the "blue wave" last night and the government shutdown

Vambram said:

The Democrats have voted in as mayor of NYC a man who proudly proclaims himself as a Socialist. If the USA becomes under the control of the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party, then America's best days will be long gone behind us.

Click to expand...

Sure, but it would help do dig up some decent opposition.

Vambram said:

The Democrats have voted in as mayor of NYC a man who proudly proclaims himself as a Socialist. If the USA becomes under the control of the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party, then America's best days will be long gone behind us.

Click to expand...

It’s easy to argue the best have been long behind us for a while. The middle class is on its way out as cost of living continues to skyrocket while wages trail far behind. The economic course we continue to prop up is clearly failing and people are understandably looking for something else.

Vambram said:

The Democrats have voted in as mayor of NYC a man who proudly proclaims himself as a Socialist. If the USA becomes under the control of the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party, then America's best days will be long gone behind us.

Click to expand...

Maybe NYC will get good sewers

Vambram said:

The Democrats have voted in as mayor of NYC a man who proudly proclaims himself as a Socialist. If the USA becomes under the control of the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party, then America's best days will be long gone behind us.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we should do better and elect philandering con artists like you guys.

dogs4thewin said:

I wonder what will happen if the government stays shut down for a couple of weeks after the election as that would likely mean that the idea of the "blue wave" being the Republicans fault and thus voting for democrats in a sense "failed" as people at the state and local levels are not the ones controlling the shut down anyway How would people who voted for the democrats BECAUSE of the shutdown react?

This would particularly be the case if 1-1-26 gets here and the healthcare credits run out in which case the democrats would basically "lose" by default in as far as getting what they wanted while the government was shut down for at LEAST a quarter of the year.

Click to expand...

Trump will still be viewed poorly. This economy belongs to him now, and the vote is to send him a message that they do not approve. His tariff "policies" (if you can call them that) are increasing the cost of living, putting a strain on the economy, and leading to job loss.

Most people voted for Trump based on the belief that he would be better at managing the economy than his predecessor. He is not only not delivering on those expectations (big surprise), but making things worse.

Vambram said:

Mamdani victory speech draws concern as NYC mayor-elect vows 'no problem too large for government to solve'

Zohran Mamdani indicated during a New York City mayoral race victory speech that there is no matter too big or small for the government to tackle.

www.foxnews.com

Van Jones calls out Zohran Mamdani for 'character switch' during intense victory speech

CNN's Van Jones called out New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani for his "character switch" during an intense victory speech on Tuesday, saying his tone was sharper than usual.

www.foxnews.com

Click to expand...

Of course, the tactic here will be to try to put all the attention on Mamdani. Nothing better than a good boogeyman to try to hold up in front of people. I think NPR said it best:

All night, Fox News opted to talk about "Commie" Mamdani instead of taking victory speeches from Spanberger and Sherrill. Both women cut a different political profile: both have military or law enforcement backgrounds and tried to reach out to their opponents' voters. So, a large swath of the country on the right didn't hear a Democrat wishing her opponent well, praising her military service and saying she wants to be governor for everyone in the state.

Click to expand...

I haven't followed this stuff too closely. Have the republicans actually offered the democratic party something for their support? Or has it just been threats?

Yttrium said:

Sure, but it would help do dig up some decent opposition.

Click to expand...

The Democrats couldn’t even find decent opposition. They too are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Vambram said:

The Democrats have voted in as mayor of NYC a man who proudly proclaims himself as a Socialist. If the USA becomes under the control of the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party, then America's best days will be long gone behind us.

Click to expand...

This phrase from Wikipedia's definition of democratic socialism is very interesting. The phrase "democratic socialism" has been used in multiple senses, including a broad sense that refers to all forms of socialism which reject autocracy.
I am surprised that you are so upset at the idea of democratic (e.g. decided upon by the people) socialism but yet you embrace the autocracy which isn't creeping into our government but barreling in headfirst.
And if you call Momdani a "communist" or "socialist," no one should be upset if progressives start using words like "fascism" and "oligarchy." There is nothing about what's going on in DC today that has anything to do with the government envisioned by the Constitution, and perhaps progressives should start using the words they know to be accurate as well.

Nithavela said:

I haven't followed this stuff too closely. Have the republicans actually offered the democratic party something for their support? Or has it just been threats?

Click to expand...

Trump, I believe, has refused to negotiate. Speaker Johnson has refused to open the House. I think around the edges there are some little bipartisan talks. Hopefully, the election creates a little urgency in the Republicans to negotiate.

essentialsaltes said:

Trump, I believe, has refused to negotiate. Speaker Johnson has refused to open the House. I think around the edges there are some little bipartisan talks. Hopefully, the election creates a little urgency in the Republicans to negotiate.

Click to expand...

The urgency will more likely be to accept Trump's request to end the filibuster. Otherwise, this blackmail will happen several more times before the 2026 elections.

If the filibuster is removed, Trump will be free to be the leader he wishes to be, with the Democrats having no say at all. Much would get passed before the 2026 elections. And then the people will vote. And then, after the 2026 elections, we will likely have 2 years of almost total gridlock.

chevyontheriver said:

The Democrats couldn’t even find decent opposition. They too are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Click to expand...

We do seem to have fallen on hard times for politicians.

On the bright side, the election chaos next year should be very entertaining.

Yttrium said:

We do seem to have fallen on hard times for politicians.

On the bright side, the election chaos next year should be very entertaining.

Click to expand...

Or depressing.

wing2000 said:

Agreed.

Trump may not have been on the actual ballot yesterday, but in the minds of voters, he most certainly was. But hey, if he wants to believe his policies are improving the lives of Americans, let him stew in his own made-up reality. He'll be in for an awakening next November....(assuming there's an election).

Click to expand...

It's not just President Trump and his administration who believe their policies benefit Americans; many of his voters share this view as well.

I have participated in this forum for ten months, and I have not seen any supporters expressing criticism of any of his policy such as, "I voted for President Trump and he is doing well, but this particular policy is detrimental to the country." The most dedicated Trump voters appear unwilling to acknowledge any potential drawbacks in his policies. For instance, President Trump imposed a 10% tariff following the airing of an AD during a ball game, yet his supporters believe Canada deserved it.

The Trump administration believes strong approval from its Republican base—87%—is enough and doesn't require further support. Since President Trump won't be on the ballot again, he has little reason to care about independents, reluctant Democrats, or crossover voters in 2024.

However, Republicans will face future election and will require support from more voters than just those who are registered Republicans and conservative-leaning independents.

No party can win national or statewide elections without at least 40% of the Hispanic vote, and this percentage must rise as Hispanic Americans become increasingly bigger voting block each year. President Trump was the first GOP leader since W. Bush to attract more Hispanic voters, which significantly contributed to his 2024 victory.

However, that support appears to be waning. Various focus groups among Hispanic and Cuban voters indicate that they do not support President Trump’s strict immigration policies.

In Virginia and New Jersey, the districts with a majority of Hispanic voters who supported the GOP by at least 49% in the 2024 election saw that figure decrease to 27% within just 10 months. If the focus group and recent polls are accurate, this could become a trend across the nation.

Similarly, President Trump received more Gen Z votes in 2024 than any GOP candidate has received from voters under 30 in the past 40 years. But these voters are also moving away from GOP after one election.

Here's the shocking part: the Republican Party isn't concerned. Their argument is that they have a mandate from the 2024 election and will carry out their campaign promises. While this is legally permissible, it may cost them support from independents, young voters, and Hispanic voters.

Fantine said:

Ah, the hedonistic, pleasure-seeking rich....

How do they pay for universal health care in all the other developed countries in Europe and Asia? Yes, every single one?

Are the people there smarter than us since they have it all figured out? Are we such a dumb nation that we can't figure out what all the other nations have--or borrow their ideas?

The hedonistic, pleasure-seeking rich have plenty of money for hedonism and pleasure. Believe it or not, some people derive pleasure from living in a country where no one is starving or dying in the streets. What a novel idea.

Click to expand...

Here are the facts that most Democrats and Senator Sanders, who support universal healthcare, rarely share.

1. In 2024, a 21% corporate tax rate is generated $490 billion; raising it to 60% could yield $1.4 trillion.
2. In 2022, the top 5% of earners paid $1.4 trillion at a 37% rate; increasing the rate to 70% could generate nearly $2.9 trillion annually.
3. Medicare and Medicaid cost $1.7 trillion, while switching to universal healthcare could cost $3.7–$4.1 trillion.

Even if corporate tax rates were raised from 21% to 60% or the top 5% individual income tax bracket increased from 37% to 70%, these measures would not be sufficient to fully fund universal health care annually.


Implementing universal health care in the United States would likely require increasing taxes on a broader segment of the population. No Democrat would admit this. They will use term like “hedonism and Pleasure” and the “hedonistic” like you have.

Currently, the average American pays approximately 14.5% in taxes, whereas Europeans typically pay between 35% -40%. To adopt a health care system similar to those in Europe, an increase in taxes for most Americans would probably be necessary.

Unless all Americans are willing to pay an average tax rate of 35% - 40%, as is common in many European countries, universal healthcare remains largely a theoretical policy.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Here are the facts that most Democrats and Senator Sanders, who support universal healthcare, rarely share.

1. In 2024, a 21% corporate tax rate is generated $490 billion; raising it to 60% could yield $1.4 trillion.
2. In 2022, the top 5% of earners paid $1.4 trillion at a 37% rate; increasing the rate to 70% could generate nearly $2.9 trillion annually.
3. Medicare and Medicaid cost $1.7 trillion, while switching to universal healthcare could cost $3.7–$4.1 trillion.

Even if corporate tax rates were raised from 21% to 60% or the top 5% individual income tax bracket increased from 37% to 70%, these measures would not be sufficient to fully fund universal health care annually.


Implementing universal health care in the United States would likely require increasing taxes on a broader segment of the population. No Democrat would admit this. They will use term like “hedonism and Pleasure” and the “hedonistic” like you have.

Currently, the average American pays approximately 14.5% in taxes, whereas Europeans typically pay between 35% -40%. To adopt a health care system similar to those in Europe, an increase in taxes for most Americans would probably be necessary.

Unless all Americans are willing to pay an average tax rate of 35% - 40%, as is common in many European countries, universal healthcare remains largely a theoretical policy.

Click to expand...

How do we pay for health care now? We pay insurance premiums, copayments and a part of our wages foregone because our employers are paying some of the insurance premiums. The experience in other modern industrial countries is that cutting the employers and the insurance companies out of the loop results in cheaper, better health care access for all. We would still pay for health care, but through taxes rather than payments to the insurance industry.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Unless all Americans are willing to pay an average tax rate of 35% - 40%, as is common in many European countries, universal healthcare remains largely a theoretical policy.

Click to expand...

You forget that the vast majority of Americans are effectively paying that tax already by covering their own health insurance premiums, either out of their own pockets or as a portion of their total compensation from their employer (or both). The employee-funded portion of my health insurance premiums is about 5% of my income, and that's with my employer covering 75%. If I had to purchase health insurance on the open market and pay the full premium out of pocket, I'd probably be spending 15-20% of my income just on that.

BCP1928 said:

How do we pay for health care now? We pay insurance premiums, copayments and a part of our wages foregone because our employers are paying some of the insurance premiums. The experience in other modern industrial countries is that cutting the employers and the insurance companies out of the loop results in cheaper, better health care access for all. We would still pay for health care, but through taxes rather than payments to the insurance industry.

Click to expand...

In 2024, the average cost of employer-sponsored family health coverage in the United States was $25,000, with employees contributing $6,000 and employers providing $21,000. Should the U.S. adopt a universal healthcare system and discontinue employer-sponsored premiums, this financial responsibility would transfer to individuals.

While removing insurance companies may potentially reduce overall healthcare expenditures, each family would still be expected to contribute approximately $5,000 to $7,000 annually, likely through taxation. The feasibility of universal healthcare in the U.S. depends on Americans’ willingness—particularly those earning lower wages—to accept these taxes, as is common in many European countries. A transparent and informed public dialogue is essential, given that some political figures suggest that taxing only the top 1% would suffice to fund universal healthcare, when the fiscal realities are considerably more nuanced.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

In 2024, the average cost of employer-sponsored family health coverage in the United States was $25,000, with employees contributing $6,000 and employers providing $21,000. Should the U.S. adopt a universal healthcare system and discontinue employer-sponsored premiums, this financial responsibility would transfer to individuals.

Click to expand...

The question is on single-payer which is the opposite of direct responsibility on individuals.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

While removing insurance companies may potentially reduce overall healthcare expenditures, each family would still be expected to contribute approximately $5,000 to $7,000 annually, likely through taxation. The feasibility of universal healthcare in the U.S. depends on Americans’ willingness—particularly those earning lower wages—to accept these taxes, as is common in many European countries. A transparent and informed public dialogue is essential, given that some political figures suggest that taxing only the top 1% would suffice to fund universal healthcare, when the fiscal realities are considerably more nuanced.

Click to expand...

Taxation is dependent on income level and tax rates can (and for income tax, do) depend on income level.

One calculation would be to assume that it would be funded by increasing the current Medicare tax on wages up to a cap. To do so you'd need the total cost of private health insurance, subtract insurance company profits, and the current Medicare tax revenues and estimate how much it would need to increase. Alternatively, you could take that increase and apply it to personal income tax revenue and find the proportional increase in income tax required to cover the cost using the existing tax base. Or you could add corporate taxes.

There are many possibilities, but translating directly to a per capita tax burden is not good math. We don't have any per capita taxes.

dogs4thewin said:

I wonder what will happen if the government stays shut down for a couple of weeks after the election as that would likely mean that the idea of the "blue wave" being the Republicans fault and thus voting for democrats in a sense "failed" as people at the state and local levels are not the ones controlling the shut down anyway How would people who voted for the democrats BECAUSE of the shutdown react?

This would particularly be the case if 1-1-26 gets here and the healthcare credits run out in which case the democrats would basically "lose" by default in as far as getting what they wanted while the government was shut down for at LEAST a quarter of the year.

Click to expand...

The big wins on Tuesday were coming whether the government was shutdown or not. People’s discontent with the way the country is headed under this administration has been brewing for over 10 months from the antagonism and division coming out of the White House and a Congress unwilling to do any actual work for the people. The GOP failing to lead while being in charge of the entire federal government only added to everyone’s dissatisfaction. As someone who both voted on Tuesday and has now been directly impacted by the loss of SNAP, I hope the democrats keep up the fight. Clearly it’s the GOP that’s not connecting with the people anymore.