative argues the other that they compelled McCarthy to make back room deals.
You’re fixated on Nancy Pelosi she was speaker but isn’t the end all of the House of Representatives or all politicians. I’m talking about all of Congress in general. also note for most of Nancy Pelosi’s history she wasn’t speaker and not even in the Majority. That you consider her the main impediment to progressive policies is a very skewed view. How do you address the Republicans and all Of those other Democrats who don’t agree with progressive policies?
Certainly progressive can primary other Democrats they could try to turn Red Districts. We’ve seen in recent years more conservative Republicans successfully primary more moderate Republicans and even turn previously blue districts. How was extremist Republicans able to hold Up a speaker vote for days if it really is a binary ideological choice? Or maybe is it actually there is more ideological diversity within Congress and while there are two main parties they have even different internal ideological makeups..
Yeah for sure. That wasn’t really my point though. I meant a red wave is the opposite of blue wave. And if it isn’t red the only other choice is blue. Not withstanding a point that it would not be if the mean choice among the sample was more progressive.
Except that conservative Republicans have been able to get a lot of people elected and event threaten their own leadership. If all politicians were just about personal greed and holding onto power how then could upstart extremist Republicans displace longstanding Moderate Republicans? The argument present is that Pelosi is without principle and just out to protect the existing power structures which is why Progressives aren’t getting more success. Pelosi certainly doesn’t control Republicans and if Progressives policies were as popular as progressives claim to be then why can’t progressives pull off their own TEA Party / MAGA revolt in the Democratic Party? Why are so many districts willing to elect extremist Republicans over moderate Republicans and even Democrats?
How is a TEA party revolt going to harm profit and business interests? Are landlords exploiting rent prices shaking at their boots from right wingers? If anything people like the tea party are the best friends of capitalists, land owners etc. The only time corporations are going to care about right wing uprisings is if it effects economic stability. Investors want market predicability. Therefore as long as the right wing wackos just do enough to distract the white working class person from being drowned in a capitalist system with "anti-woke" content but not enough to destabilize markets, they don't care and welcome it. The right is inherently a out keeping the current class hierarchy. The wealthy land owning class are the most protected group of people in a right wing government.
LOL Why do you think you could "primary" a candidate because they voted no? Do you think there is a base that wants M4A that is so large they could primary somebody? You have just stopped trying to make any sense anymore.
There certainly may be something to that. It doesn't change that actual voters elected those people in the TEA Party. Just to add a lot of the anti-Immigration and protectionist attitudes of the TEA Party and MAGA do threaten business. Probusiness groups like the Chamber of Commerce tend to be more open regarding immigration because lower coast labor benefits them. They also tend to be more free trade for the same reasons. Many of the Republicans defeated by the these new Republicans were much more open to trade and less ideological on immigration than those that replaced them.
To bring this back on topic a lot of the concessions that McCarthy made haven't been made public. Contrary to the view that this is about openness and transparency this is more old school back room dealmaking. Matt Gaetz and those holding out were also demanding plum committee assignments. Exactly the type of oligarchic control that they claim they were fighting.
Wait so now you know what's in Pelosi's head and hart? And that's just because she has made money on the stock market while being a rep? You sound more and more unhinged every day, did Pelosi touch you when you were young or something?
She didn't amass 9 figures of wealth from her time serving. They were wealthy independently from that - her husband was an investment manager they had like $40 million before she was ever in a position of power in the House. Her wealth doubled from 2009 to 2014. You know what also doubled during that time? The entire stock market. Tech companies did even better. You didn't need insider knowledge or trades to make the money they made. Pelosi and her husband made most of their money off real estate and the big 5 tech companies - something that lots of Americans, in and out of Congress, did over the last 15 or so years. The easy solution to the Congressional insider trading stuff is simply to require immediate disclosure of any stock trades (say, within 1 hour or 24 hours or whatnot). But this idea that Congresspeople shouldn't be able to trade stocks like the rest of the country is a bit insane. The only legislators you'd ever get are people with extreme wealth who have no need to build future savings or people who can easily be bought/corrupted by lobbyists and others since they aren't allowed to make money like normal people. No normal middle class person who's trying to save money for their families or retirement would ever take the job. It's seriously one of the dumbest "solutions" to a problem I've ever heard.
You don't seem very familiar with Pelosi or her history at all. She is and always has been one of the most progressive members of her party. She pushed them so far left in her first go-around with the speakership that the party got obliterated in 2010. She pushed them to pass all sorts of crazy-left legislation that had no shot of going anywhere in the Senate. She learned from that and in her 2nd stint as speaker, has pushed as far left as possible while also getting things done. There isn't a single piece of progressive legislation that died due to her. Nothing progressive that has ever been achievable in the Senate has been killed by the House while she's been in charge.
Paul Pelosi's investment firm started in 1973. Are you claiming that as some random no-name Congresswoman, she made endless amounts of money? She didn't gain a position of power until 2003 as minority whip. Do you have ANY evidence for any of your claims? Or is this just typical character assassination of people you don't like? She's rich, therefore she's corrupt!
Please tell me "crazy left" legislation in this case isn't stuff like gun bans rather than hardline reforms on the revolving door, lobbying etc. When I think of "crazy left legislation" I'm thinking of legislation that makes it harder for her to gain personal wealth through investments.
So you don't actually know and have just been b****ing about her no stop because it was the cool thing to do?
When Gaetz was asked why he changed his vote didn't he respond with something along the lines of "I got everything I wanted and I couldn't think of anything else to ask for"?
She passed climate change bills during Obama that were DOA to the Senate and did massive damage to the party - simply to make a statement and push the House to make a stand. She also virtually single-handedly forced Obamacare through when any health care legislation seemed dead after Ted Kennedy's death and essentially called Obama a coward for not fighting for it. You mean the STOCK act that passed while she was Speaker? BTW, here's how bad the insider trading problem is in Congress in the aggregate: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272722000044 Abstract Recent news reports and a Department of Justice investigation highlight the potential for insider informed trading by U.S. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, an activity which the STOCK Act of 2012 was intended to deter. We use a new and comprehensive data set of these officials’ trades of public equities from January 2012-December 2020. We find no evidence of superior investment performance whether we look in aggregate or at Senators specifically accused of informed trading. Over a six-month horizon, stocks bought by House Members underperform on average by 26 basis points, while stocks sold underperform by 11 basis points. Even at the 95th and 99th percentiles of ex-post stock returns, House and Senator stock returns are consistent with random stock picking.
Pelosi wasn't perfect (Didn't bring to vote Elizabeth Warren's bi-partisan bill last year), but she was certainly all for HR1 which would have been a huge difference maker in many of the corrupt areas that you're insinuating she might be akin to. So in all fairness I do think if you are going to be insinuate she was corrupt (some fair truth in regards to spousal stock trading), that objectively should also be accompanied by the fact that she did at the same time have many positives in regards to bills she openly supported and got the majority of the House to pass in some cases that actively fights anti-corruption. Not a perfect character by any means but FAAARRR from the worst. Not sure we should allow her to be whataboutismed to death like MAGA supporters would like us to do. There's just simply no comparison to the corruption on the other side.
