What are the ideological inconsistencies within the Democratic Party?

[TJ in Oregon]

About gentrification, since the left seems to be against both gentrification and suburban development (not to mention suburbanites who are against the suburbs), if I am a young educated adult moving to a new city, where am I supposed to live?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

About gentrification, since the left seems to be against both gentrification and suburban development (not to mention suburbanites who are against the suburbs), if I am a young educated adult moving to a new city, where am I supposed to live?

LOL, the Democratic party is not against gentrification. As for suburbs, how do Marin county and the Oakland hills vote? Yeah.

[bedstuy]

About gentrification, since the left seems to be against both gentrification and suburban development (not to mention suburbanites who are against the suburbs), if I am a young educated adult moving to a new city, where am I supposed to live?

Maybe get a small apartment in an area where you won't disturb the delicate eco-system.  Maybe a studio apartment like this?

http://www.elliman.com/new-york-city/morton-square-600-washington-street-unit-523-manhattan-xscldzd

If you got a roommate it would only be $3000 a month...

[7,052,770]

BTW, I just thought of another one: supporting legalizing marijuana while supporting nanny-state restrictions on food/beverage consumption to crack down on obesity.

How many prominent liberals actually support the Big Gulp ban and the like?  Not many.  For that matter a lot of liberals are against marijuana legalization.

Of course, obesity is a whole lot worse for someone healthwise than marijuana, so I'm not sure if there's even a consistency, but would it be possible to have a thread like this that doesn't take positions that only a few Democrats support and strawman them into mainstream common positions?

[traininthedistance]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

That's a vast over-simplification and fundamentally a frivolous point.  Neighborhoods rise in attractiveness and real estate price.  This has always happened and will always happen.  It has nothing to do with white people maliciously pushing people out.  Some poor people benefit from gentrification, some do not.  Some rich people benefit, some do not.

You can blame the free market if you want, but wealthy people who move into those neighborhoods (many of them liberals) are a part of the cycle that pushes poor people out with rising costs of living. I never said they did it maliciously but they don't seem to be upset when the pawn shops are replaced with boutiques.  

The real problem is not gentrification, but NIMBYism- there is a serious disconnect in the thinking of a certain strain of cosmopolitan liberal who wants to preserve neighborhoods exactly as they are, and keep density lower than it should be in urban areas, and then whines about everyone moving to the exurbs/Texas because real estate is cheap.

A certain amount of gentrification is good, and necessary- you can have a gentrifying city with a solid tax base to pay for public services, or you can become like Detroit.  The problem is anti-density zoning codes (and busybodies only concerned with their own property values) that don't allow people to build taller, or subdivide their houses, or anything that would increase supply in urban areas that desperately need an increase in housing supply.  Both because it would increase affordability, which is of crucial importance to the 99%, and also because urban living is efficient and environmentally friendly, and we should be encouraging that with open arms.

Grr, the whole paradigm of "homeownership as middle-class investment policy" is toxic, so deeply toxic.  In so many ways.

[traininthedistance]

1. The party supports a lot of regulations that are harmful to the poor as implemented, including occupational licensing, subsidized rent, rent controls, and a terrible set of agricultural policies that's even worse for poor people in the developing world than it is for impoverished Americans.

2. They're also pretty awful about standing up to various forms of "corporate welfare," especially in the manufacturing, banking, energy, agricultural, and healthcare sectors.

3. Too often, the party refuses to look out for people who rely on public services - especially when those people are members of marginalized groups - as much as it looks out for those who provide them.

4. The party talks a big game on confronting the security state, civil liberties abuses, and military bloat, and relies on people who take both issues seriously for money and votes. Its record while in office utterly fails to match its rhetoric.

Yeah, this, too. (I admittedly don't care as much about #4 as many folks here, but I recognize that it is an inconsistency.  The best news on that particular front, sadly, has been sequestration.)  Point #3, in particular, is why I take more of a moderate hero position when it comes to many public sector labor issues- I would rather, just for example, the MTA do what's in the best interest of its millions upon millions of straphangers than do exactly what the TWU wants, which can at times be inefficient and misguided.  

[barfbag]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

[bgwah]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

You need to tone it down a notch to be an effective troll. Right now it's obvious and thus not entertaining.

[barfbag]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

You need to tone it down a notch to be an effective troll. Right now it's obvious and thus not entertaining.

Your little piggies are very cute.

[TNF]

Says it supports unions, tries to bust teachers' unions and looks the other way when Republicans go after public sector unions (or actively tries to get in on the action).

Of course "liberals" who hate on unions are not actually liberals and should just be exiled to the Republican Party where they belong.

[DC Al Fine]

Says it supports unions, tries to bust teachers' unions and looks the other way when Republicans go after public sector unions (or actively tries to get in on the action).

Of course "liberals" who hate on unions are not actually liberals and should just be exiled to the Republican Party where they belong.

In a more sensible political system the USA would be divided on Libertarian/Communitarian lines and TNF & I would be in the same party

[bgwah]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

You need to tone it down a notch to be an effective troll. Right now it's obvious and thus not entertaining.

Your little piggies are very cute.

I know!!
a boring predictable troll would proceed to make a bacon joke

[badgate]

^Their names are John, Ted, Mitch, Michelle, and Sarah.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

1. Supporting the use of fluorescent lightbulbs over incandescent despite the fact that fluorescent bulbs contain mercury and CFCs

Burning coal is the main cause of mercury pollution.  So, the energy savings of a CFL will net reduce mercury pollution in many parts of the country.  If CFLs are properly disposed of, it's not a major pollution issue at all.  Whereas, energy consumption is always a major issue.  Also, CFLs don't contain CFCs.  What made you think that?  The fact that CFL is one letter off from CFC?

which is not remotely energy-efficient or practical in the vast majority of the country.

[politicallefty]

I think CFLs are fairly easily recyclable. I'm pretty sure most Americans live reasonably close to a Home Depot or Lowe's, where they can be recycled.

[nclib]

One thing I find ironic is that liberals support affordable housing, though neighborhoods dominated by liberals tend to be quite expensive.

[DC Al Fine]

One thing I find ironic is that liberals support affordable housing, though neighborhoods dominated by liberals tend to be quite expensive.

I presume you mean the whites ones? I'm always amazed at how cheap black neighbourhoods are.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think CFLs are fairly easily recyclable. I'm pretty sure most Americans live reasonably close to a Home Depot or Lowe's, where they can be recycled.

Yes, I'm only a twenty minute drive away. What a great way to save energy!

[nclib]

One thing I find ironic is that liberals support affordable housing, though neighborhoods dominated by liberals tend to be quite expensive.

I presume you mean the whites ones? I'm always amazed at how cheap black neighbourhoods are.

Yes, since blacks are conservative on some issues. I wonder if black neighborhoods that vote pro-gay are more expensive.

[barfbag]

One thing I find ironic is that liberals support affordable housing, though neighborhoods dominated by liberals tend to be quite expensive.

I presume you mean the whites ones? I'm always amazed at how cheap black neighbourhoods are.

Yes, since blacks are conservative on some issues. I wonder if black neighborhoods that vote pro-gay are more expensive.

What if there was a study to find out the average cost of living in black neighborhoods where the majority of residents support gay marriage? That's very specific. Does it really matter what the cost of living is in black neighborhoods where the majority of residents support gay marriage? It sounds nitty gritty but also interesting.

[politicallefty]

Yes, I'm only a twenty minute drive away. What a great way to save energy!

It's not like most people take an individual bulb to be recycled. I'm sure you at least occasionally make a trip around that area. In that case, you'd simply take all that you need recycled in that one trip. I don't think that's any hardship at all. There may in fact be nearer places that recycle them. CFLs are really only an intermediate solution until LED lighting gets cheap enough for the masses.

[DC Al Fine]

CFLs are really only an intermediate solution until LED lighting gets cheap enough for the masses.

We have a winner.

The most effective ways of saving energy, of course, are living in a smaller house, driving less frequently (and short distances when you do), and eating less meat. Good luck finding any Democratic politician who's willing to admit this.

An inner suburb bungalow, 1 compact car, and cooking vegetables at home would help a lot of middle class families financially...

[Oak Hills]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

What the heck is a "V chip"?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yes, I'm only a twenty minute drive away. What a great way to save energy!

It's not like most people take an individual bulb to be recycled. I'm sure you at least occasionally make a trip around that area. In that case, you'd simply take all that you need recycled in that one trip. I don't think that's any hardship at all. There may in fact be nearer places that recycle them. CFLs are really only an intermediate solution until LED lighting gets cheap enough for the masses.

Most people don't take the bulbs to be recycled at all is my main point.  Thankfully incandescent bulbs are still being made, so I don't have to use CFLs, as I don't want to have to worry about them breaking and releasing mercury gas.  The real solution is conservation as Nix mentioned.  Just increasing energy efficiency can lead to increased use of energy by reducing the cost of the energy used in a particular application (Jevon's paradox).

[LastVoter]

About gentrification, since the left seems to be against both gentrification and suburban development (not to mention suburbanites who are against the suburbs), if I am a young educated adult moving to a new city, where am I supposed to live?

The progressives want you to be homeless, for the sake of neo-liberalism.