So there's been a lot of news of identity politics being bad for Democrats. I can see both sides that it is and it isn't.
But lets take a small trip into the economic policies that bandumb want to focus on.
Start with healthcare- I just don't get the economic benefit for the country if they just get rid of the ACA. That throws a lot of people back on the sidewalk, which puts their economic well being at serious risk. And the "replace" ideas all center on giving people who don't spend large proportion of their income more money. Seems to me, giving the bottom 10% the same amount of benefits will put far, far more money back into circulation than the 1%- who save at a MUCH higher rate- and rarely use it.
Tax reform- same general idea- we want to pretend that giving money to the top group is going to trickle down? Just basic numbers tells you that bubbling up is better that trickling down- the less income you have, the higher the rate of relative spending you do. So spreading $1B in tax cuts will put more in the economy for poor people than rich people. When you are forced to spend your entire income to survive, all of that money just starts to rotate through the economy. At very high incomes, more of it is just banked and saved. One doesn't need an economic theory to do that simple math.
Immigration- who is going to replace all of the lost workers that are being deported or prevented from coming into the country? I know people *think* that unemployed Americans will take up those jobs, but when has that EVER happened? Regardless of the problem that they will require a much higher wage to be convinced to work that hard. Whole food industries revolved around immigrant workers of some type. Are we prepared to spend a lot more money on food? And in that thinking, is it really worth spending an EXTRA many billions of dollars to build a wall?
Trade protection- I know it's a great idea in concept. But on a historical basis, has it ever worked? Ever? So far, this administration has talked about some steel policies- which, so far, has resulted in an INCREASE of steel imports. Not a decrease.
Regulation reform- I'm 100% with the idea of reviewing regulations to see if they make sense- a good example is taxis vs ride sharing. They provide the exact same service to consumers, so they should be working on the exact same level- one way or another. On the other hand, the theory that regulations are bad for business isn't correct. There are a number of regulations that are very even across an industry, and also have provided a large number of highly skilled jobs that pay very, very well. I work in one, and I know others here work in others. So just a blanket reduction in regulations isn't a good idea for jobs. And if you also examine the intent of the regulations- some are there to protect heath- which reduces the healthcare burden on the economy; some are there so that people can not fleece the public- again, good for the general economy.
Coal.... which can also be talked about for other industries in decline. Why do we continue to pretend that going green is the reason coal is struggling? Everyone knows that it's natural gas that's the real reason. Even a recent economic study done by this administration says that. By forcing them into work- you are essentially nationalizing the industry. I was under the impression that we didn't like communism. Or at least you would have to increase the cost of NG power production to make the economics of coal to work. So either we pay taxes to coal industries or we pay more for power- neither of which seem like a good idea for the economy. How about we figure out how those families were attracted to move to coal country and use that reason to move them back out?
We can go on, but if a Democrat really rode heavily on those items now, and then when things start to go wrong (which MANY of us expect they will), one can put a lot of specific blame on this administration that they are saying one thing and doing another for their voters. That would attract a lot of people back to the democratic party.
