[RD] Pelosi’s “Better Deal”

[BvBPL]

This weekend, House Minority Leader Pelosi introduced the Democrats’ new strategy for mid-terms elections in a Washington Post op-ed. The agenda focuses on job creation, limiting the power of corporations, and lowering the cost of “jacked up” prescription drugs (“jacked up”? Seriously, Nancy?). It is an economically-focused, worker-orientated agenda aiming to create 10 million new jobs in five years. It is called “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.”




The plan rejects special-interest priorities in a big way. Not only does it declaim the control special-interest groups have in Washington at the moment, it makes little reference to the special interests of Democrat allies. There are no references to social policies. There are no references to the interests of minority groups. The Democrats may be turning away from relying on diversity to win elections and instead move towards unity. Which is to say we may be seeing Democrats move away from an identity-politics focus and towards a class focus on the premise that a rising tide will float all ships.

Calling “A Better Deal” a plan is actually a bit premature. This isn’t a plan. It’s an op-ed and it’s a reorientation of the Democratic message. It is a slick, soundbite-worthy slogan meant to compete with equally slick slogans from the right, like “Make America Great Again.” Presumably, the actual, substantive plan will be revealed over time in the future.

It will be interesting to see both how the public takes to “A Better Way” and how much Democrats will stay focused on the economic message.

 

[Farm Boy]

Jacked up? As in, resting higher than natural? Or jacked up, as in just did a line of coke? The first makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[EgonSpengler]

From a previous article, 22 July, "Trump Had 'The Art of the Deal', Now Democrats Say Their Economic Agenda Is 'A Better Deal'."

Democratic leaders shared few details to preserve suspense around the plan, which is scheduled to be unveiled Monday at an event in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District, where the party hopes to defeat incumbent Rep. Barbara Comstock (R). But some lawmakers, aides and outside advocates consulted on the new agenda said that it is expected to focus on new proposals to fund job-training programs, renegotiate trade deals and address soaring prescription-drug costs, as well as other issues. It is also expected to endorse long-held Democratic principles, including “a living wage” of $15 per hour and already unveiled spending plans for infrastructure that would expand broadband Internet access into rural counties.

So it's wait-and-see, I guess.

 

[BvBPL]

I assume former, for the reasons you state.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok I'm curious about my tangent, why is it a weird phrasing?

 

[Lexicus]

Ok I'm curious about my tangent, why is it a weird phrasing?

BvBPL misquoted her, she said the prices of prescription drugs were jacked up.

Now, let's see...

First, Democrats are pledging ourselves to the goal of creating good-paying, full-time jobs for 10 million more Americans in the next five years.

How?

We are calling for a new tax credit for employers to train and hire workers at a good wage,

Typical lukewarm thing that will be ludicrously inadequate if it's meant to accomplish the 10 million well-paid jobs thing

and a massive new national commitment to expanding apprenticeships and paid on-the-job training that advances their skills and careers.

Probably a good idea, but at best a palliative. Not going to actually do anything to address the structural problems with the economy.

That is the impetus behind our second proposal, to put economic power back into the hands of the American people, cracking down on the monopolies and big corporate mergers that harm consumers, workers and competition. We will demand that proposed mergers meet tough new standards to protect competition before approval, and will institute post-merger reviews to ensure that consolidated companies keep their promises to American consumers.

This is better stuff, but I'd like to see what these 'tough new standards' are and how they plan to enforce them.

Third, Democrats will take unprecedented aggressive action to lower the cost of prescription drugs — the single largest factor driving increasing health costs in the United States today. We will leverage the power of Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, force drug manufacturers to open their books and justify cost increases, and create a strong, independent enforcement agency empowered to end outrageous and unjustified prescription drug price-gouging.

All good with me

 

[Hrothbern]

Why not finish the "New Deal" of Roosevelt with his original Health Care plan of 1943.

 

[BvBPL]

If I had to come up with a list of politicians who could be expected to use the slang phrase “jacked up” in connection with the introduction of a major marketing initiative by a political party, Nancy Pelosi would not have ever crossed my mind.

 

[Zkribbler]

This isn’t a plan. It’s an op-ed and it’s a reorientation of the Democratic message. It is a slick, soundbite-worthy slogan meant to compete with equally slick slogans from the right, like “Make America Great Again.” Presumably, the actual, substantive plan will be revealed over time in the future..

Yes, it's a vector, not a laundry list.

BTW; The Betty-Botter-Bought-Some-Butter slogan is dopey. It appears to be the brainchild of a committee consisting of a camel, a platypus, and Rube Goldberg. :facepalm: We need some clear, concise, and hopefully colorful.

 

[Farm Boy]

If I had to come up with a list of politicians who could be expected to use the slang phrase “jacked up” in connection with the introduction of a major marketing initiative by a political party, Nancy Pelosi would not have ever crossed my mind.

Hehehe, ok, so she's a poser and it's a bit cringe worthy. Fair enough.

 

[civvver]

Don't we have to add ~2 million jobs annually just to keep up with population growth in the us? And we added 2 million jobs in 2016.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/december-jobs-report/512366/

So how is 10 million in 5 years a benchmark of any sort of accomplishment? It's basically status quo. Or do they mean 10 million extra so like the expected 10 million or so plus another 10? I doubt they do. they probably just want it to sound good cus Americans don't understand how the economy grows and adds jobs organically anyway.

I think it would be a good sign for the democrats to focus more on economy and winning back rural and blue collar white votes, labor votes and such, and focus less on special interest issues that affect small percentages of the population, like gay rights as important as they are affect like 1-2% of the population. Jobs affect everyone. But this seems very underwhelming.

If you really want to create a bunch of jobs have the government spend on building more colleges. College is very expensive cus there aren't enough. Top universities turn away tons of students even with raising tuition fees 10% annually. Constructing these schools would create a bunch of jobs and staffing them would too.

 

[BvBPL]

Assuming you’re right about adding 2 million new jobs a year, aiming for 10 million new jobs in five years is pretty canny. If someone points out that normal job growth would be 2 million a year, proponents of this would say “we mean 10 million on top of that,” ie doubling job growth, which is a great promise to make. Then at the end of the five years they can say “hey, look, there’s 10 million new jobs” even if the growth was just at status quo.

 

[Synobun]

I don't like this. It's an awful branding with vague notions and nothing concrete to display.

The Democrats needed to reconsider their approach in the face of Trump's cultism and the GOP's loyal-to-the-end followers after the embarrassing failure of the last election cycle. This does not achieve that.

So for now, I'm still of the opinion that it'll take Trump et al some more colossal screwing up for the Democrats to move ahead. Their current concept just won't cut it.

 

[BvBPL]

Hoping the other guy will screw up is no way to convince people that you can govern.

 

[GenMarshall]

On job creation, Ill believe it when I see it. Right now, I'm very skeptical about the Democratic part since throwing Sanders under the bus.

 

[civvver]

I actually don't know how many jobs we need to just keep pace with population. Statistically I was able to find that about 4 million people turn 18 annually in the us while around 750,000 turn 65. So do the math you'd need 3.25 million jobs if every single 18 year old was going to be employed. Of course many of them won't work right away as they'll go to school or some kind of training, but whether it's in 2, 4, 6 or 8 years they need a job, that's the basic numbers. So I think you just eliminate those who won't even hold jobs like those who are or become disabled and those who become homemakers or just don't work. Who knows what numbers those are, but I'm sure we need at least 2 million jobs a year just to keep pace.

Although at some point automation, machines and AI are going to replace all the jobs anyway. So maybe we're approaching this the wrong way.

 

[GenMarshall]

I actually don't know how many jobs we need to just keep pace with population.

Not just to keep pace with a growing population, but to keep pace with people who've been displaced from the workforce due to a recession and/or automation. And we don't need just jobs, but good quality jobs that aren't minimum wage level.

There will be a breaking point where we're going to put our foot down and resist further automation by machines and/or AI. Think "They took we jerbs" but applied to machines. Luddism is not that new when you stop and think about it.

 

[Hygro]

My party doesn't know how to sell anything.

 

[Ajidica]

Couldn't they just create a clone of Jeremy Corbyn and trot him out whenever they need enthusiasm?
It probably would be cheaper than the focus groups they sent this program through.

 

[Zkribbler]

On job creation, Ill believe it when I see it.

Here ya go. Check out the final chart in the article, which shows job creation by Presidential term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Of the top 11, nine took place under Democratic presidents.