Pelosi: Americans deserve better than the GOP agenda, so were offering a better deal

[tammywammy]

Last week, our nation marked six months since President Trump’s inauguration.

For the first time in a decade, the GOP had the White House, Congress and complete control of the legislative process to advance its agenda. But instead of creating good-paying jobs, or rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure, or advancing tax reform, Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans’ health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires.

Democrats have a better approach — in fact, a better deal. On Monday, House and Senate Democrats are traveling to the town of Berryville, Va., to announce a fresh vision for “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.”

What motivates us is that the costs of living keep rising, but families feel their incomes and wages aren’t keeping up. Special interests are given special treatment, while hard-working Americans are ignored. Working people from the heartland to the cities are struggling in a rigged economy and a system stacked against them.

Our agenda is focused on efforts to create jobs and raise incomes for American workers, to lower the cost of living for American families, and to build an economy that gives every American the tools to succeed in the 21st century.
-snip-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americans-deserve-better-than-the-gop-agenda-so-were-offering-a-better-deal/2017/07/23/151fd1ec-6e4c-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.be38b3c9f1cf

[ancianita]

1. I'd rather hear "We're the good economy party" than 45's "better deal" language. Just sayin'. nt

[sfwriter]

2. This is awesome!

Hammer it home!

[bucolic_frolic]

3. I am hopeful

but do wonder how families are to make progress while companies
have monopolistic pricing power for products that most families want,
while workers unless specifically skilled with a niche in the market are
basically a disposable commodity to employers, and while regulations
are relaxed for business but maintained for people. Not to mention
the complicated tax code.

[Sunlei]

5. no more dairy subsities when milk profits are above 25%. Like that with consumer necessities

[ehrnst]

12. The thing is - they will pass the 25% along to consumers, and blame Democrats

Look at what the soda industry did when there was going to be a penny per ounce tax on it.

Conservatives used it as an "example" of the Liberal "tax us into our graves" memes, and "government control of what we eat."

I agree - I'm just saying it won't be as easy as rolling back subsidies.

[Sunlei]

13. better then the 200%+ profits the Corps price gouge Americans with today.

We're ripped off by Corps! and so are the base workers who work the crops and milk the cows!

Even the cows suffer.

[ehrnst]

15. I agree with what you say, although I don't think that we're going to be

successful with making the case to consumers that more expensive milk is somehow taking money away from corporations and giving it to them - and it will be made to appear that the goverment is taking money from families - by way of more expensive milk.

[Sunlei]

16. Our D party needs to go after one 'over priced' medicine or consumer item at a time.Ds will be heros

yes, the big picture is the main focus of any 'change', but regular people can "connect" to small positive changes easier.

D party can't lie to voters like trump & Republican party did, but they can for example change the price consumers pay for ONE medicine at a time.

[ehrnst]

18. How do you propose Dems go after one overpriced medicine or consumer item? (nt)

[Sunlei]

20. like that smuck in court now with the 25 cent antibiotic he sells for $800 a pill or the

10 cents worth of epinephrine sold as rescue shot for peanut allergy kids for $200 a dose.

pick any of those medicines or consumer necessities and rake over their profit reports, find the cheaper outside of America.

[ehrnst]

21. I understand about Skrelli, but by what mechanism do Dems force him to lower his price? (nt)

[Sunlei]

26. He will lose his corporation to the courts and the price will drop back to aquarium treatment price.

[ehrnst]

29. How do Dems make him "lose his corporation to the courts?"

Not following you on that.

[FakeNoose]

33. Look closely at where those "profits" came from

Millions of Americans have lost their manufacturing jobs because they've all been exported to Mexico, China, and other places. The prices of the goods aren't coming down, but they only cost half as much to make as they used to. The extra cost is converted into "profits" for the owners/share-holders and nice whopping bonuses for the managers.

It can't continue like this, the economy will collapse when nobody has enough money to buy any of the products. That's why the GOP is so short-sighted and just plain stupid. They're killing off the middle class that took over 100 years to create. What they're calling "profits" used to pay the wages of millions of Americans.

We're all losing - some are losing faster than others. The wealthiest 1% don't care because they'll be the last to lose.

[Sunlei]

4. ASK FOR THE DAMN UNIVERSE Ds and then settle for a bit less. GO HARD ASS!!

[ehrnst]

22. But the minute they settle for less, they are called "CORPORATE SHILLS!!!" by

purists.

[Sunlei]

23. excuses, excuses. doesn't work.

[ehrnst]

25. Yes - just like that.

If they settle for less, then they get blasted.

If they ask for the impossible, then they are called worthless for not getting anything done.

See?

[Sunlei]

28. no I don't see, who cares what people say about them. cut through the mud and do the right thing.

D party should have claimed credit for our $2 a gallon gas as well. That saved me hundreds of dollars a year.

[ehrnst]

30. Oh, so you think they should ignore what you say about them as well?

And the price of gas isn't determined by a political party - it's pretty much determined by OPEC.

Democrats taking responsibility for that would be a bald faced lie.

You think they should lie and take credit for things they didn't do?

[JCanete]

40. no...its when they campaign for less in the first place. If they settle for less because the GOP

compromises that's fine. If they settle for less when they are in power, because of our own leaders, that is decidedly not. Starting from the compromise and then expecting the GOP to have any incentive to break with their party has been proven over and over again to be a failing approach. When we're in power, go for broke. Go extreme. Make them come to us with a compromise that gives us bipartisan cover. We keep arresting ourselves in political realities, rather than changing those realities.

[ehrnst]

41. The thing is

we don't always know what the actual options are, even for those that are "in power."

Just like teapartiers who claim that "welfare queens" are totally capable of supporting themselves, and those on medicaid are totally capable of getting their children care on the private market.

[IndieRick]

6. But....

As my sobriquet implies I am not a member of the Democratic Party, though I am, I believe, a sympathizer. In our two party system, one that actively suppresses third party growth, any moderate or even centrist must see the Democrats as far superior a choice, a Hobson's choice I fear.

Yet we have seen a trail of democratic defeats, we see 38 Governorship's in the hands of a party, the GOP, that has become both ruthless and far out of touch with the needs of the people. Yet we see both Houses and the Presidency, as well as a majority on the Supreme Court in the hands of the GOP, one must wonder why.

This latest message from the democratic leadership is a sound one in my own opinion, as are many of the statements from democrats and their leadership. Yet, if history is any judge, this will go nowhere. Democrats have won the ideological battle but lost the war, so to speak. Not to beat a dead horse but the Republican Congress, in refusing to consider so many of president Obama's appointees and nominees, violated the law, the Constitution and their duty to their office. The democrats response? Ho hum.

We are on the brink of a mid term election, one that will shape the future of American political direction for a rather long time I believe. The battle is already joined, at least by the GOP and its far right minions. Redistricting, Voter ID laws, media manipulation all tools in the battle , a battle I fear the democrats are not present in as they blissfully go on thinking political positions are the way to win this fight.

I , for one, believe the GOP unfit to govern, its leader, the president, is certainly unfit, perhaps even qualifying for Article 25 consideration. They have turned their backs to the needs of the people, and blatantly support the wishes of the wealthiest. Yet , time and again, they win.

I understand that this (diatribe perhaps) is a bit off topic, but maybe it is something in desperate need of airing.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Welcome to DU

But the other thing that Democrats need to do is stop ignoring the old fashioned communications vehicles (AM radio) in rural America and start buying up stations. There's a lot of whining both here on DU and elsewhere about "messaging" and the "I am not hearing the 'message'". Well when you don't OWN the media, and unless you hold endless massive rallies 24/7, your "message" is never going to be heard.

[c-rational]

9. Agreed.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Welcome to DU to you too!

[Sunlei]

17. Yes, we need more PBS type free radio and TV shows. FREE not pay to view or pay to listen to radio.

and broadcast some Congress, Senate and Supreme Court hearings- when an interesting to democracy topic happens. D party can use this kind of free advertising and it's educational TV & Radio.

[ehrnst]

27. CSpan was meant to do that.

And most people can't access any channel for "free" anymore, even with a big antenna.

Cable or internet is how you get media now, and CSpan is already there.

Hearings are fascinating, but there has to be interpretation when arcane or legal terms are used. I also have to be concerned about things getting done in those hearings when the participants use it as free air time to promote talking points, and play to the TV audience instead of communicating with each other.

[Sunlei]

32. I don't have cable tv, I don't pay for any TV or radio. all the news I need is free.

have a lot of channels on my TV.

No interpretation of SC, Congress or Senate stuff. Just play the actual live closing. Info provided can be off our public government websites.

people can discuss, ask questions on websites like DU- press can ask senators, congress people the publics questions too.

[ehrnst]

34. you said, "broadcast some Congress, Senate and Supreme Court hearings"

Where do you watch those?

And what do you do if you don't understand some of what is being said?

[ehrnst]

24. The Democratic party is going to have to go head to head with Clearchannel and to do that.

And then they would have to tell journalists what to say and not say.

And that would look something like this:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/08/media/sinclair-buys-tribune-media/index.html

Anti-trust laws would become sacred scripture to the GOP the moment the Democratic party started doing that.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. The opportunity has arrived to do just that

http://fortune.com/2017/05/04/iheartmedia-radio-investors/

Some progressive/liberal/left-leaning deep pockets need to be recruited to get ready.

Just like the RW have followed some of the progressive strategies, the same needs to happen in reverse - but with the twist of RESTORING some of the "home town" programming to those stations to draw a whole swath of listeners back, but include a syndicated lineup similar to SiriusXM's "Progress" channel and other folks (e.g., Stefanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Bill Press, Mark Thompson, etc). AND they must do this for the long run (multiple years), possibly at a "loss" but consider that "loss" a "donation" to the cause.

[ehrnst]

35. So you agree that the Democratic party should not be the ones to do this.

But the Dems should recruit "deep pockets" to do it instead.

Good luck with making the case to the "get money out of politics" crowd here, who railed against HRC for being one of the "1%" in the company that she kept.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. Well what alot of the folks you talk about also think

is that people like FDR & JFK were somehow NOT "the 1%" either. That fact gets glossed over or denied. So I don't pay them any mind. Ironically, you have folks embracing people like Michael Moore, who create their own methods for communication to get a message out (films). Al Gore did similar. Both were (or became) 1%ers.

When you don't control the megaphone, then you can have the most amazing and comprehensive message, but few will hear it because you have no means to put it out there. Simply pounding podiums or showing up on Face the Nation every week don't get it.

[ehrnst]

37. I'm of the opinion that popular culture can go a long way towards getting

people's hearts.

I've said this before, but I think that the Cosby Show paved the way for the acceptance we got for the Obama family, and Will and Grace did more for public acceptance of marriage equality than any march.

I think that's as an effective megaphone as any radio talk show, if not more so.

Look at Hamilton on Broadway - kids are learning about the early history of the treasury department. The actors of color in the show say that their lives might have have been different if they had seen themselves represented in the story of our founders.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. I agree

and especially with "non-traditional network" offerings via streaming services.

However there is a pocket of America that gets little if any TV reception, and are without cable and/or internet access (outside of dialup)... But they do have radio (where AM radio can reach hundreds of miles), and we have to get on there somehow.

The death of the Fairness Doctrine under Raygun was the end of getting equal access on broadcast media without having to buy that access.

[ehrnst]

42. Yeah, the fairness doctrine is dead. (nt)

[LongTomH]

11. You do raise some excellent points, ones we need to pay heed to.....

.......and yes, welcome to DU.

[leftstreet]

8. Sounds like a pizza commercial

The vision is fine, but the slogan sucks

[Sunlei]

14. personally I love "Eat the Rich" . We need good hats--American Flag with "Democracy" in script is

enough logo-slogan for D party. and everyone would love that hat, even republicans wouldn't find a mock of that slogan or hat!

[jalan48]

19. I agree. I would have gone for "Full Meal Deal" myself. nt

[MindPilot]

39. "not as bad as the other guy" is going to continue to lose elections for Democrats.

Dems need to quit comparing themselves to the republicans as if the republicans have actually done something and the Democratic platform is just an improvement.

I would prefer more positive slogans that unambiguously indicate a complete departure from anything the republicans represent;

My suggestions, "It's about you...the people" or "Democrats: Government by and for the people"