Defending ACA... WHY DON'T DEMS GO FOR THE JUGULAR???

[eniwetok]

In politics if one's not constantly on the offensive, they're losing ground. Given this reality I've never understood why Dems are often so cowardly in exposing the Right's real motives even when a signature program like ACA is threatened with being abolished.

For example the Dems never really made it a key talking point that the GOP's starve the beast program was a dangerous sabotaging of the fiscal health of the government... not only threatening our ability to deal with emergencies... but an immoral theft of money from future tax payers.

As for health care, clearly the GOP cares more about tax cuts for the rich (that 3.8% surcharge on capital gains) and their small government brand than the health of the American People. They are soooo desperate to preserve this insanity that they'd rather see 400 billion pissed away on interest... maybe up to $800 billion in 8 years, than see that money be used to benefit the American People. In contrast we only spend about 20 billion a year for NASA.

And why have the Dems not gone after the fact that if not for government freebies... such as free intellectual property monopolies like patents, copyrights, and trademarks (Trump claims his "brand" is worth over $3 billion) there might not be any uber rich? Then there's free limited liability protection for corporate owners that protects their private assets in the case of corporate bankruptcy. Yes, Obama made some statement once about business owners didn't build everything on their own... and the right reacted violently... YET THE DEMS NEED TO OFFER A COUNTER NARRATIVE TO JUSTIFY A STRONGLY PROGRESSIVE TAX RATE.

[Blanks]

1. It's not a sprint...

It's a marathon. The dems need to be on the offensive before the mid-terms on the ACA.

If they're too aggressive now, the republicans will be able to respond. For the time being the best play is to let them fumble around with it.

We will probably screw it up, but I'd rather wait in the wings for a couple of months.

[eniwetok]

2. who's talking about now...?

The Dems have had THIRTY FIVE YEARS to expose the Right's Starve The Beast strategy... and what happened? Obama gave up on fiscal responsibility to PRESERVE most of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts. As a result the deficit last year was $580 billion... all money stolen from future taxpayers.

And the Dems have had since 1994 to expose the GOP's cynical change of strategy on health care. In 1993 80% of GOP senators were cosponsors of health care plans with an individual mandate. By 1994 they'd switched over to their current bullshit proposals... HSAs, limiting medical lawsuits, and selling insurance across state lines etc.

But you're suggesting that Dems stall off longer going for the jugular?

That's the difference between the GOP and the Dems. The GOP doesn't give a shit if their accusations against the Dems are true... all they care about is manipulating their base to push through their pro-rich agenda. The Dems, in contrast, refuse to go after very REAL GOP motives even if their signature programs are under existential threat from the GOP.

The far right in the GOP set in motion a systematic and coordinated strategy back in the 70's to remake America into Amerika. Is there any doubt which approach is winning?

If one's not constantly on the offensive ONE IS LOSING GROUND.

[Blanks]

4. Yeah, that's the difference between them and us...

And when the democrats get to the point where they don't care if their accusations are true, then I won't support them any more.

We occasionally get a democrat that does something sleazy, and the other democrats condemn that action.

That's why I'm a democrat.

[eniwetok]

5. who said anything about dishonesty?

Are you suggesting that the Right has NOT been involved in Starve The Beast? Is it NOT true that the GOP suddenly switched from 80% of Senators supporting HC with a personal mandate to rejecting it? Are you saying one of the GOP's goals in gutting ACA is NOT to get rid of that 3.8% surcharge on capital gains for the rich? And are you saying it's dishonest to expose the fact that the GOP CLEARLY is stealing from future generations with their irresponsible tax cuts?

Let's not forget... part of the political game is building a compelling narrative for one's one base while putting the other side on the defensive.

How much longer before the Dems learn this?

[Blanks]

6. I was addressing this statement...

That you made.

The GOP doesn't give a shit if their accusations against the Dems are true...

Going down that path is what I oppose.

[eniwetok]

9. and I've not proposed lying...

Often we can never get a politician or a party to be honest about their true motives... BUT THEY CAN BE DEDUCED. There's little where the GOP admitted being for Starve The Beast... and it's mostly from the 80s. BUT NOTHING ELSE EXPLAINS THEIR BEHAVIOR...

So why is this NOT a fair tactic?

[onyxw]

3. They see Republicans floundering and don't want to give a lifeline

Something about when your opponent's shooting themselves in the foot you try not to get in their way and just stand back and let them.

That said, I agree, going on a bit of the offensive could be good to put some pressure on and make the GOP play defense. I can understand maybe the hesitancy to come out and say what on ACA could be improved if it lets Republicans grasp on to something and attack it by saying "see they don't think it's working either" but think there's ways to sidestep that and still promote Democrats' alternatives to keep the heat up.


I do think Pelosi and Schumer should get out in front and let it be known we aren't going to bail the Republicans out if they go for repeal with no replace (I think they've done this somewhat informally, but would like official Dem leadership statement) and will refuse to vote on anything not scored by the CBO. That if the Republicans want a serious debate they can put their plan they've had 7 years to craft side by side with ACA and let the public determine the better option based on how many people are covered, what it does to debt, etc because we're confident they'll think the ACA is better. And then they can put out 2 or 3 positions that would move the ACA forward they'd be willing to discuss so that we don't look obstructionist. Think that'd help make sure Democrats come out looking like the reasonable ones on this.

[eniwetok]

8. Dems could certainly help...

Leaving aside this reluctance on the part of Dems to go for the jugular is HISTORICAL... Dems could certainly help the GOP self-destruct by calling into their cynical motives. In fact when it comes to HC the Dems should have been doing this since 1994.

[Vinca]

7. I've been noticing Tom Perez doesn't let anything pass by without getting his face in front of a

camera and making a comment and that's a good thing. I was kind of lukewarm on him, but he's doing a good job so far.